Archive for the Saves Taxpayers Category

Were programs like Title X started to curb the population of certain people groups?

Posted in Black Genocide, Black Neighborhood, Blacks oppose Birth Control, Blacks protest abortionn, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Every Child a Wanted Child, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ford, Lader, Malcolm X, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger and AES, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood Blueprint, Planned Parenthood Free Birth Control, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Planned Parenthood Motto, Planned Parenthood Slogan, Planned Parenthood Tax Dollars, Planned Parenthood uses blacks, Planned Parenthood using blacks, Population Control, Population Council, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Samuel Yette, Saves Taxpayers, Tax Payer Funding of Abortion, Title X, Walt Disney with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 12, 2018 by saynsumthn

population, Black, abortion, Planned Parenthood, eugenics

Was there a sinister eugenics agenda behind so-called federally funded “population control” programs like Title X?  The program, which could be seen as a form of classism, is touted as a “family planning”program aimed at “helping” poor and low income Americans in limiting their families. But the question is, what motive was behind this push prior to Title X’s 1970 passage, and who were the key players? In this four part series, Live Action News hopes to answer those questions.

When the push to use government dollars to fund population control programs was introduced, there was heavy opposition from groups that saw the move as racist eugenics. The Population Council and Planned Parenthood, two of the main groups behind this move, were both founded with eugenic philosophies. Planned Parenthood even played a prominent role in recruiting an ideal Republican lawmaker — as readers will learn later in the series — whom they convinced to sponsor what has become known as the federal Title X Family Planning Program, which now funnels $60 million to the organization.

READ: Film documents Planned Parenthood’s history of Black genocide, eugenics

Leading up to this time, many within the Black community viewed government programs of population control as genocidal efforts aimed at limiting the births of Blacks and other minorities. This was not without justification, as detailed by Simone M. Caron’s research, “Birth Control and the Black Community in the 1960’s: Genocide or Power Politics?,” published by the Journal of Social History:

Certain segments of the black community mistrusted the underlying intention of both private and government efforts with respect to contraception. Some blacks in particular became skeptical of the increasing push for contraceptive dispersal in poor urban neighborhoods, accusing contraceptive proponents of promoting nothing less than “black genocide.”…

The incidence of increasing government involvement in contraception at the same time as the civil rights movement gained strength could be interpreted as a planned conspiracy to decrease the numbers of blacks and other racial minorities.

Leaders of the birth control movement even suggested that crime and health disparities within the Black community could be resolved by reducing the Black population. This kind of thinking aroused additional suspicion as calls for public health centers to disseminate birth control pills to the poor began to emerge.

Image: 1942 article urges family planning for Harlem (Image credit New York Times)

1942 article urges family planning for Harlem (Image credit New York Times)

In 1967, Black comedian Dick Gregory joined more than 1,100 Black delegates for the First National Conference on Black Power where he, along with others in the group, adopted a black power manifesto that called for the “refusal to accept birth control programs on the basis that they seek to exterminate Negroes,” among other demands, according to a July 24, 1967, New York Times report. Gregory and others viewed “government programs designed for poor Black folks” which emphasized birth control and abortion as, “designed to limit the black population.”

Image: 1967 First National Conference on Black Power

1967 First National Conference on Black Power

Image: 1967 First National Conference on Black Power refuse birth control

1967 First National Conference on Black Power refuse birth control

Journalist Samuel Yette, himself outspoken about the genocidal aspects of birth control, once wrote about noted civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer’s views in The Afro American – Apr 2, 1977, saying, “It is still a society in which an injured man must show his ability to pay before getting hospital services, but his daughter or wife can be aborted or fed birth control pills, at public expense….”

Image: Fannie Lou Hamer

Fannie Lou Hamer

In that same article, Yette, one of the first Black journalists to work for Newsweek, wrote, “Instead of seeking ways to feed the hungry, the back stage plan was to get the poor unwittingly to endorse a plan to eliminate from the society those who were hungry.”

Image: Samuel Yette and his book The Choice (Image credit Maafa21)

Samuel Yette and his book The Choice (Image credit Maafa21)

Yette went on to publish a book, “The Choice,” which exposed high level attempts of Black genocide through birth control, abortion, and additional means. Shortly after the publication, Yette was fired by Newsweek and claimed that his superiors told him that the “Nixon White House” wanted him out of Washington.

“The book dealt with things they did not want people to know about at the time,” Yette told the Tennessee Tribune, which he joined as a columnist, in 1996. “There were those well-placed in our government who were determined to have a final solution for the race issue in this country — not unlike Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’ for Jews 50 years earlier in Germany. I wrote this and documented it. It caused the Nixon White House to say to Newsweek in effect, ‘Don’t come back until you are rid of him.’”

Blacks were highly suspicious of anything that had to do with “control,” radical Black Muslim leader Malcolm X suggested. In 1962, Wylda B. Clowes, a Black field consultant for Planned Parenthood, and Mrs. Marian Hernandez, director of the Hannah Stone Center, met with Malcolm X to “discuss with him his group’s philosophy concerning family planning.” Memos from the meeting indicated that overpopulation discussions evoked questions on why major efforts to control population were directed toward “colored nations.” The Black Muslim leader asked if Planned Parenthood had anything to do with “birth control” and offered the suggestion that Planned Parenthood would probably be more successful if they used the term “family planning” instead of “birth control.”

His reason for this was simple. He stated that “people, particularly Negroes, would be more willing to plan than to be controlled….”

Image of memo

Planned Parenthood memo with Malcolm X

While Caron concludes that the Black community eventually accepted contraception, a look at the organizations behind the push for government funded “family planning” programs reveal that their initial concerns may have been spot on. Behind the scenes, population control groups — some with long ties to the eugenics movement, such as the Population Council, Planned Parenthood, the Hugh Moore Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and others  — were seeding the ground and calling for large sums of government money to be spent on so-called “family planning.”

Author Donald T. Critchlow, in his book, “Intended Consequences, Birth Control, Abortion and the Federal Government in Modern America,” notes that the Population Council took the lead, and had an annual budget of over $3 million by 1964. Ford and Rockefeller Foundation money, along with dollars from other eugenics organizations, were flooding the Population Council coffers by the millions.

The Population Council was founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III, as Live Action News has previously documented. The group’s second president, Frederic Osborn, was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society. Osborn once wrote, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.” He also signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood,” published in her Birth Control Review in April of 1938. Some speculate that Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “Every Child a Wanted Child,” may have originated with Osborn.

Image: Planned Parenthood Motto

Planned Parenthood Motto

These groups pushed the idea of a worldwide population crisis. The media joined in the fear mongering by publishing articles about the impending population crisis. Images of global starvation resulting in forced euthanasia and cannibalism were depicted in books such a Paul Ehrlich’s now discredited “The Population Bomb.”

Image: Population Bomb threatens world peace

Population Bomb threatens world peace

On-screen gloom and doom propaganda was also being disseminated.

One film, produced by Walt Disney Productions, has been detailed in a previous Live Action News article, and interestingly, the controversial 1967 film, “Family Planning,” was produced in association with the Population Council, a eugenics founded organization.

Larry Lader's book helped redefine Margaret Sanger from her eugenics roots

Walt Disney Production produces FP film with Population Council

The propaganda film featured Disney’s iconic animated character, Donald Duck, who introduces the alleged gloom of having a large family. Children in smaller sized families are “healthy and happy and go to school to gain an education,” the film states, as if children of large families are unhealthy, unhappy, and uneducated. The film indoctrinates its viewers that a “happy family” is one with a modest number of children while large families basically starve with “no money for modern conveniences. […]”

In the 1969 book about the founder of Planned Parenthood, “Margaret Sanger Pioneer of Birth Control,” authors Lawrence Lader, an advocate of population control with ties to the Population Council, and Milton Meltzer reinforced overpopulation fears.

Quoting the book from p. 160-161:

Today the world has caught up with the crucial necessity for population control. Many political leaders consider it second only to the threat of nuclear war as the key issue of our time. World population is now growing at a record speed of seventy million a year. The terrible prophecy is that at the current rate of increase the world may double in population by the year 2000. Yet less than 5 percent of the world’s six hundred-odd million women in the fertile years are using modern contraceptives. To Dr. Harrison Brown, one of the nation’s leading scientists, it means “catastrophe appears a near certainty.”

Latin America, whose growth is faster than any other continent’s, will almost triple its population in the next three decades. And less food is now produced and eaten there per capita than before World War II. India, kept from the edge of famine by wheat shipments from abroad, will add two hundred million more people by 1980.

With this tidal wave of population goes desperate hunger. One half of the world’s population and two thirds of its children go to bed hungry every night. General William H. Draper, head of a presidential study committee, has said that “the stark fact is that if the population continues to increase faster than food production, hundreds of millions will starve in the next decade.”

Image: Larry Lader’s book helped redefine Margaret Sanger from her eugenics roots

Larry Lader’s book helped redefine Margaret Sanger from her eugenics roots

The United States has already added fifty million between 1950 and 1968, and our population may almost double by the year 2000. We may not face famine because of our highly mechanized food production. But the terrible overcrowding in the cities has already brought us the destructive problems of air and water pollution, traffic chaos, shortage of schools and houses, lack of parks and recreation space. The whole quality of American life is being badly damaged.

The authors then summarize the solution:

Almost everyone now realizes that Margaret Sanger’s crusade for population control is the only way to enable living standards to improve substantially. International Planned Parenthood has already shown in many areas that populations can be kept in reasonable balance…. After the government approved legalized abortion in qualified hospitals, along with contraception, the country cut its birth rate more than in half between 1947 and 1961.

The need has become so staggering that IPPF has been joined by new allies. First came the private organizations. The Population Council, headed by John D. Rockefeller III, has spent over thirty-five million dollars since 1952, the Ford Foundation many millions more.

They end the book by making an argument for federal dollars to fund population control:

But the money needed to spread birth control around the world goes far beyond private means. Hugh Moore’s Campaign to Check the Population Explosion and the Population Crisis Committee in Washington soon realized that only vast help from the federal government could meet the crisis. With constant pressure on Congress, they were able to get the government to increase its population programs overseas to fifty million dollars in 1969. Family planning programs in the United States were given ten million dollars. Yet even these sums are only a tiny fraction of what it will take to meet the problem.

And thus, the push for taxpayer-funded population control programs took on a life of its own and consisted of a multitude of characters working behind the scenes, forming coalitions, meeting with political leaders, and spreading eugenics propaganda. By the 1960s the agenda was in full swing, but it would be continually met with opposition from religious leaders and Black leaders who recognized it as a means to control the Black population.

In part two of this series, Live Action News will detail further the population control advocates who pushed for these government funded programs. Additional articles on Title X’s history are included (parts onethree, and four), as well as Planned Parenthood’s Blueprint and George HW Bush’s relationship to Title X and Planned Parenthood.

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

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

Planned Parentrhood’s “Blueprint” to force taxpayers to pay for birth control began under Guttmacher

Posted in Birth Control and Eugenics, Black Genocide, Black leaders on abortion, Black Neighborhood, Bush, Bush Family, Fred Jaffe, Guttmacher, Jaffe Memo, Margaret Sanger Award, Planned Parenthood Blueprint, Planned Parenthood Free BC, Planned Parenthood Free Birth Control, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood President, Planned Parenthood Tax Dollars, Saves Taxpayers, Tax Payer Funding of Abortion, Title X with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood has always been about making sure fewer poor people actually become parents — and here’s proof

In 1966, Planned Parenthood‘s medical director, Alan Guttmacher (a former VP for the American Eugenics Society and founder of the Guttmacher Institute), proposed a blueprint to force taxpayers to pay for birth control access for the poor. Elected to Planned Parenthood’s national board in 1962, Guttmacher believed (as did many eugenicists) that the poor needed access to birth control.

But while publicly, the messaging was one of empowering others to make “choices,” the real motivation was population control. Guttmacher once told the New York Times, “The main goal of our program is not just to limit population, but to give everyone the same opportunity for quality medical care.” Note that Guttmacher acknowledged population control as one of the goals, but clothed it in the same type of messaging used by modern-day Planned Parenthood: the language of access to “health care” or “medical care.”

Image: Guttmacher plan to force taxpayers to fund birth control (Image: NYT Birth Control Group Offers Plan For Free Services to Millions 02/10/1966)

Guttmacher plan to force taxpayers to fund birth control (Image: NYT Birth Control Group Offers Plan For Free Services to Millions 02/10/1966)

Planned Parenthood’s ultimate goal was to convince the public that taxpayer-funded “family planning” — directed at preventing births among the poor — would save the taxpayer money. And, just like today, the nation’s largest abortion provider accomplished this goal with the help of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson lent his support to taxpayer funded “family planning” efforts, stating in a speech that for every five dollars spent on population control, more than a hundred would be invested in economic growth. The scheme to promote the use of taxpayer dollars as a way to “reduce costs” was detailed in the film Maafa21:

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

Planned Parenthood president George N Lindsay (image credit: NYT)

“We have the technological know-how — pills and intrauterine devices,” Lindsay is quoted as saying. “We have the support of Government. President Johnson has called for increased birth control services in the past two State of the Union messages. And now we have devised a methodology for solving a huge problem in five years.”

That same year, President Johnson accepted Planned Parenthood’s highest award (the Margaret Sanger Award) for his policies pushing family planning for foreign countries. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Sanger’s work in the eugenics movement has been highly criticized by many modern African-American leaders. Sanger, who gave at least one speech to the Ku Klux Klan and stacked Planned Parenthood’s boards with eugenicists, advocated the sterilization of the so-called “unfit.”

Today, despite her involvement in the eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood labels Sanger a heroine and has positioned her name in a place of honor on at least one of its centers.

Margaret Sanger’s name on Planned Parenthood building

By 1969, the so-called “Planned Parenthood blueprint” to force taxpayers to fund birth control was underway, as recounted by the New York Times:

Whatever the merits of the argument, the ghetto approach is now the federation’s chief thrust, and it is also the policy of the Federal Government, which since 1966 has undergone a dramatic reversal,  moving from almost no action on birth control to a proposed expenditure in 1969 of $31 million. Last month the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) recommended the adoption of Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” for supplying free birth control device to some five million American women below the poverty line.

Image: Guttmacher plan to force taxpayers to fund birth control (Image: NYT 02/02/1969)

Guttmacher plan to force taxpayers to fund birth control (Image: NYT 02/02/1969)

The “plan” was highly criticized by the Black community, which saw the move as a means of racist Black genocide.  “Among other things, this policy has brought the Planned Parenthood Federation under attack from black militants who see ‘family planning’ as a euphemism for race genocide,” the NYT reported.

To prove the genocidal fear had merit among minority groups, the paper published statistics that supported “the suspicion that Black people are taking the brunt of the ‘planning.’” Black birth rates fell in several cities:

  • Lincoln Parish, LA: 32% (1966-67)
  • Washington, DC : 24% (three years)
  • Baltimore, MD: 36% (since 1965)

A 1966 internal memo from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe outlined a new “community relations program” for winning over the Black community by “form[ing] a liaison between Planned Parenthood and minority organizations.” The plan, according to Planned Parenthood, was to emphasize that “all people have the opportunity to make their own choices,” rather than, as the memo states, exhortation telling them how many children they should have.”

Guttmacher said at the time that the plan was “long overdue” but stressed, “we do not need to panic. In fact, if we panic and continue to publicize the ‘problem’, we may well exacerbate it.”

Also in 1966, Planned Parenthood gave its Margaret Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. Whatever Planned Parenthood was trying to accomplish, it worked. By 1969, then Congressman George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) chaired the Republican Task Force on Population and Earth Resources, created in part to ascertain the resistance to family planning among “certain groups.” He determined that “[s]o far, it looks like opposition from religious groups and the Black militants isn’t too serious.”

Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” called for an expenditure of about one percent of the nation’s health budget, with an anticipated $78 million from taxpayers in 1970. It also called for an expansion of hospitals’ family planning services as well as programs financed by the federal anti-poverty program. By 1970, the United States House of Representatives voted 298 to 32 to approve the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, Title X of the Public Health Service Act, authorizing federal dollars to pay for family planning services for low-income women. This legislation would become known as the Title X statute, which today allocates millions of federal tax dollars to Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations.

In 1971, Congress allocated $6,000,000 for the Title X program. The following year, funding was increased to ten times as much: $61,815,000. Title X funding peaked in 2010 with a high of $317,491,000 and dropped to $286,479,000 for fiscal year 2017. President Trump’s FY2018 budget request includes $286.5 million for Title X, the same as the FY2017 enacted level.

TitleX Funding History CBO

Although Federal law prohibits the use of Title X funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning, recipients of the dollars can be abortion providers. The reason for this is that Title X requirements allow recipients of these federal dollars to discuss abortion with patients under the term “options counseling,” telling providers that they must offer pregnant women the opportunity to receive information and counseling on each of the following options:

  • prenatal care and delivery
  • infant care, foster care, or adoption
  • pregnancy termination

In other words, Planned Parenthood can use the same rooms within the same facilities to commit abortions as they do to perform “options counseling,” during which they can refer for abortions as well as provide tax-funded family planning services under Title X.

Live Action investigations have already documented the abysmal way that Planned Parenthood handles inquiries from pregnant women seeking prenatal care at their facilities. With few exceptions, abortion is the only option Planned Parenthood offers pregnant women:

Research conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reveals that Planned Parenthood affiliates participating in Title X spent $64.35 million in taxpayer dollars in 2012.

Despite deceptive marketing from politicians who claim that defunding the abortion corporation would hurt women, studies show that women do not need Planned Parenthood to get contraception care. Despite Planned Parenthood’s desperate attempt to reinvent itself as a health care provider, it is the number one provider of abortions in the United States, claiming 35 percent of the abortion market share nationwide. The organization has millions of dollars in excess revenue each year (despite its being classified as a nonprofit organization), and has recently boasted of the private donations flooding into its coffers.

In addition, actual health care services at Planned Parenthood are dwindling while abortions are increasing. In addition, Planned Parenthood is not a trusted recipient of tax dollars, with its history of fraud and abuse and its failure to report suspected child abuse (which Live Action News reported about here and here) — a reason that alone should result in the organization losing taxpayer dollars under Title X.

Planned Parenthood’s free birth control scheme has resulted in millions upon millions in taxpayer funding each year. Instead of those dollars doing good for women, they are aiding an abortion corporation which ends the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent preborn babies every year. That is not a blueprint that anyone should follow.

Live Action News has written additional articles on this topic that include the history of Title X (Parts onetwothree, and four) as well as George HW Bush’s relationship to TitleX and Planned Parenthood.

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

Planned Parenthood “Heck Yes” to Ginsburg comes on heels of Gruber abortion comments

Posted in Abortion saves taxpayers, Gruber, Maafa21, Mark Crutcher, Planned Parenthood Ginsburg, Planned Parenthood poor care, Planned Parenthood Poor Women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Saves Taxpayers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

On the heels of a video by disgraced ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber who said that abortion would save the taxpayers money because it would basically eliminate the poor, comes Planned Parenthood’s “Heck Yes” on another eugenics leader who said something similar.

No sooner did eugenics documentary and Planned Parenthood history film producer, Mark Crutcher release a statement comparing Jonathan Gruber’s comments on abortion to statements made by Supreme Court Justice and radical abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that – abortion giant Planned Parenthood gave her the “Heck Yes” award.

Planned Parenthood Ginsburg Heck Yes

There were times in 2014 when we just wanted to stand up and give a round of applause,” writes the eugenics founded Planned Parenthood organization,”When people spoke up for women’s health and rights so boldly, so bravely, so perfectly, we couldn’t help but cheer them on. As this year comes to a close, we took a look back with Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Best and Worst of 2014, and asked you to vote for the top “Heck Yes!” moment of the year.

Drumroll please…
And the Winner Is:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Planned Parenthood continues, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us our “Heck Yes!” Moment of the Year for her scathing dissent in the Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. In June, she wrote that the Court’s ruling — which lets some bosses deny their employees birth control coverage — is so startlingly broad that it can override the health care needs of employees and their dependents across the country.

“There were so many gripping lines from her 35-page dissent it’s hard to pick our favorite. In one of the most ominous, she warned that the precedent being set “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

Maafa21 logo

Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher writes on his blog, “In 2009, we released Maafa 21 – a 2 hour documentary in which we proved that the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with women’s rights, or choice, or reproductive freedom or any of the other sales pitches you hear from the abortion lobby. The truth is, abortion was legalized as an instrument of eugenics and racial genocide.

RuthBaderGinsberg

“Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“Here’s my question: when she said that abortion was legalized to deal with populations we don’t want to have too many of, do you get the feeling she was suggesting that there might be too many rich white people in the world? Or is it possible she might have had some other folks in mind?

And the answer is clear – YES she did. if you want to know who Ginsburg was referring to- watch the film Maafa21 – which is available to view in full on the website http://www.maafa21.com.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

Ironically, just yesterday during a Congressional hearing with ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie exposed the very thing that Ginsburg stated in 2009 during his questioning of Gruber.

(Partial Transcript Below: )

MASSIE:I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?

GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects

MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?

GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..

MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?

GRUBER: I guess

MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.

GRUBER: I was

MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.

In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.

Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?

GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…

MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.

MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?

GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….

MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?

GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..

MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?

GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?

MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?

GRUBER: no I …

MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?

GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.

MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.

Crutcher summarized Gruber’s comments well, “Gruber tried bobbing and weaving around Congressman Massie’s questions but, in the end, it was clear his position was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. In one of his previous writings he had described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but you’d have to actually be as stupid as Gruber thinks you are not to understand what he was saying.

“So let’s recap. Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one. They know that this issue is about political power, money, race and eugenics, but unlike Ginsburg and Gruber, they don’t go out in the public and talk about it.”

Read Crutcher’s full statements here.

Worth reading is my blog: Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

Letter sent to pro-life group from pro-choice person reveals eugenics is alive and well in America

Posted in Planned Parenthood Slogan, Pro-choice Spin, Saves Taxpayers with tags , , , , , , , on September 2, 2014 by saynsumthn

In September, pro-lifers in Texas received a very disturbing letter promoting pure unadulterated eugenics.

According to Jim Graham Executive Director of Texas Right to Life, when Texas Right to Life participated in a pro-Life townhall in Beaumont, Texas, voters went to their cars to go home and found the disturbing message on their vehicles.

Screenshot 1

The letter said that they needed to “wake up” because unwanted babies “cost us billions of dollars every year!”

Letetr

The letter begins with the all to well-known Planned Parenthood (paraphrased) slogan, it reads, “Babies deserve to be wanted and loved.” It implies that an unwanted child is automatically going to become a criminal. What nonsense.

What most people and the writer of this letter may no know is that the the origin of Planned Parenthood’s oft repeated slogan “Every child a wanted child” may have come from the eugenics movement, specifically Fredrick Henry Osborn.

Every Child Wanted Child PP

PPPlanYourFamily63

Frederic Osborn once stated that, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.”

Frederick Osborn

Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society and he also helped start the Population Council as well as the Pioneer Fund, all known for their population control agenda.

Osborn signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood” published in her review in April of 1938.

ABCL Committee on PP

According to Evolution in the News, Osborn, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, restructured the eugenics movement in the 1950s and 1960s, covering up its totalitarian roots and marketing it as “voluntary unconscious selection,” a corrective to natural selection impaired by human domestication (i.e. civilization).

Osborn’s suggested motto for the New Eugenics was “Every Child a Wanted Child“, which now adorns Planned Parenthood’s website and is available on buttons from pro-abortion organizations.

PP Website Every Child Wanted

Saynsumthn Blog wanted to confirm that eugenicist Osborn coined the term, so I contacted the American Philosophical Society which houses records from the eugenics society.

Here is their reply, ” Osborn’s slogan apparently is used in Planned Parenthood, and papers are in Princeton. According to the APS Librarians, We do have a collection of Osborn’s papers at the APS as well and the records of the AES. It’s possible that there is documentation in one of the collections. It’s the kind of question that is likely difficult to determine, unless Osborn published something specifically about it. It does sound like Osborn, the respectable face of eugenics in the post WWII era.

It is no wonder that Osborn also said that, “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

More here.

The letter which members of Texas Right To Life received also complains that if we allow children to be born rather than murdered in the womb, it will cost “billions of dollars every year,” in tax money.

Even if you buy into a eugenics/ abortion philosophy there is no proof that killing little babies saves the taxpayer money, as I break down here.

The letter is a sad commentary that eugenics is alive and well in America and it is even more proof that it’s roots must be completely pulled out and shown for the lie it is.