Archive for birth control

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

Posted in Uncategorized 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.”

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.

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.

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

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

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, Guttmacher, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

A former Planned Parenthood president and vice president of the American Eugenics Society once advocated that if families did not limit births to just two children, then compulsory methods of population control could be necessary.  The idea, proposed by Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, a well-known eugenicist and one-time president of Planned Parenthood who established the Guttmacher Institute, came on the heels of radical proposals by Planned Parenthood board members and others that immediate compulsory means should be used to curtail population growth.

In 1970, Guttmacher addressed a group concerned about the so-called “population explosion.” Lee McCall, a reporter for the Sarasota Herald Tribune, attended the conference and noted that Guttmacher, as president of Planned Parenthood World Population “for the past eight years,” was invited to speak under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

McCall spoke with Guttmacher about “discussions” that had been floating around to limit children within families to “2 or 3.”

McCall wrote:

There has been discussion of limiting families to 2.2 children.

Dr. Guttmacher feels it inadvisable for Planned Parenthood to boldly vocalize such a plan.

‘It would be difficult,’ he said, ‘In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this.’

Despite his apparent hesitancy towards coercion, McCall goes on to quote Guttmacher as admitting that such a “plan” of compulsory population control would be “desirable.”

“So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time,” the former Planned Parenthood president told the reporter.

Keep in mind, this is the very organization which allegedly claims it was founded on freedom of choice. And Guttmacher was attempting to dispel the theory that abortion and birth control were racist efforts of genocide aimed to limit the birth rate of the Black community.

Racism seen as denting Birth Control 1966

This admission was profound and came shortly after the New York Times attempted to paint Guttmacher as a wanting “volunteer” birth control measures only.

In its 1969 article entitled, “Dr. Guttmacher is the Evangelist of Birth Control,” the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that many leaders sitting on Planned Parenthood’s board were in favor of coercive measures of population control. While painting the picture of an agency which was pushing birth control on the “ghetto” rather than the “middle-class” who were having more than the optimal amount of children, the paper noted that a “sizable” number of Planned Parenthood’s board was made up of “preponderantly white and well-to-do” people. They then quoted a Planned Parenthood board member who admitted the racist attitude of the organization, when he stated:

What it all comes down to is that we want the poor to stop breeding while we retain our freedom to have large families. It’s strictly a class point of view.

However, despite the majority of Planned Parenthood’s board holding a “class” point of view regarding who should be “encouraged” to use contraception, if Guttmacher was for “voluntary measures” of population control, compulsory measures were never ruled out.  Because, as the Planned Parenthood president saw it, if “voluntary measures” did not work, then force would be necessary.

This point of view can clearly be seen in a 1969 article from Medical World News Reports, in which Guttmacher floated the possibility that coercion could be used. His shocking statement was published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune where it quoted Guttmacher as suggesting that, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed.”

Guttmacher Compulsory Birth Control 1970

The following year (1970) Guttmacher told an audience at New Mexico State University that, “[…] if by 1990, the population is still growing at a rate of 2% then we must go to some kind of compulsory birth control.” (emphasis added).

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families saying, “It may be taken out of the voluntary category.”

In his 1959 book, “Babies by Choice or By Chance”, Guttmacher described the atomic bomb as “more merciless to our generation” and “more kinder to future generations” than “the explosion of the population bomb.” He bemoaned the fact that death rates were lowering, while birth rates were on the rise, writing, “Therefore if we want to decelerate the rate of population growth, it must be done by conception control.”

Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmacher

This idea of temporary volunteerism was also noted by author Angela Franks, who wrote in her book, “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility”, that, “in the late 1960’s, Guttmacher put a limit on volunteerism: if we don’t see a population decline by 1980, he said, ‘we’ll have to get tough.’”

The fact is that Guttmacher’s ideas of forced or compulsory population control measures were in lock-step with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. After all, they were both members of the very racist American Eugenics Society, with Guttmacher serving as the group’s vice-president. As Live Action News has documented in the past, Sanger made sure that Planned Parenthood was knee deep in eugenics.

But, rarely reported by contemporary media is the fact that Sanger once suggested that parents should be required to have a “license” to even be allowed to have children at all.

License to Breed Margaret Sanger

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger outlined her plan article by article, which read in part (emphasis mine):

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

While Sanger’s plan may have been viewed as extreme in her day, and the idea of coercion may have been chided as evoking a potential backlash against Planned Parenthood, my colleague, Kelli wisely observed that the “two-child idea” advocated by Guttmacher was just as eugenic. In a recent Live Action News report, Kelli noted that the, “[…] view of ‘two children and no more’ has its roots in the eugenics movement, and at the heart of the eugenics movement lies Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger and her friends advocated population control for the ‘unfit’, while today’s eugenicists tend to couch their beliefs about family size in terms of environmental concerns.

Despite that fact that Guttmacher and Sanger were both (as eugenicists) concerned that the world population was a threat, it was under Guttmacher’s leadership that Planned Parenthood first vocalized abortion as part of the answer to “over-population.”

He noted this approval in the 1970 interview where he stated:

If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies – rejected children, battered baby syndrome and illegal abortions.

And, in that same year, Guttmacher admitted to a 1970 Cornell Symposium, (according to an April 7, 1970 article published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette), that although he did not know when life began, he believed that “unlimited abortion” was the only way to reduce population growth saying:

There is no question that the most effective way of reducing population growth is by unlimited abortion.

Today, Alan Guttmacher is painted by some as a hero of “reproductive rights” despite his promotion of coerced population control and abortion.  And, Guttmacher was correct about one thing, and that is that abortion has been an effective tool in the limitation of births. This was recently acknowledged by pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

It is no surprise that Guttmacher’s namesake institution, the Guttmacher Institute would later be referred to as a “research arm” and a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood.  After all, on their website, his Institute describes Guttmacher by saying, “No one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission.”

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

Yes, Planned Parenthood’s founder spoke to the Klan – but the photo is a fake

Posted in Eugenics, Eugenics in Arkansas, Hilda Cornish, Klan, Margaret Sanger and AES, Margaret Sanger and Klan, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood Maggie Awards, Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2017 by saynsumthn

With the topic of America’s history in racism once again a focus in the news, a fake image of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger speaking to the Klu Klux Klan has been circulating online. While the image is not real, what is quite real is the fact that Sanger, a proponent of eugenics, spoke to a meeting of the women’s branch of KKK in 1926.

The event took place in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and Sanger described in it in her autobiography:

I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…. I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…. I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Sanger called that event “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.”

That being said, the image below, which purports to show Sanger giving that speech before her adoring Klan supporters is not authentic. The image was part of a blogger’s photo contest.

Photo of Margaret Sanger W/ KKK is fake

Sanger and Klan image was part of blog photo contest in 2005 — it is not authentic.

The Sanger/Klan fake was published by the “Margaret Sanger Blog Spot” which held an annual photo contest because, in the blog’s words, “The Big Abortion Industry still holds Margaret Sanger out as an icon. Artwork is one more important ways to promote the truth about Margaret Sanger.”

The blog’s instructions for the contest were to “commemorate Sanger at the Klan rally in unique artistic ways,” including “modern interpretations of Sanger speaking to the Klan.”

But Sanger’s views were so outrageous in and of themselves that there is no need to circulate inaccurate depictions, which could lead to attempts to discredit her meeting with the Klan altogether.

Sanger has a very controversial history as an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics and a member of the American Eugenics Society. This philosophy not only fed her work within the Planned Parenthood movement, but her lesser known advocacy of euthanasia as well. The organizations Sanger founded, such as The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and later, Planned Parenthood, also have ties to many eugenics proponents.

Clarence Cook Little

Clarence C. Little

One of those connections was a man by the name of Clarence Cook Little.

According to a biographical memoir published by the National Academy of Sciences, Little held various distinguished positions. He was the president of the University of Maine and of the University of Michigan, and he was the managing director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer.

He was named the director of The Jackson Laboratory and later accepted a position as scientific director of the Tobacco Industrial Research Committee. He was also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences.

Sadly, Little was also president and founding member of The American Eugenics Society, as well as a board member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League. He was also the Birth Control Federation President, and sat on the previously mentioned American Euthanasia Society board.

Little was also listed on the 1938 Committee for Planned Parenthood.

CC Little ties to Eugenics and Sanger’s ABCL

Little has since been denounced by some in modern society who have called for his name to be removed from the University of Michigan’s science building for his belief in eugenics. An op-ed penned by the daughter of an interracial couple and a student at the University of Michigan published last year by MTV.com shows the disdain for Little:

There is a building (and a bus stop) on the University of Michigan campus named for Clarence Cook (C.C.) Little. He was the University’s president in 1925, and an outspoken “scientific” racist and eugenicist, who believed that “inferior” races should undergo involuntary sterilization. I often sat at the bus stop bearing his name while I waited to go to class. Little would have hated that.

Despite the merit of these denouncements, few have expressed concern over Little’s ties to Planned Parenthood’s history.

Hilda Cornish

Another interesting eugenics connection to both Sanger and Planned Parenthood is a woman by the name of Hilda Kahlert Cornish. Hilda Cornish chaired the Arkansas Eugenics Association. According to a 1986 article in an Arkansas newspaper, Cornish received much of her counsel directly from Margaret Sanger. In fact, the Blytheville Courier Press notes that the sons of the two leaders were roommates at Yale University.

The documentary film on eugenics, Maafa21 (clipped below) details disturbing connections the Arkansas Eugenics Association had to Planned Parenthood:

The film states:

From its beginning, Planned Parenthood always had powerful ties to the American Eugenics community. In fact, in many places they were often one in the same.

For example, when the first birth control clinic was opened in Arkansas, it was operated by the Arkansas Eugenics Association and overseen by a woman named Hilda Cornish.

Later, the Arkansas Eugenics Association would become the Arkansas State Affiliate of Planned Parenthood and Cornish would be named its executive director.

Documents obtained by Live Action News confirm this fact.

A 1945 Planned Parenthood directory reveals that Mrs. Edward Cornish was the director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Arkansas. Cornish was active with the Democrat Party and married to banker Edward Cornish, according to Arkansas historians.

She is also listed as a member of the American Eugenics Society.

According to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas:

In the summer of 1930, [Cornish] met Margaret Sanger… The two developed a friendship maintained by correspondence and occasional meetings. During that summer, Cornish visited Sanger’s Clinical Research Bureau in New York, and she launched the Arkansas birth control movement later that same year.

At Cornish’s initiative, a group of physicians, business and religious leaders, and women active in civic work formed the Arkansas Eugenics Association (AEA)…. In early 1931, the association opened the Little Rock Birth Control Clinic in the basement of Baptist Hospital…. Cornish also worked with the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control.

The online historical site added that in 1942, The Arkansas Eugenics Association changed its name… to the Planned Parenthood Association of Arkansas.

Segregated Clinics

Authors of the bookHidden Histories of Women in the New South, noted that the “first report of the Arkansas Eugenics Association stated that the Little Rock clinic registered 161 White women during its first eleven months of service.”

The book concludes that Cornish was more aligned with promoting birth control than the national eugenics movement. (That being said, Sanger herself wanted to merge her publications with the national eugenics organization.)

The book‘s authors reveal that the clinic “directed its efforts towards poor women only,” yet they imply a prejudice against Blacks by writing that “African American women were not invited to the [Arkansas Eugenics] clinic from its start in 1931.”

www.AbortionProcedures.com click here for facts on abortion

The authors add that “until 1937, only white women actually had the opportunity to receive services” and the organization “held separate hours for white and African American women.” The book also notes that “most of [the American Birth Control League’s] clinics were segregated.” The ABCL later changed its name to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood’s beloved founder Margaret Sanger reached out to many people who saw Blacks as less than equal, and this includes the Klan and the Eugenics movement.

Today, many believe that Sanger’s racist ideologies have penetrated much of her work. And even without an image to document Sanger’s speech before the Klan, Planned Parenthood knows her history, as revealed in her own autobiography.

Instead of repudiating Sanger, taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood honors her as a hero, naming their most prestigious award after her. It’s despicable.

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

Federal Health Centers (FQHCs) can handle Planned Parenthood patients if defunded

Posted in FQHC, HRSA, Planned Parenthood abortion stats, Planned Parenthood and FQHC with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

Could Federally Qualified Health Centers handle Planned Parenthood’s patient load? The data says yes.

Despite the fact that Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) provide comprehensive health services to women, the media continues to prop up Planned Parenthood as if it is the only provider of women’s reproductive healthcare. While Planned Parenthood continues to receive over half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, its patient load and services continues to decrease, year after year.

If major media outlets would analyze Planned Parenthood’s own reports (as Live Action has done), perhaps they would notice that while the organization has increased its abortion market share, its other services — like Pap tests, breast exams, and even contraception services — have decreased significantly.

Ignoring these facts, the prevailing claim by the media – often quoting the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former research arm and “special affiliate” – is that if Planned Parenthood is defunded, women will have no place to go to receive health services.

This claim is patently false and was previously dismantled by the defenders of ObamaCare:

study on the effects of the Affordable Care Act, conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and health care company Athenahealth, which gathered data from 15,700 of Athenahealth’s clients, found that new patient visits to primary care physicians only increased slightly. It was anticipated that uninsured patients now gaining insurance might have unmet medical needs, and their demand for services might overwhelm the capacity of primary care doctors. But according to the study, this idea proved false. Kathy Hempstead, director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, told USA Today that the study “suggests that, even though there’s been a big increase in coverage, it’s a relatively small part of the market and the delivery system is able to handle the demand.”

In other words, yes, FQHCs can handle Planned Parenthood’s patient load. After all, Planned Parenthood has lost more than half a million patients (600,000) since 2011, while taxpayer-funded health centers, as identified by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), saw a 2 million patient increase by 2015, providing care to 24,295,946 patients.

Additional data shows:

  • In 2015, federal health centers performed mammograms on over 521,000 patients – an increase from 470,000 in 2014. Planned Parenthood performed zero, because Planned Parenthood facilities do not have mammogram machines.
  • In 2015, Planned Parenthood breast exams dropped 12 percent from 2014. Stunningly, from 2005 to 2015, breast exams declined by more that 62 percent (842,399 to 321,700).
  • In 2015, federal health centers administered over 1.8 million Pap tests to patients — an increase from 1.7 million in 2014Planned Parenthood‘s 2015 report reveals that between 2005 (1,116,681) and 2015 (293,799), Pap tests (tests for detecting cervical cancer) at Planned Parenthood declined nearly 74 percent (73.68%).
  • The most recent figures show that cancer screenings continue to decline at Planned Parenthood. From 2005 (2,009,835) to 2015 (665,234), cancer screenings plummeted nearly 67 percent (66.90%).
  • In 2015, federal health centers cared for a total of 552,000 prenatal patients — an increase from 528,000 prenatal patients in 2014; yet Planned Parenthood’s prenatal services were nearly cut in half in the last year (17,419 in 2014 to 9,419 in 2015) a trend that has continued for years. From 2005 (13,261) to 2015 (9419), prenatal care dropped nearly 29 percent (28.97%) .
  • Recently released Planned Parenthood numbers reveal that in 2015, contraception services at the abortion corporation decreased 4.6 percent from the previous year. In the past ten years (2005 vs. 2015), contraception services at Planned Parenthood decreased by 25 percent to their lowest in years.

Knowing that this data comes directly from Planned Parenthood, keep in mind where the media got its idea about FQHCs being unable to handle Planned Parenthood’s patient influx. It comes from a study conducted by Guttmacher, which compared the 2015 contraception care services at Planned Parenthood centers (PP), Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) sites, and Title X facilities.

However, a review of that study shows that the claim that defunding Planned Parenthood would leave women with no place to go is far-reaching and deceptive. Remember: Guttmacher is a former special affiliate to Planned Parenthood, and Guttmacher also receives taxpayer funding. It has also received funding from Planned Parenthood, so it has good incentive to keep these tax dollars flowing. As I noted in a previous article:

Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation also found evidence that indeed, in its 2007 tax filing, Planned Parenthood still listed Guttmacher as an “independent affiliated organization” which was receiving money from the abortion giant. Bomberger wrote, “Planned Parenthood… gave $2,142,076 of our tax dollars to their ‘research’ arm, Guttmacher….”

The money flowed both ways:

… [W]hile Planned Parenthood… was funneling money into Guttmacher,  Guttmacher was also receiving taxpayer dollars – and funneling a significant amount of money back to Planned Parenthood…. Guttmacher’s payouts to Planned Parenthood total around $40 million.

Guttmacher tax funding 2015 and 2016

In addition, this particular study’s focus was just contraceptive care, not on all the services offered by FQHCs.

In a May 2017 article, Guttmacher states:

In 2015, out of the over 9,600 total FQHC sites in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 5,830 of them (60%) reported offering contraceptive care to at least 10 women each year; this subset of sites are counted among the nation’s 10,700 safety-net family planning centers.

If we break this down, we see that there are 9600 FQHC sites (which offer a vast array of health care services) while according to Guttmacher, only 60 percent offered contraception services to ten or more clients. That still leaves 5,830 sites.

But what about Planned Parenthood? Today, the organization’s website shows 600 facilities across the US – a decrease from the 800 it operated just ten years ago.

To compare, 600 Planned Parenthoods offer contraception services while almost 6,000 (5,830 according to Guttmacher) FQHCs offer those services. I’m just not seeing the problem here, even though Guttmacher says Planned Parenthood serves slightly more contraception clients than FQHCs do.

Even Guttmacher was forced to admit that “FQHCs now operate many more individual family planning sites than do Planned Parenthood affiliates” and that “Planned Parenthood health centers account for just 6% of all safety-net family planning providers.” Therefore, if Planned Parenthood is defunded, FQHCs could likely accommodate the influx of contraception patients. After all, it is possible that many of Planned Parenthood’s clients are already using FQHCs for primary care services not available at Planned Parenthood. And if that is the case, an influx of Planned Parenthood’s clients to FQHCs may not be nearly as large as their supporters claim. FQHC sites outnumber Planned Parenthoods in counties that provide contraception care in every state except Connecticut, Minnesota and the District of Columbia (table 1/page 1).

While politicians continue to force taxpayers to send Planned Parenthood half a billion dollars each year, the organization’s private donations have increased by 26 percent, swelling by an additional $92 million in 2015-2016. (The total private donations in 2015-2016 were $445.8 million.) This cash flow enabled Planned Parenthood to end its year with an excess of $77.5 million in 2015, an increase of nearly 39 percent from 2005 when they netted $55.8 million. Planned Parenthood has been netting a profit for many years, with yearly surpluses ranging from $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010).

At the same time, Planned Parenthood has lost over half a million patients, but has succeeded in cornering nearly 35 percent of the abortion market in the US, committing more than 320,000 abortions annually – 900 per day, one every 96 seconds.

American women do not need Planned Parenthood, and the taxpayers should no longer be forced to fund the largest abortion corporation in the nation..

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

Planned Parenthood, TitleX, eugenics, racism and Richard Nixon

Posted in Bush, Bush Family, Planned Parenthood Republicans, Richard Nixon, Title X with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 16, 2015 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood recently sent out a tweet that reads, “#TitleX, the nation’s 46-year old family planning program was created by Republican Pres. Nixon. It’s not controversial, it’s common sense.

PP Tweets Title X Richard Nixon

They appear to be upset because House GOP lawmakers have prioritized the elimination of all Title X funding, i.e. tax funded “family planning,” because they believe that limiting births saves the US taxpayer millions of dollars.

PP TitleX Saves Taxpayers

But, this blog post is not about the specifics of Title X or if it saves taxpayers with it’s eugenics ideas. It is about the things Planned Parenthood’s hero for family planning, Richard Nixon, believed in.

Just what was Nixon’s views on abortion and family planning?

Nixon was enthusiastic about a federal family planning initiative for low-income women that he declared it a “national goal” in 1969 before signing Title X into law.

It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.
~
President Richard Nixon, 1969

george-h-w-bushGeorge Bush Senior created the National Center for Population and Family Planning in the Department of Health Education and Welfare also know as HEW. “Population Control and Family Planning is to important to giggle about now“, said Bush Sr. in 1969. Bush Sr’s interest in family planning started with his activity with Planned Parenthood in Houston.

Bush once stated:

    “We need to make population and
    family planning household words.
    We need to take sensationalism out
    of this topic so that it can no longer
    be used by militants who have no
    real knowledge of the voluntary
    nature of the program but, rather
    are using it as a political
    steppingstone. If family planning is
    anything, it is a public health matte
    r

.”
~ Congressman George H.W. Bush, 1969

Planned Parenthood fundraising letter of January 8, 1947, lists George H Bush’s father, Prescott S. Bush as treasurer of Margaret Sanger’s first national fundraising drive. In 1950, during Prescott’s first race for the U.S. Senate, the syndicated columnist Drew Pearson accused Bush of being a member of Planned Parenthood. Bush lost and accused Pearson of spreading the lie that cost him elected office. This fund-raising letter proved Pearson right.

PrescottBushSanger

Like his father, Prescott, George H. W. Bush became a vocal advocate for Planned Parenthood’s agenda while he served as a U. S. Congressman from Texas. He wrote a constituent in 1970: “I introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.” (George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970 [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Nixon stressed that under “no circumstances” would birth control activities be allowed to “infringe upon the religious or personal wishes and freedom of any individual.

Nixon Birth COntrol Religious Title X Nixon Birth COntrol Religious Title X Guttmacher

Yet today, Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and specifically the “birth control” mandate put in place by President Obama with the support of Planned Parenthood we are witnessing just that religious infringement.

Nixon then recommended a “Commission on Population Growth and the American Future“.

The bill authorizing this new initiative had been passed with overwhelming support from Congressional Democrats and was chaired by John Rockefeller. The Executive Director of the project was to be Dr. Charles F. Westoff who was also a member of both the American Eugenics Society and Planned Parenthood’s National Advisory Council.

According to the documentary film Maafa21, Nixon would label birth control a national priority and sign legislation to make it available as a service of the U.S. government.

Nixon signs Commission on Popualtion Growth American Future eugenics maafa21

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

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

This Commission and move was headed by John D. Rockefeller and applauded by former Planned Parenthood vice president Fredrick Jaffe.

Commission on Poulation Growth Beasley Westoff Rockfeller

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

Charles Westoff PP and AES Commission on Population

It was also led by Charles Westoff a member of Planned Parenthood World Population’s board as well as a member of the American Eugenics Society.

Jesse Jackson

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

NIXON’S RACIST ABORTION STATEMENTS:


Previously released Nixon tapes show Nixon wanted abortion for Racist reasons ( From the documentary on Black Genocide: Maafa21.
)

Although the quality of the recordings are poor, Nixon and an aide held a conversation recorded on January 23, 1973, discussing that day’s Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

NIXON Tape #697-29

Nixon: “A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well, certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what’s going to be aborted generally are the little black bastards.”

nixon

NIXON TAPE 700-10

Nixon: ” … as I told you and we talked about it earlier, that a hell of a lot of people want to control all the Negro bastards.”

nixon2

Unidentified Staff: “Yeah

Nixon: “Isn’t that really true?

Nixon: “You know what we are talking about – Population Control?”

Unidentified Staff: “Sure

Nixon: “We’re talking really – and what John Rockefeller really realizes – look, the people in what we call the “our class” control their populations. Sometimes they’ll have a family of six, or seven, or eight, or nine, but it’s an exception.”

Unidentified Staff: Sure

Nixon: “People who don’t control their families are people in- the people who shouldn’t have kids.”

nIXON ABORTIO N BIRACIAL bLACK wHITE

Here Nixon says that abortion is needed in some cases: like when you have a “Black and a White”

I know that there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that,” Nixon tells an aide, then adding, “When you have a black and a white.”

The aide interrupts, “or for rape,” to which Nixon quickly responds, “or rape.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More on Planned Parenthood’s Republican cronies here.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blacks Recognized the racism of family planning and abortion early on and it threatened Republican Richard Nixon:

Even though Black reporter, Samuel Yette was also one of the first and very distinguished Black journalists to work for Newsweek, after he published his book, The Choice” which exposed high level attempts of Black Genocide through birth control , abortion, and additional means , he was fired by Newsweek. Yette claims his superiors told him that the “Nixon Whitehouse” wanted him out of Washington.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Samuel Yette:My Book, “The Choice”", posted with vodpod

In One chapter on Birth Control

Yette exposes President Nixon’s White House Conference on Food and Nutrition of December 2-4, 1969. In Mr. Yette’s words it, “was worse than a farce.” President Nixon opened the conference with 3 recommendations designed to reduce the number of hungry people! He suggested no measures for the relief of hunger in America.

1. He wanted everyone to have a guaranteed minimum income of $1,600 a year. (This is less than welfare was paying at that time.)
2. A supposed expansion of the food stamp program that would be tied into and compliment the welfare reform package in #1. (His plan would have actually reduced the amount of food stamps. Less money + less food =more hunger.)
3. Provide family planning services to at minimum 5 million women in low-income families.

This last proposal was part of a plan formulated by Dr. Charles Lowe of the National Institute of Health. The plan recommended Congress pass a law that:

1. Made birth control information and devices available to any and all girls over the age of 13 with or without parental consent.
2. Allowed mandatory abortions for unmarried girls within the 1st three months of pregnancy.
3. Mandatory sterilization for any unmarried girl giving birth out of wedlock for the 2nd time.

In that book, Yette describes how civil rights activist, Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer was at that Conference on hunger. When she heard about the birth control proposals she grabbed about a dozen young black men, walked into the room, and demanded to be heard. She spoke about ten minutes on the evil results of this plan and the conference dropped it from consideration.

THE COVER BLOWN:

According to Samuel Yette, Black Civil Right Advocate Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamerhad a passion for her people and her interest and understanding of how powerful the political process was in America led her and others to create the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to challenge the Credential Committee in Atlantic City, New Jersey in 1964 to be seated rather than the regular Democrats who they exclaimed were “illegally elected” based on discriminatory practices against blacks statewide. “We Will Not Accept The Compromise”, stated Mrs. Hamer.

Below are exerts of an eye opening incident Ms. Hamer experienced in the realm of Black Genocide written by journalist Samuel Yette :

Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer was Tough Fighter The Afro American – Apr 2, 1977 By Samuel Yette

YetteArticleFannieLouHamer

” 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…For these and other reasons the recent death of Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer …was noted here and across the nation not only with personal sadness, but also with stern political reflection.

When the charades of Richard Nixon included a White House Conference on hunger in 1969, Mrs. Hamer was among the hundreds of authentic grass-roots persons brought here to confir with the highly paid experts.

But the conference (whose name was changed from a conference on hunger to a conference on “Food and Nutrition”) was in reality, one great fraud against the poor.

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.

For example, a panel of medical experts pretended to be studying was to insure proper nourishment for babies and pregnant women. Instead it adopted-in the name of the poor at the conference- a resolution providing for:

– Birth Control devices for young girls, free, and with or without parental approval;

– Required abortions of unmarried girls discovered during the first three months of pregnancy; and

– Forced sterilization of any such girl giving birth out of wedlock a second time.

Only one black person-a nurse-was a member of that panel.

Yette continues, In my reportorial role, I found Mrs. Hamer for a reaction to the newly passed resolution.

She responded with shock and outrage at the deception, “I didn’t come to talk about birth control, ” she protested, ” I came here to get some food to feed poor, hungry people, Where are they carrying on that kind of talk?”

Hearing the location of the panel, she gamely pulled herself up on a cane, and made her way to the panel’s meeting room. Along the way she beckoned several black men, who followed seriously intent on doing her will.

She went straight to the front of the room and demanded to be heard.

With the power and conviction of personal tragedy, she told how she, herself, had once been sterilized under the guise of an unrelated surgical procedure. She told how such tools as their resolution in the hands of racist medical personnel would mean tragedy for the black and poor.

Finally, with several large black men at her side, Mrs. Hamer demanded that the resolution be reconsidered. It was, and voted down. But she could not stand and watch forever.

Though she saw the deception and illuminated the society’s most immoral contradictions , she, like the hope and moral vigor of he 1960’s ran out…

The author of the tribute above, Mr. Samuel Yette also suffered persecution for exposing the sinister plot to exterminate blacks with population control methods.

Samuel Yette’s stand is documented in a powerful documentary called Maafa21. this film is carrying on the message Mr. Yette began- that there are Elite efforts to exterminate the Black race in America. Below is the trailer for Maafa21, order the full 2.5 hour DVD here.

After watching Maafa21 and learning just how racist Planned Parenthood is you will see why they would say that what Richard Nixon stood for is NOT controversial.

Planned Parenthood tells teens to bring condoms to prom

Posted in Planned Parenthood prom with tags , , , on May 27, 2015 by saynsumthn

So, you are sending your teen off to the prom.

You went shopping…bought that perfect outfit.

You paid to get their hair and nails done, maybe rented a car, she has her date – you snap a picture

… and …

Oh… Wait a minute….

As your teen exits you ask them,”Do you have a condom?

Uh – NO!!!!

But, the largest chain of abortion clinics and raunchy sex-advise does:

Capture

You can’t make this stuff up.

Birth Control and the Church how did we get here ?

Posted in birth control, Birth Control and Eugenics, Birth Control and the Church, Church Timeline on Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

A documentary film series produced in 2013, but one I have only recently viewed, maintains that the modern church’s stand in accepting birth control is contrary to centuries of early church teaching.

Kevin Peeples Birth COntrol The MOvie

Birth Control The Movie was directed by Kevin Peeples based on his own personal journey to answer the question: As a Christian, is birth control up to us?

Little did he realize that his journey coincided with producers Scott Matthew Dix and Nathan Nicholson.

The series consists of two DVD’s: BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?, which looks into why there is no fundamental difference between the Church of Jesus Christ, and the world, on the issue of child prevention.

And Birth Control is it up to us?

Birth COntrol how did we get here is it up to us

For the purpose of this blog, I will review BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?

The film features interviews with authors, historians, theologians, radio talk show hosts and others, such as Dr. George Grant, Dr. Allan Carlson, Geoffrey Botkin, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Lila Rose, Kevin Swanson, and Julie Roys.

RC Sproul JR

The Bible says that the serpent is more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. There are a million ways in which the serpent has gotten the church to think his thoughts after him. This is one of those places where we are fed in our selfishness of viewing children as a burden. But, we’ve got a calling to make manifest the reign of Jesus over all things. And that’s why now and always we have the obligation to raise up godly seed…” says Christian minister R.C. Sproul Jr.

Experts in the film maintain that today the Christian use of birth control is based in selfishness over money, materialism and convenience, but that this attitude is a new one that has not been upheld over the centuries of Biblical teaching. Basically saying that the church abandoned it’s historical positions on family and children and the command to procreate and has used the issues of the day to approach scripture rather than using scripture to define the issues of the day.

The film begins with a verse out of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and makes the claim that from the beginning God ordained children for marriage.

One of our weaknesses in the modern church is all we know about is the modern church,” the film begins.

It has only been in the twentieth century with the influence if evolution and eugenics that Christians have publicly embraced the lifestyle of child prevention as Biblical theology. So how did we get here?” they ask.

George Grant

What first caught my eye when I watched the trailer for the film was that author and teacher George Grant who wrote the book, “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood” was featured in the film.

Gran Illusions O1,204,203,200_

I have already done timelines for eugenics and also for how the church accepted abortion prior to it’s legalization so watching this compilation of the acceptance of birth control sparked my curiosity.

Birth control was coined by Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood the film points out but was never the mandate of God’s people who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply according to Genesis and continues into the New Testament of the Holy Bible where the family is elevated over and over again.

In historical terms, the film goes through several Biblical eras where the family or the “dominion mandate” is again upheld as commanded in Genesis.

As a student of eugenics I was aware of how the idea of limiting births came about- beginning with Thomas Malthus and leading to eugenics and abortion.

The concept of breeding the so-called superior over the inferior was imperative to Malthus as well as limiting the looming population time bomb, producers claim.

Next, the film lays out an interesting timeline of how the church went from complete opposition to contraception and the limitation of children by unnatural means to one of accepting it in just over forty years.

One of the main forces driving the decline of fertility in the United States was the rise of the industrial revolution, the timeline begins.

Malthus and Darwin

The timeline goes through the teachings of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose ideas of evolution laid a groundwork for the eugenics movement.

It then explains the Comstock laws which prohibited contraception, put in place by Anthony Comstock until they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

Anthony COmstock

The film describes Anthony Constock as a young Christian who saw contraception as “the devil’s attack on young people. He frames contraception as one that had to be tied to abortion and pornography.”

Margaret Sanger

What makes the documentary unique is the way it details not only the views of so-called “birth control pioneer” Margaret Sanger who eventually locked into the views of eugenics but also the way it details how the church initially opposed the idea of fertility limitation before eventually accepting it.

In 1874, the average clergy person had 5.2 living children, the film points out.

Keep that stat in mind because the film will soon reveal how quickly it changes.

    In the 1880’s, Nevada dramatically weakened their marriage laws by making divorce laws easy.

Francis Galton

    Around that same time, Sir Francis Galton coins the term “eugenics.”
    In 1890, the Lutheran Church Missouri Senate pastors had 6.5 children in the US.
    In 1896, the Comstock laws were challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld.
    By 1901, there was a transition away from and agricultural based economy to a machine based one.

Lambeth Conf contraception

    1908, at the Anglican Church’s 5th Lambeth Conference Bishops earnestly called upon all Christian people to, “discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.”

    But, by 1911, the birthrate of Anglican children falls 55% to only 2.3 children.

What this stat showed, according to the film, was that Bishops and clergymen were engaging in the practice of contraception, while calling it a sin at the same time.

1912 firist international congress on eugenics

By 1912, the first international congress on eugenics commences. It’s leaders strongly embraced evolution and Sanger meets eugenics influences.

Sangers the Woman Rebel

By 1914, Sanger launched the “Woman Rebel” a newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “no gods no masters.”

Sanger wrote, “[Our objective] is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

Sanger most merciful thing

The film camps on Margaret Sanger for a while detailing her charges under the Comstock laws, her flight to England to avoid those charges, her various meetings with Malthusians, her introduction to eugenics and her return to the United States.

If she could argue for birth control using the so-called scientifically verifiable threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and over-population as it’s back drop. Then, she could have a much better chance at making her case,” Grant says.

But, the film states, it was eugenics that left a lasting impression on Margaret Sanger.

Sanger, the film says, cunningly used the divisions between Protestants and Catholics at the time to convince Protestants that birth control was a Catholic issue alone.

    By 1916, Sanger illegally opened the first back ally birth control clinic which was shot down in less than two weeks.

But, all this talk of contraception was taking a toll on the church, as the film points out:

    BY 1918, just after World War 1, the birth rate of Lutheran Church Missouri Senate Pastors fell 40% to 3.7 children.
    In 1920, the Lambeth Conference gave this warning, “We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception.”

    American Birth Control League 1921 Margaret Sanger

    But, by 1921, Margaret Sanger and her cronies lobby Anglican Bishops throughout the decade and Sanger’s American Birth Control League is formed.

Lila Rose

In starting the American Birth Control League,” Live Action founder Lila Rose says.

Margaret Sanger wanted to make birth control something that was socially acceptable. Because at he time it was seen as very taboo. It was seen as something that was antithetical to loving marriages that were open to children and very open to life. So, she wanted to popularize it especially to limit children and families that she thought shouldn’t be procreating and should be having no children or only a few,” Rose adds.

    By 1921, the second international eugenics congress was held in New York City.
    In 1923, the Lutheran Church, Missouri City’s official magazine, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of “spattering the country with slime,” and labeled Margaret Sanger a “she devil.

    Sanger lectures KKK 1926
    In 1926, Sanger establishes the “Clinical Research Bureau,” she also meets with the Klu Klux Klan.
    By 1929, Sanger had founded the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in an attempt to overturn restrictions on contraception under the Comstock laws.

Lambeth COnferenec 7th allows contraception

A major turning point for the church was the 1930 Lambeth conference, for the first time, Anglicans allowed the use of contraception by stating, “In those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.”

Around this same time, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod dropped its campaign against the BCFA. But, the film points out that while some Protestants were liberalizing the use of contraception, the Catholic Church was holding fast to its prohibition.

In 1936, the Comstock Act was struck down by a test case set up by Margaret Sanger. It held the Act could not ban shipments originating from a doctor and held a distinction between moral and immoral uses of contraception.

The next year the American Medical Society upheld the use of contraception.

Margaret Sanger Negro project

    In 1939, World War 11 begins and Sanger enacts her Negro Project.

By 1945, the public is becoming aware of the horrors of the Nazi eugenic program. Sanger has connections to some of those who helped Hitler’s regime, such as Ernst Rudin.

Margaret Sanger   birth control the movie

Despite her connections to Hitler and eugenics, Grant points out that Margaret Sanger has been reinvented as a heroine.


“No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler,
” Grant states.

George Grant

Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names forever live in infamy. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped this wretched fate. In spite of her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or the other with the intentions, theologies, and movements of the other three. Sanger’s faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory,” he states.

BCFA Planned Parenthood 1942 and 1944

During the time the Nazi crimes were becoming a reality to America, Sanger’s organization was renamed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you look at Planned Parenthood’s advertisements what you quickly see is their disdain for the church and it’s teachings, for it’s traditions and it’s influence, ” Grant points out.

Over the course of the years, Planned Parenthood has specifically targeted lingering doubts about the authority of the church to speak with any sort of moral authority,” he adds.

In 1951, Sanger was able to obtain a grant from Biologist Gregory Pincus to begin hormonal contraception research. And, by 1953 she garnered the support of her wealthy friend Katherine McCormick who expanded funding by up to 5000% with clinical trials using human subjects.

Lambeth 9th COngress pill

In 1958, the 9th Lambeth congress openly accepts contraception as a “choice before God” calling it “responsible parenthood.”

National Council of Churches Pill Responsible parenthood

    In 1961, The National Council of Churches allowed birth control and even embraced abortion, emphasizing motives and essentially turning it into a “privacy matter.”

Griswold V COnneticut COmstock

In 1965, the Supreme Court declared the Comstock law totally unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut pointed to emanations from the Bill of Rights which pointed to the so-called “right of privacy.”

The film claims that by the 1950’s and 60’s the evangelical church began changing the scriptures regarding the issue of birth control, claiming that the commands in Genesis were not commands.

By the middle of 1966, Margaret Sanger had died.

The timeline continues – showing examples of modern evangelicals, who the film claims compromised on the message of contraception.

Geoffry Botkin

“One of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was how willingly Christians were being pulled along and manipulated along to go along with the entire agenda that was anti-baby, anti-family, pro-contraception, pro-eugenics agenda. And, they felt almost like they had a duty to embrace it because it was “scientific” and they wanted to be modern, they wanted to be with it, they wanted to be cultural. And so in embracing it they rejected the very doctrines of Christianity,” says Geoffrey Botkin.

Grant summarizes that abortion continues in America because the church by and large still holds to the idea that contraception and unnatural family limitation is acceptable, going as far as implying it is pragmatic disobedience to God.

In the modern evangelical church there is almost unanimity against the sinfulness of abortion, ” Grant says.

George Grant

“The bottom line is that while we decry abortion, and the abortion clinic. We decry Planned Parenthood, we decry pro-abortion candidates, when our own circumstances get difficult, when our own economy seems to be constricted. When our own finances are compromised, we’re willing to act on pragmatism rather than principle time after time after time.”

“As a result, abortion in America remains at the forefront of the injustices perpetrated by all of us precisely because the church has not stood on principle and obeyed our God,” Grant concludes.

The film lays a compelling argument that contraception was never acceptable in early church teaching. It documents step by step the influence birth control gained in Protestant church teaching and beliefs.

One of the most interesting facts that I see is how the same ideas that helped usher in the concept of birth control also helped lay the framework for abortion on demand. Yet, many within the church are fine with it.

The debate over whether acceptance of birth control among married couples appears to be settled in modern Protestant church teaching or lack of it.

The question remains, is it settled in God’s mind? That is the question all Bible believing Christians must wrestle with as they seek obedience to our Lord.

If you would like to get the film or find out more about it you can check out the film’s website here.