Archive for the Guttmacher Category

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

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, Guttmacher, 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.

Planned Parenthood not serious about disavowing racist history

Posted in Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger and Klan, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood Buildings, Planned Parenthood racist supporter, Racist Statute with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 22, 2017 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood and its marketing gurus want you to believe that they have disavowed founder Margaret Sanger for her racist beliefs despite Sanger’s name being prominently linked to its facilities and while continuing to praise her online. The fact is that Planned Parenthood often refers to Margaret Sanger as a “hero” and continues to make light of her racist history as well as her associations with the Ku Klux Klan.

As Live Action News has previously detailed, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics who spoke to the women’s branch of KKK in 1926. She also created the “Negro Project” where she schemed in her letter penned to Clarence Gamble, to use Black ministers because, she said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” and if it did, these ministers could “straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Excerpt: Margaret Sanger Letter to Clarence Gamble, Negro Project

In a recent post on Medium.com, Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards, tried to sound rational when addressing the current climate of racism in America:

This racism didn’t happen on its own — it was built by white people and white people must take action to dismantle it. People of color have led the fight against racism for generations, but we all have a responsibility to tear out the foundations of racism wherever we find it: in ourselves, our communities and our organizations, including Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood’s prominent image of founder Margaret Sanger

The fact that Cecile Richards conveniently leaves out is that Planned Parenthood’s founder was tied to the eugenics movement which forcefully sterilized many Blacks and minorities. And Planned Parenthood was even a referral agency to some of those eugenics boards, as the film Maafa21 details:

Planned Parenthood Eugenics Board Robert Webber

In some parts of the country, Planned Parenthood was closely associated with these state eugenics boards and was often a referral agency for them.  But the system did not always run smoothly.  In 1969, when the number of sterilizations approved by the Iowa State Eugenics Board began to drop, the Board was attacked in the press by the executive director of Planned Parenthood Robert Webber.  He said that he was alarmed by the decline in numbers and that the Eugenics Board should expand its approval criteria.

Board chairman Dr. S.M. Korson responded that the Board’s guidelines were already fairly broad.  He pointed out that approvals were routinely given for young girls for no reason other than the Board’s speculation that they might likely one day engage in immoral behavior without the capacity for being wives and mothers.  At that point, Webber publicly scolded the Board and told them that they should either increase the number of sterilizations or quit.

Watch below:

Now, after years of being exposed by conservatives, pro-lifers, and African American activists, Planned Parenthood must be feeling the heat.

If Planned Parenthood wants to address racism in America, why do they continue to refer to their Klan-speaking founder as “a woman of heroic accomplishments” and a “true visionary”?

Margaret Sanger “hero and trailblazer” according to Planned Parenthood

In a piece written to celebrate its 100th anniversary, Planned Parenthood offered more words of praise for Sanger than criticism or denouncements. It reads in part:

Our founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of heroic accomplishments, and like all heroes, she was also complex and imperfect.

[…] While she was a woman of heroic accomplishments, Margaret Sanger had some beliefs, practices, and associations that we acknowledge, denounce, and work to rectify today. Her life story provides a portrait that is bold, fascinating, formidable, human, complicated, and flawed.

While they claim to denounce Sanger’s ties to the Klan, Planned Parenthood waffles about the harm it caused, saying that Sanger was simply motivated by a “deeply held compassion for the women and children.” Planned Parenthood will often claim that Sanger was just a product of her time and apparently, according to Planned Parenthood, so was the KKK, calling that racist movement “mainstream”: 

In the 1920’s, the KKK was a mainstream movement and was considered a legitimate anti-immigration organization with a wide membership that included many state and local officials. At that time, it defined its enemies as Blacks, Catholics and Jews. Planned Parenthood today denounces Sanger’s address to the Ku Klux Klan.

Screen grab from Maafa21

And of the eugenics movement, which forcefully sterilized and stigmatized not only Blacks but other minorities like the disabled, criminals, and immigrants, Planned Parenthood writes:

In the early 20th century, eugenics — the “science” of improving society through planned breeding — was a theory accepted by most American scientists and physicians. Eugenics was embraced across the political spectrum, from conservatives to socialists — so much was it embraced that it was taught in universities.

But despite the false claim that the Planned Parenthood founder sought “voluntary” means of population control, Planned Parenthood acknowledged Sanger’s associations with the Eugenics movement, writing:

We denounce her endorsement of the Buck v. Bell decision as well as her involvement with the American eugenics movement and her adherence to some of its principles and values.

Alan Guttmacher receives Margaret Sanger Award, 1972

However, words are one thing and actions are quite another.

While Planned Parenthood wants you to believe that they have repudiated Sanger’s eugenics connections, they continue to honor her.

First, Planned Parenthood has named their most prestigious award after Sanger. It’s called the Margaret Sanger Award and is issued to those who support Planned Parenthood’s mission.

The first award was issued in 1966, and by 1972, Planned Parenthood “honored” Alan Guttmacher, who was president of Planned Parenthood. Guttmacher was also Vice President of the American Eugenics Society.

Second, Planned Parenthood has renamed one of their centers after Margaret Sanger. Keep in mind that this did not happen in the 1940’s, but after the civil rights struggles had taken over the nation’s streets in 1973. According to its history page, Planned Parenthood New York City’s (PPNYC) Manhattan clinical facility merged with the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau and was renamed the Margaret Sanger Center. It relocated to Bleecker Street in 1997.

Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center in NYC

Currently, the Margaret Sanger Center is listed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as a “resource.”

In fact, the city of New York has designated the street in front of Planned Parenthood’s facility as “Margaret Sanger Square”, according to a city website, which states, “Sanger’s original Manhattan clinic is landmarked, but it is now a private home (located at 17 West 16th Street) and closed to the public.”

Margaret Sanger Center street

The Preservation Commission documented the building’s “contribution to New York City history.”

In 1989, Planned Parenthood of New York City leased the loft building at 26-30 Bleecker Street, moving its offices there after completing a conversion and major interior renovation in 1990-91. Its parent organization, Planned Parenthood of America […] having been founded in 1939 as the Birth Control Federation of America. Among its forerunners was the country’s first birth-control clinic, opened in Brooklyn in 1916 by Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). In 1952, she helped to form the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The intersection of Bleecker and Mott Streets, in front of the Planned Parenthood of New York City offices, has been renamed “Margaret Sanger Square” in her honor.

But lest you think the New York Center is the only Planned Parenthood facility named after the Klan-speaking eugenicist, think again.

In Tucson, Arizona, Planned Parenthood operates another Margaret Sanger Center and displays a picture of Margaret Sanger on their about us page:

 

 

In addition, several Planned Parenthood affiliates offer Societies named after the eugenicist.

For example, Planned Parenthood of Florida boasts about a  “Margaret Sanger Legacy Society” while Planned Parenthood in Minnesota advertises their own “Margaret Sanger Society” as well.

Planned Parenthood Florida Margaret Sanger Legacy Society

Planned Parenthood Minnesota Margaret Sanger Society

And in Massachusetts, Planned Parenthood published donations they received through their “Margaret Sanger Society” via their annual reports:

Planned Parenthood Mass Margaret Sanger Society

Today, despite the organization’s alleged disdain for Sanger’s eugenics collaborations, Planned Parenthood continues to praise her history online, calling her a “hero” on social media and various websites.

Planned Parenthood praises Margaret Sanger on FB

 

Planned Parenthood Action Praises Sanger

Margaret Sanger heroine Planned Parenthood

And just as disturbing, there is a Facebook group operated by a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa, called the Margaret Sanger Action Hour, which “is a weekly gathering for Planned Parenthood volunteers, advocates, and supporters in Central Iowa.” It is operated by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and currently has 104 members.

So much for repudiations and denouncements, right? 

What Sanger stood for is inexcusable and the public is not fooled by faux denouncements. The truth is, as Live Action News has demonstrated numerous times, Planned Parenthood has embraced Sanger’s eugenic roots because Sanger and Planned Parenthood are cut from the exact same cloth.

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

The media claims defunding Planned Parenthood will hurt women. They’re wrong.

Posted in FQHC, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and FQHC with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 10, 2017 by saynsumthn

From Live Action News |written by Carole Novielli

Originally published August 8, 2017

Planned Parenthood supporters, with the help of the media, continue to claim that defunding Planned Parenthood will hurt women. But Live Action News has documented time and again the ways in which this claim is deceptive. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) can handle Planned Parenthood’s patient load in the event that the abortion corporation is defunded, and FQHCs offer even more comprehensive care than Planned Parenthood. So why does the media continue to spout these false narratives? And how can we know that Planned Parenthood’s claims are not true?

There is more to the data than Planned Parenthood’s spokespersons and media supporters are acknowledging.

CLAIM: If Planned Parenthood is defunded, women will have few places to go to receive health services, specifically contraception care, because it would overwhelm FQHC sites.

WHY THIS CLAIM IS DECEPTIVE: If Planned Parenthood is defunded, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) could likely accommodate the influx of contraception patients. It is possible that many of Planned Parenthood’s clients are already using FQHCs for primary care services not available at Planned Parenthood, and if this is the case, an influx of Planned Parenthood’s clients to FQHCs may not be nearly as large as its supporters claim. Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion related health services to women have been decreasing for years, as have the organization’s patient numbers — which will be shown in detail below.

WHERE THIS CLAIM ORIGINATES: A study conducted by Guttmacher, which compared the 2015 contraception care services at Planned Parenthood centers (PP), Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) sites, and Title X facilities.

Guttmacher is a former research arm and special affiliate to Planned Parenthood, and receives taxpayer funding. It has also received funding from Planned Parenthood, so it has good incentive to keep Planned Parenthood’s tax dollars flowing.

Nationally, the Guttmacher data revealed (ref: table 3/ page 7):

  • FQHCs operated 9,636 services sites in the U.S.
  • 5,829 FQHC’s (60 percent) offered contraceptive care to at least 10 female clients.
  • 361 counties out of 3,142 counties had both a Planned Parenthood and a FQHC site.
  • 580 counties had neither.
  • Out of the 2,201 counties that remained, there were 54 counties that did not have a FQHC site and 2,147 which did not have Planned Parenthood (table 3/page 7).
  • In at least 23 states, FQHC sites served more contraception clients than Planned Parenthood in at least one or more counties.
  • In four states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi and Rhode Island), FQHC sites served more contraception clients than Planned Parenthood in every county where Planned Parenthood had a facility.
  • In two states (Alaska and Georgia), that ratio dropped to 80 percent, 66 percent in one state (Arizona) and 50 percent in Massachusetts, Nebraska and South Carolina.
  • In all, Planned Parenthood centers were located in just 415 U.S. counties while 1,719 counties had a FQHC site.
  • FQHC sites outnumbered Planned Parenthood in counties that provided contraception care in every state except Connecticut, Minnesota and the District of Columbia (table 1/page 1).

Live Action News has documented that Planned Parenthood, which masquerades as a health care provider, is actually decreasing the number of services that it offers women. When comparing Planned Parenthood’s services to FQHC sites you see that defunding this abortion corporation will have little effect on women in particular.

Live Action News has looked at state data as well, in Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa,  Kentucky, MinnesotaNebraska, NevadaNew Jersey, Tennessee and West Virginia.

A review by Newsbusters examined deceptive media reports from Mississippi.

http://AbortionProcedures.com

Live Action News has broken down the numbers as follows:

FACILITIES

According to the data, there are 9600 FQHC sites (which offer a vast array of health care services). Guttmacher claims that 60 percent of those 9600 sites offered contraception services to ten or more clients. If you do the math, that still leaves 5,830 sites.

In contrast, Planned Parenthood states in its 2015 annual report that it operated nearly 650 Planned Parenthood health centers. As of today, however, Planned Parenthood’s website shows that it operates “more than 600 centers,” a clear decrease from the 800 it operated just ten years ago.

PATIENTS

Taxpayer-funded health centers, as identified by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), saw a 2 million patient increase by 2015, providing care to 24,295,946 patients. In contrast, Planned Parenthood has lost more than half a million patients (600,000) since 2011.

Breast Exams:

  • In 2015, federal health centers performed mammograms on over 521,000 patients – an increase from 470,000 in 2014.
  • Planned Parenthood performed zero mammograms, because Planned Parenthood facilities do not have mammogram machines.
  • In 2015, Planned Parenthood breast exams dropped 12 percent from 2014. Stunningly, from 2005 to 2015, breast exams declined by more than 62 percent (842,399 to 321,700).

Pap Tests:

  • In 2015, federal health centers administered over 1.8 million Pap tests to patients — an increase from 1.7 million in 2014.
  • Planned Parenthood’2015 report reveals that between 2005 (1,116,681) and 2015 (293,799), Pap tests (tests for detecting cervical cancer) at Planned Parenthood declined nearly 74 percent (73.68%).

Cancer Screenings:

  • The most recent figures show that cancer screenings continue to decline at Planned Parenthood. From 2005 (2,009,835) to 2015 (665,234), cancer screenings plummeted nearly 67 percent (66.90%).

Prenatal Care:

  • In 2015, federal health centers cared for a total of 552,000 prenatal patients — an increase from 528,000 prenatal patients in 2014.
  • Planned Parenthood’s prenatal services were nearly cut in half in the last year (17,419 in 2014 to 9,419 in 2015) — a trend that has continued for years. From 2005 (13,261) to 2015 (9419), prenatal care dropped nearly 29 percent (28.97%).

Contraception Care:

  • FQHC sites outnumber Planned Parenthood in counties that provide contraception care in every state except Connecticut, Minnesota and the District of Columbia, according to Guttmacher’s 2015 data (table 1/page 1).
  • Planned Parenthood health centers account for just 6 percent of all safety-net family planning providers. (Source: Guttmacher).
  • Recently released Planned Parenthood numbers reveal that in 2015, contraception services decreased 4.6 percent from the previous year.
  • In fact, that latest annual report reveals that contraception services at Planned Parenthood are at their lowest in years (2,808,815), decreasing nearly 30 percent since 2009 (4,009,549), according to that year’s Annual Affiliate Service Census Report.
  • A review of the past ten years (2005 vs. 2015), reveals that contraception services at Planned Parenthood have decreased by 25 percent.

Abortions:

  • Abortions are increasing at Planned Parenthood even while the Guttmacher Institute reports they are declining nationally.
  • Planned Parenthood committed 328,348 abortions in 2015 vs. 323,999 in 2014 (over 4000 more in 2015).
  • Planned Parenthood commits one-third of abortions in the U.S., nearly 900 abortions every day.
  • Planned Parenthood reports 2,889 adoption referrals in 2015. Therefore, the organization committed nearly 114 abortions for every one child referred out for adoption.
Planned Parenthood abortion market share using Guttmacher/Perspectives totals: 1991 to 2014

Planned Parenthood abortion market share using Guttmacher/Perspectives totals: 1991 to 2014

As Live Action News has documented, the Guttmacher report actually supports our claim that women don’t need Planned Parenthood for contraception services or any other health service.

There are plenty of reasons to defund Planned Parenthood:

The list above does not even include the number of women injured or killed after using Planned Parenthood’s alleged “services.”

Taxpayers should not be forced to send half a billion dollars to an organization accused of fraud and potential violations of the law, whose market share of abortions continues to increase while other services are decreasing.

The government takes vital health dollars away from more worthy facilities like FQHCs, while private donations to Planned Parenthood swelled by an additional $92 million in 2015-2016 alone. (The total private donations in 2015-2016 were $445.8 million.)

This cash flow enabled Planned Parenthood to end its year with an excess of $77.5 million in 2015, an increase of nearly 39 percent from 2005 when they netted $55.8 million.

Planned Parenthood has been netting a profit for many years, with yearly surpluses ranging from $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010).

It’s time to remove government dollars from Planned Parenthood once and for all.

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

Early Planned Parenthood director: few women died from illegal abortion

Posted in Abortion Death Prior to Roe, Abortion History, Bernard Nathanson, Guttmacher, Illegal abortion, Mary Calderone, NARAL, Planned Parenthood Brochure, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood Life Begins with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2017 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood director and NARAL founder both admitted abortion kills human beings

An early Planned Parenthood director, who once admitted that few women died from illegal abortion because a majority were performed by physicians, also called abortion the “taking of a life” and “a traumatic experience that may have severe consequences later on.”

In 1953, Mary S. Calderone became the medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, where she remained in that position for eleven years. She resigned from Planned Parenthood after co-founding the Sex Information and Education Council (S.I.E.C.U.S.) in 1964 — an organization mired in controversy.

Mary S. Calderone, (image credit Library of Congress)

On October 19, 1959, Calderone presented a paper before the Maternal and Child Health Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA) at the Eighty-Seventh Annual Meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It was there that Calderone laid out her argument for legalizing abortion on the basis that illegal abortion was a “disease of society.”

The argument is ridiculous, but the information that Calderone presented to the APHA exposes the lie that led to the legalization of abortion to begin with, and that is how millions of women died every year from illegal abortions.

In her presentation, entitled Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem, the former Planned Parenthood director made it clear that she did not favor abortion and that she believed that abortion was a traumatic experience that takes a life, writing:

I ask you not to assume that I am indiscriminately for abortion.

Believe me, I am not. Aside from the fact that abortion is the taking of a life, I am also mindful of what was brought out by our psychiatrists – that in almost every case, abortion, whether legal or illegal, is a traumatic experience that may have severe consequences later on.

Before they made 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.

Planned Parenthood pamphlet 1952 life begins

Planned Parenthood pamphlet 1952 life begins

 

 

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 her remarks, Calderone quoted a psychiatrist who described the kind of woman who would seek an abortion not as a person in charge of her own choices (as it was sold to the public), but as “a sick person”:

… [A]lthough the effort to obtain an induced abortion may indicate that the woman is physically ill, more often it reflects one or more of a complexity of factors, such as poor social or economic environment, disturbed marital relations, psychiatric or neurotic disturbances in the family or quite simply a need to keep her family at its present size.

There was general agreement with the words of one psychiatrist: “When a… responsible female seeks an abortion, unless the warrant for it is overwhelming as say in the case of rape or incest, we are in effect confronted both with a sick person and a sick situation.”

To Calderone, this was the impetus for pushing for abortion’s legalization. To do so, she and her colleagues had to admit that a majority of illegal abortions were being committed by physicians. And to do this, they had to dispel their long repeated myth that millions of women died every year from illegal abortion.

“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure,” Calderone wrote. “This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians.”

Defund Planned Parenthood

She added:

… [T]he conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.

Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is.

Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 per cent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of nonmedical abortionist.

Calderone not only admitted that it was mainly physicians who were committing abortions, but also that women were getting referrals for illegal abortions from “physicians of impeccable standing,” not from back-alley quacks:

From the ethical standpoint, I see no difference between recommending an abortion and performing it. The moral responsibility is equal. So remember fact number three; abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.

Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood

Calderone was joined in her admission by former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who stated at the 1967 Harvard Law School Forum, “Seventy per cent of the illegal abortions in the country are performed by reputable physicians, each thinking himself a knight in white armor.”

Calderone and Guttmacher were not always in agreement with the mission of Planned Parenthood. In his memoriam of Calderone after her death, Harold I. Lief wrote of the two Planned Parenthood officials:

When Mary was national director of Planned Parenthood in the early 1960’s, she came into conflict with Alan Guttmacher and the board board of Planned Parenthood…. [M]any people may not realize that 35 years ago Planned Parenthood opposed putting their resources into, or even advocating, sex education because they saw this as a diversion from their major task of providing birth control and abortion services…. She left Planned Parenthood and with a few like-minded colleagues, (of which I was one), formed SIECUS.

Guttmacher was not even initially for the use of abortion on demand, stating, “Abortion should be a back-up procedure for failed or failure-to-use effective contraception. It must never be the primary method of birth control.” (Source: AMA Congress on Environmental Health, May 4-5, 1970 speech by Alan F. Guttmacher, Page 63.)

The question is, how did the numbers of illegal abortion deaths get so inflated to begin with? The answer lies with Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the early activists in the fight for abortion’s decriminalization.

Nathanson was co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (later known as NARAL),  and he also committed thousands of abortions before he repented and became pro-life.

In the video below, filmed just before his death, Dr. Nathanson admitted responsibility for over 75,000 abortions, which he called “the greatest mistake of my life.” Nathanson admitted, “One of our strategies, in order to mislead the American public, was to deny what we knew to be true: that an abortion kills an existing human being. We denied that fact in an effort to mislead the American public and the courts of this land.”

Nathanson admitted in other publications that he his colleagues lied about the numbers of illegal abortions and inflated the number of women during from illegal abortions:

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 – 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000.

Calderone’s numbers were much lower than 100,000. She wrote:

In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate.

As current society’s attitudes change toward legal abortion, supporters of the killing of preborn babies may be tempted to scare pro-life politicians by playing the “illegal abortion death” card again. This time around, when they make this false claim, we can remind them what one of Planned Parenthood’s early directors, along with one of the founders of NARAL, had to say about it.

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

Editors Note: This article has been updated to clarify Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s remarks about misleading the public on the number of illegal abortions as well as deaths from illegal abortion.

Save

Guttmacher report shows women don’t need Planned Parenthood for contraception

Posted in FQHC, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Decreasing Services with tags , , , , on July 25, 2017 by saynsumthn

|

An analysis of data published by the Guttmacher Institute reveals that Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) sites outnumber Planned Parenthood centers in the majority of counties which provide publicly funded contraception services nationwide. This information was published by Guttmacher in response to a request from pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray, and it comes as the Senate prepares to debate defunding Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest provider of abortions.

The data, which looked at Planned Parenthood centers (PP), Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) sites, and Title X facilities for 2015, found:

  • FQHCs operated 9,636 services sites in the US.
  • 5,829 FQHC’s (60 percent) offered contraceptive care to at least 10 female clients.
  • 361 counties out of 3,142 counties had both a Planned Parenthood and a FQHC site.
  • 580 counties had neither.
  • Out of the 2,201 remaining counties, 54 had no FQHC site and 2,147 had no Planned Parenthood (table 3/page 7).
  • In all, Planned Parenthood centers were located in just 415 U.S. counties while 1,719 counties had FQHC sites.

FQHC sites outnumber Planned Parenthood in counties that provide contraception care in every state except Connecticut, Minnesota and the District of Columbia (table 1/page 1). Although there were additional publicly funded sites, the table below compares PP and FQHCs providing contraception care:

Comparing PP with FQHCs

Comparing PP with FQHCs, continued

Live Action News continues to document how Planned Parenthood’s services are decreasing while its abortion numbers increase. Today, the abortion corporation ends the lives of 900 preborn children every day while receiving $1.5 million in taxpayer dollars.

In contrast, FQHC sites, which outnumber Planned Parenthood centers by the thousands, provide more vital health services for women.

Given these facts, the Senate should no longer delay in defunding Planned Parenthood.

Dryfoos called 1st Guttmacher Institute Prez (Frederick Jaffe) “total bastard” and “abusive”

Posted in Guttmacher, Jaffe Memo with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2016 by saynsumthn

A former director of research for the Guttmacher Institute has described their first president as abusive and his conduct as sexist. On their website, the Guttmacher Institute names Frederick S. Jaffe as their first president, who “from 1968 (when the Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development) until his death in 1978.”

Guttmacher describes Frederick Jaffe

But, in May of 1998, Sharon Zane interviewed Joy Dryfoos, a former director of research and planning for the Alan Guttmacher Institute who was not so complimentary. The discussion was part of the Carnegie Corporation Oral History of the Columbia University Oral History Research Office. Dryfoos is credited with originating the concept of full-service community schools and also for what she referred to as, “the Dryfoos formula for estimating the need for family planning.”

Joy Dryfoss

Joy Dryfoos

Dryfoos, who passed away in 2012, was an interesting woman who doesn’t hold back on her views of the Guttmacher family planning advocates she worked with. Her interview is full of behind the scenes snippets surrounding her association with school based clinics, The Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie among other population control organizations. The 72-year-old Dryfoss ( at the time of the interview) told Zane how she got involved with the Planned Parenthood Research Arm, named after Alan Guttmacher.

Dryfoos begins the interview describing her childhood and then admits to Zane that although she was raised religious she claims that she was eventually “turned off” to religion at a young age, “I became a non-believer at a very early age, and I’ve never figured out how I figured that out, but I did. I was just totally turned off.”

After Dryfoos finished college, traveled a bit and got married she had one child but could not have more. Her husband George Dryfoos, did not want to adopt. In the early 1960’s Dryfoss said that three of her friends got together and started a group called, Research, Writing and Editing Associates. Eventually Dryfoos ventured out on her own, analyzing the 1960 census and writing research briefs. This is when her connection to Planned Parenthood’s research arm (at that time) began. As Dryfoos tells it:

    By about ’62 or ’63, one of these research briefs — through a connection of one of my pals –got to a guy who was on the research committee of national Planned Parenthood.

    I showed how you could use the census to project the need for childcare, low-income housing, and family planning; and it was the family planning one — that got picked up.

Dryfoos recounted how she met Population Council consultant and Margaret Sanger Award winner Christopher Tietze. According to a report in the New York Times Tietze believed that biological life begins at conception, he also believed that a fetus ”deserves the respect and protection that we accord people” only ”when it has become capable of surviving.” The times then quotes Tietze as saying:

    ”At present,viability is assumed by most doctors to be reached at about 24 weeks from the onset of the last menstrual period. However, some genetic defects may not be discovered until late in pregnancy. Is such a fetus viable? Is that meaningful life? I think not.”

In addition to Tietze, Dryfoos met American Eugenics Society member Charlie Westoff was was also a member of Planned Parenthood’s National Advisory Council. Westoff would eventually become the Executive Director of President Richard Nixon’s Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which opened up the flood gates of funding to Planned Parenthood. This Commission was headed by John D. Rockefeller and applauded by former Planned Parenthood vice president Frederick Jaffe, who also influenced Dryfoos.

Commission-on-Poulation-Growth-and-teh-American-future-Maafa21

In 1968, Jaffe founded the PPFA Center for Family Planning Program Development, which later became the Guttmacher Institute.

Dryfoos explains meeting these three:

    So pretty soon, I was summoned before this research committee, which was very prestigious in those days. It had, like, Ashley Montague and — oh, people you wouldn’t know: Christopher Tietze and Charlie Westoff (who’s still alive and still very much a leading demographer). So I met with them, and here I was, this cute young woman who had written all this stuff.

    So they were particularly interested in my idea of estimating the need for family planning through the use of the census data. One guy named Fred Jaffe was vice president of national Planned Parenthood for public information. He was trying to get Planned Parenthood and the rest of the world to recognize that there had to be federal funds for family planning. He saw in me this tool for coming up with a method of describing this need in a very researchy, not at all emotional may. It had to do with low-income women. It in addition to the census, was actually based on estimates of fecundity and sterility. Overtime, it became a work of science that was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

By 1970, Dryfoos recalled how The Population and Family Planning Act was passed and that she got to know some of the people on the research committee.

    They invited me to go to the Population Association meetings, and I got pretty interested in that field.

So interested that after going back to college, Dryfoos was recruited to work for what would become the Guttmacher Institute where she remained for the next 15 years. She described Alan Guttmacher as a “terrible administrator” who “was talking about abortion” and “knew how to flatter people” which, according to Dryfoos led to him being the figurehead. There she met Frederick Jaffe, the organization’s first president, who once authored a very controversial memo that advocated eugenics through compulsory sterilization and abortion.

    So I graduated, which then gave me the qualifications to do what I would have done anyway. Fred Jaffe hired me before I even got the degree. He was just waiting for me to get out, because he was putting together money for a new agenda. Alan Guttmacher, by then, was the president of the Planned Parenthood, and Fred was preparing the way to start something which is now the Alan Guttmacher Institute, but [then] it was called the Center for Family Planning Program Development. He said, “You’ve got to come and work there.” So I said, “Fine.

Dryfoos then told Zane how abusive Jaffe was. She also claimed the Guttmacher Institute president was committed to family planning as “a poverty issue.”

    He was a very interesting character. He should be written about. He’s a very important character. I’m not sure that there would be –I don’t know whether there would be a family planning program the way it was or whether there would have been legislation without him. He was also a total bastard. He was, as my husband would always say, he was like a German who was either at your throat or at your feet.

    He was very abusive. He was totally directed on one issue. He was just totally committed to this cause of family planning, as a poverty issue. He was an old leftist, an old union guy.

Adding later in the interview that :

    everybody in the national organization of Planned Parenthood hated him because he was so arrogant and mean, and these volunteer ladies really hated him, the ones that he didn’t sleep with, I might add. There was a lot of that stuff going on. But, I mean, this was the early days of Planned Parenthood as well. So he was a controversial character, but he was just so driven, and he knew how to drive Congress as well…

Dryfoos bragged that a formula she authored was used by Jaffe at Guttmacher as the reason family planning funding was so openly received.

    And, you know, we developed the most elaborate statistical analyses over some little point, like how many trained nurses we need in 1972 versus 1973 for family planning, and where they should be trained. But I think he was right. I think it was a very good strategy to come up –to get Congress, hook Congress with all this detailed planning. And he got all this stuff written into the legislation that not only provided money for family planning in clinics. They had to plan — there had to be a national plan, and the national plan was based on the Dryfoos formula for estimating the need family planning. So the money was allocated according to that formula That’s why we would keep tinkering with it, just because it was fun. But I could tell you a neighborhood — how many family planning patients there might be, with this thing. So we used it like magic. And this Center was very successful. It got huge federal grants and a big Kellogg [Foundation] grant, and we had a lot of money.

What did they do with all that money? Well according to Dryfoos, they started the McDonald’s of centralized family planning services.

    We got Model Cities money and OEO [Office of Economic Opportunity] money, and we would go into a community and develop a plan for coordinated family planning. It’s funny, because this is sort of the first iteration of this whole idea of services in one central location. But this idea was that they should form a corporation, kind of, at the community level and figure out where all the family planning programs should be and centralize the administration and the training and the supplies and all that stuff, and get the delivery of the services out to the neighborhood. As we always said, it was just like McDonald’s. It was the same theory. And that’s what we did. And we did that in a lot of communities. Eventually, I did it in a number of states and I had sixteen people working for me.

Dryfoos talked about the day she told Jaffe she was quitting, noting that instead of selecting a replacement she suggested he was sexist and chose a graduate student with “great legs.”

    I gave him a list of, like, twenty people who would be great, and by then he could pay a huge salary. In fact, he was paying me a huge salary. And could have had his pick because it was considered a good job. Instead, he hired a graduate student sort of type.

    When I asked him, he said she had great legs. And that might have been the truth. I mean, he might have just wanted a pretty young thing around. Strangely enough, she’s still there, and this is twenty years later…He [Jaffe] was just such a pain.

In 1978, the year Frederick D. Jaffe died, despite his conduct, Planned Parenthood honored Jaffe, by giving him their top award, the Margaret Sanger Award.

Read the full Dryfoos interview here.

Guttmacher’s delusion of “independence” from Planned Parenthood

Posted in Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 23, 2016 by saynsumthn

The Guttmacher Institute – which supports and promotes the full agenda of Planned Parenthood, even taking its name from one of the abortion giant’s former presidents – has been successful in convincing the media that they are the most credible source on all things family planning and abortion. In turn, the media has happily presented Guttmacher as an impartial research organization.

But are they? Archived news articles document that in the early years of the Guttmacher Institute, the mainstream media correctly referred to them as the “research arm of Planned Parenthood.” In fact, past references from the media and others of the Guttmacher Institute also included the title “division of Planned Parenthood” and “special affiliate.”

While the organization states it became independent from Planned Parenthood in 1977, the two groups’ agendas appear to have remained the same.

Continue reading