Archive for the Ford Category

Guttmacher’s Eugenics founders: Alan Guttmacher, Frederick Jaffe, Dr. Joseph Beasley

Posted in Eugenics, Ford, Guttmacher, Jaffe Memo, Kellogg, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Rockefeller with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 9, 2013 by saynsumthn

guttmacher_large

The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development.

CenterFP1CenterFP2

The Center for Family Planning Program Development’s Planned Parenthood-World Population board included three eugenics founders: Alan Guttmacher, Dr. Joseph Beasley, and Frederick Jaffe

The Center was originally housed within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Its early development was nurtured by Alan F. Guttmacher, who was PPFA’s president for more than a decade until his death in 1974. The Center was renamed in Dr. Guttmacher’s memory, and the Guttmacher Institute incorporated as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with its own Board in 1977.

Also in 1968, Planned Parenthood-World Population( PP-WP) now known as Planned Parenthood) established a national center to help community agencies develop family planning services to ” all 5.2 million medically indigent US women who need and want them.”

At a press conference PP-WP said the centers would be financed by federal funds obtained by the Children’s Bureau and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) ad supported by private grants from the Kellogg, Ford, Rockfeller, and Code Foundation.

Rockefeller Foundation funds Guttmacher 25K in 1977

Rockefeller Foundation funds Guttmacher 25K in 1977

Rockefeller Brothers funds Guttmacher 1977

Rockefeller Brothers funds Guttmacher 1977

Jaffe Beasley PP

Paul H. Todd, chief executive director of Planned Parenthood said federal funds could, “easily be dissipated if communities are unable to plan and implement effective programs.”

Frederick S. Jaffe was the Planned Parenthood VP at the time and Dr. Joseph Beasley was chairman of Planned Parenthood’s advisory council.

Administration for the center was then located in New York.

Today the Guttmacher Institute is known as the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The media prints their abortion and family planning claims as if they are from the mouth of God and have no bias….well…they do !

But- it was referred to as Planned Parenthood’s research are years ago as well as this October 6,1975 article indicates:

Guttmacher research arm of Planned Parenthood

The article below details the way that Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher, Frederick Jaffe, and Dr. Joseph Beasley worked together. All three have ties to eugenics.

GuttmacherJaffeBeasley

MEET Dr. Joseph Beasley

Beasley

In the 1960s, Dr. Joseph Beasley, a member of Nixon‘s Commission on Population Growth, oversaw an aggressive eugenics program that concentrated on black neighborhoods in New Orleans. This project would eventually be described by Planned Parenthood President, Alan Guttmacher, as the number one success story in the history of the American birth control movement. It also led to Beasly being elected Chairman of the Board of Planned Parenthood in 1970. Then in 1975, Beasly was sent to federal prison for conspiring to defraud the United States government of $778,000 that had been allocated for the project. In court, a local black civil-rights activist named Sherman Copelin testified that he took pay-offs from Beasley for helping to convince residents of the targeted neighborhoods that birth control was not black genocide.

Beasley3

MEET Frederick Jaffe

In March of 1972, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which Nixon had created three years earlier began calling for the nationwide legalization of abortion.

This Commission and move was applauded by former Planned Parenthood vice president Fredrick Jaffe.

In 1968, Jaffe founded the PPFA Center for Family Planning Program Development, which later became the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm. Alan F. Guttmacher, for whom the institute is named, was the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s. At the time this memo was created, there was talk of poisoning water supplies with birth control chemicals without the consent or knowledge of consumers – to the point that upon resistance, “involuntary control must be imposed.” ( Read Jaffe’s Memo advocating this here)

jaffe-memo

In 1971, during public hearings of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, the Rev.Jesse Jackson stated, “Birth Control as a National policy will simply marshal sophisticated methods to remove ( and control when not remove) the weak, the poor – quite likely the black and other minorities whose relative increase in population threatens the white caste in this nation. Contraceptives, will become a form of drug warfare against the helpless in this nation. Those who we could not get rid of in the rice paddies of Viet-Nam we now propose to exterminate, if necessary, eliminate if possible, in the OB wards and gynecology clinics of our urban hospitals. The direct extension of the old “man-in-the-house” rule against public aid recipients can be detected in the drive for birth control…” ( Source: Statements at public hearings of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future as quoted in: Genocide? Birth Control and the Black American by Robert G. Weisbord, Greenwoor Press, 1972 ; P. 165)

MEET ALAN GUTTMACHER:

Guttmacher Institute is the Research Arm for the largest provider of abortions nationally and internationally – Planned Parenthood and was named after one of Planned Parenthood’s President – Alan Guttmacher.

Alan Guttmacher , who was also a Vice President for the American Eugenics Society, said this in 1967– “ I oppose abortion on demand, at least now for the United States, there are several reason. First, the public does not want it… only 20 % of the public favors abortion for single women… Abortion on demand relives the male of all responsibility in the sphere of pregnancy control..he becomes and animal…not far removed from the status of a bull…I favor liberalization of existing [ abortion] statutes…” But…should Guttmacher be legally permitted to do abortions he continues, ” I would abort mothers already carrying three or more children…I would abort women who desire abortion who are drug addicts or severe alcoholics…I would abort women with sub-normal mentality incapable of providing satisfactory parental care…”
(Source; “Abortion: The Issues”, Dr. Alan Guttmacher – President, Planned Parenthood, December 4, 1967, Harvard Law School Forum)

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…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.”

Simply listen to the words of Guttmacher told a symposium at the University of California Medical Center in 1966 he stated that, “the belief that the white middle class was coercing their own poor and people with black and yellow skins to reduce family size because the middle-class whites are frightened of being outnumbered.”

The only way the mounting feeling that birth control is a tool of racism can be handled, is to involve knowledgeable leaders from the minority groups who understand and are favorable to the philosophy of birth control. They, in turn, must translate their appreciation of the contribution which birth control can make toward family stability to their own people.” (SOURCE: New York Times: Doctor blames his profession for delays on Family Planning: 1/16/1966)

A stated goal of The Guttmacher Institute is legal abortion:

The Guttmacher Institute envisions a world in which all women and men have the ability to exercise their rights and responsibilities regarding sexual behavior, reproduction and family formation freely and with dignity. In this world, women and men in every country are able to avoid unwanted pregnancies, prevent and procure treatment for sexually transmitted infections, obtain safe abortions, achieve healthy pregnancies and births, and have satisfying sexual relationships.

REALLY? Well..in 1962, Vice President of the American Eugenics Society at the time, Dr. Alan Guttmacher said he wanted abortion laws patterned after Sweden and other nations. One reason they list to allow abortions is :EUGENIC ! Also- Guttmacher at this point says he does NOT BELIEVE that abortion should be left up to the patient or their doctor, rather it should be up to “Special Board” to approve the abortion. (Eugenic Board, perhaps?) ( The Miami News – Aug 12, 1962) Read Here ( Alan Guttmacher is a former Vice President of The American Eugenics Society and a Former President of Planned Parenthood)

From it’s beginning, Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood has been muddied up in eugenics and now abortion has been the tool used to drastically limit the Black and Latino populations. So be aware when you’ve been Guttmacher’d. It blindsides you with alarming yet unqualified statistics (full of self-citations) and convincing buzzwords like “scientific” and “comprehensive”. When Guttmacher’s CEO cannot grasp simple math, like the difference between zero and $2.4 million, everything else should become suspect.
It’s ironic, though understandable, that the Guttmacher Institute’s umbilical cord hasn’t been cut. Planned Parenthood apparently still values the child it’s given birth to and wouldn’t dare end its life regardless of viability.

For more on this troublesome trend watch the film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Preview below)

Additional information on Guttmacher here

Planned Parenthood teams up with Ford Foundation to “teach” Parents about sex

Posted in Ford, Planned Parenthood Ford Foundation, Planned Parenthood sex ed, Sex Ed with tags , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2012 by saynsumthn

It is called :Real Life. Real Talk. and is described on the Planned Parenthood website as:

is a bold, nationwide, social change effort. Its aim is to positively change the social climate in communities by creating more open, honest, and balanced talk about sex and health. A more positive social climate will, over time, help to ensure that people — particularly young people — have adequate information and services to enable them to make healthy sexual choices. As examples from social movements show, getting people to talk openly and publicly about an issue — particularly a sensitive or stigmatized issue — is a critical step in making social change happen. Once people believe they are allowed to talk honestly about sex, and once they question the consequences of silence, we believe a cascade of positive behavior change in sexual health will follow.

In Typical Planned Parenthood / Ford Foundation fashion, the abortion giant and pro-abortion philanthropist thinks PARENTS do not know what to say to their kids about sex and they are all the more willing to help: the Planned Parenthood website states, “It is unlikely your parents sought the information to be able to offer you the same support. But the world has changed…The course provides parents with useful information about teen development, teen realities, and parenting strategies for guiding a teen’s sexual maturity in a fast-paced, confused, and sex-saturated culture.”

But- Planned Parenthood is the one who HOOKS kids on sex – as reported in this vid by American Life League:

But in Vallejo, California a local paper reports that Planned parenthood’s Real Life Real Talk initiative is Funded by the Ford Foundation and that Real Life Real Talk was initiated by Planned Parenthood Federation of America to “reframe sexuality as a component of healthy relationships, instead of as a commodity, the way it is often promoted in popular media,” organizers say.

Real Life Real Talk started unofficially in April.

“It was tested in several settings, mostly on the East Coast, looking at communities of various income levels and ethnic makeup,” Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Jewel Fink said. “Our affiliate (Planned Parenthood’s Shasta Pacific) chose to try to replicate this initiative in Vallejo because of the community activism around substance abuse with Fighting Back Partnership and because of its diverse population, making it a nice petri dish.”

One program element is Sex Ed for Parents, ads in movies, programs in schools, health fairs, PTA meetings, churches Fink said.

Real Life Real Talk admits they are funded by the Ford Foundation: Under this title on the AboutUs Page:

What is realliferealtalk.org?

realliferealtalk.org is the website of Real Life. Real Talk., initiated by Planned Parenthood Federation of America along with a broad coalition of diverse community organizations and funded by the Ford Foundation, who have come together to do something we all think is necessary: reframe sexuality as a component of healthy relationships, instead of as a commodity, the way it is often promoted in popular media. Partners include local and community public health organizations, faith organizations, schools, civic leaders, media, and public libraries. realliferealtalk.org aims to create a safe and interactive online community of parents who are seeking guidance and support on how to have those conversations in their families and communities.

Here is one of their ads:


Media quotes Ford Foundation funded abortion survey despite the fact that Planned Parenthood prez sits on Ford’s Board and one author is a Planned Parenthood defender

Posted in Ford, Left Wing Religious Groups, Media Bias, Planned Parenthood Employee with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 10, 2011 by saynsumthn

A new poll out today claims that abortion is not one of the issues on which the children are more liberal than their parents. The media is reporting its somewhat skewed results despite the fact that the funding for the poll was done by the very pro-abortion Ford Foundation, whose board of Trustees, include the President of the nation’s LARGEST ABORTION CLINIC- Cecile Richards.

The title itself sounds skewed to a pro-abortion bent: Committed to Availability, conflicted about Morality.

Cecile Richards, President Planned Parenthood

in 2010, Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced Cecile Richards, president of PPFA and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, was elected to join the Ford Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

Left Wing NPR quoted the head of the Public Religion Research Institute, who did the survey, but did not explaining that the survey was funded by the left-wing pro-abortion FORD foundation, famous for funding abortion causes, “Don’t get me wrong, they are pro-choice. Six in 10 millennials say abortion should be legal in all or most cases,” says Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute and lead author of the study.

They claim that…..the survey found that millennials are more divided on all sorts of things when it comes to abortion.

For example, they claim….while the millennials and their parents are close together on their opinions about whether abortion should be legal, the younger generation is eight percentage points more likely to think that at least some health care providers should provide legal abortions. That means many of those young people who believe abortion should not be legal also believe it should be legally available. (HMMM- sounds like a Plug for Planned Parenthood, think this is a skewed survey?)

The Public Religion Research Institute found that among every age group surveyed, overlapping majorities said they described themselves as both “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” For millennials, three-quarters said they identified with the term pro-choice, while 65 percent said they could also be described as pro-life. ( AGAIN- Try looking at the ones who funded it and who will gain from its results)

Another interesting fact – UNDISCLOSED by the media is that one of the survey’s author served as General Counsel for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington

Rachel Laser is the Culture Program Director at Third Way, a progressive Washington, DC-based think tank. Laser was Senior Counsel in the Health and Reproductive Rights group at the National Women’s Law Center, where she focused on abortion, family planning and judicial nominations and directed their Pharmacy Refusal Project. Prior to NWLC, Ms. Laser served as General Counsel for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington and at a DC women’s health lobbying firm, where she focused on maternal health issues. Ms. Laser graduated from Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School, where she was on the staff of the University of Chicago Law Review. Ms. Laser clerked for Federal Judge Peter Messitte of the Southern District of Maryland.

Video below, hear survey author, Rachel Laser say, ” I worked for 6 years in the abortion rights community and I stand here today committed to abortion rights as I ever was.”

Read Survey here ( Committed to Availability, conflicted about Morality)

National Right to Life’s Dave Andrusko summarizes the results:

1. The wording of the question on the basic legality dictates that in the population as a whole, “a solid majority” will come to the preferred conclusion. A combined 51% say abortion should be legal in all cases (19%) or most cases (37%). A total of 40% say abortion should be illegal in all cases (14%) or most cases (26%). The numbers for Millennials are almost identical.

But as we have pointed out several times in the last week, when more discerning questions are asked (what does “most” mean?), you discover that, in fact, “61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances,” according to Lynda Saad of Gallup. “Only 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances.”

And, even more intriguing, the authors concede that “Millennials are less supportive of legal abortion than their demographic profile would suggest” (meaning, for example, they are less religious). As they mature, typically they take their faith more seriously which is strongly associated with a heightened respect for life.

2. We read, “The binary ‘pro-choice’/’pro-life’ labels do not reflect the complexity of Americans’ views on abortion.” In many ways this illustrates how slippery the entire enterprise is. If you ask most people whether either label “describes them at least somewhat well” [my emphasis], most people will yes and yes. When you ask people to choose one or the other, sometimes there are more self-identified “pro-choicers” than “pro-lifers,” and vice versa.

But the more interesting finding is that overwhelmingly respondents agreed that is more socially acceptable to be pro-choice (53%) than pro-life (32%). The only fair conclusion to draw is that if neither were more socially acceptable, the % self-identifying as pro-life would be higher.

Having said that, what is buried in the numbers?

1. While the economic is more often described as a critical issue, 29% say abortion is a critical issue and another 29% said it is one among many important issues. That’s not insignificant. How “salient” is the issue? ”Those who opposed legal abortion are more than three times as likely as those who support legal abortion to say it is a critical issue.” Moreover 2/3rds (65%) of those who say abortion should always be illegal say abortion is a crucial issue in contrast to 19% of those who say abortion should legal in all cases. Huge intensity/single issue difference. Unfortunately, the breakout for the Millennials was not included.

2. Prior to the quantitative survey, Public Religion Research Institute conducted four focus groups with “politically moderate 18-29 year olds.” They asked them to say the first word that came to mind when they heard the term “abortion.’ The results were overwhelming. 54% of the words “are negative and more associated with opposing legal abortion.” Those included “death” killing” and ‘sad.” Only 16% of the responses “are more associated with affirming legal abortion.” But if you look at the actual list, there are much more personal comments such as “disgusting,” “scary,” “killing an innocent life,” and “young mothers.”

3. Millennials overwhelmingly support parental consent (71%).

4. There is a quirky section about “influences,” which I will return to next week. Clearly the authors’ goal is to minimize the impact of seeing an ultrasound. But in the end, “[W]hen we applied other demographic controls in order to understand the isolated effect of seeing an ultrasound image, we find a modest but significant negative impact on support for legal abortion. In other words, Americans who have recently seen an ultrasound are less likely to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases than those who have not.”

One other important dimension which takes us back to the circumstances under which people “support” abortion. They ask further questions to obtain a “more nuanced understanding of American views about the permissibility of abortion and specific circumstances.” They offer five situations—from the toughest (rape) to not being married.

Surprise, surprise they found that 28% held “mixed” views. Which brings me back to my previous point. There are far more instances in which a woman “is not married and does not want to marry the man” than there are babies with a “strong chanced of serious defect.” There is, unfortunately, strong support for the latter but 39% for the former.

Which is why, to quote Gallup again, “61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances.”

The important thing to remember is that young people are pro-life, especially the 18-25 year olds, and growing more so.

Ford Foundation brings president of eugenic founded organization into their Board of Directors

Posted in Abortion, Anti-abortion, Eugenics, Ford, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

From Ford’s Press Release:

Cecile Richards Ford Foundation


Cecile Richards to Join Ford Foundation Board

New York, 1 February 2010 — The Ford Foundation today announced that Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, will join the foundation’s board of trustees when the board next meets in May. She was elected at the January meeting of the trustees that took place last week.

Ms. Richards brings to the Ford Foundation a long history of work in the nonprofit sector, particularly in the areas of women’s health, reproductive rights, and social justice. Since 2006, she has led Planned Parenthood, a federation with nearly 850 health centers providing high-quality health care to millions of people each year. She has a depth of experience working with grassroots groups across the country, as well as with policymakers in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining Planned Parenthood, Ms. Richards founded and served as president of America Votes, a coalition of more than 40 national organizations working on voting rights, voter education and mobilization efforts at the grassroots level.

“Cecile has a rich understanding of the social justice mission that guides our grant making, and I am very proud to welcome her to our board,” said Luis Ubiñas, president of the Ford Foundation. “Her grasp of the complexities of social change, her achievements in building grassroots movements, and her commitment to working for the marginalized reflect the best traditions of the foundation’s leadership.”

Ford trustees serve six-year terms, and may be re-elected to the board for a second term. The 15-member board of trustees sets broad policy related to the foundation’s issue areas and geographic focus, budget, investments, and professional standards, and it oversees governance and audits. Members of the board are drawn from around the world and bring expertise in the fields of higher education, business, law, investments, government, and the nonprofit sector. You can read more about Ford’s governance online.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Richards received the position by placing high praise on Ford,There are few institutions in American life which have done as much as the Ford Foundation to advance the needs of those who have the least, both here in the United States and around the world,” said PPFA President Cecile Richards. “It is a tremendous honor to join the Ford Foundation as a trustee, working with its staff and grantees to advance the foundation’s invaluable efforts to support social justice worldwide.”

Planned Parenthood was founded by (AES) American Eugenics Society Member- Margaret Sanger.

Sanger had on her board MANY AES members and Planned Parenthood soon elected an American Eugenics Society VP as their President- Alan Guttmacher.

In 1942, Ford leader , Henry Ford issued a letter of apology for his Anti-Semitic views against Jews. No such “Apology” exists by Planned Parenthood for the views of eugenics members Margaret Sanger and Alan Guttmacher.

Time Magazine questioned Ford’s motives for the apology: It Printed:
Motives. Despite Henry Ford’s plain words, some newspapers imputed base motives to him. The New York World published: “Looking for material motives, some ascribe political ambitions to the automobile king. “Mr. Ford’s action is taken by political observers at Washington to be the first step in a move toward entering the 1928 campaign for the Presidency. The fact that he chose the Hearst newspapers as the initial vehicle for putting his change of heart before the country is interpreted as indicating William Randolph Hearst will push his candidacy.

“Others believe he is alarmed by the Ford Motor Co.’s striking loss of business in the last few years, although this has been due largely to competition of other manufacturers.”

The Chicago Tribune, more circumspect, quoted an anonymous “Jewish financier and industrialist”;

” ‘I think that Ford has at last realized that he has been making a boob of himself. He knows Jews won’t buy his cars. Even if they did not they are only 3,000,000 out of 118,000,000. But this is a funny country, the majority are inclined to take up for the under dog, and it is very likely that Ford’s attacks on Jews did hurt his business with the vast number of Gentiles associated with Jews one way or another.

” ‘Ford has been operating his plants as little as two or three days a week lately—a most expensive way to operate—and since he is under every compulsion to sell his new car, he cannot afford to indulge in any hobbies which create enemies and sales resistance.’ ”

For much more detailed information about Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, Ford, Rockefeller, and others watch a 2 hour documentary:



Maafa21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America:

Buy Maafa21- here