Archive for Blueprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret Sanger’s name on Planned Parenthood building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TitleX Funding History CBO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood President, 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.