Archive for Attorney General

AG files complaint against abortion doc charging negligence and failing to protect patient’s personal information

Posted in Aborted Baby Trash, Abortionist Under Investigation with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 28, 2015 by saynsumthn

Michael Roth

An abortion doctor who stored dozens of jars containing “products of conception” (a term used for aborted babies) is the subject of a Michigan Attorney General Office complaint charging him negligence and failing to protect patient’s personal information. Dr. Michael Authur Roth a long time circuit-riding abortion provider in the state made headlines earlier this fall after police found 14 containers identified at the time as “human tissue” and as well as controlled substances in his car after it was involved in a traffic incident.

The administrative complaint, filed with state Board of Medicine’s department of licensing and regulatory affairs for possible disciplinary action and obtained by Live Action News from pro-life advocate Lynn Mills, details the abortion doctor’s sordid past. In the factual allegations, the document states that Roth was disciplined by the state medical board in 2004 following a complaint that he performed an abortion out of a patient’s home. Another issue came before the Board in 2012 over a complication from a procedure resulting in a fine.

Roth abortion home complaint

The Attorney General has accused Roth with being in possession of controlled substances without lawful authority. According to the AG’s complaint, when police searched Roth’s car they discovered 6 prescription bottles containing an antibiotic prescribed by another medical doctor with the initials AO for several patients as well as large amounts of the pain medicine Fentanyl and a partially used bottle of a drug used for anesthesia. In addition they found medication used for uterine bleeding.

In response to the complaint, Mills called the items found in Roth’s car, “a cocktail for abortion.” She told Live Action News that there are many unanswered questions surrounding this case, “Pro-lifers effectively got this abortionist evicted several times last year. So let’s say that he couldn’t find a place to rent that would allow him to do abortions? We know from his history that he has experience doing them in home settings. Could this have been an option he felt was viable?”

Mills said she suspects Roth was doing clandestine abortions, wondering where he was performing them, “Roth was driving around with what he needed the antibiotics, the anesthesia, the bleed control meds and pain meds. Where’s the bloody pads, the cannulas?” While authorities have not specified why Roth was in possession of the medications, Mills speculated a few possible scenarios such as his performing secret abortions on rich women or even on human trafficking victims in secret locations.

mICHAEL RoTH abortion fetus

In addition to the medications, the complaint states that police also found “Fifteen specimen jars containing the “products of conception” in the abortionist’s car. Less than a week later, upon searching Roth’s home, police found additional medications of Fentanyl and and 6 full glass vials of Methylergonovine Maleate (medication used for uterine bleeding). Police also discovered that the Fentanyl, which had expired a year earlier, belonged to another physician. In fact, several of the medications found in Roth’s possession were expired and bore the name of to another prescribing physician where Roth “provides coverage” according to the complaint.

The documents states that the license to dispense medications are “location specific” and that medications cannot be stored in places other than where the license allows. Further, state law requires that medications are to be stored in a locked cabinet or room and not in a person’s home or vehicle. The complaint accuses Roth of failing to protect patient’s personal information as well as disposing of “pathological waste” i.e. aborted babies pursuant to state statutes.

The AG accuses Roth of the following:

    Negligence
    Incompetence
    Lack of Good Moral Character
    Possessing a controlled substance without lawful authority
    Betrayal of a Professional Confidence

Asministrative COmplaint Roth Abortion Fetus Car

The complaint requires that Roth has 30 days to submit a written response to the charges against him. And, if he cannot show that he is in compliance of all lawful requirements of retention of his license the AG has requested that formal proceedings be “commenced pursuant to the Public Health Code.”

(Images: screen grab from media reports )

TX Investigators visit Planned Parenthood see fingers and toes in “POC Room”

Posted in Aborted Baby Body Parts, Organ Harvesting, Planned Parenthood Investigated, Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 30, 2015 by saynsumthn

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton testified today in front of the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services regarding the active ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s practices. The investigation follows the recent publication of several videos showing Planned Parenthood officials apparently discussing the harvesting and sale of human baby body parts.

Ken Paxton 20110524662_40ca90a729_h

The Texas Attorney General’s Office (OAG) announced the investigation on July 15 in coordination with the Texas Governor’s Office and Health and Human Services Commission. In his testimony, Attorney General Paxton revealed some of what OAG investigators saw at a clinic in Houston and denounced the institution of abortion.

Excerpts from Attorney General Paxton’s testimony are below:

“As you all know, several weeks ago, videos began to surface of Planned Parenthood officials talking candidly, and bluntly, about the prospect of essentially selling body parts of aborted babies. Shortly thereafter, my office, coordinating with Gov. Abbott and officials at the HHSC, launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s activities in Texas. Our goal is to find out if anyone anywhere in Texas has violated the law, and if so, to seek legal redress.”

“Our investigators are working across Texas to gather information and evidence relevant to the case. Last week, after a meeting at a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic, officials there invited our team to take a look around, including a stop at what they call the ‘POC Room.’ POC stands for ‘Products of Conception.’ There, lab technicians receive the remains of aborted children – also known as ‘the products’ – which are washed, examined, bagged, refrigerated, accumulated and every week taken away by a contractor that burns their bodies as medical waste.”

“As my staffers watched, a technician took an aborted child from a jar, rinsed it in a colander, and placed the body parts in a tray. Fingers and toes, exceptionally tiny but fully-formed, were clearly visible. The remains were eventually deposited in a red plastic bag, about the size of an average grocery sack. According to the people at the facility, they average at least 260 pounds of “medical waste” a week, every week.”

“The videos that have made all the headlines raise a large number of troubling allegations, allegations that – again – my office is aggressively investigating and we will go to any and all lawful lengths to get to the bottom of what has been happening. But more than any misdeeds involving the sale of aborted baby parts is this fundamental truth: the true abomination in all this is the institution of abortion.”

“Even if their body parts are never sold, or never used for research, for the babies who are killed in abortion clinics – more than 54,000 last year in Texas and more than 57 million in the United States since 1973 – their fate is a plastic bag in a refrigerator, and anonymous disposal in an incinerator somewhere.”

“For us, when we pass on, our bodies will be treated with reverence and respect, even those of us who choose to donate our remains to science. Even the remains of our most vicious criminals are treated with respect. For the children who never had a chance at life, however, they become so-called medical waste, or – alternatively – a commodity to be bargained for. Neither fate is an appropriate end for any human being.”

“At a minimum, the people involved project a cold, calculating, almost inhuman indifference to the lives they treat as a product they’re attempting to sell. At worst, they may represent a violation of state and federal laws. My office will continue to investigate these issues, and – if necessary – we will seek to bring any Texans that might be involved to justice.”

“Over the past several days, there have been reports that my office, as part of our investigation, has gained possession of hours of video recordings involving a Texas branch of Planned Parenthood. These reports are accurate. I cannot go into detail about these recordings at this time, but they appear to be consistent with other videos that have been released regarding Planned Parenthood.”

“This [hearing] is a strong example of our state’s leadership working together to ensure the people of Texas are fully aware of what’s going on within our state’s borders.”

It is unclear which Planned Parenthood was visited but the Houston Mega Center has been a part of the pro-life sting according to reports.

Planned-Parenthood---Houston jpg

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston has participated in fetal tissue donation, partnering with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 2010 for a study on causes of miscarriages.

PP Mega Houston Fetal

Soon after the first undercover video was released, state leaders ordered investigations into Planned Parenthood, the Texas Tribune reported.

More:

    That investigation has included visits to the Houston clinic by representatives of the Department of State Health Services and the attorney general’s office, Planned Parenthood officials said Sunday. The investigators requested information about the clinic’s practices regarding fetal tissue donations, Tafolla said.

Colorado Atty. General to Investigate Planned Parenthood Videos

Posted in child abuse, child predator, Planned Parenthood and Child Predators with tags , , , , , , , on July 28, 2014 by saynsumthn

Colorado Atty. General to Investigate Planned Parenthood Videos Coaching Young Girls in BDSM

According to Breitbart, the attorney general of Colorado says he will have his staff review the Live Action investigative video of a Denver Planned Parenthood employee coaching a young woman, believed to be only 15-years old, in the practice of high-risk sexual activities, including bondage/discipline and sado-masochistic sex (BDSM).

The second installment of pro-life organization Live Action’s series titled “SexEd: Planned Parenthood’s Dangerous Sex Advice for Kids,” features Denver Planned Parenthood counselors suggesting to the undercover investigator a spectrum of sadistic sexual behaviors, such as “whipping,” “tying up,” and “asphyxiation.”

Read the rest here

Child Pred Carousal w website

But should the “investigation” only be for the videos? Why not the failure to report child sexual abuse?

A new report just issued by the organization, Life Dynamics, shows abuses in Colorado as well. The report, entitled, The Cover-Up of Child Sexual Abuse, details the criminal case of James Bernard Isenhower who was convicted on child sexual assault charges in both Colorado and Texas and is summarized by Life Dynamics below:

In 2000, Isenhower was a 52-year-old Danbury, Texas, police officer when he began a sexual relationship with the 14-year-old daughter of a woman he was dating. In 2001, “Marlie” was pregnant and he took her to a Houston area abortion clinic. Her mother accompanied them and, afterward, was forced by Isenhower to destroy the documentation from the clinic so that there would be no paper trail. At trial, she testified that she was afraid not to comply with his demands because she was not a legal resident of the United States. It is obvious the abortion clinic did not file a report since Isenhower continued to assault Marlie until 2005 when she came forward and told authorities what was occurring. Isenhower was convicted on child sexual assault charges in both Colorado and Texas. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence in the state penitentiary in Huntsville, Texas. [The Facts, 1-18,19 & 20-2007 • Texas Court of Appeals case #14-07-00077-CR, Full Case Retrieved 6-18-2010 • Texas Department of Criminal Justice case # 01416755]

We do not know if he impregnated any children in Colorado like he did Texas, but, should this not be investigated?

We do know that on the whole- if you read the report by Life Dynamics- you will see a pattern of covering of child sexual abuse by the abortion and Planned Parenthood industry emerge.

In fact, the group also details the case of Timothy David Smith in Colorado:

According to a 2014 lawsuit against Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Smith, began sexually assaulting his six-year-old stepdaughter “Bess” in 2005 and continued to do so for approximately seven years. During that time, Bess became pregnant and was taken by Smith to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Denver. Court records state that Bess gave her real age at the clinic and signed some of the forms, but that the majority of them were completed by Smith and unread by Bess. It was also stated that, following the abortion, Bess was offered birth control and directed by Smith to take it in the form of an injection so that her mother would not find out about it. Although Bess initially refused saying that she did not like shots, she eventually gave in. Her mother is suing Planned Parenthood and four of its employees claiming that their failure to comply with the state’s mandatory reporting law allowed the sexual assaults of her daughter to continue for months. In July of 2012, Smith was charged with two counts of felony sexual abuse and, in January of 2013, he was sentenced to 28 years in prison. [Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, case # 2014CV31778 • Adams County Colorado Clerk of Courts, case # 12-CR2061]

Planned Parenthood fined TRIPLE what AG reported for medicaid fraud ! $4.3 million !

Posted in Medicaid Billing Practices, Planned Parenthood medicaid fraud with tags , , , , , , on July 31, 2013 by saynsumthn

PPGulfCoast2010-affiliate-header-91650

Planned Parenthood’s Houston-based affiliate clarified Tuesday that it settled for $4.3 million, three times the $1.4 million that Abbott reported a week ago.

The Houston Chronicle. has reported that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast settled a whistle-blower lawsuit that alleged the Houston nonprofit engaged in fraudulent Medicaid billing for $4.3 million – nearly $3 million more than was announced last week by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

The say that, in finalizing the settlement, which includes total state and federal recovery, the agency claimed the allegations that it submitted more than $30 million in fraudulent bills between 2003 and 2009 were “baseless.”

The lawsuit was brought by a former medical assistant in agency’s Lufkin clinic. The lawsuit alleged “defendant’s billing policies routinely instructed clinic staff to enter billing codes for certain services, regardless of whether patients’ charts recorded that such service was actually provided.”

Last week, Texas Attorney General’s, in announcing a $1.4 million settlement, said its investigation showed the agency charged for “services that were never actually rendered, not medically necessary and were not covered by the Medicaid program.”

TX AG MEdicaid Fraud

Abortionist involved in patient death and Medicaid fraud linked to Obama AG Eric Holder

Posted in Abortion death, Abortionist, Abortionist arrested, Medicaid Billing Practices, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 31, 2012 by saynsumthn

Holder’s family papers over his ties to abortion doctor

HUMAN EVENTS By: Troy Anderson and Will Swaim 10/31/2012

Eric Holder Jr.’s family is moving fast and furiously to bury the U.S. Attorney General’s ties to one of Georgia’s most notorious abortion doctors.

Just cleared by an internal report in the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning debacle, the nation’s top lawman now faces allegations that his connection to Dr. Tyrone Cecil Malloy is a conflict of interest that helps explain Holder’s failure to prosecute abortion providers who run afoul of federal law.


Critics say it may also explain why Holder has been eager to prosecute pro-life advocates who counsel women outside abortion clinics.

Documents obtained by Watchdog show that Holder’s wife and sister-in-law co-own, through a family trust, the building where Malloy operated. A Georgia grand jury indicted Malloy on Medicaid fraud charges in 2011. A state medical board twice reprimanded the doctor.

Holder and his wife, Sharon Malone Holder, an obstetric and gynecological doctor at Foxhall OB/GYN in Washington, D.C., failed to respond to several requests for comment.
But reached by phone at her home in Minneapolis, Margie Malone Tuckson, Holder’s sister-in-law, said there’s no link at all — that Fulton County tax records showing the property belongs to her and Holder’s wife “are wrong.”

“I don’t own this property and my sister does not own this property. We are not technically on this deed,” Malone Tuckson said.

However, public documents reviewed by Watchdog.org show that the family transferred ownership to a family trust in 2009, eight months after President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

But even the new deed directly names Holder’s wife and sister-in-law as trustees. After inquiries by Watchdog reporters, Tuckson contacted the Fulton County Assessor’s office and asked them to change tax records to reflect the “new” ownership.

But none of these technical changes obscures the Holders’ conflict of interest. Catherine Davis, a founding member of the National Black Prolife Coalition and president and founder of The Restoration Project — a Stone Mountain, Ga.-based pro-life, pro-family organization — said she’s outraged by the revelations.

“There is a clear conflict of interest when the man charged with pursuing those that abuse the system is also one who is engaged in some way with the business,” said Davis, whose organization brought the issue to the attention of Watchdog.

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national pro-life organization based in Wichita, Kan., said the disclosures help him understand why Holder has been targeting pro-life advocates.

In recent months, judges have blocked Holder’s efforts to punish pro-life supporters counseling women outside abortion clinics. In one case, Holder’s Department of Justice agreed to pay Mary “Susan” Pine $120,000 for its filing of an “improper lawsuit” against her, according to a statement by Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fla.-based nonprofit legal firm. Pine counseled women on the sidewalk outside a Florida abortion clinic.

“It looks to me like the attorney general and his wife are in business with the abortion industry, which makes a lot of sense and helps explain why (Holder’s Justice Department) is prosecuting pro-lifers and losing the cases around the country,” Newman said.

“They have been attempting to prosecute pro-life people under the (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994), and as far as I know they have lost 100 percent of those cases in the last four years. This (Malone Holder’s property interest) explains his bias. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody that Holder and the Obama Administration are extremely biased against pro-life people and in favor of the pro-abortion crowd.”

Fulton County tax records show Holder’s wife and sister-in-law own the building, located at 6210 Old National Highway, College Park, Ga. A statement from the Georgia Department of Law shows the building was home to Old National Gynecology, Malloy’s medical practice devoted to the performance of abortions.

In December 2011, the statement says, a DeKalb County Grand Jury indicted Malloy, Old National’s owner and operator, and his former office manager CathyAnn Edwards Warner on two counts of Medicaid fraud. The indictment alleged Malloy and Edwards accepted nearly $390,000 in federal medical assistance payments for medical office visits associated with the performance of elective abortions and for ultrasound services that were never performed.

Federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions and associated services, except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or would endanger the mother’s life, according to the statement.

Malloy and Warner refused to enter a plea in the case, arguing the indictment was constitutionally flawed, according to the Georgia Department of Law. On May 2, a judge entered a not guilty plea on their behalf — and then promptly denied their motion challenging the constitutionality of the Medicaid law in Georgia.

Malloy and Warner appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. The defendants’ brief is due by Nov. 5 and the state’s response by Nov. 26.

Attorneys for Malloy and Warner did not respond to requests for comment.

“My concern is Dr. Malloy’s political connections are so high up that he’s going to end up getting off on these charges,” said Michelle Wolven, the lead investigator and researcher for Eagle Watch, an abortion watchdog group in Dallas, Ga. that worked with the National Black Prolife Coalition to uncover the connections between Holder’s wife and Malloy.

READ REST HERE
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ABORTION DEATH:

A 2009, Georgia Medical Board report indicated Malloy was involved in the abortion related death of a 23 year old patient. ( Read Here)

Other abuses Neglected by Obama Admin:

According to Jill Stanek, pro-lifer Catherine Davis pointed to cases in which activists have sued Planned Parenthood for alleged Medicaid fraud – in Georgia, Iowa, Texas, New York, and Massachusetts – but where Holder’s Justice Department has failed to act.

MEDICAID FRAUD:

Abortion doctor accused of Medicaid fraud
ATLANTA —
A metro-area abortion doctor and his office manager are under arrest, accused of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent Medicaid payments.

A spokesperson for Georgia’s Attorney General says Dr. Tyrone Malloy and office manager CathyAnn Warner took more than $380,000 in payments for ultrasounds that were never done, and elective abortions that were prohibited from use of Medicaid funds. The Attorney General’s spokesman says that is only allowed when the mother’s life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

Malloy owns and operates the Old National Gynecology office in College Park, but received the Medicaid payments at his DeKalb County office on Rainbow Drive. A tip from Georgia’s Department of Community Health, which oversees the Medicaid program, launched the investigation.

Channel 2 investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer knocked on the abortion clinic’s locked doors on Monday. No one answered, but the camera captured people peering through the office blinds several times. About an hour later, a string of cars, presumed to be driven by employees, abruptly left, stopping briefly to lock the gate behind them.

A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Malloy and Warner for two counts each of Medicaid Fraud. The charges carry up to ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Malloy was arrested and bonded out of jail last week. Deputies picked up Warner late Monday afternoon.

The clinic’s website says its physicians are well versed in the changing laws of abortion medicine. They also provide a discount for Medicaid patients.

By phone, a receptionist at Dr. Malloy’s DeKalb office told Fleischer to leave a message; that he was in with a patient. He did not return the call. The office manager, when reached by phone, hung up on Fleischer.

Another Abortion Rights Leader from NARAL caught with hands in the cookie jar, supported ObamaCare

Posted in Financial mismanagement, NARAL, Pro-choice law breakers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

According to this article posted in the New York Times, Ex-Leader of Abortion-Rights Group Is Accused of Misspending and Published: June 29, 2012

The state attorney general’s office has accused a former leader of a prominent abortion-rights group of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of charitable money on shopping sprees, a Hamptons vacation rental, fine dining, hotels and other personal luxuries.

The accusation is included in a civil complaint filed in Manhattan on Thursday against Kelli Conlin, 54, who pleaded guilty a year ago to falsifying business records, a felony. Her criminal case closed without jail time after she repaid $75,000 in restitution to Naral Pro-Choice New York and its affiliated foundation, which she led from 1992 through 2010.

But David Nachman, enforcement section chief of the attorney general’s Charities Bureau, said Ms. Conlin’s spending actually amounted to “hundreds of thousands of dollars in improper benefits.”

The attorney general’s office is requesting that she repay all of it, with interest, and reimburse its own legal and investigative costs.

Here is NARAL’s Kelli Conlin supporting Obama’s Health Care Bill, according to the description on NARAL’s YouTube page: On November 16, 2009, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand held a press conference with various women’s health advocates to protest the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment and demand that health care reform does not come at the price of women’s rights. NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin spoke along with an impressive array of pro-choice advocates, including Senator Gillibrand, New York City Council Speaker Chris Quinn, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and feminist leader Gloria Steinem.

LegalNewsline reports that According to IRS forms, Conlin allegedly grew her total compensation steadily until it reached close to $380,000 in 2010.

According to the NY Daily News, Conlin pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court last summer to a felony charge of filing a false document and agreed to pay $75,000 in restitution to her former employer.

It was a deal she worked out with District Attorney Cyrus Vance to avoid jailtime.

Schneiderman is going after what he says is the rest of the money she owes.

Schneiderman’s office reviewed the financial records of NARAL and its foundation after Conlin’s guilty plea.

Going back to 2006, investigators found that Conlin, who was paid a salary of $380,000 in her last year at Naral, had:

— Used an office credit card to make three purchases at Barney’s in early 2008 for a total of $20,446.84. Privately she admitted one of the purchases was for an “amazing” outfit for an annual NARAL fundraiser but on paper she dubbed them ‘event decor.’

— Rented a house for her partner and their twins in South Hampton for $17,000 in July 2009.

— Spent at least $50,000 in non-business related meals including 120 take-out sushi dinners and dinners at two of the city’s most expensive restaurants, Daniel and 11 Madison Park.

— Racked up $70,000 in expenses for car services.

Read Court Documents here

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But in 2010, we saw this type of theivory before with Pro-Abortion Leaders of NARAL
The blog: Political Capitalreorted taht

KATY HERINGLAKE, who once had a no-show job working in the state Capitol for state Sen. Jeff Plale, was “convicted of swiping $13,000 from National Abortion Rights Action League of Wisconsin,” Where she used to work.

Her name has been changed toKaty Venskus, where she lobbies for AT&T Wisconsin and Education Reform Now.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard reportedly charged Venskus, 34, of Oconomowoc, with two felonies for allegedly using her lobbying company’s credit card on more than $15,000 in personal expenses.

The complaint against Venskus, which was reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, says “she purchased $369 worth of steak from Badger Wholesale Foods for her family with an American Express card owned by Minneapolis-based Public Affairs Co., for which she had worked since January 2008. Venskus left the firm last year.”

Her lawyer, Stephen Meyer, reportedly told the Wisconsin State Journal, that the complaint contained “only allegations” and that the full story had not come out. She is quoted in the complaint as saying, “I’ve reimbursed everything, I’ve paid back all charges, and I’ve done nothing wrong.”

A watchdog report in 2010 states that Venskus, can still work the halls of the Capitol as one of at least eight registered lobbyists who have been convicted of crimes in Wisconsin. A review by the Journal Sentinel also turned up three additional lobbyists who signed deferred prosecution agreements that led to their charges being dismissed later.

At a time when special interest groups are spending record amounts for lobbyists to push their agendas – $36.2 million last year alone – Wisconsin has almost no rules or laws restricting criminals from lobbying. No lobbyist has had his or her license revoked or suspended for any reason for at least 20 years.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lest you think NARAL is the only one prone for these theives, you may have recalled reading this post on my blog about Planned Parenthood-

Should there be an investigation into tax funded Planned Parenthood clinics? Letter reveals PPGG’s “misappropriation and mismanagement of funds”

Looks like Planned Parenthood is dumping their affiliate PPGG just in the nick of time – should there be an investigation, after all Planned Parenthood gets millions of tax dollars per year???


Planned Parenthood Golden Gate’s former employees blame the organization’s longstanding pattern of financial mismanagement, former PPGG CEO, Dian Harrison. Because of this, the national Planned Parenthood organization has announced it will divorce itself from the networks of clinics that serve patients in five Bay Area counties, citing fiscal and administrative problems with the local organization. Effective Sept. 3, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate must operate under another name, a representative of the national organization said that Planned Parenthood Golden Gate had failed to uphold the “standards and guidelines” by which each separately incorporated affiliate must abide, but that the details of the situation were confidential.

“They were not meeting our standards for administrative and fiscal management,” said Karen Ruffato, vice president of affiliate services for the national organization.

A report in the Bay Citizen:

The most recent tax documents filed with the I.R.S. suggest that PPGG has not only been losing money in recent years, but is in financial disarray. For the tax year ending June 30, 2009, it showed a loss of $2.8 million.

Yet, from financial information for the previous year, it’s unclear just how much money the organization lost because it filed three separate sets of numbers with the I.R.S. In the filings, losses ranged between nearly $1.9 and $2.8 million. Two different accounting firms signed off on the various filings.

Tax documents also show that the organization’s financial problems did not start with the catastrophic recession and California’s fiscal crisis, which has delayed MediCal reimbursements from the state. Tax documents for the year ending June 30, 2007 show that the organization lost $181,000 that year.

Yet, the organization’s fiscal problems date farther back. Documents associated with a 2004 accreditation review of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate show that the local affiliate did not meet the national federation’s financial standards for its affiliates. Of nine indicators of financial health, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate was given a “not met” rating for five of them. For instance, the affiliate had only 11.4 days of cash on hand, as opposed to the required 60 days.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America executives refused to comment on the accreditation documents on the grounds that they’re internal and confidential.
On Wednesday, the charitable trusts division of the state’s attorney general’s office sent a warning letter to the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate Action Fund, the political advocacy and public policy arm of the affiliate, because the organization has failed to file copies of its tax documents with that that office for at least 10 years.
“We do not have any reports on file for them,” Rebecca MacLaren from the attorney general’s press office wrote in an e-mail.

The warning cautioned that if the organization fails to file those forms within 30 days, its registration would be suspended and officers would be personally liable for late fees.

In the letter, the clinicians detail a myriad of problems in the organization, including their concerns about “the misappropriation and mismanagement of PPGG’s funds.” The letter accuses the executive staff of profligate spending during lean times:

It is apparent that while Medical Services has been mandated and has complied with financial reform and cost savings, the Executive Administrative members have failed to adhere to their own mandate for financial restrictions. Executive staff’s personal expenditures are excessive and are not aligned with the mandatory fiscal restrictions. Flagrant use of PPGG funds to pay for personal belongings, personal services and exorbitant technology products is seemingly unchallenged and not subject to the same financial scrutiny that clinic supplies and staff salaries are, for example.

When Harrison replied to their concerns in a letter dated November 14, 2008, she assured the clinicians and doctors that administration was feeling the fiscal pain, too: “Administration has temporarily or permanently frozen a number of positions, budgets were cut, expenses were halted for a period of time and office supplies were not purchased,” she wrote.

And from the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

Former employees saw problems coming at Planned Parenthood Golden Gate
By Rebecca / San Francisco Bay Guardian
Created 08/11/2010 – 4:08pm

This week’s announcement that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was severing ties with Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG) came as no surprise to some former employees, who have for months been trying to sound the alarm that the chapter was being mismanaged, had major financial problems, and was in a steep decline that could threaten important reproductive care services that low-income women rely on.

A former PPGG employee with knowledge of the organization’s internal affairs described a longstanding pattern of financial mismanagement when former president and CEO Dian Harrison was at the helm. There was widespread concern about spending on expensive marketing campaigns and lavish functions, the person said, and a high level of employee turnover and discontent.

Warning signs of financial difficulties surfaced at least a year ago. Dan Cohen, a spokesperson of the Packard Foundation — a major donor to PPGG — told the Guardian that Packard awarded PPGG a 12-month, $30,000 “organizational effectiveness” grant, which will expire in September. The grant “allows an organization to select a talented, external provider to help them think through some of these challenges,” Cohen explained. The Packard Foundation also awarded a 3-year grant for general operating support for $800,000, which will also expire next month.

Another former employee told the Guardian that she would love to discuss internal problems, but was made to sign a confidentiality agreement upon leaving the organization.

Therese Wilson, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate — who took over PPGG when Harrison left last year on medical leave — did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

An internal PPGG document provided to the Guardian displays the agency’s on-hand cash reserves as compared with other affiliates, suggesting that the reserve ratios were at or below the minimum required by the national Planned Parenthood federation for all but one year from 1998 to 2007 — and well below that of other affiliates of similar size. That is a key requirement for meeting accreditation standards.

When we asked Elizabeth Toledo, a PPFA representative, about this apparent pattern she said she could not comment because she had not seen the documents. She also said the accreditation reviews were confidential. “Understanding the true financial picture for health care providers takes a very in-depth evaluation,” Toledo said. “PPFA and PPGG were working together over the last few years to resolve fiscal challenges.”

Despite delays at the state level in awarding nonprofit funding and the loss of support from the national organization, Toledo and a union representative for PPGG employees both said they believe the clinics will continue serving patients under a different name.

“They plan to stay open, and employees are planning to stay,” said SEIU Local 1021 representative Sarah Sherpun-Zimmer, who has been a union rep for PPGG employees for the last two years. “Folks are really happy working there and they feel like it’s going in a good direction.”

PPGG operated eight clinics, which will lose their Planned Parenthood accreditation Sept. 3, effectively severing their ties to a trusted entity that thousands of low-income women rely upon for birth control, abortion procedures, and other forms of reproductive health care. PPGG operates clinics in San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino counties, serving about 55,000 women per year.

Roughly 92 percent of the clients they serve live at or below the federal poverty line, according to PPGG’s 2008 annual report.

Planned Parenthood affiliates Mar Monte and Shasta Diablo are in the process of hatching plans for taking over some of the eight affected clinics or otherwise growing their own operations to cover any gaps in service area, according to Toledo. She said neighboring affiliates are in a position financially to be able to cover a wider territory and added that they have been in “expansion mode,” adding new clinics over the past couple years.

“It’s unusual to have a disaffiliation,” she said. “But it’s not unusual for national committees to have a reallocation of service area. That part is well-practiced.” Toledo added that “Every effort possible will be made” to ensure continuity of care.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

According to a press release issued by, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” a film financed by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate,Dian Harrison also served on these boards:the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and she blogs for RH Reality Check , Harrison was also a guest speaker at a NAF conference

In 2008 Assembly member Mary Hayashi Named Dian Harrison Of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate Her “Woman Of The Year”

In a report of the top paid Planned Parenthood employees for 2008, Harrison made the list when the California Catholic Daily reported this

Dian Harrison, President and Chief Executive Officer
Salary: $274,438
Benefits: $18,976
Expense Account: $11,340
Total Compensation: $304,754

Here Harrison brags about her rich and lavish new design for the abortion clinic she managed !

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2008, Planned Parenthood cut ties with their South Florida offices:

The July 2, 2008 Miami Herald article entitled, Planned Parenthood cuts ties with 5 clinics
reported this:

One of the nation’s best-known groups of health centers has permanently shut down a cluster of clinics in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

Planned Parenthood officially severed its ties Monday with five local clinics — four in Broward and one in Boca Raton — whose top administrator has acknowledged a history of “terrible mismanagement and possibly fraud.”

The disaffiliation allowed the national organization to wash its hands of the local chapter once known as Planned Parenthood of South Palm Beach and Broward Counties.

The chapter is dealing with many problems, including harassment complaints and possible misuse of nearly $450,000 — slightly less than they received in public funding in 2005.

“All these issues are now issues that they will have to face without us,” said Karen Ruffato, vice president of operations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The attitude has angered Ruth Lynch, the former Broward chapter’s CEO, who said the national organization bailed out before the local chapter could resolve its problems.

Lynch, who replaced former CEO Mary Capobianco in March, said that within two weeks of her arrival she found she could not account for $440,000 of the chapter’s $3 million budget.

“We take responsibility that there was horrible management,” Lynch said. “But that was then. This is now. We have a new board.”

CHAPTER’S PLANS

Lynch said that the chapter’s board of trustees plans to eventually open and continue medical services at the five clinics — in Oakland Park, Fort Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Deerfield Beach and Boca Raton — but without the trusted name of Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s most recognized clinics in the field of reproductive heathcare.

“We don’t feel this was simple disaffiliation, we feel this was a hostile takeover,” Lynch said.

“And it was more about the Planned Parenthood trademark than it was about helping the community.”

At least 16,000 people used the five clinics for services such as breast exams, testing for HIV and abortions. In 2005, it received $500,000 in taxpayer funding.

HARSH REVIEW

The disbanding of the relationship ended a months-long back and forth between the Broward chapter and the national organization, which temporarily shut down the clinics in March after delivering a harsh review about the chapter’s administration.

Popular employees were fired. An employee alleged sexual harassment against a former CEO, Capobianco. The local board was investigating a rumor that its 2006 annual report was plagiarized.

SHUT DOWN

Ruffato said Planned Parenthood wanted to disaffiliate from the Broward chapter as soon as possible.

By March, the clinics were temporarily shut down.

They began the process in April to permanently strip the five clinics of the Planned Parenthood name.

Instead, Ruffato said they entrusted the more-reputable Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami, Palm Beach and the Treasure Coast to open one clinic in Broward and one in Boca Raton.

Ruffato said the Greater Miami chapter is one of the country’s best.

‘UNFORTUNATE’

“This is a very rare situation and a very unfortunate situation,” Ruffato said. “And as sad and as hard as moving through a disaffiliation is, I believe our ultimate responsibility is to the mission. And ultimately we need to make sure that your community clinic has the best healthcare and meets our high standards.”

For now, Planned Parenthood is concentrating on replacing the five clinics with at least two, said Judith Selzer, spokeswoman for the Greater Miami chapter. Officers plan to select one site by next month.

Selzer said they will add clinics “as quickly and swiftly as the community needs.”

The chapter plans to include Broward residents on the staff and board of trustees.

Said Selzer: “We’re poised and we’re ready to do this.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The National Planned Parenthood Office has NEVER denounced their racist founder Margaret Sanger who pushed eugenics, sterilization, and black genocide as documented in the film: Maafa21

More Here

READ: Accusations continue to fly against Planned Parenthood Golden Gate by those who claim to be in the “know”

Obama ADMIN on China and their victims of Forced Abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2012 by saynsumthn

A lot of attention is being paid to China’s Forced Abortion Policies lately because of blind Chinese Activist, Chen Guangcheng, who is exposing their policies, but exactly how does the Obama Admin feel about China’s policies, if actions speak louder than words- he TOLERATES it:

Chen told The Associated Press that friends who had tried to visit him “have been beaten,” his wife Yuan Weijing had been followed and U.S. officials had been prevented from seeing him in person.

A doctor from the U.S. embassy arrives Friday at the Chaoyang Hospital, where blind activist Chen Guangcheng is staying.

He added that he had spoken to U.S. officials by phone, but “the calls keep getting cut off after two sentences.”

“Basically I am very worried. Okay? … It is very dangerous here,” Chen told the AP, before the line went dead.

Chen, 40, is a legal activist from Shandong province who campaigned against forced abortions under China’s “one-child” policy.

On April 22, he escaped 19 months of house arrest, during which he and his family faced beatings and threats. Supporters then said he was in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, which he left after six days to go to the hospital on Tuesday this week after receiving assurances from the Chinese authorities.

According to the Today Show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in China and in Clinton’s prepared remarks for the meeting did not specifically mention Chen, but did say that the responsibilities of a “great nation” included “protecting the fundamental freedoms of all citizens at home.”

“All governments have the responsibility of addressing their citizens’ aspirations for dignity and rule of law. These are not Western values — they are universal rights that apply to all people in all places,” she said.

But, in the United States, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told Reuters that Chen had been offered a fellowship from an American university, where he could be accompanied by his wife and two children.

Chen is asking the US and China to allow he and his family to leave on Clinton’s Plane out of the country.

Yesterday, Chen made this surprise call to someone attending a Congressional Hearing ( sponsored up by Rep. Chris Smith) , on the issue of Chen’s freedom:

OBAMA VP MAKES LIGHT OF CHINESE FORCED ABORTION POLICIES, “UNDERSTANDS” them:

Biden to China: “Not Second-Guessing” One-Child Policy
by Steven Ertelt | Beijing, China | LifeNews.com | 8/22/11 1:05 PM
Vice-President Joe Biden is in China to attempt to revive the financial image of the United States after a first-ever downgrade in its financial rating. In attempting to explain some of the financial concerns the U.S. faces, Biden talked about China’s one-child policy.

The one-child policy, instituted by the Communist government in the late 1970s to stem rising population, compels couples in urban areas to have just one child and limits couples in rural areas to two children if the first child is a girl, as girls are seen as having lesser value than boys in some parts of the Asian nation.

The policy has stirred global controversy since it was implemented, as it has resulted in massive campaigns of forced abortions and
sterilizations, fines for families violating the rule, sentences to prison and forced labor camps for violators and their families who shelter them from government officials, home detention, loss of jobs or government benefits, beatings and other human rights abuses.

In his statement, Biden talked about the other set of concerns about the one-child policy — demographic — in that China will increasingly have similar problems to the United States in terms of paying for entitlements to the growing number of people retiring who will need government support to make ends meet and a smaller population of
younger workers able to take care of those obligations.

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand —I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of
four retired people. Not sustainable.”

“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that,” he continued.

Although he highlighted the demographic concerns, his statement that the United States is “not second-guessing” the forced-abortion, one-child policy and his essentially ignoring the forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses that accompany it, will surely upset pro-life advocates who have campaigned extensively against the one-child policy and supported the victims of it.

The speech represents a second missed opportunity for the Obama administration to present a clear position against the policy that is one of the most egregious global human rights abuses in modern times. Biden’s comments follow a visit earlier this year from China President Hu Jintao, where President Barack Obama apparantly failed to ask the

foreign leader about the problem of forced abortions on Chinese women. Ask during a U.S. House hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t say whether Obama brought up the massive human rights abuse millions of Chinese women endure if they break the country’s one-child
family planning rules.

In remarks LifeNews.com received from New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris Smith’s office following the hearing, Smith let Clinton know in a statement he delivered during the hearing that China’s one-child policy is a problem.

“Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy. And for 30 years, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity,” Smith told Clinton. “The uncontested facts are
these: Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur mother without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort – if need be, she is physically forced to do so. All unwed moms are compelled to abort. In what can only be described as a search-and-destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OBAMA Attorney General Eric Holder, Returns Chinese who are victims of FORCED ABORTIONS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JIA XIN OU v. HOLDER
JIA XIN OU, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS Respondents.
No. 09-2246-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 13, 2010.

Henry Zhang, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Janice Redfern,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott Rempell, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Jia Xin Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
seeks review of an April 30, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the
October 26, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte
Laforest, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
re Jia Xin Ou, No. A099 670 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009), aff’g No. A099
670 040 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2007). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
case.

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
standards of review are well-settled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.
2007); see also Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Contrary to Ou’s argument, the IJ properly based her denial of his
applications for relief on Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494
F.3d 296, 309-12 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), the controlling authority
at the time she rendered her oral decision, rather than based on the
law as it stood on the day of Ou’s April 2007 merits hearing. The IJ
could not have made her decision prior to DHS’s completion of the
requisite background checks. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g) (requiring all
identity, law enforcement, and security investigations to be completed
prior to an IJ granting an application for immigration relief). Once
these background checks were complete, the IJ was bound to apply the
law as it stood on the day of her decision. See Harper v. Virginia
Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97-98 (1993) (finding that courts are
bound “to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case
announcing the rule has already done so” in all cases still open on
direct review).

Furthermore, we find no error in the agency’s denial of relief. Lin
does not contest that he was not eligible for asylum based on his
wife’s forced abortion
. See Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309-12.
Moreover, contrary to Ou’s assertion, the factual record in the case
was “adequately developed” with respect to the issue of Ou’s “other
resistance” to the Chinese family planning policy. See Shu Wen Sun v.
BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 381 n.5 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that even if Ou did engage
in resistance to China’s family planning policy, he failed to
demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of that resistance. See
Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 313 (citing Matter of S-L-L, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 1, 10 (B.I.A. 2005)). Nothing in the record compels the
conclusion that Ou’s arrest, detention, and mistreatment upon his
repatriation to China were as a result of his resistance to China’s
population control policy as opposed to his violation of the country’s
immigration laws. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234,
239 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[P]unishment for violation of a generally
applicable criminal law is not persecution.”).

Because Ou’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were
based on the same factual predicate as his asylum claim, and the BIA
reasonably found that he was unable to meet his burden for asylum, he
was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed
on his claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
Dep’t. of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIAN YING ZHANG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
LIAN YING ZHANG, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 08-4563.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 18, 2009.
Opinion filed: January 6, 2010.
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION
PER CURIAM.

Lian Ying Zhang petitions for review of the October 27, 2008 decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we
will deny her petition for review.

Zhang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States
without inspection in April 2000. In 2005, when she was pregnant with
her second child, Zhang applied for asylum, withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that she
feared returning to China because she had a Chinese son (now in his
twenties who remained in China) and would soon have a second child in
violation of China’s one-child family planning policies.[ 1 ] Zhang
filed a tome of documents in support of her claim, including birth
certificates for her children, Fujian Province Birth Control
Regulations and Fujian Province administrative opinions and decisions
from 2003 regarding the treatment of foreign-born children for family
planning purposes in the cities of Changle and Fuzhou in Fujian
Province, numerous articles, affidavits (including the affidavit of
demographer Dr. John Aird), transcripts of Congressional testimony,
the State Department’s 2002 “Travel Tips,” and the State Department
Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China for 2005 (“2005
Country Report”).

Following a hearing, the IJ denied all relief, finding that Zhang
failed to demonstrate that she held a well-founded fear of
persecution. Specifically, the IJ found that although Zhang had
established through testimony, affidavits, and other evidence that she
had a genuine subjective fear of persecution upon her return to China,
she failed to show that she had an objectively reasonable fear that
she would be forcibly sterilized. The IJ noted Zhang’s evidence
purporting to show that she would have to register her American-born
child in China, including the affidavit of one individual, unknown to
Zhang personally, who returned to Fujian Province with two
foreign-born children and was forced to undergo sterilization. Relying
on the State Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims for China for 2005
(“2005 Profile”), and an opinion letter dated January 7, 2007, from
Julieta Valls Noyes, Director of the State Department’s Office of
Multilateral and Global Affairs (“2007 Opinion Letter”), the IJ
decided that “the matter of whether [Zhang’s] U.S. child will even be
counted against her total for family planning purposes is, at best,
disputed.” The IJ was unpersuaded that Zhang would be singled out for
persecution if she returned to China. The IJ found the affidavits of
Zhang’s cousins, attesting that they had been forcibly sterilized
after having two children, to be largely irrelevant because these
individuals did not have foreign-born children.

The IJ also found that Zhang failed to show that Fujian Province
engaged in a pattern or practice of forced sterilization in cases like
her own. The IJ found the bulk of Zhang’s documentary evidence to be
unpersuasive because it was outdated, addressed circumstances in a
different province, had been discredited (as in the case of the Aird
Affidavit), or because it did not tend to show that Fujian Province
engaged in mandatory forced sterilization or abortion as opposed to
assessing “social compensation fees” against violators of family
planning policy. While the IJ acknowledged that the State Department’s
2002 “Travel Tips” document stated that American-born children would
be treated as Chinese citizens if their Chinese parents had no
immigration status in the United States, she noted that the document
did not address specifically whether the children would be “counted”
against the parents for family planning purposes. Relying again on the
2005 Profile and the 2007 Opinion Letter, the IJ found that, in any
event, the record evidence “pointed to a marked decrease in
enforcement of the family planning policy through forced abortion
and/or sterilization and does not indicate that there is pattern or
practice of sterilizing individuals who return to China after having
children in the United States.
” (IJ Opinion, JA-15.)[ 2 ] The BIA
adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Zhang filed this timely
petition for review.

We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of the BIA
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d
Cir. 2001). “[W]hen the BIA both adopts the findings of the IJ and
discusses some of the bases for the IJ’s decision, we have authority
to review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.” Chen v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We review both decisions under a
substantial evidence standard. See Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477,
483 (3d Cir. 2001). Under this deferential standard of review, we will
uphold the findings of the BIA “unless the evidence not only supports
a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. at 484.

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate, among other
things, a well-founded fear of persecution based on both a
subjectively genuine fear of persecution and an objectively reasonable
possibility of persecution. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” See
Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1238 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting INS v.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

In her petition for review, Zhang claims that the IJ mischaracterized
the evidence, which, Zhang asserts, established that she would be
subject to forced sterilization if she returned to China with her
American-born child
. We disagree. According to the 2005 Profile and
the 2007 Opinion Letter upon which the IJ and the BIA relied, birth
planning policy in China is established nationally; the enforcement of
the policy is left to the provinces and local villages and can vary
widely from province to province and from village to village. (See
JA-1366; 1410.) The State Department acknowledges that forced
sterilization and abortions, which violate national law, continue to
be documented
.[ 3 ] (JA at 1367-68; 1410.) As for enforcement of birth
planning policy in Fujian Province, however, although “public and
other pressure” may be used to encourage compliance with birth
planning laws, United States officials “did not find any cases of
physical force employed in connection with abortion or sterilization”
in the last ten years. (2005 Profile, JA at 1370; 2007 Opinion Letter,
JA at 1410 (“Regarding the alleged existence of an official government
policy mandating the sterilization of one partner of couples that have
given birth to two children, U.S. officials in China are not aware of
such a policy at either the national or provincial level”)). In sum,
we conclude that the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions are supported by
substantial evidence.

Zhang also protests that the assessment of harsh and exorbitant social
compensation fees alone constitutes persecution in her case. The BIA
implicitly rejected Zhang’s argument when it concluded that she failed
to show a well-founded fear of persecution and affirmed the IJ’s
removal order. The BIA has addressed economic sanctions in Fujian
Province and has found that, at most, an alien would face “moderate
economic impact” not amounting to persecution. In re J-W-S-, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 185, 191 (BIA 2007); Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 164 (2d
Cir. 2008) (finding that the BIA in J-W-S- reasonably concluded that
the economic rewards and penalties used to implement the family
planning policy in Fujian Province did not necessarily amount to
“physical or mental coercion”). Here, Zhang offered no evidence
indicating that Fujian Province would impose more stringent and
punitive economic sanctions in her case than the moderate sanctions
Fujian Province normally imposes on its residents who violate the
family planning policy. The State Department documents on record
indicate only that Fujian Province imposes economic sanctions where
foreign-born children are registered as permanent residents. (See 2005
Profile, JA at 1374; 2007 Opinion Letter, JA at 1411.)[ 4 ] Thus,
there is simply nothing in the record that would compel us to conclude
that economic sanctions, if any, that Fujian Province might impose on
Zhang would be so exorbitant as to amount to persecution. Cf. Li v.
Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he deliberate
imposition of severe economic disadvantage which threatens a
petitioner’s life or freedom may constitute persecution.”).
Next, Zhang contends that the BIA failed to properly consider the
documents she submitted at the immigration hearing in support of her
claim.[ 5 ] Contrary to her assertion, the BIA “is not required to
`write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely
that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.'” Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241,
256 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th
Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted)). Here, the BIA acknowledged
the voluminous record in Zhang’s case and properly concluded that it
was insufficient to carry her burden of proof.

Zhang also argues that the BIA failed to remand her case to the IJ to
consider several documents that Zhang submitted for the first time on
appeal. The BIA declined to consider the additional documents, noting
that its review was “limited to the record as was constituted before
the Immigration Judge.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i) and (iv)
(“Except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts such
as current events or the contents of official documents, the Board
will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.”).
We cannot fault the BIA for not considering a remand to the IJ for
consideration of the additional documents, as Zhang did not file a
motion to remand, and mentioned “remand” only once in her brief before
the BIA.[ 6 ] See Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994)
(“Discretionary decisions of the BIA will not be disturbed unless they
are found to be `arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'”)
(quoting Chun Chung v. INS, 602 F.2d 608, 612 (3d Cir. 1998)).
Moreover, Zhang has not explained (either before us or to the BIA) why
the additional documents she submitted on appeal to the BIA were not
previously available or how the evidence, if considered, would change
the result in her case. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to
reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board
that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.”).

In sum, we cannot say that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary
to that of the BIA. See Yu v. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 346, 348-49
(holding that State Department Country Reports constituted substantial
evidence supporting the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s fear of forced
sterilization upon returning to China
was not objectively reasonable);
Chen, 376 F.3d at 223 (requiring asylum applicant to demonstrate by
“credible, direct, and specific evidence an objectively reasonable
basis for the claimed fear of persecution”). Accordingly, we will deny
the petition for review.

1. Zhang gave birth to her daughter, Zoe Chen, in 2006.

2. In the opinion, the IJ mistakenly referred to the 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims as “Exhibit 10.”

3. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

4. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

5. Among other evidence she claims the BIA failed to consider, Zhang
emphasizes Dr. Aird’s affidavit and accompanying materials.
(Petitioner’s Brief at 18-20.) In Yu v. Attorney General, 513 F.3d
346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008), we agreed with the BIA that the State
Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims and its Country Report on China,
both issued in 2005, tended to cast doubt on the utility of Dr. Aird’s
frequently-cited affidavit, which provided only generalized statements
regarding China’s family planning policies and did not specifically
address the issue of couples returning to China with foreign-born
children.

6. We note that twenty-one of the thirty documents contained in the
“new background material” appear to be in the record already. (Compare
background-index, JA at 90-97, with indices of documents submitted at
the removal hearing, JA at 1662-1665 & 1264-65.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YI MEI ZHU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
YI MEI ZHU; JIE JIANG, Petitioners,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent.
No. 09-1254.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 5, 2010.
Filed: January 13, 2010.
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.

Yi Mei Zhu (lead respondent) and her husband, Jie Jiang (derivative
respondent) petition for review of the final removal order issued by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Zhu’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons
set forth below, we will deny the petition.

We highlight only those facts that are pertinent to our analysis. Zhu
and Jiang, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China,
come from that country’s Fujian Province. They entered the United
States without valid visas or other entry documents. They conceded
removability and requested asylum, withholding of removal, relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure.
According to their testimony, Zhu and Jiang were married in a
traditional ceremony in 1995, but they could not register the marriage
with the government because Jiang was underage. Consequently, when Zhu
became pregnant in May 1995, she went into hiding to avoid the Fujian
Province family planning authorities. In November 1995, the
authorities tracked her down and took her to a local hospital against
her will where she received an injection to induce labor. She was then
transported immediately to the Fouchou City Hospital where she aborted
the pregnancy. Zhu was discharged from the hospital three days later.
Zhu and Jiang registered their marriage in March 1996 and, in February
1997, Zhu had a son. The family planning authorities forced Zhu to
have an intra-uterine device (IUD) inserted after their son’s birth.
When Zhu and Jiang decided to have a second child, they fled to avoid
China’s coercive family planning policies. Once in the United States,
Zhu had her IUD removed. Their second child was born in the United
States in 2004.

In support of her allegation that she underwent a forced abortion, Zhu
submitted her out-patient medical record from Fouchou City Hospital.

The Government submitted a State Department investigative report
indicating, among other things, that the contents of the out-patient
record were fabricated.[ 1 ] The Report was based on a certification
by the Deputy Director of the Fouchou City Hospital that the patient
record number “00025145” was not used in 1995; induced abortions could
not be done on an out-patient basis; standard medical terminology was
not used in the record; and the doctor or mid-wife whose signature
appeared on the document never worked at the hospital. (J.A . at 307.)
The IJ denied asylum relief as untimely and denied withholding of
removal and CAT relief because Zhu failed to show that she was
entitled to relief. The IJ cited certain evidentiary inconsistencies
and contradictions that had “a severe impact on the respondent’s
[Zhu’s] credibility.” (J.A. 37.) First, she noted inconsistencies in
the testimonies of Zhu’s husband and her sister concerning Zhu’s and
Jiang’s arrival in the United States. Second, the IJ found that the
investigative report, which indicated that Zhu’s out-patient medical
record was fabricated, seriously undermined her testimony about a
forced abortion in November 1995. The IJ thus concluded that, absent
credible evidence, Zhu failed to show that she had suffered past
persecution.

The IJ also found that Zhu failed to show a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on the State Department’s 2004 Country Report
on Human Rights Practices in China (2004 Country Report), which
indicated that China allowed couples to have two children if the
births were separated by a period of years. Noting that there was a
seven-year gap between the births of Zhu’s two children, the IJ
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the
respondents would be forcibly sterilized in China for having a second
child in the United States. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s untimeliness
determination as to asylum and her adverse credibility determination
as to all claims for relief, concluding that Zhu failed to meet her
burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief.

In most cases, we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal
involving the denial of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, 8
U.S.C. § 1158 provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review
any determination regarding the timeliness of an asylum application
and the applicability of the exceptions. See Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the REAL ID Act, we have
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but
not factual or discretionary determinations related to the timeliness
of an asylum application. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 634
(3d Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Zhu has not raised any legal
or constitutional claims regarding the IJ’s determination that her
asylum claim was untimely.[ 2 ] Because we lack jurisdiction to
consider her asylum application for timeliness, our review is limited
to issues relating to the denial of withholding of removal and relief
under the CAT.

To be eligible for withholding of removal, Zhu must demonstrate that
it is more likely than not that her life would be threatened in China
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion. Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at 186; 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). To be eligible for CAT relief, Zhu must
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

When, as here, the BIA substantially relies on the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, the Court reviews the decisions of both the
IJ and the BIA. Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We
may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the record permits but one
reasonable conclusion that was not the one reached by the Board.
I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The IJ’s adverse
credibility finding must be upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Fiadjoe v. Attorney
General, 411 F.3d 135, 153 (3d Cir. 2005). Only inconsistencies going
to the heart of the claims will be deemed to compromise credibility.[
3 ] Chukwu v. Attorney General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Zhu testified that Fujian Province Family Planning
authorities forced her to have an abortion very late in her pregnancy
in 1995, but she submitted a fabricated out-patient medical record as
corroborating proof. Her submission of a false document to support her
claim wholly undermined her credibility.
For this reason alone, a
reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding was erroneous. See Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at
187 (holding that an adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence, even where only some of the stated bases are
appropriate).[ 4 ]

Citing Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2004),[ 5 ]
she argues that the record lacks any evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could infer that Zhu knew that the out-patient medical
record was fabricated. (Pet. Br. at 7-8.) The Government counters that
we lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s argument because she failed to
present it before the BIA. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited under §
242(d)(1) of the INA, to cases where the petitioner “has exhausted all
administrative remedies available as of right . . . .” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(d)(1); see Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.
2003). A petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies if he
raises all issues before the BIA. Based on the notice of appeal and
Zhu’s brief before the BIA, we conclude that the BIA was not given
sufficient notice of Zhu’s claim that she was unaware that the medical
record was falsified. See Lin v. Attorney General, 543 F.3d 114, 121
(3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the
unexhausted claim.

Zhu also argues that the IJ erred in giving the investigative report
“enormous weight,” thereby failing to consider her credibility based
on her testimony and demeanor. We disagree. By crediting the State
Department’s investigative report, the IJ necessarily rejected Zhu’s
testimony that someone at Fouchou City Hospital gave her the
out-patient record personally while she was at the hospital and that
she kept the record in her special drawer for important documents in
her home in China, where it remained until her relatives retrieved it
and sent it to the United States at her request. (J.A. at 279-81.)
Even if Zhu’s demeanor was exemplary, faced with such contradictory
evidence, the IJ had to accept one piece of evidence and reject the
other. Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s
conclusion to credit the investigative report.[ 6 ] Hence, we are not
compelled to conclude that the IJ erred.

With respect to her well-founded fear of persecution claim, we agree
with the BIA that Zhu failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that
it is more likely than not that she or her husband would be sterilized
upon their return to China. The 2004 State Department Country Report
for China supports the conclusion that Zhu failed to show that her
fear of sterilization was objectively reasonable. See Yu v. Attorney
General, 513 F.3d 346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008); In re C-C-, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 899, 901-04 (BIA 2006) (concluding that, without additional
evidence to the contrary, recent State Department Country Reports
indicate that petitioner’s claimed fear of sterilization was not
reasonable). Zhu’s testimony provided no evidence contradicting the
Country Report.

Based on the foregoing, we concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding was amply supported by the record, and thus will not upset the
IJ’s determination that Zhu was not entitled to withholding of removal
or for relief under the CAT. We further conclude that the IJ’s
determination that Zhu failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we
will deny the petition for review.

1. The Report also verified the authenticity of the “periodic
gynecological examination certificate” Zhu submitted to support her
claim that her IUD was inserted by Family Planning authorities in
China, and noted the examiners’ unsuccessful attempts to authenticate
a letter from her husband’s employer. (J.A. at 306.)

2. The IJ ruled that Zhu failed to show that her asylum application
was timely based on “the obvious contradictions between the male’s
[Jiang’s] testimony and the testimony of the witness [Bo Yuan Zhu] and
the total lack of documentation [like an airplane ticket stub]
regarding the arrival of the female respondent [Zhu] into the United
States.” (J.A. 37) In her brief, Zhu claimed that the IJ erred as a
matter of fact in discrediting the evidence as to timeliness.

3. Section 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act “applies only to cases where
the applicant applied for asylum or other relief after May 11, 2005,”
and accordingly does not apply in this case. Chukwu v. Attorney
General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).

4. Although it does not change the result in this case, we note that,
in making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ inappropriately
relied on inconsistencies in testimony pertaining to the timeliness of
Zhu’s asylum application. These inconsistencies clearly do not go to
the heart of her past persecution claim.

5. In Yeimane-Berhe, the Ninth Circuit held that an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding based solely on a fraudulent medical record was
not supported by substantial evidence where there was no evidence that
the petitioner knew that the record was fabricated and nothing else in
the record suggested that the petitioner was not credible. 393 F.3d at
911-13.

6. Zhu’s assertion that the IJ should have taken into account the fact
that Chinese officials would not be willing to confirm that
persecution had occurred, is belied by the Chinese authorities
willingness to confirm the authenticity of the periodic gynecological
examination.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ZAI XIANG CHEN v. HOLDER
ZAI XIANG CHEN, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,[ 1 ] Respondent.
No. 08-6085-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 11, 2010.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Aviva L. Poczter, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Christopher P. McGreal, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
Zai Xiang Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, seeks review of a November 20, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming
the June 1, 2001 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) John Opaciuch,
which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zai Xiang
Chen, No. A076 388 443 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2008), aff’g No. A076 388 443
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 1, 2001). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as
the final agency determination. Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 362 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2004). The applicable standards of
review are well-established. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379
(2d Cir. 2007); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Chen asserts that he is eligible for relief from removal because his
wife was forced to undergo an abortion and to use an intrauterine
device.
It is unnecessary to examine the IJ’s credibility findings in
connection with this claim because even if such findings were flawed,
remand would be futile. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480
F.3d 104, 117 (2d Cir. 2007). We can predict with confidence that the
agency would reach the same result upon reconsideration of Chen’s
claim, because, pursuant to our decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 314 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), Chen is
not per se eligible for asylum based on his wife’s alleged
persecution.

Shi Liang Lin clarified that the spouse of a person who has been
forced to undergo a forced abortion or sterilization may qualify for
refugee status if he or she demonstrates past persecution or fear of
future persecution based on “other resistance to a coercive population
control program.”
494 F.3d at 314; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Before the IJ, Chen alleged that he quarreled with family planning
officials after they forced his wife to submit to an abortion, and
that the authorities wanted to arrest him as a result.
We do not
address whether such conduct could qualify as other resistance because
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chen’s
testimony with respect to the quarrel was not credible.
Notably,
Chen’s statements during his credible fear interview regarding the
circumstances of his escape from family planning officials were
inconsistent with his testimony before the IJ. Moreover, the IJ did
not err in finding sufficiently reliable the record of Chen’s credible
fear interview, which consisted of a verbatim transcript. See Ming
Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 722-26 (2d Cir. 2009).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

Other Items on CHINA- Here –

In an article in China’s People Daily entitled, China’s population policy draws wide praise September 29, 2009

Gill Greer, director-general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, told Xinhua that the family planning policy (of China) has contributed a great deal to China’s remarkable economic and social achievements over the past 30 years.

By adopting the population control policy, Greer said, China has reduced its population growth rate and alleviated problems from overpopulation.

“Thus, the policy is very conducive to China’s development in various aspects such as economy, education and health care services,” she said.

Perhaps a look at the beginnings of Planned Parenthood and their ties to Eugenics will explain their ability to turn the other way while women loose “Choice” in China – Watch Maafa21 for details (Clip Below)

READ: Social Justice on Immigration? Except for forced abortion victims- Board of Immigration again denies asylum

READ: Baby Almost Cremated Alive : Aborted baby cries before cremation

READ: China hunts down thousands to sterilize, Planned Parenthood calls policy a contributor to, “China’s remarkable economic and social achievement”

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/14/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/16/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/18/