Archive for the Parental Rights Category

Children and consent: How eugenics is parallel in James Younger case

Posted in Parental Rights, Transgender Issues with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 24, 2019 by saynsumthn

Written by: Carole Novielli

What happens when a state or a judge for that matter orders the bodies of young children to be forever altered under the guise of medicine? Well, I think we already know because history is a great teacher. After all, under eugenics programs targeted at poor whites and a majority of minorities we witnessed the abuse of state eugenics courts who ordered the surgical sterilization of men, women and children (too young to consent) in the name of public health. And, while some were complicit in this monstrous part of our history, many others said and did nothing to stop it. Today, the James Younger case out of Texas parallels this tragic time in history and reveals how the state can potentially yank children from a parent and pump them full of hormones to force them to become another gender.

Jamers Younger (Image: SaveJames.com)

Past is reflection of the Present:

“Unnamed patient records from the 1920s document hundreds of individuals in their late teens and early 20s sterilized for…feeblemindedness, or mental deficiency. A notable percentage of these young patients were typed as masturbators or incest perpetrators if male and as promiscuous—even nymphomaniacal—or having borne a child out of wedlock if female,” noted a report on coercive sterilizations, ironically titled, Sterilized in the Name of Public Health.

This targeting of vulnerable children continued for years. Wallace Kuralt who influenced the opening of a Planned Parenthood facility in North Carolina, headed a coercive eugenic sterilization program in the state when he served as Mecklenburg County’s welfare director from 1945 to 1972. Eugenics has been a cornerstone of Planned Parenthood’s history, and its ugly roots continue to be revealed. According to a report by the Charlotte Observer:

Kuralt retired almost 40 years ago and died in 1994. His key aides also have died, and memories have faded of the decisions that changed hundreds of lives. Some women came forward willingly. Some patients were little more than children who didn’t understand what was to take place. Today, it is impossible to tease out the exact mix of good intentions and overzealous execution, prejudice and paternalism that let such a crusade run unchecked.

A coercive program put in place by the German Nazi Party also targeted children-unable to consent.

Nazis plan to sterilize children under eugenics program (Image: NYTs Jan 5, 1934)

In the 1970’s, a lawsuit was filed to petition federal agencies to draw up guidelines which would prevent the economic coercion of poor women seeking medical care under Medicaid and other programs. A 1973 report by the Aiken Standard report on the case states that,  “The action amends a suit seeking to prevent the forced sterilizations of minors and mental incompetents, stemming from three minors, two of whom were allegedly sterilized without their consent and one who received experimental birth control shots in Alabama.

Aiken lawsuit to stop forced sterilization of children

In referring to the aforementioned Mecklenburg County case, the Charlotte Observer also discussed the issue of “consent,” writing, “Records show patients signed consent for 317 of the 430 sterilizations brought by the Welfare Department. Those without consent were often the youngest patients. All told, the department got sterilization orders for 54 children 16 and younger. The youngest was a 10-year-old girl with a mental age of 4 who had begun menstruating the year before. The parents, who signed the consent for surgery, “appear to give her good supervision but she frequently eludes her parents and wanders away,” the summary says.”

What about today?

On Thursday, October 24, 2019 a judge will make the final determination on whether the mother of a young seven year-old boy, James Younger, can begin the process of chemically altering his gender to “transition” him into being a girl. You heard correctly- 7 years-old – a child that can hardly consent nor understand the consequences that could change his life and his body forever. The case has garnered a ton of attention over the last year but exploded on social media this week after the boy’s father, Jeff Younger, lost his battle in court to protect his son from this experimental procedure.

James Younger with his father Jeff Younger (Image: SaveJames.com)

According to the Daily Caller, “Jeff Younger said his son is happy being a boy and does not desire to be a girl, according to The Texan. James Younger’s pediatrician mother, Anne Georgulas, as well as counselors and therapists who testified on her behalf, told the court that the 7-year-old is transgender and had expressed to each of them that he wished he were a girl.”

LifeSite News, has been following the case and reported that, “Dr. Georgulas [the boy’s mother] has been telling James he’s a girl since he was three. She enrolled him in kindergarten as a girl named “Luna.” He uses the girls’ restroom and all of this classmates believe he is a girl. Dr. Georgulas wants to subject James to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as well as legally force his father to treat him as a girl. ”

“Multiple character witnesses for Mr. Younger testified that James presents as a boy when he is with his father and that they have never seen reason to believe James wants to be a girl,” LifeSite News also reported.

On Monday, a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors in a Dallas court ruled against granting Younger [the father] sole managing conservatorship over James and his twin brother Jude, reported the Daily Wire, adding:

According to the LifeSiteNews, Georgulas has been granted authority to move forward with puberty blockers, which can cause chemical castration, and, potentially, hormones, if she so chooses.

The case is raising questions about the ability for young children to “consent” to permanent and often surgical changes to their bodies.

History has shown us that courts and the medical community have made troubling decisions for others in the past. It wasn’t that long ago when the State was forcefully sterilizing men, women and children under eugenics programs that continue to haunt society to this day. In many cases, children who were forcefully castrated or sterilized with “permission” of their parents have since decried the ghoulish experiments.

 

In the summer of 1923, 16 year-old Carrie Buck was raped and became pregnant. She was unmarried and the daughter of an inmate at the Lynchburg Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. After her foster parents dubbed her she  “peculiar” since birth, Carrie was classified as “feebleminded.” According to Facinghistory.org:

On March 28, 1924, Carrie Buck gave birth to a daughter, whom she named Vivian. A few months later, Carrie was admitted to the Lynchburg Colony. Not long after her arrival, Virginia passed a law allowing involuntary sterilization of those labeled as “feebleminded.” Officials at the Lynchburg Colony decided to sterilize Carrie Buck under the new law with the approval of Albert Priddy, the superintendent of the colony. But first, he and his colleagues arranged for her to appeal the decision in the Virginia courts. Although the appeal was in her name, Carrie Buck had no voice in the process. Priddy and other eugenicists were in charge. They hired an attorney for her as well as one for themselves. The two lawyers were in constant contact with one another and with Priddy before and during trial proceedings even though such collaborations are unethical.

The case, later known as Buck v. Bell, was first heard in the Circuit Court for Amherst County on November 18, 1924.

At the trial Aubrey Strode, the lawyer for Priddy and the Lynchburg Colony, offered “scientific evidence” that Carrie Buck ought to be sterilized. The evidence came from the Eugenics Record Office and was prepared by Harry Laughlin.

Laughlin, who never met the young girl, was published by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in her Birth Control Review. He also signed the Citizen’s Committee on Planned Parenthood and in 1936, according to researcher Paul A. Lombardo, “Laughlin received an honorary degree from the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg as “a pioneer in the science of race cleansing.”

 

Laughlin’s “evidence” claimed that Carrie came, “from a shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of people…”

After watching her seven-month-old daughter for a short time, a nurse decided that the baby was “not quite normal.” Based on this testimony, the judge decided that Carrie’s mother, Carrie herself, and her infant daughter were all “socially inadequate.”

Irving Whitehead, Buck’s lawyer, did little on her behalf. He called no witnesses to dispute Laughlin or other “experts” who favored sterilization. Not surprisingly, a judge upheld the decision to sterilize Carrie Buck. Whitehead promptly filed an appeal on her behalf in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was just eight pages long, compared with the 44-page document the colony’s lawyers prepared. In November 1925, the appeals court also ruled against Buck.

In April of 1927, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. By then, Albert Priddy was dead. The new superintendent of the Lynchburg Colony was his former assistant, a Dr. Bell. So the case that began as Buck v. Priddy went to the Supreme Court as Buck v. Bell. The justices saw only the records from the original trial and the appeals court. Based solely on what they read in the court transcripts, they voted 8-1 to uphold the sterilization of Carrie Buck.

Oliver Wendall Holmes

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, stated in part, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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.”

Carrie Buck was sterilized in October 1927.

In 1928, Virginia officials also sterilized Carrie Buck’s sister. She was told that the operation was to remove her appendix. Only in 1980 did she learn why she was never able to have a child. “I broke down and cried,” she said. “My husband and me wanted children desperately. We were crazy about them. I never knew what they’d done to me.”

The ruling encouraged other states to enact sterilization laws. By 1930, 24 states had passed similar measures and about 60,000 people were sterilized under these statutes. Virginia alone sterilized more than 7,500 people between the Supreme Court ruling in 1927 and 1972 when the law was finally replaced.

As recent as the 1960’s state decisions which forever altered children reached deep into the heart of North Carolina and impacted a young Black teen by the name of Elaine Riddick.

Riddick’s tragic story also included a horrific rape as a young girl where she became pregnant.

NC state social worker Sue L. Casebolt discovered her pregnancy and referred Elaine’s case to the state’s Eugenics Board. One of the prominent supporters of the NC eugenics program was Clarence Gamble, a director of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood. Casebolt had been installed as the Executive Secretary of the North Carolina Eugenics Board in 1961 and was on the board in 1968 when it approved the sterilization of Riddick.

According to ABC News, “Riddick’s illiterate grandmother, was told that they were doing a “procedure” that was necessary to help the young girl and signed the sterilization papers with an “X”. The state authorized and paid for the procedure, and without her consent or even her knowledge, Riddick was sterilized shortly after giving birth. She was 14 years old.”

In an interview in the documentary film on eugenics, Maafa21, Riddick stated:

“I asked the State of North Carolina why they did this to me…They sterilized kids, my understanding…-as young as eight years of age. I don’t know what an eight year-old can do that could cause them to do this to them? The only reason I can give myself is that [it’s] because they’re Black.”

According to Maafa21:

At a board meeting held three weeks later, she stated that she intended to keep a file on every child whose name reached her desk so that they could be picked up as soon as they reached childbearing age.

Planned Parenthood, eugenics

Sue Casebolt on eugenics board that sterilized Elaine Riddick (Image credit: Maafa21)

“I did not find out that they had sterilized me until I was nineteen years old,” Riddick states in the documentary film on eugenics, Maafa21.

“They cut me open like I was a hog,” Riddick emotionally told lawmakers in a hearing on reparations for eugenics victims.

Lillie Ann Buelin was also a victim of the terrible NC Eugenics Program, she told DigTriad.com that welfare workers told her that if she didn’t go to school they would operate on her and have her sterilized.  She says they also tested her and labeled her retarded.

“I was just 13 years old,” she emphasized.

In 2005, NBC News reported how, “Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.”

The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren’t yet available in the marketplace.

The practice ensured that foster children — mostly poor or minority — received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.

According to a report from the Catholic News Agency (CNA), “Pediatric endocrinologists are warning that despite a lack of medical tests to determine its safety, U.S. doctors are increasingly injecting children who have gender dysphoria with a powerful hormonal suppressant normally used to treat prostate cancer.” And, a recent NBC News report highlighted a study that, “found that transgender women, who are assigned the male sex at birth, were twice as likely as cisgender men or women to have the blood clot condition venous thromboembolism. Transgender women on hormone therapy were also found to be 80 to 90 percent more likely to have stroke or a heart attack than cisgender women.”

A review of several studies, by the BMJ, concluded, that “There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn…The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research, and treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition…”

On Thursday, Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh tweeted, “And yes puberty blockers are chemical castration. It’s the same drug they use to chemically castrate sex offenders. Yes this is shocking and hard to believe but it’s also true. This is the world we live in now. Wake up and start paying attention.”

Matt Walsh tweet over James Younger (Image: Twitter)

Public outrage over the ruling in the Jeff Younger case prompted Texas Governor Greg Abbott to tweet on Wednesday that, “FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.” But, according to the Washington Examiner, “There are no laws currently preventing a legal guardian from giving a minor puberty blockers or hormones.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweets about the James Younger transgender case (Image: Twitter)

It also prompted Texas Representative Rep. Chip Roy to draft a letter to to the US Attorney General over his concern for the “lack of research studying the long-term impacts of the experimental use of medical treatments for so called gender dysphoria on young children, including hormones on children as young as 8 and double mastectomies on girls as young as 13…”

 

 

Rep. Roy then tweeted, “A 7-year-old shouldn’t be subjected to barbaric medical procedures because of an irresponsible adult.”

Rep Chip Roy sends letter to US Justice Department over transgender issue (Image: Twitter)

That sentiment was repeated by Washington Examiner columnist Brad Polumbo who wrote, “A 7-year-old boy cannot be transgender. At least, not with anywhere near the certainty necessary to justify life-altering, potentially irreversible physical changes such as hormone therapy or puberty blockers.”

This is insane and has understandably led to conservative backlash and widespread denunciation. As Kaylee McGhee observes, “[T]his is the logical conclusion of the transgender movement: Affirm our agenda or lose your rights to freedom of speech, association, conscience, and even your parental rights.”

McGhee is exactly right, which is why gay people should denounce transgender radicalism and separate ourselves from a movement that would strip away parental rights and force confused children into radical, life-altering decisions, all in the name of adults’ ability to show off how “woke” they are.

Polumbo continued, “First, let’s dispense with the narrative that a 7-year-old can even be transgender at all. Such a young child cannot even truly understand what sex and gender are, let alone sexuality or gender identity. Of course, a child can experience gender confusion: Many children do, and if James wanted to go by the name Luna, wear dresses, or so on, his parents would be wrong to shame him or otherwise stifle him. But that’s a very far cry from making radical, permanent physical changes based on the whims of a young child who, as McGhee notes, doesn’t even meet the medical criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Moreover, numerous studies show “that a substantial majority [of gender-confused kids] — anywhere from 65% to 94% — eventually ceased to identify as transgender.”

But, those stats did not dissuade the boy’s mother who, according to the Washington Examiner, secured a letter of recommendation for transition for James from a woman associated with a gay children’s therapy center, the Examiner reported.

“This is a letter of recommendation that my client, James Younger, aka Luna, begin the process of becoming a patient of the GENECIS clinic so that she can receive a full psychological assessment for gender dysphoria and potentially take hormone blockers,” said a letter from Rebekka Ouer from Dallas Rainbow Therapy.

A judge is set to rule on the matter Thursday October 24, 2019.

(NOTE: Reprint permission granted if article published in full with credit to the blog/author)

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood‬ tweets kids do not need parental consent

Posted in Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood Parents with tags , , , , on March 4, 2014 by saynsumthn

Tax Funded abortion giant ‪Planned Parenthood‬ recently tweeted that your kids do not need parental consent to see the ‪‎abortion‬ giant. Wonder why $$$$$

Myth Vs Fact

Here Planned Parenthood happily informs kids where they need parental consent and where they do not.

Live in a state where the law requires Parental Consent – not to worry?

Planned Parenthood has a solution- apply for a waiver.

PP Application for ab wo parental consent

What kind of girls do not tell their parents they are seeking abortions? Sometimes the very ones who need parental protection:

planned-parenthood-golden-gate-rape-cover-up

Even after a parent discovers that their minor child went to have an abortion-Planned Parenthood can refuse the parents contact with that child:

Case in point is this clip from Life Dynamics’ Life Talk show:

Planned Parenthood has a pattern of covering for child sexual abuse and Planned Parenthood was recently criticized for producing a video promoting bondage and sadomasochism. (here) More on that here.

School Game: Cross the Line angers parents

Posted in Parental Rights with tags , , , , on February 5, 2014 by saynsumthn

Fox 11 News

MARINETTE – Lori Saunier is one of nearly a dozen parents who have expressed their displeasure over a game played at Marinette Middle School. News in

“This kind of stuff, I mean, this can’t happen again. These are our little kids. We’re parents. We should’ve been protecting them. You should’ve gave us the benefit of the doubt of contacting us,” said Saunier, mother of 7th grade student.

On Wednesday, fifth through eighth grade students played the game called “Cross the Line”.

Parents say their children were asked personal questions like, do your parents drink and has anyone in your family been in jail?

Students were also asked to step forward if they answered yes to any of the questions.

Neither the school principal nor the district superintendent would answer questions on camera, but in a written statement, the principal said participation was not required and students could have said no.

However, parents claim their students told them that if they didn’t participate, they’d receive an in-school suspension.

Sarah Maitland was one of the students who played the game.

“She asked if you ever wanted to commit suicide to step forward and then after that she asked if you ever experienced or wanted to cut, to step forward,” said Maitland.

The school says the activity is a part of a bullying prevention program.

A few parents met with the superintendent, the principal and the assistant principal Friday morning to express their concerns with the game.

“They basically told us that all the students were lying…all the students got together and planned it out and if they weren’t lying, it was all misperceptions. They didn’t specifically say do your parents do drugs,” said Amanda Fifarek, mother of 7th grade student.

School administrators said, “The intent of the activity was to build stronger, more respectful relationships among students.”

However, parents said they believe it actually makes it easier for students to bully each other.

“It was too personal. It’s just things your kids don’t need to be disclosing to other kids,” Fifarek said.

On Friday the school sent home a letter explaining more about the game and why it was used, but the parents who oppose it say it’s not enough. They still want answers.

Parents say they were not told that the game was going to be played.

The school says if there’s another such activity, it will let parents know ahead of time.

Former Planned Parenthood prez Alan Guttmacher population control plan: limit births to two children

Posted in Garret Hardin, Guttmacher, License to breed, Limit Birth, Margaret Sanger Children, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Overpopulation, Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood abandons choice, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Global Family Planning, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Planned Parenthood limits choice, Planned Parenthood opposed by Blacks, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

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 also said this, “We look forward to the time when out clinics can be closed, when the government can fund enough money to serve the poor and research new birth control methods.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 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.”

Back to Alan Guttmacher

Most people have no idea that the organization he started the Guttmacher Institute is the official research arm of Planned Parenthood and quoted nationally.

Plan B abortion pills vs. Sudafed guess which one is easier for children to purchase?

Posted in Parental Rights, Plan B with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 12, 2013 by saynsumthn

A Stunning undercover video from Students for Life of America, reveals that Plan B is now sold over-the-counter to anyone, including minors, with no questions asked. However, the same young women who can purchase this potentially abortion-causing drug (without a doctor’s exam or parent’s consent) cannot purchase a common cold medicine, Sudafed. Get more details about this video and what you can do at http://www.ExposePlanB.com.

__________________________________________

Meanwhile: Pro-aborts bully pharmacies who restrict access to the abortion drug: Plan B

NWL PLAN B

The radically pro-abortion group, National Women’s Liberation (NWL) roamed pharmacies in New York City Saturday to protest pharmacies that restrict over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step.

NWL_n

According to the pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check, “NWL’s “Morning-After Pill Brigade” targeted five pharmacies near Union Square with an attention-getting, street-theater-style action that pointed out problems with Plan B accessibility to shoppers and management. Group leaders would loudly announce to the store that the brigade was looking for the morning-after pill. Group members then would disperse, asking where the emergency contraception was and handing shoppers a letter to the pharmacy’s CEO.

This post from the group’s facebook page states, “NWL Activists are encouraged that Duane Reade has freed Plan B One-Step from the locked boxes.”

NWL2_n

NWL4_n

Obama’s Health and Human Services head, Kathleen Sebelius, overruled FDA drug regulators for the first time in history and rejected making it over-the-counter and available without a prescription to women of all ages. Purchasers still need to show ID to buy it.

NWL MAP Sign
The group National Women’s Liberation has been fighting for access to the morning-after abortion pill through a federal lawsuit with a decision expected in the next week.

At Tuesday’s action, dozens of people stocked boxes of Plan B on the shelves and called for it to be in front of the counter — not behind it. Brooke Eliazar-Macke, the organizer of the event, said she joined the lawsuit in part because of her own experience.

NWLCVSn
The good news is that CVS management refused to answer the pro-abort’s questions about why Plan B One-Step was not stocked, instead threatening to call the police and telling the radicals to leave.

I am a biological terrorist because my kids didn’t get a vaccine

Posted in Parental Rights, Vaccinations with tags , , , , on October 7, 2013 by saynsumthn

REPOSTING FROM THE MATT WALSH BLOG ( READ HERE )

I am a biological terrorist because my kids didn’t get a vaccine
Posted on September 7, 2013 by The Matt Walsh Blog

Yesterday my wife took the twins to the doctor for a checkup. They wanted to start our babies on their “vaccination schedule,” but, oddly, our schedule differs slightly from the one predetermined by the medical establishment. I’m not against all vaccines, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of blindly handing our babies over to the nurse and saying, “Here! Pump whatever chemicals you want into them. I’ll be in the lobby reading a Highlights magazine, give me a holler when it’s over.” In other words, vaccinating is a conscious decision that my wife and I wish to make, not one with which we will passively cooperate.

That said, one of the vaccines we chose to forgo is the Hepatitis B immunization. I mentioned that on Friday’s show and it elicited many responses from folks who are, apparently, quite offended that we didn’t consult with them before making a choice about our children’s medical treatment. You know, all parenting decisions you make these days must be debated in front of the People’s Peanut Gallery, where the verdicts are swift and harsh. Here’s one email I received, it’s an apt representation of several other similar messages:

Matt,

Your conspiracy theories about vaccinations would make me laugh if they weren’t so infuriating. If you don’t get your children vaccinated for Hepatitis B or any other disease, YOU PUT EVERYONE AT RISK JACKASS. I get so sick of you antivaccination retards. Society gets rid of diseases when everyone comes together and vaccinates. I don’t want my child to get sick just because you don’t understand science. There are many ways to get Hep B and people get it all the time without have sex aand you’ve now put your child at risk for it which puts everyone at risk. Moron. Get them vaccinatedstop being stupid. You are a horrible parent and you’re putting your kids at risk idiot.

– Kevin

Against my better judgment, I responded to Kevin. I’m posting it here as a general response to all of the other Kevins of the world.

Dear Kevin,

I’m not a conspiracy theorist — I’m a conspirator. You see, about a year ago my wife and I conspired to conceive children. I won’t go into detail about the steps we took to bring this plot to fruition, but suffice it to say that our plan succeeded. Now, as the result of this dastardly scheme, we are “parents”. This parental title has dangerous implications; it gives us the terrifying ability to do all sorts of things. For instance, most horrifically, we can make decisions about our kids’ well being and health care without conferring with the public, the government, the community, society, or even you.

Also, we are able to forgo vaccinations so that we can turn our children into biological weapons, which is the clear intention of anyone who doesn’t keep their kids “up to date” on their shots.

Other than that, I’m not sure what conspiracy you’re referring to. When I speak of the potential adverse side effects of the Hep B vaccine, or the studies linking it to liver and brain damage, or the obvious risks involved anytime you inject disease-causing organisms into the body of a small child, I am not proposing a “conspiracy,” nor am I theorizing anything. I am not a “no vaccines at all” type of person, but I don’t think you’re in a position to ridicule those folks if you’re in the “any and every vaccine is automatically OK with me, and I’ll let the doctors give it to my child without doing any research about it beforehand” camp.

I don’t judge you for falling in line and following the trends — even when the trend involves introducing potentially dangerous chemicals to the undeveloped immune system of your infant children — but I do lament how your sort tends to lash out mindlessly at anyone who strays from the “normal” path. When I call your behavior “mindless,” I don’t mean it as an insult. I mean it as an observation. After all, there certainly isn’t anything thoughtful or rational in shouting about how your child is directly at risk of contracting an STD because my kids didn’t get a vaccine.

Hepatitis B is, in fact, primarily a sexually transmitted disease. In most cases, you contract it by making unhealthy lifestyle choices. I notice that, in your world, our “society” should work to eradicate illnesses by turning our babies into lab rats, rather than by telling adults to stop making foolish and destructive decisions. Why do you yell at my family for choosing to forgo an unnecessary medical treatment that would expose my children to high levels of aluminum, and not at the legions of people who refuse to forgo promiscuous sex and intravenous drugs? I have to be honest, I’m somewhat disturbed by the implication that all of our children are budding drug addicts and philanderers, so we ought to immunize them in anticipation of this eventuality.

There are other ways to get this virus, I grant you. Prison guards who have fecal matter and urine hurled at their faces all day are in a high risk category. Folks who work in hospitals are logically required to be vaccinated. A child whose mother has the disease can, unfortunately, contract it. You hear about rare cases of patients in hospitals coming out of a medical procedure or blood transfusion with Hepatitis B, but then again, if you can’t trust your doctor to give you blood that isn’t tainted with a chronic illness, you probably shouldn’t trust him to give shots to your baby. If you do a lot of traveling in third world countries, that will likely increase your Hep B chances as well.

But it’s simply ridiculous to assume that every human being in the country has an equal shot at becoming Hep B positive. You’re at risk if you put yourself in, or are put in, a risky situation. Plain and simple. Even the CDC — hardly a bastion of anti-vaccination propaganda — has to go to extraordinary lengths to explain how the average baby might come down with a dangerous STD. Their “Hepatitis B fact sheet” tells us the virus is spread to children when their mother is infected, or when they are bitten by an infected person. They also list “eating food chewed by an infected person” and “sharing a toothbrush with an infected person.”

Let’s break these down, shall we? We’ve already covered the infected mother scenario. My wife doesn’t have Hepatitis B, not that it’s any of your business. I’m not sure if your kid typically eats food chewed by strangers, but my children are under a strict “only you chew your food” rule. I think it’s pretty easy to avoid sharing a toothbrush with a Hepatitis B carrier, in fact it’s easy to avoid sharing a tooth brush with anyone. As for being gnawed on by a sick person, how often do you think a child gets Hepatitis that way? Now contrast that likelihood with the chance of suffering an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and tell me which is cause for greater concern?

You may dispute the link between vaccines and autism, or vaccines and SIDS, but you can’t dispute the non-debatable link between risky decisions and diseases like Hepatitis B. You’re exposed to Hep B if you put yourself in a compromising situation, and usually that involves having random sex or using hardcore drugs. As far as I know, nobody has ever been crossing the street on some random morning only to be suddenly run over by a Hepatitis B truck. There’s nothing especially surprising about Hepatitis B and how it’s spread.

For the record, despite my stance on the vaccine, I am actually very intent on preventing my kids from getting Hepatitis. But my prevention strategy involves raising them and teaching them not to make horribly self destructive decisions. Outside of that, if they grow up and decide they’d like to work in a hospital or a prison, or they sign up for a mission trip to Ethiopia, then it might be time to talk about expanding their “vaccination schedule.”

Kevin, let me do you a favor and give you a tip for the next time you decide to valiantly defend the honor of prescription drug companies and their miraculous vaccines: If you want to convince people like me — that is, people who aren’t terribly worried about gaining the approval of the peanut gallery — you best abandon the “get vaccines for the sake of the collective” argument. Call me selfish or narcissistic, but I don’t parent my children based on what I think my neighbors might want me to do. Parenting isn’t a democracy. It isn’t up for a vote. Never in a thousand years would I force my children to undergo a medical procedure simply for the sake of being a cultural team player. If you see it that way, please email me the next time you take your kid to the orthodontist. I’m going to need a vote before you make any decisions about braces or retainers.

There are many factors that have contributed to this special brand of lunacy where we pretend that chronic illnesses like Hepatitis B can’t be easily avoided by adjusting our lifestyles and making healthy choices, but I think intellectual laziness and cowardice play a significant part. It’s the same thing that entices health teachers and politicians to make the maniacal claim that HIV is an “equal opportunity disease.” We’re deathly afraid of coming anywhere near anything that might be construed as — GASP! — moralizing. Instead we go around babbling about how everything impacts everyone in the same way, and our own decisions are never to blame when bad things happen.

You called me a bad parent, so I guess this is the part where I’m supposed to stick my tongue out and call you a bad parent in return, and then we can spend the next 45 minutes shooting spitballs at each other in the back of the classroom. But I don’t want to play that game because, for all I know, you’re a great parent. I’m not a big fan of your communication skills, nor do I find you to be the most critical of thinkers, and I’m not particularly inspired by your grammar and sentence structure, but I’m betting you still love your children and strive to do what you think is best for them. If that includes getting your infants immunized against STDs, then Godspeed. I don’t have a say in the matter, and I pray that it stays that way. My only very humble suggestion is that you MAKE the DECISIONS, instead of “going along with it” because the doctor will give you a dirty look if you don’t.

Also, as a general rule, always proofread when you want to call someone else an idiot.

God bless,

Matt

Dem Rep to School students ” You don’t have to tell your parents to get abortion – that’s what Democrats believe in”

Posted in Democrat, Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood Democrat Party with tags , , , , , , on October 28, 2012 by saynsumthn

This was posted on youtube and claims to be a government class where a local Democrat Politician tells High School Students that they do not need to tell their parents to have an abortion. In an apparent effort to win these kids over to the Democrat Party- the speaker says “that’s what Democrats believe in” .