Planned Parenthood “Heck Yes” to Ginsburg comes on heels of Gruber abortion comments
On the heels of a video by disgraced ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber who said that abortion would save the taxpayers money because it would basically eliminate the poor, comes Planned Parenthood’s “Heck Yes” on another eugenics leader who said something similar.
No sooner did eugenics documentary and Planned Parenthood history film producer, Mark Crutcher release a statement comparing Jonathan Gruber’s comments on abortion to statements made by Supreme Court Justice and radical abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that – abortion giant Planned Parenthood gave her the “Heck Yes” award.
“There were times in 2014 when we just wanted to stand up and give a round of applause,” writes the eugenics founded Planned Parenthood organization,”When people spoke up for women’s health and rights so boldly, so bravely, so perfectly, we couldn’t help but cheer them on. As this year comes to a close, we took a look back with Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Best and Worst of 2014, and asked you to vote for the top “Heck Yes!” moment of the year.
And the Winner Is:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg!”
Planned Parenthood continues, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us our “Heck Yes!” Moment of the Year for her scathing dissent in the Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. In June, she wrote that the Court’s ruling — which lets some bosses deny their employees birth control coverage — is so startlingly broad that it can override the health care needs of employees and their dependents across the country.
“There were so many gripping lines from her 35-page dissent it’s hard to pick our favorite. In one of the most ominous, she warned that the precedent being set “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher writes on his blog, “In 2009, we released Maafa 21 – a 2 hour documentary in which we proved that the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with women’s rights, or choice, or reproductive freedom or any of the other sales pitches you hear from the abortion lobby. The truth is, abortion was legalized as an instrument of eugenics and racial genocide.
“Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“Here’s my question: when she said that abortion was legalized to deal with populations we don’t want to have too many of, do you get the feeling she was suggesting that there might be too many rich white people in the world? Or is it possible she might have had some other folks in mind?”
Ironically, just yesterday during a Congressional hearing with ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie exposed the very thing that Ginsburg stated in 2009 during his questioning of Gruber.
(Partial Transcript Below: )
MASSIE:I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?
GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects
MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?
GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..
MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?
GRUBER: I guess
MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.
GRUBER: I was
MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.
In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.
Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?
GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…
MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.
MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?
GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….
MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?
GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..
MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?
GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?
MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?
GRUBER: no I …
MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?
GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.
MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.
Crutcher summarized Gruber’s comments well, “Gruber tried bobbing and weaving around Congressman Massie’s questions but, in the end, it was clear his position was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. In one of his previous writings he had described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but you’d have to actually be as stupid as Gruber thinks you are not to understand what he was saying.
“So let’s recap. Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one. They know that this issue is about political power, money, race and eugenics, but unlike Ginsburg and Gruber, they don’t go out in the public and talk about it.”
Read Crutcher’s full statements here.
Worth reading is my blog: Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy