Archive for the Forced Sterilization Category

Government ‘family planning’ push once rightly raised suspicion of Black genocide

Posted in Black Eugenics Victim, Black Genocide, Black Population Demographics, Black Victims, Black Women, Blacks oppose Birth Control, Eugenics, Eugenics in North Carolina, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Marco Rubio, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood Blueprint, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood in Black Neighborhoods, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Title X with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 11, 2018 by saynsumthn

family planning, abortion, pro-life

Alan

In a previous article in this series on the eugenics and class warfare agenda behind federally funded population programs like Title X and others, I detailed how minority leaders quickly became suspicious of the government’s push for “family planning.” This article will document the beginning of this agenda and how suspicions of these programs targeted at “low-income,” impoverished Americans continued.

In 1919, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger made an astonishing admission.Quoting from Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” published in the February 1919 edition of her Birth Control Review, Sanger says, “Birth Control will clear the way for eugenics and the elimination of the unfit.” She went on:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods….

Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.

Sanger’s statement could almost be described as prophetic. Fears of the overpopulation of certain people groups were and are common in eugenics circles. By the 1960s, as discussed in part one of this series, fears of overpopulation were again being driven by organizations with ties to eugenics, pushing for federal dollars to reduce the births of the poor.

This was met with resistance in the United States, where there was a growing concern that the push for federally funded population control was motivated by a sinister plot to limit the births of Blacks and other minorities. After all, years of eugenic programs, had already been aimed at sterilizing Black Americans, so why wouldn’t federally funded “family planning” programs also target those populations?

Image: Graffiti says Birth Control is a Plan to Kill Negro (Image credit: Jet Magazine, August 1951)

Graffiti says Birth Control is a Plan to Kill Negro (Image credit: Jet Magazine, August 1951)

As Live Action News has previously documented, North Carolina’s eugenics program was funded in part by Clarence Gamble, a member of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Boards of Directors for both the American Birth Control League (ABCL) as well as Planned Parenthood. He was a close friend of the Planned Parenthood Federation and was also a financier of Sanger’s birth control crusade. That eugenics board was responsible for the sterilization of Elaine Riddick, as seen in the video clip below from the film, Maafa21

In Margaret Sanger’s “Plan for Peace,” published in the April 1932 edition of her Birth Control Review, the Planned Parenthood founder laid out her eugenic ideas for using government resources to reduce populations of those she deemed “unfit.” It reads in part:

…Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general  intelligence of population
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand…

…The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends, classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense-defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

Image: Margaret Sanger’s Plan for Peace (edited)

Margaret Sanger’s Plan for Peace (edited)

In 2017, data from the Centers for Disease Control showed that overall, the U.S. birth rate had reached the lowest recorded number of births in 30 years. According to a May 2018 article in Forbes:

… [A]s described… at the Institute for Family Studies, 2017 fertility rates have been published, and show a 40 year low at 1.76 lifetime births per woman, with the most dramatic declines expressed in “missing births” over the past decade, occurring among Hispanic and African-American women, whose fertility rates are now, while still higher, much closer to the already-low rates of white non-Hispanic women. Specifically, the fertility rate for black women dropped from 2.15 to 1.89, and that of Hispanic women dropped from 2.85 to 2.1 in the time period of 2008 – 2016, compared to a decline from 1.95 to 1.72 births per non-Hispanic woman.

Recently, an Urban Institute report which looked at the birth rates for women in their 20s, found that from 2007 to 2012, according to CNBC, “Hispanic women in the age group saw the biggest declines in birth rates—a 26 percent plunge. That was followed by a 14 percent decrease among African-American women and an 11 percent fall for white women.”

Data on users of Title X clinics by race/ethnicity reveal that poor minorities are growing in their usage of the so-called free “family planning” services. In 1991 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), reported the following:

  • 14.9% Hispanic
  • 61.9% White
  • 17.3% Black
  • .5% Native American
  • 1.2% Asian/Pacific Islander
Image: Title X family planning users by race ethnicity 1991 (Image credit: CDC)

Title X family planning users by race ethnicity 1991 (Image credit: CDC)

Today, according to figures published in the 2016 Family Planning Annual report, those numbers are on the rise. A report published by the blog American Progress states:

  • Out of the 4 million family planning clients who Title X serves, more than half are women of color: 30 percent identify as either black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or American Indian or Alaska Native, and another 32 percent of clients identify as Hispanic or Latino.
  • 21 percent of all Title X clients identify as black or African American, and 30 percent identify as Hispanic or Latinowhile African American people and Hispanic and Latino people make up 13 percent and 17 percent of the U.S. population, respectively.

The figures show an alarming increase in users among the Black and Hispanic communities, specifically. This means that poor, minority women are likely more highly targeted for population control services through federally funded “family planning” programs than in the past.

In 1951, Dr. Charles V. Willie, Professor of Sociology at Syracuse University in New York, noted that Black Americans opposed any government effort to limit their numbers. Professor Willie studied the Black community’s attitudes on this topic and concluded that they viewed these efforts as Black genocide. “The genocidal charge of Black people is anchored in good data,” the professor told Jet Magazine. “Blacks point out that a leading government spokesperson has declared that an increase in Black people of 1 to 2 percent points of the total population is ‘extra-ordinary.’ Blacks also point out that whites were not concerned about their family form and size during the age of slavery.”

Simone M. Caron’s research published by the Journal of Social History, entitled, Birth Control and the Black Community in the 1960’s: Genocide or Power Politics?, gave several examples, including the attitudes of the Black Panther party, writing:

The Black Panther party considered contraception only one part of a larger government scheme of genocide. Drugs, venereal disease, prostitution, coercive sterilization bills, restrictive welfare legislation, inhuman living conditions, “police murders,” rat bites, malnutrition, lead poisoning, frequent fires and accidents in run-down houses, and black over-representation in Vietnam combat forces all contributed to the malicious plan to annihilate the black race.

Author Donald T. Critchlow, in his book, “Intended Consequences, Birth Control, Abortion and the Federal Government in Modern America,” also noted the opposition, writing, “The Black Muslim newspaper, Muhammad Speaks, kept up a steady attack on federal family planning programs as a white plot against the black community.”

By 1962, Urban League and NAACP chapters would join the list of “family planning” critics, according to Caron:

Whitney Young, leader of the Urban League, revoked his group’s support of contraception in 1962. Several local NAACP chapters followed suit. Marvin Davies, head of the Florida NAACP, rejected contraception and argued that black women needed to produce large numbers of babies until the black population comprised 30-35 percent of Americans; only then would blacks be able to affect the power structure.

In September of 1965, according to author David Allyn in his book, “Make Love, not War,” “the NAACP opposed a $91,000 federal grant for the dissemination of birth control information in North Philadelphia. The NAACP charged Planned Parenthood, which had applied for the grant, with attempting to ‘help Negroes commit racial suicide.’ ”

Many of these fears were confirmed when, in 1964, the platform of the American Eugenics Party included the following:

  • The United States is already over-populated. We must stop all immigration and impose birth controls.
  • Those genetic types within each race and stock having better traits will be encouraged to produce more offspring and those having the lesser qualities will be restricted in the number of their offspring.
Image: American Eugenics Party platform 1964

American Eugenics Party platform 1964 (Image credit: DNA Learning Center at Cold Springs Harbor)

But advocacy of “family planning” programs was strong and the push was coming from top leaders, including the President of the United States.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) lent his support to taxpayer funded “family planning” efforts within the U.S. and abroad, claiming in a speech that for every five dollars spent on population control, more than a hundred would be invested in economic growth. For implementation of an “affirmative and effective population policy at home and abroad,” President Johnson was bestowed Planned Parenthood’s highest award (the Margaret Sanger Award).

Image: Lyndon B Johnson receives Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award

Lyndon B Johnson receives Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award

Planned Parenthood had its roots in eugenics; founder Margaret Sanger was a member of the American Eugenics Society, who stacked her board with leaders of the eugenics movement and even willingly spoke to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Simply changing the organization’s name from the American Birth Control League (under Sanger’s leadership) to Planned Parenthood did not erase Planned Parenthood’s eugenics ties. You can trace the organization’s deep ties in eugenics well beyond their name change in 1942, and that philosophy has been carried on throughout its history.

Image: Margaret Sanger meets with Klan from film Maafa21

Margaret Sanger writes about Klan meeting in Autobiography (Image credit: Maafa21)

Planned Parenthood‘s medical director during this time (1962) was a doctor by the name of Alan Guttmacher, a former VP for the American Eugenics Society and founder of Planned Parenthood’s research arm and “special affiliate,” the Guttmacher Institute, who later went on to become president of Planned Parenthood.

Image: PPFA president Alan F Guttmacher speaks about abortion, 1965

PPFA president Alan F Guttmacher speaks about abortion, 1965

Guttmacher was also a eugenicist, joining others of his day in voicing a concern about rising population growth. Guttmacher did not discount the idea of coercion.

Image: Compulsory Birth Control article

Compulsory Birth Control article

In 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war, telling the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families. “It may be taken out of the voluntary category,” Guttmacher said.

Image: Guttmacher abortion coercion possible

Guttmacher abortion coercion possible

Although Guttmacher can be credited as the mastermind behind the push for abortion at Planned Parenthood, he also helped craft the push for taxpayer funded family planning.

As Live Action News previously documented, in 1966, Guttmacher proposed a blueprint to force taxpayers to pay for birth control access for the poor. By this time, Guttmacher had become more crafty in his messaging, promoting the concept as empowering others to make “choices,” when the real motivation was population control. This eugenics agenda was clear in his statement published by the New York Times: “The main goal of our program is not just to limit population, but to give everyone the same opportunity for quality medical care.”

Image: 1963 article urges family planning for Blacks (Image credit New York Times)

1963 article urges family planning for Blacks (Image credit New York Times)

The “plan” — described by a 1966 New York Times article as a “partnership of public and private agencies” — was to make birth control services “freely available to every American by 1970” in an effort to prevent about 250,000 pregnancies every year. It was presented at Planned Parenthood’s New York headquarters by the organization’s then-president, George N. Lindsay, who called it the “best bargain in health services that money could buy.”

Interestingly, a short time later, in 1967, according to HHS’ Administration for Children and Families website, funds for “family planning” were introduced:

The 1967 Social Security Amendments earmarked 6 percent of maternal and child health funds for family planning, officially sanctioning the Children’s Bureau’s involvement in these services for the first time. By 1968, nearly all States were providing some form of family planning through this program (up from 20 States just 4 years earlier), bringing assistance to more than 420,000 women.

Image: 1967 Child Health Program funds Family Planning

1967 Child Health Program funds Family Planning

According to a Brookings Paper on Economic Activity report:

In addition, the Maternity and Infant Care projects under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) supplemented the EOA [1964 Economic Opportunity Act (EOA)] effort by funding family planning services through city health departments. From fiscal 1967 to fiscal 1970, federal funds allocated to family planning increased to roughly $600 million (in 2010 dollars), over 10 times their level in 1967.

Author Donald T. Critchlow noted in the aforementioned book that by 1967, the “Children’s Bureau budget was increased to $50 million… but the bureau was hamstrung by restrictions that limited matching grants to state and local agencies. This policy deliberately excluded voluntary agencies such as Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds administered through state and local agencies.”

However, Critchlow also observed that by the time Lyndon B. Johnson left office in 1968, “a policy revolution in federal family planning had occurred, setting the stage for the further expansion of family planning programs under Richard Nixon.”

In part three of this series, Live Action News will detail how the population control movement recruited a Republican president to push this agenda. Additional articles on Title X’s history are included (Parts onetwo, and four), as well as Planned Parenthood’s  Blueprint and George HW Bush’s relationship to TitleX and Planned Parenthood.

Editor’s Note, 11/8/18: Links to related articles were added.

The population control advocate behind Planned Parenthood’s transition to abortion

Posted in Abortion History, Alan F. Guttmacher, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Illegal abortion, Lader, Planned Parenthood History with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 19, 2018 by saynsumthn

Alan Guttmacher, abortion, Planned Parenthood

This article is part two in a series on the history of Planned Parenthood. Read part one here.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s focus was eugenic sterilization and birth control, rather than decriminalizing abortion. But it wasn’t a female eugenics crusader who rolled out the abortion agenda of Planned Parenthood — that came from Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, a physician and past vice-president of the American Eugenics Society who was already steeped in abortion prior to his election as president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1962. Guttmacher worked with Mary S. Calderone, who joined Planned Parenthood’s staff in 1953 as its medical director, a post she held until 1964. Years earlier, Guttmacher had vowed to work to decriminalize abortion, eventually persuading the PPFA board to commit the procedures.

Image: Alan F Guttmacher

PPFA president Alan F Guttmacher speaks about abortion, 1965

Planned Parenthood was initially reluctant to perform abortions — that is, until Guttmacher came on the scene. Before making millions committing abortions, Planned Parenthood admitted that abortion takes human life. A Planned Parenthood pamphlet from 1952 reads, “Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

Another pamphlet from Planned Parenthood Federation of America also describes abortion as a procedure that “kills life after it has begun” and one which is “dangerous” to a woman’s “life and health.”

In the early 1960s, abortion enthusiasts like Larry Lader bemoaned Planned Parenthood’s lack of involvement with abortion, noting in his book, “Abortion II,” that “Abortion never became a feminist plank in the United States among the suffragettes or depression radicals. It was ignored, even boycotted by Planned Parenthood women in those days.”

Lader notes in his book, “Ideas Triumphant” how, other than the National Organization for Women (NOW), few groups were willing to support abortion: “In medicine, only the American Public Health Association (APHA) had taken a stand…. The huge network of Planned Parenthood Federation clinics remained on the sidelines except for its outspoken medical committee under Dr. Alan Guttmacher.”

Image: Lawrence Lader

Lawrence Lader, abortion crusader

Lader expounds further in his book, “Abortion II,” writing, “Planned Parenthood, with hundreds of chapters and clinics throughout the country, had been a particular disappointment. Legalized abortion, I insisted from the start, was the logical measure for contraception and an essential form of birth control. Under the leadership of Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the medical committee of Planned Parenthood-World Population proposed the ‘abolition of existing statutes and criminal laws regarding abortion’ in 1968. After this plank was approved by the members in 1969, Planned Parenthood chapters soon started abortion referrals, and even clinics, as an ‘integral part of medical care.’”

Guttmacher was an avid eugenicist, who joined others of his day in voicing a concern about rising population growth.  In spite of national calls for coercion to slow down the rate of population growth, Guttmacher instead advocated the decriminalization of abortion as an effort that he felt would accomplish the same result. But, although Guttmacher had learned how to finesse the rhetoric, he did not discount the use of coercion altogether. In 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war, telling the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families. “It may be taken out of the voluntary category,” Guttmacher said.

Image: article Guttmacher abortion coercion possible

Guttmacher abortion coercion possible

Population concerns drove public policy

In Michael W. Perry’s compilation of one of Sanger’s works with others of her period, “The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective: The Birth Control Classic,” Perry writes of Alan Guttmacher, “In 1962, Alan Guttmacher, former vice president of the American Eugenics Association, assumed the presidency of Planned Parenthood. Soon, a ‘population bomb’ hysteria… was driving public policy. In 1969, a medical news magazine revealed what was really going on when it quoted Guttmacher, warning that if ‘voluntary means’ did not achieve the desired goals, ‘Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion and determine when and how it should be employed. At present, the means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion.’”

“That’s what [Margaret] Sanger intended to do with birth control…. So, why should it be surprising that Guttmacher felt the same?” Perry added.

 

This 1968 interview with Alan Guttmacher and a member of the clergy, which, according to Ball State University,  originated from WLBC-TV and was (possibly) a part of a segment titled, “Week in Review,” demonstrates the concern the PPFA president had about the so-called “population crisis.” Guttmacher began the interview by defining Planned Parenthood as a “movement which tries to make each child a wanted child born to responsible parents….”

In the interview, Alan Guttmacher, addressed the issue of population growth:

“Now, I think everyone is conscious of the fact that in some areas of the world there is explosive type of population increase, unsupportable, in that it is outdistancing food, it retards economic development… and, what we are attempting to do, of course, is to encourage countries to curtail the rate of growth.”

https://youtu.be/G1pwA6onfR0

He added this about the threat of a global “population crisis:”

Now, I’ve been in this a really long time and I am encouraged because, we have governments becoming deeply involved. Each year, one or more – many governments make population control part of national policy.

In 1969, after seeking government funding for “family planning” specifically for “low income Americans,” Guttmacher responded to criticism from some that population growth could be reduced by “voluntary methods” rather than government coercion. “I do not share their despair,” he stated. “The appropriate response, in my view, is to mobilize rapidly a total, coordinated U.S. program by government, in collaboration with voluntary health services, in an all-out maximum effort to demonstrate what voluntary fertility control can accomplish in a free society.”

A year later, in 1970, Guttmacher, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide. Guttmacher explained his reasoning:

If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.

The fact is that Guttmacher understood that coercive means of population control would not be well received, especially by members of the Black community. The eugenics movement, of which he was a part, had come under criticism after the Nazis’ implemented their eugenic “final solution” for a “pure race” — something many believe originated with American eugenics leaders.

“So even though the plan [of coercion] may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time,” the former Planned Parenthood president told Lee McCall, a reporter for the Sarasota Herald Tribune in 1966.

Image: article Guttmacher Compulsory Birth Control 1970

Guttmacher Compulsory Birth Control 1970

The push for taxpayer-funded birth control for the poor and minorities

Guttmacher, who also founded Planned Parenthood’s research arm and “special affiliate,” the Guttmacher Institute, then proposed a blueprint to force taxpayers to pay for birth control access for the poor, as Live Action News detailed previously.

The plan was highly criticized by the Black community, which saw the move as a means of racist Black genocide.  “Among other things, this policy has brought the Planned Parenthood Federation under attack from black militants who see ‘family planning’ as a euphemism for race genocide,” the NYT reported at that time. So, a 1966 internal memo from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe outlined a new “community relations program” for winning over the Black community by “form[ing] a liaison between Planned Parenthood and minority organizations.” The plan, according to Planned Parenthood, was to emphasize that “all people have the opportunity to make their own choices,” rather than, as the memo states, exhortation telling them how many children they should have.”

Image from 1940’s Birth control pamphlet published by Planned Parenthood

In its 1969 article entitled, “Dr. Guttmacher is the Evangelist of Birth Control,” the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that many leaders sitting on Planned Parenthood’s board were in favor of coercive measures of population control. While painting the picture of an agency which was pushing birth control on the “ghetto” rather than the “middle-class” who were having more than the optimal amount of children, the paper noted that a “sizable” number of Planned Parenthood’s board was made up of “preponderantly white and well-to-do” people. They then quoted a Planned Parenthood board member who admitted the racist attitude of the organization when he stated, “What it all comes down to is that we want the poor to stop breeding while we retain our freedom to have large families. It’s strictly a class point of view.”

Guttmacher and Sanger were both (as eugenicists) concerned that the world population was a threat, but, Guttmacher, much savvier than Sanger, chose to couch his agenda as a “right.” He even told the paper that they were not trying to take away anyone’s rights, but trying to “show ghetto families how to space their children and avoid having children they don’t want.”

“Admittedly Guttmacher is buying time,” writes the New York Times in that 1969 report. “He thinks the voluntary movement should set a deadline of 1980. If world population growth has not dropped below 1.5 percent by then, he says, ‘we’ll have to get tough.’”

Guttmacher on coercive population control New York Times

Whatever Guttmacher meant by getting “tough” never materialized, because he believed decriminalizing abortion was the solution and noted this in a 1970 interview where he stated:

If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies – rejected children, battered baby syndrome and illegal abortions.

Proposing the availability of “unlimited abortion” to curb population growth

And, in that same year, Guttmacher admitted to a 1970 Cornell Symposium, (according to an April 7, 1970, article published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette), that although he did not know when life began, he believed that “unlimited abortion” was the only way to reduce population growth, saying, “There is no question that the most effective way of reducing population growth is by unlimited abortion.”

According to researcher and author Mary Meehan, “Guttmacher undoubtedly believed that [abortion] helped women; in fact, he had referred patients to an illegal abortionist as early as 1941. Yet he also had other motives, indicated by his service as vice president and board member of the American Eugenics Society.”

Omage: book The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, edited by Alan F Guttmacher

The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, edited by Alan F Guttmacher

In 1967, Guttmacher edited a book on legalizing abortion, where he admitted, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino agrees with this, stating that there is never a valid medical reason for abortion:

Guttmacher became Chief of Obstetrics at Baltimore’s Sinai Hospital in 1942, eventually creating a staff committee of five to make decisions about abortion. Like Sanger, Guttmacher allegedly watched a woman die from an illegal abortion while serving as an intern in Baltimore. He later wrote of other women, “In a short period I witnessed three deaths from illegal abortions: a 16-year old with a multiperforated uterus, a mother of four who died of sepsis rejecting another child, and a patient in early menopause who fatally misinterpreted amenorrhea.”

Image: Alan Guttmacher 1973 (Image credit: WGBH)

Alan Guttmacher 1973 (Image credit: WGBH)

For years, Guttmacher referred women to physicians for illegal abortion procedures. He once wrotehow an illegal abortionist, nicknamed Dr. T,  showed him the abortion technique. “His technique was to pack one inch gauze strips into the cervix and lower uterine segment the night before he was to evacuate the conceptus,” Guttmacher wrote. “After 12 hours of packing, the cervix was wide open, and he was able to empty the uterus with an ovum forceps, followed by currettage without anesthesia. In advanced pregnancies he inserted intrauterine bougies, held in place by a vaginal pack until strong contractions commenced, which not infrequently took several days.”

“These early medical experiences with the unavailability of abortions in reputable hospitals and the incidence of illegal abortions convinced me that permitting abortion only ‘to preserve the life of the mother’ was undesirable and unenforceable…. My sentiment was that as long as the law was as restrictive as it was, doctors should not breach it, but work to change the law – a position which I forthrightly espoused in the classroom,” Guttmacher stated.

Dr. T later attended a 1950’s Abortion in the United States conference sponsored by PPFA, which focused on abortion. PPFA leader Mary Calderone writes, “Those very concerned with the problem of abortion will be full of gratitude for this report; gratitude to the P.P.F.A. for convening the conference and for the frankness of the thirty-eight participants, who comprised eminent gynaecologists, psychiatrists and a few social workers. The highlight of the proceedings was an M.D.’s testimony as a convicted (but not imprisoned) abortionist. The chairman stated that Dr. T. was his valued friend, known for nearly three decades, and described him as ‘an extremely competent abortionist … who some years ago fell into disagreement with the law and is no longer in practice”.’”

The PPFA group heard from abortion advocates worldwide, and in the end, Calderone indicates that there was no clarion call to push for abortion reform.

In his book, “Babies by Choice or by Chance,” published in 1959, Guttmacher allegedly deplored “the performance of abortion on virtual demand.” But Guttmacher also noted how he had learned from experience how hospitals were “allowed to interpret and administer the abortion law of their respective states without supervision or interference from either the police, the courts or medical agencies.”

Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmcher

In 1952, Guttmacher had relocated from Baltimore to New York, where he became the first Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mount Sinai Hospital, which had already been approving and performing abortions. “I was told that if a private patient was denied abortion in another institution, she frequently sought abortion at Mt. Sinai because of its well-known, relatively liberal policy,” Guttmacher claimed.

Alan Guttmacher appointed head of obstetrics at Mount Sinai Hospital (Image New York Times June 27,1952)

By 1962, Guttmacher was at the helm of Planned Parenthood and he was positioned to put his dream of decriminalizing abortion into action. That same year, as chairman of the medical and scientific committee of the Human Betterment Foundation, Guttmacher called the existing abortion laws “archaic” and “idiotic.”

Guttmacher named president of Planned Parenthood, 1967 (Image: New York Times)

“The idea that the fetus has a sacred right to survive from the moment of fertilization is a Judeo Christian creation,” he said according to a May 2, 1962, Poughkeepsie Miscellany News report.

Alan Guttmacher calls 1960 abortion laws archaic

“I believe that a new abortion statute for New York and each of the other states is needed…. I think it is high time that a commission of physicians, lawyers, judges, sociologists, and religionists convened in an attempt to wrestle with the problem realistically…. The only way progress can be made is through an aroused citizenry. What we need in the United States is a uniform abortion law,” Guttmacher wrote in “Babies by Choice.”

A few years later, during a 1965 “Abortion and the Law” BBC program, Guttmacher, then president of PPFA, put forth the infamous “health” exception for abortion, stating (36:20):

Now, the law as you know is simply to preserve the life of the mother. This is wholly inadequate.

Number one, I’d preserve the life or health of the mother. And, as you know, health could be interpreted quite broadly and I think it should be. In 1960, the World Health Organization gave us splendid definition of health. They said health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being. Not simply the absence of illness and disease.

Second, I feel that abortion should be done, when competent medical opinion feels that there’s strong likelihood of the current [inaudible] to result in the malformed or abnormal child. I think whenever pregnancy is the result of proved rape, incest, or the impregnation of a child of sixteen or less, with or without the consent, that we have legal grounds for interrupting this pregnancy.

Interestingly, this language comes directly from the 1959 American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code on abortion. In our next report in this series, we will learn Guttmacher’s connection to that organization and detail what led up to Planned Parenthood’s decision to push for the decriminalization of abortion and begin referring for the procedure.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

This was part two in Live Action News’ series on the history of Planned Parenthood’s move to committing abortions. You can read part one ,(1)  part three, and part four in additional articles. 

Former Planned Parenthood president: forced birth control would be ‘desirable’

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood President, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

A former Planned Parenthood president and vice president of the American Eugenics Society once advocated that if families did not limit births to just two children, then compulsory methods of population control could be necessary.  The idea, proposed by Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, a well-known eugenicist and one-time president of Planned Parenthood who established the Guttmacher Institute, came on the heels of radical proposals by Planned Parenthood board members and others that immediate compulsory means should be used to curtail population growth.

In 1970, Guttmacher addressed a group concerned about the so-called “population explosion.” Lee McCall, a reporter for the Sarasota Herald Tribune, attended the conference and noted that Guttmacher, as president of Planned Parenthood World Population “for the past eight years,” was invited to speak under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

McCall spoke with Guttmacher about “discussions” that had been floating around to limit children within families to “2 or 3.”

McCall wrote:

There has been discussion of limiting families to 2.2 children.

Dr. Guttmacher feels it inadvisable for Planned Parenthood to boldly vocalize such a plan.

‘It would be difficult,’ he said, ‘In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this.’

Despite his apparent hesitancy towards coercion, McCall goes on to quote Guttmacher as admitting that such a “plan” of compulsory population control would be “desirable.”

“So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time,” the former Planned Parenthood president told the reporter.

Keep in mind, this is the very organization which allegedly claims it was founded on freedom of choice. And Guttmacher was attempting to dispel the theory that abortion and birth control were racist efforts of genocide aimed to limit the birth rate of the Black community.

Racism seen as denting Birth Control 1966

This admission was profound and came shortly after the New York Times attempted to paint Guttmacher as a wanting “volunteer” birth control measures only.

In its 1969 article entitled, “Dr. Guttmacher is the Evangelist of Birth Control,” the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that many leaders sitting on Planned Parenthood’s board were in favor of coercive measures of population control. While painting the picture of an agency which was pushing birth control on the “ghetto” rather than the “middle-class” who were having more than the optimal amount of children, the paper noted that a “sizable” number of Planned Parenthood’s board was made up of “preponderantly white and well-to-do” people. They then quoted a Planned Parenthood board member who admitted the racist attitude of the organization, when he stated:

What it all comes down to is that we want the poor to stop breeding while we retain our freedom to have large families. It’s strictly a class point of view.

However, despite the majority of Planned Parenthood’s board holding a “class” point of view regarding who should be “encouraged” to use contraception, if Guttmacher was for “voluntary measures” of population control, compulsory measures were never ruled out.  Because, as the Planned Parenthood president saw it, if “voluntary measures” did not work, then force would be necessary.

This point of view can clearly be seen in a 1969 article from Medical World News Reports, in which Guttmacher floated the possibility that coercion could be used. His shocking statement was published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune where it quoted Guttmacher as suggesting that, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed.”

Guttmacher Compulsory Birth Control 1970

The following year (1970) Guttmacher told an audience at New Mexico State University that, “[…] if by 1990, the population is still growing at a rate of 2% then we must go to some kind of compulsory birth control.” (emphasis added).

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families saying, “It may be taken out of the voluntary category.”

In his 1959 book, “Babies by Choice or By Chance”, Guttmacher described the atomic bomb as “more merciless to our generation” and “more kinder to future generations” than “the explosion of the population bomb.” He bemoaned the fact that death rates were lowering, while birth rates were on the rise, writing, “Therefore if we want to decelerate the rate of population growth, it must be done by conception control.”

Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmacher

This idea of temporary volunteerism was also noted by author Angela Franks, who wrote in her book, “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility”, that, “in the late 1960’s, Guttmacher put a limit on volunteerism: if we don’t see a population decline by 1980, he said, ‘we’ll have to get tough.’”

The fact is that Guttmacher’s ideas of forced or compulsory population control measures were in lock-step with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. After all, they were both members of the very racist American Eugenics Society, with Guttmacher serving as the group’s vice-president. As Live Action News has documented in the past, Sanger made sure that Planned Parenthood was knee deep in eugenics.

But, rarely reported by contemporary media is the fact that Sanger once suggested that parents should be required to have a “license” to even be allowed to have children at all.

License to Breed Margaret Sanger

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger outlined her plan article by article, which read in part (emphasis mine):

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

While Sanger’s plan may have been viewed as extreme in her day, and the idea of coercion may have been chided as evoking a potential backlash against Planned Parenthood, my colleague, Kelli wisely observed that the “two-child idea” advocated by Guttmacher was just as eugenic. In a recent Live Action News report, Kelli noted that the, “[…] view of ‘two children and no more’ has its roots in the eugenics movement, and at the heart of the eugenics movement lies Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger and her friends advocated population control for the ‘unfit’, while today’s eugenicists tend to couch their beliefs about family size in terms of environmental concerns.

Despite that fact that Guttmacher and Sanger were both (as eugenicists) concerned that the world population was a threat, it was under Guttmacher’s leadership that Planned Parenthood first vocalized abortion as part of the answer to “over-population.”

He noted this approval in the 1970 interview where he stated:

If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies – rejected children, battered baby syndrome and illegal abortions.

And, in that same year, Guttmacher admitted to a 1970 Cornell Symposium, (according to an April 7, 1970 article published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette), that although he did not know when life began, he believed that “unlimited abortion” was the only way to reduce population growth saying:

There is no question that the most effective way of reducing population growth is by unlimited abortion.

Today, Alan Guttmacher is painted by some as a hero of “reproductive rights” despite his promotion of coerced population control and abortion.  And, Guttmacher was correct about one thing, and that is that abortion has been an effective tool in the limitation of births. This was recently acknowledged by pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said, “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.”

It is no surprise that Guttmacher’s namesake institution, the Guttmacher Institute would later be referred to as a “research arm” and a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood.  After all, on their website, his Institute describes Guttmacher by saying, “No one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission.”

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Second state offers reparations to eugenic forced sterilization victims

Posted in Ernst Rudin, Eugenics in North Carolina, Eugenics in Virginia, Forced Sterilization, Reparations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2015 by saynsumthn

On March 20, 1924 the Virginia General Assembly passed two racist laws “The Racial Integrity Act” and “The Sterilization Act

Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was overseen by an avid eugenicist named Walter Ashby Plecker.

Plecker became a darling of the Eugenics movement and at one point he dined at the New York home of another famous eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin.

Laughlin was an official with both the American Eugenics Society and Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League

Laughlin was also an unabashed Nazi sympathizer.

Harry Laughlin BCR Margaret Sanger

In 1932, Plecker gave a keynote speech at the Third International Conference on Eugenics in New York.

Among those in attendance was Ernst Rudin of Germany and in 1933, Rudin’s call for racial purity was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review.

Ernst Rudin Eugenics Nazi Margaret Sanger Maafa21

Later, according to the documentary film, Maafa21, Rudin would be chosen by Hitler to write Germany’s eugenics laws and, at one point, he personally helped the Gestapo round-up and sterilize between 500 and 600 blacks who they referred to as “Rhineland bastards.” After the war, Rudin would be identified as one of the architects of the barbaric medical experiments that the Nazis carried out in their concentration camps.

Walter Ashby Plecker Eugenics racism Quote

When Hitler’s sterilizations were reported in the United States Plecker wrote a letter to the German Bureau of Human Betterment and Eugenics praising them for the action and expressing his hope that not one child had been missed.

Ten years earlier, Plecker had written that African-Americans were “the greatest problem and most destructive force which confronts the white race and American civilization.”

Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act played havoc on couples who wished to marry but were of different races. In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages.

On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.

Eugenical Sterilization Act

Between 1927 to 1979, Virginia sterilized about 8,000 people deemed unfit to reproduce for reasons such as mental illness, physical deformity or homelessness.

The Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act declared that “heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy, and crime.”

The act was based on Harry Laughlin’s Model Law.

Harry Laughlin BCR

Laughlin was an official with both the American Eugenics Society and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League and, in 1928, his plan for using forced sterilization to eliminate those who might produce what he called “degenerate offspring” was published in the Birth Control Review.

Just a few years prior, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Buck v. Bell, a case challenging Virginia’s eugenics sterilization law, a model law used by many other states to sterilize their people.

VA Eugenic Sterilization Law Upheld

In deciding Carrie Buck’s fate, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote, “Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become a menace, but, if incapable of procreating, might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society, and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility…The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility…on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.”

Carrie-Emma-Buck

“The judgment finds the facts that have been recited, and that Carrie Buck “is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,” and thereupon makes the order.”

OliverWendallHolmes

Holmes went on to state, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

According to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, it is likely that Carrie’s mother, Emma Buck, was committed to a state institution because she was considered sexually promiscuous, that the same diagnosis was made about Carrie when she became an unwed mother at the age of 17 due to being raped, and that her daughter Vivian was diagnosed as “not quite normal” at the age of six months largely in support of the legal effort to sterilize Carrie.

The law was eventually overturned and in 2002, Virginia’s Governor apologized to the victims.

VA Gov Apologizes for Sterilization Eugenics

Now, the state of Virginia has decided to compensate the victims of forced sterilization and the General Assembly has set up a fund which should give $25,000 to each victim.

The appropriation makes Virginia the second state to take such action following North Carolina.

The North Carolina effort was due in part to the moving testimony of eugenics victim, Elaine Riddick. Her story has been captured in the film, Maafa21 available here wwa.maafa21.com

Forced vaccinations lead to forced abortion and sterilization

Posted in forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Vaccinations with tags , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

Fox News guest Jonathan Hoenig said the idea of mandating vaccines is a slippery slope to the government forcing all sorts of medical procedures upon people, like abortion and forced sterilizations.

Chinese national denied asylum because she reported pregnant women subjected to forced abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Immigration with tags , , , , , , on November 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

A Chinese National who claims she was wrongfully denied asylum in the United States because she reported pregnant women pregnant in violation of China’s one-child family planning policies, has lost her bid before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

On February 25, 2008, Suzhen Meng was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain for six months.

Five months later, on July 24, 2008, Meng filed for asylum stating that she had suffered past political persecution when, as a public security officer in her local community, she refused to collect a security fee from residents and wrote a letter to the local public security bureau alleging that the police chief was corrupt.

Meng asserted that, as a result of these actions, her passport was confiscated and she was arrested and held in custody for 14 days, during which time a guard slapped her in the face several times and fellow prisoners beat her on instruction of the guards.

Ten months later, Meng’s passport was returned when she promised not to engage in any further anti-government activities, whereupon she left China.

After having overstayed her visa Meng was later brought before a US immigration hearing.

During that hearing, she testified that in her twenty-two years as a public security officer her duties included reporting all pregnant women to China’s family planning office, including women pregnant in violation of state limitations.

Meng told the judge that she understood that when she reported a woman to authorities, that woman would be punished, typically by being forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.

In addition, Meng testified to having seen women dragged away forcibly by the police.

Meng said that despite the severe consequences to women who were reported as pregnant against China law, she continued to make her reports. In her attempt to receive sympathy she claimed that she sometimes advised women whom she would report as being pregnant to go into hiding or to flee.

On November 3, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in denying Meng’s application for asylum. That judge had ruled that Meng’s active assistance in the persecution of pregnant women barred her from receiving asylum and ordered her removal from the United States.

In writing the court’s opinion, Judges Reena Raggi explained that asylum is a form of discretionary relief granted when a person shows either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

“Meng does not–and cannot–dispute that forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations constitute persecution on a protected ground,” Raggi wrote. “Nor does she dispute that women in her community who became pregnant in violation of family planning policy were subjected to such persecution.”

Despite the fact that Meng attempted to claim she would be persecuted if asylum were denied the court was not persuaded and called Meng the persecutor, writing that, “Meng’s reports regularly resulted in persecution, she knew that, and she nevertheless continued to report.”

“Meng engaged in such reporting over a period of two decades. In short, her assistance in persecution was not a single, marked departure from her duties, but a regular, and important, aspect of her duties. While Meng may have encouraged some women to hide or flee to avoid the persecution that she knew would follow from her conduct, the record indicates that Meng nevertheless persisted in reporting women with unauthorized pregnancies as long as she served as a public security official. Accordingly, because the record evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Meng assisted in persecution, we identify no legal error in the agency’s determination that the persecutor bar rendered Meng ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal,” the denial of review states.

Planned Parenthood leader called abortion a form of birth control

Posted in compulsory birth control, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Commpulsory Birth Control, Rockefeller with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

Guy Gervais, a past president of Planned Parenthood of Orange County, admitted that abortion is a form of birth control almost a year before the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion on demand in the United States.

Guy Gervais Planned Parenthood
_______________________________________________________________
In a March 11, 1972 letter to the editor, Gervais called abortion an “absolute necessity” as a “medical backup to birth control deficiencies.”

AB BackUp BC
_________________________________________________________________________

In a letter to the editor published April 4, 1972, Gervais wrote, “I do accept reality and know that abortion is the most widespread form of birth control employed world wide.”

Gervais goes on to imply that voluntary use of contraception is needed now but that involuntary methods may be used at some point, “When one thinks of the worldwide problems due to overpopulation, I can think of no solution other than to advocate any and all forms of birth control on a voluntary basis – lest it become compulsory later on.”

PP Prez Abortion is Birth Control

_________________________________________________

This idea of compulsory population control is nothing new and Planned Parenthood leaders have thrown this idea around for years:

In fact, at a 1968 convention of Planned Parenthood, John D Rockefeller 111, recipient of the 1967 Sanger award bantered around the suggestion of compulsory family planning when he said, “The growth of world population is so rapid and its consequences so serious that this may be the last generation which has the opportunity to cope with the problem on the basis of free choice. Hence it does not seem unreasonable, that, if we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we may make compulsory family planning inevitable for future generations.”

Rockefeller Compulsory BC

_____________________________________

guttmachr As late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

Guttmacher endorses Force Full Article

The statement was made to a Sarasota paper while he was speaking under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

Alan Guttmacher, who was the residing president of Planned Parenthood World-Population at the time, sat down with Sarasota Herald Tribune reporter, Lee McCall for an interview.

Guttmacher told McCall that Planned Parenthood was an “excellent organization.”

McCall reports that Guttmacher pointed out that even though there have been discussions of limiting families to 2.2 children for what we would consider a forced population control system, Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here).

Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “It would be difficult. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time.”

Guttmacher endorses force

Guttmacher goes on to endorse a plan that he says would work, ABORTION, “If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guttmacher VP AES article
The same year, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.

GuttmacherColorfulUNForce
Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families “It may be taken out of the voluntary category“, Guttmacher said.

That created a huge backlash which set off accusations again by minority communities that Planned Parenthood was wanting to limit families especially black ones.

In an attempt to squelch that – Guttmacher denied that he wanted family limitation- and the media published the lies hook, line and sinker.

Guttmacher denies wanting to limit families

In 1971, Guttmacher again railed on about the importance of government limiting the size of families and said the government had been “niggardly” in their attempts to combat over-population. By then the backlash against force had begun so, Guttmacher began to advocate for “Volunteerism” as a PR way to get his population control measures received.

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher sees the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” writes Guttmacher, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.

License to Breed Sanger Bizarre Ideas

Maafa21 details the use of force for population control.

The idea of Forced Population Control not a new concept as I detail here.

Hardin AES

In another example from 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society. In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

shockley In 1967 when eugenicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.” He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange. Shockley was a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference.
William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant
___________________________________________

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.

Minkler Compulsory BC
Minkler Quote Article

In 1972, Minkler made this astonishing statement, “We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.”