Archive for contraception

Planned Parenthood’s 2016 annual report shows women don’t need the abortion corporation

Posted in Planned Parenthood abortion stats, Planned Parenthood Annual Report, Planned Parenthood Decreasing Services with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 13, 2018 by saynsumthn
planned parenthood sticker

Planned Parenthood released its 2016-2017 annual report over the New Year’s Eve holiday weekend. In a nutshell, contraception services, cervical cancer screenings, and other legitimate health services offered by the abortion corporation have all decreased again, along with a very slight decrease in abortions (two percent drop). It is clear from Planned Parenthood’s own annual report that women don’t really need the organization, and are finding legitimate health care elsewhere.

From 2006 to 2016, abortions at Planned Parenthood increased nearly 11 percent, averaging more than 320,000 abortions per year. Despite the fact that figures indicate abortions are on a steady decline nationally, in 2016, Planned Parenthood reported ending the lives of 321,384 preborn children (down from more than 328,000 the previous year), maintaining the organization’s nearly 35 percent nationwide market share of abortions.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards (who is a political organizer with no background in health care) once proclaimed, “We aim to be the largest kick-butt political organization.” And indeed, Planned Parenthood is highly political, using its pro-abortion friends in Congress and the media to increase its bottom line and pay its staff (and especially its CEO) extremely high salaries. As previously documented, a former top executive for Planned Parenthood once admitted that the abortion corporation’s “success” was linked to power and money, and he showed that taxpayer dollars are what enable the abortion corporation to recruit, hire and pay its top staffers six-digit salaries.

2016 was no exception to the previous years.

Despite promises from many in Congress to defund the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood’s 2016-2017 annual report reveals that taxpayer funding barely dropped at all — less than 2 percent — from $554.6 million in 2015 to $543.7 million in 2016. This mere sliver of a decrease cannot even begin to counter the astronomical 61 percent increase in taxpayer funding to the organization between 2006 and 2016, from $336.7 million to $543.7 million.

Planned Parenthood 2016 annual report excess revenue and Government funds

While taxpayers sent half a billion dollars in state and federal dollars to Planned Parenthood, the abortion corporation managed to increase its excess revenue from $77.5 million in 2015 to a whopping $98.5 million in 2016. That’s right: this nonprofit organization pocketed a profit of $98.5 million last year alone.

This means that despite all the hyperventilating abortion apologists’ claims that defunding Planned Parenthood would shutter the abortion business, Planned Parenthood’s excess revenue over spending increased by 27 percent in just one year. And almost every year since 2000, Planned Parenthood’s revenue has exceeded its expenses by tens of millions of dollars (yearly surpluses range from $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010) — all while actual health services and patients declined.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood’s decreasing services continued as demonstrated below…

Patients

In 2016, Planned Parenthood claims to have served 2.4 million patients, dropping nearly 23 percent from the 3.1 million they boasted just ten years ago in 2006. And, while Planned Parenthood’s patients are steadily declining, federally funded health centers, as identified by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, served nearly 26 million patients in 2016 alone.

Cancer Screenings

Although breast exams rose nearly five percent (336,614) from 2015 numbers (321,700), overall, they have declined nearly 62 percent since 2006, when Planned Parenthood performed 882,961 breast exams.

Pap tests at Planned Parenthood have decreased nearly 74 percent in the past years falling from 1,070,449 in 2006 to 281,063 in 2016. In 2016, Planned Parenthood performed 4.33 percent fewer Pap tests than they recorded in 2015.

While all cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood declined less than one percent between 2015 and 2016, overall they have plummeted 67 percent, from 2,007,371 in 2006 to 660,777 in 2016.

Contraception

Contraception services continued to drop in 2016, falling nearly four percent (2,701,866) from 2015 (2,808,815) and over 48 percent from a high of 4,009,549 in 2009. Since 2006, contraception services at Planned Parenthood have declined by over 32 percent (3,989,474 in 2006 to 2,701,866 in 2016), despite telling the media following President Donald Trump’s election that IUD requests at Planned Parenthood rose by 900 percent.

Planned Parenthood 2016 annual report Contraception

Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) distributed by Planned Parenthood decreased by nearly five percent (from 767,830 in 2015 to 730,329 in 2016).

Live Action News previously documented that in some cases EC can act to prevent the implantation of a newly-fertilized human being into the uterine wall. Since life scientifically begins at fertilization, intentionally ending the life of a new, unique individual after fertilization has occurred is an abortion, and any type of birth control that has the potential to end the life of a new human being can be considered an abortifacient. There is no way to know for certain if or when this occurs when a woman takes EC, and therefore, these cases cannot be calculated into the total abortion numbers.

Prenatal Care 

Prenatal care services have also plummeted at Planned Parenthood.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood record only 7,762 prenatal care services, a decline of nearly 18 percent from 2015, when they reported 9,419. In the past ten years, prenatal care at the abortion corporation has declined nearly 30 percent from a high of 11,058 in 2006.

Despite years of claiming that Planned Parenthood offers prenatal care to women, Live Action investigators exposed the fact that almost no Planned Parenthood centers offer prenatal care. When undercover callers spoke to Planned Parenthood staffers, the reason most often given by staff as to why no prenatal care was available is because Planned Parenthood offers abortions instead. The backlash from Live Action’s investigation was swift, and the abortion corporation had to purge its website of the claim that they offered “prenatal services.”

Adoptions

Planned Parenthood claims to have done 3,889 adoption referrals. In order to be eligible to receive federal Title X funds, the abortion corporation must offer information on all pregnancy options, including adoption. According to former Planned Parenthood manager Crystal Eldridge, the adoption option is presented in the form of mere lip service (“You know your choices, right? You can keep it, abort it, or put it up for adoption,”), and former manager Sue Thayer says Planned Parenthood merely puts a small packet in front of women on their pregnancy options which the women did not have to accept, with no discussion on the actual options themselves:

Last year, Live Action exposed the way Planned Parenthood handled adoption referrals, which might account for why this number rose from the previous year (2,889 in 2015 to 3,889 in 2016). Live Action investigators contacted various Planned Parenthood facilities, some of which receive tax dollars from Title X. According to requirements under Title X, projects that are funded must offer pregnant women several options regarding their pregnancies, including prenatal care and adoption.

What you will hear in the video below is how Planned Parenthood fails to offer Live Action’s investigators any of this — no adoption counseling, no adoption referrals, no list of adoption agencies, and no chance to speak with any so-called “specially trained staff” about the adoption option, despite online statements to the contrary:

In 2016, Planned Parenthood killed nearly 82 times as many preborn children with abortion as they referred for adoption. In fact, the highest number of adoptions Planned Parenthood has ever referred in a year was just 4,912 (2007).

Planned Parenthood’s adoption referral numbers dropped nearly 21 percent from 2007 to 2016.

Total Services

Although Planned Parenthood’s total “services” rose by about half a percent in 2016 (9,537,592) from 2015 (9,494,977), the organization’s services have decreased nearly 10 percent (10,588,360) since 2006.

New Categories

Last year, Planned Parenthood added new subcategories under “Other Women’s Health Services” — “Miscarriage Care” and “Well-Women Exams.” While “Miscarriage Care” declined slightly in 2016 (no details on what “miscarriage care” entails), “Well-Women Exams” rose four percent.

In 2015, Planned Parenthood also introduced the subcategory “Other Contraception Services” to the Contraception category.  This “Other” subcategory, which the abortion corporation does not define, increased nearly 13 percent from 2015 to 2016. What is interesting is that adding these additional categories keeps Planned Parenthood’s abortion services conveniently at 3 percent of the organization’s overall services. Live Action has previously shown, however, that this three percent figure is complete nonsense, and is arrived at through a great deal of manipulation. The Washington Post even called this statistic “misleading,” awarding it three Pinocchios, and Slate called it “the most meaningless abortion statistic ever.”

Planned Parenthood once operated 900 facilities, yet today, states on its website that it now operates “more than 600 health centers,” a further decline of nearly 8 percent from what they published on their website last year.

Between 2007 and 2017, the organization shuttered more than 280 facilities.

While these kinds of decreases are good news, the tragedy is that one in every seven patients at Planned Parenthood has an abortion. Money is fungible and can be used to pay for facilities and staff who commit abortion. And while Congress fails to defund Planned Parenthood, taxpayers are forced to continue to monetarily support an abortion business that takes the lives of approximately 881 preborn children per day. The time to defund is now.

Editor’s Note: This report has been corrected. An earlier version incorrectly reported 2014-15 patient numbers instead of 2015-16.

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

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.

Planned Parenthood praises César Chávez who opposed abortion

Posted in César Chávez with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 1, 2015 by saynsumthn

Planed Parenthood known for their eugenics beliefs wastes no time or opportunity to market to minorities. As this blog has shown before, Planned Parenthood’s marketing to the Black community dates back to their founder, Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project where she believed that recruiting blacks would help them see her racist organization in a better light.

Sanger Negro Project KKK

So, flash forward to today and we see Planned Parenthood releasing the following statement honoring César Chávez and, “his commitment to ensuring justice, dignity, and fair treatment to people everywhere.”

Planned Parenthood lauds Ceasar Chavez who opposed abortion eeugenics

Statement from Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

    Planned Parenthood shares César Chávez’s belief in fair treatment for everyone; we believe that all women and their families deserve the highest quality of affordable health care no matter who they are and where they live – no matter what. We know that health disparities remain a serious issue that is undeniably linked to poverty, lack of access, racism, sexism, and discrimination in all of its forms. As we continue to be inspired by César Chávez’s legacy, we know that these structural inequalities can only be changed through collective action – that’s why we are committed to working together with our partners to break down these barriers and to transform our world from one divided by disparities to a world united by health equity.”

Doesn’t that just sound delightful? NOT!

Just one tiny little factoid Planned Parenthood has left out of their praises of the Mexican-American labor leader, César Chávez’s believed his people were targeted by eugenics and he opposed abortion.

We could have genocide in reverse here,” said Chavez.

Who the hell is getting the pill? The Mexican and Negro. Do you want to wipe us out?” he asked. (captioned from the film, Maafa21, watch it here.)

Chavez

According to one of Chavez’s closest aids, Gilbert Padilla, United Farmer Workers (UFW) did not pass out contraception in their clinics, “We don’t believe in contraception or in abortion which isn’t allowed in our clinic either,” Padilla told the St Petersburg Times in 1975.

Padilla was responding to a question the reporter asked regarding Chavez’s opposition to population control and planned parenthood.

Capture

Historically, contraceptives and abortions have never been used in our clinics…” Padilla stated.

Christianity Today: Eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger emphatic about social good of contraception

Posted in Margaret Sanger, Media Bias, Media Christian with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 12, 2015 by saynsumthn

Christianity Today has just released an article praising the birth control efforts of Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood.

Guest author, Rachel Marie Stone, penned the “Contraception Saves Lives“, article, where she describes the piece as, “Reconsidering Margaret Sanger as one who was opposed to abortion but emphatic about the personal and social good of contraception.”

Christianity today praises Margaret Sanger

Despite the sickening character of Margaret Sanger as a proponent of eugenics which Stone admits to, she attempts to paint the Planned Parenthood founder as compassionate towards women who suffered in child birth, writing of one case:

    The young nurse had been called to the apartment of Sadie Sachs, a poor woman who was extremely ill after attempting to perform an abortion on herself. Sadie begged the doctor to tell her how she might avoid future pregnancies.

    He suggested, coldly, that Sadie — a young married woman — abstain from sex entirely.

    Not long after, the young nurse was again summoned to Sadie Sachs’ apartment, where the same scenario was unfolding. This time, though, Sadie died from her attempt to abort her unborn child.

    The young nurse — whose name was Margaret Sanger — threw her medical bag across the room in fury and vowed that she could not go on nursing until she had helped to make effective birth control widely available to working class and poor women.

Rachel Marie Stone-

When asked to write the piece, Stone said this, “I wasn’t sure how to reply; Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which, contrary to what Sanger would have wished, is today the largest provider of abortions in the United States. As it happens, Planned Parenthood did not, in Sanger’s day, provide abortions. Sanger herself opposed abortion, saying that “no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.” But Sanger, like many medical professionals in her day, did hold eugenicist ideas. Eugenics were enshrined into compulsory sterilization laws in many U.S. states and supported by organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I do not mean to excuse Sanger for holding these views, but I do want to give the charge of “eugenicist” a more complete background.”

Rachel Marie Stone defends Margaret Sanger

Let’s pause for one clarification, if Ms. Stone was not defending Margaret Sanger in her Christianity Today piece, why did she send out this tweet saying, “I am @amyjuliabecker ‘s blog today, defending #MargaretSanger and talking about how #birthcontrol saves lives. http://ow.ly/Kc2qr”

After taking some heat, Stone back tracked slightly:

Rachel Marie Stone defends Margaret Sanger 2

It is true that Sanger opposed abortions as I detail here, however, what Stone leaves out is that she had a more permanent solution to abortion, forced sterilization.

By sterilizing Black women and those she and her eugenics friends considered feeble-minded, Sanger could guarantee they would never become pregnant again.

Margaret Sanger from her autobiography

In Margaret Sanger’s, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Sanger states clearly that eugenics, the ideology Stone denounces is not complete without birth control , “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.

Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like.

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfitEugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit…

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘, to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

In an interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger called the bringing of these “unfit” children, created by God in the womb, into the world a sin:

Just who was Sanger directing her Birth Control Pill advocacy towards? Her description is below

Sanger I Consider

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people,” Sanger wrote in 1950, “Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”

To further complicate Stone’s assumption of Sanger as a purveyor of “social good” the Planned Parenthood founder was also a racist:

In her Autobiography KKK

This is what Sanger wrote 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.” (Source: Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366 and Maafa21. )

In her article, Stone makes a reference to Government funded birth control in ObamaCare accusing those who opposed it of labeling women, promiscuous or lazy or selfish, unwilling to host a blessing from the Lord:

    “A woman’s desire for birth control is, even today, regarded suspiciously, as was seen in public discussions around the birth control provisions of the Affordable Care Act — as if women desiring birth control were promiscuous or lazy or selfish, unwilling to host a blessing from the Lord, which children certainly are. But those of us who live privileged lives — relative to the urban poor of a hundred years ago, and relative to the millions of women in the majority world — are not always able to appreciate what access to birth control meant, and means, in these times and places,” Stone writes.

Well, Ms. Stone, are you not aware that many chemicals now labeled contraceptive are, in fact, abortive and that is one of the main oppositions to the government mandate?

But, since Ms. Stone is interested in Margaret Sanger’s view on all of this, allow me to give it.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

If Stone wants to advocate for contraception, that is one thing, but for her to try and convince the world that Sanger’s motives were compassionate, that is a completely different story.

( for more on Sanger’s views watch the documentary film, Maafa21 here http://www.maafa21.com)

Erick Ericson Christianity Today Margaret Sanger

For more on this controversy, read the following posts by others:

Christianity Today Mag Wants to Reconsider Margaret Sanger By Ignoring History, by Ryan Bomberger.

Christian blog says Margaret Sanger contraception agenda was good, by Life Dynamics, producer of the film on Sanger, Maafa21.

Bizarre Christianity Today Article Whitewashes Planned Parenthood’s Sanger, by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

“Christianity Today” Claims That Contraception Saves Lives and Attempts To Paint Margaret Sanger In a Good Light. My Response To This Ludicrous Article. By, Bryan Kemper at Stand True.

After all the controversy, Amy Julia Becker, whose Christian Post Blog Stone was writing for, gave her explanation as to why she published the piece:

“The purpose of the post was to draw attention to the number of women, children, and unborn babies who die in countries without access to contraception, she writes.

She continued:

    Rather, an Internet maelstrom of comments on Stone’s original post and hundreds of tweets ensued, all in response to the way Stone depicted Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now the organization Planned Parenthood. These concerns center on Sanger’s deplorable eugenic positions and racism. As the mother of a child with Down syndrome; as someone who has advocated again and again for the value of every human life; as someone who has curated series about abortion, prenatal testing, and racial reconciliation in the church—I care deeply about rooting out any eugenic tendencies in our current context. I care deeply about exposing and confessing racism and working together toward reconciliation.

    So I pay attention when writers and Christians like Timothy Dalrymple offer this critique of the post (in the comments section):

    I hope you can make this argument more powerfully and more effectively in future by not making it seem as though one must accept or pseudo-accept Sanger in order to agree.

Amy Julia Becker said she will continue her contraception conversation from those opposed and those in favor, but, I get the feeling she will leave Sanger out of that conversation- we shall see.

Planned Parenthood prez says “Birth Control Day” is like Thanksgiving

Posted in birth control, Cecile Richards, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 12, 2014 by saynsumthn

Written by Saynsumthn Blog

Planned Parenthood’s president today compared Birth Control to Thanksgiving.

In a tweet she posted for National Thank Birth Control Day, Cecile Richards said, “Happy #ThxBirthControl Day—like Thanksgiving, but for birth control! Here’s why I’m thankful.”

cecile Richards Thanks BC

The abortion giant is joining in on a campaign to Thank Birth Control. Using the hashtag ##ThxBirthControl on twitter!

PP 2014 BC Day Tweet

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, who launched the campaign, said in their press release that high profile leaders in entertainment media and other sectors, including MTV, Cosmopolitan, and Upworthy will participate in the “Thanks, Birth Control” effort.

thxbc-homepage

The effort by the abortion/ contraception camp
takes place on November 12, 2014

TY BC Plan B

The organization promotes abortion and Planned Parenthood and as expected the video promotes the abortion pill Plan B as “contraception.”

PP Thanks BC Vid

The obnoxious video the group uploaded sings “Thank You Birth Control – I owe you a beer”

MRC has a good article on this topic as well which you can read here.

Planned Parenthood: Ebola has affected “Reproductive Health Services” in Africa

Posted in Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Ebola, Planned Parenthood Ebola, Planned Parenthood Katrina with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2014 by saynsumthn

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, a largely Black populated city, abortion giant Planned Parenthood rushed to the scene with birth control for those affected.

Free Katrina

PP Katrina

They then began flooding the shelters with condoms, birth control pills and offers of free abortions. Although both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation solicited money on their websites to fund this campaign, the fine print on Planned Parenthood’s site stated that the money raised would be used to support their general operations and not the hurricane relief effort.

PP Katrina Maafa21

In this clip from the film, Maafa21, which traces the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, expert Brian Clowes describes how birth control has been sent in when African countries are suffering from disasters:

Try to imagine there being a natural catastrophe in a country like Canada or Australia or France or England,” says Clowes, “and we go in there and we say to them, we’re not going to offer you any kind of aid unless you accept our philosophy on birth control and population control. That would be outrageous. But that’s our standard procedure when we go to a black country after a catastrophe of some kind.

“You cannot believe that we are going to treat people in a foreign country like this and not treat our own population of African Americans the same way. Consider what happened after Hurricane Katrina. One of the first things we did was bring in birth control and contraception; and as we all know the hurricane disproportionately affected black families in that area. And I seriously doubt that if the same kind of disaster hit a middle class white area, the first response would be condoms and birth control,” Clowes states.

Watch the Maafa21 in full here http://www.maafa21.com

Planned Parenthood promotes the Gates Foundation on Facebook page

Planned Parenthood promotes the Gates Foundation on Facebook page

With that in mind, International Planned Parenthood Federation or IPPF has issues a press release stating that they will be assisting Ebola victims in their affected African countries.

To improve health-seeking practices for Ebola prevention, including observance of universal precautions in the affected countries, the IPPF Africa Regional Office is providing financial and technical support to its Member Associations in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone,” their statement begins.

IPPF Ebola Press Release PP

IPPF has sent Planned Parenthood Association of Liberia ( PPAL) $40,050 and $22,278 to the Planned Parenthood Association of Sierra Leone to established hand-washing sites in all its offices and clinics for use by their staff, volunteers and clients.

In addition they used the money to purchase and distributed protective gear and sanitary and disinfectant commodities to their clinic staff and community based service providers.

???????????????????????????????

But, offering assistance for Ebola is a small part of what they focus on. A majority of IPPF’s focus is population control.

In fact, IPPF writes on their website that in 2013, they pushed comprehensive abortion care activities in 21 sub-Saharan Africa countries. They include Kenya, Ethiopia, Cameroun, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Guinea Conakry, Zambia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Malawi, Swaziland, Benin, Uganda, Senegal and Democratic Republic of Congo.

We target rural, urban and peri-urban women and girls from low income and the marginalised groups, as well as college/university students. In 2012, 65 per cent of all comprehensive abortion care clients served in the Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana Cape Coast Clinic was under 25 years old,” the abortion giant brags.

IPPF Targets Abortion Africa

In Liberia alone PPAL delivered 899,476 contraceptive services and 2,379 abortion Care services to the women in 2013.

PPAL partners with population control organizations like, the Population Council and UNFPA, and others.

The press release continues, “PPAL is conducting a series of awareness campaigns in highly affected counties including Montserrado, Bong, Lofa, Margibi, Grand Gedeh and River Gee.

“This is through its peer educators, staff and various county health teams, national taskforce and other partners (BMZ, UNFPA and IRC).

“PPAL is providing personal hygiene kits to peer educators and SoS mentors among others across the country. The Association has also outfitted all its facilities with hygiene and sanitary materials including hand washing buckets with faucet, disinfectants (chlorine, clorox, dettol), hand soap, hand sanitizers and gloves among others.

IPPF Ebola Africa 04393799491174727_o

Authorities have recruited Planned Parenthood to support them in tracing and referring suspected Ebola cases in their communities to treatment centers and have distributed over 3,000 flyers with Ebola message to school youths.

But, what’s really on the mind of Planned Parenthood is how Ebola is affecting their ability to pass out birth control or perform abortions.

As IPPF’s press release states that, “Ebola has affected the provision of sexual and reproductive health and services.”

Reproductive health is code for abortion.

IPPF what we do abortion

Yes, despite horrific Ebola deaths, Planned Parenthood is concerned that abortion and birth control services continue to be dispersed.

In fact, IPPF is determined to push through despite Ebola ravaging these countries and they even brag that in Lofa County, while they are involved with the Ebola Virus disease (EVD) sensitization its peer educators are still carrying out, “ one-on-one sensitization on family planning and referring young people to clinics and hospitals for family planning and other reproductive health services.”

EEOC posts new guidelines on pregnancy discrimination which include access to contraception and abortion

Posted in EEOC with tags , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Screenshot 1

On July 14, 2014, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released their new EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, which included contraception and abortion.

According to the EEOC, this is the first comprehensive update of the Commission’s guidance on the subject of discrimination against pregnant workers since the 1983 publication of a Compliance Manual chapter on the subject. This guidance supersedes that document and incorporates significant developments in the law during the past 30 years.

In their press release the EEOC states that in addition to addressing the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the guidance discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008, to individuals who have pregnancy-related disabilities.

Pregnancy is not a justification for excluding women from jobs that they are qualified to perform, and it cannot be a basis for denying employment or treating women less favorably than co-workers similar in their ability or inability to work,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices. This guidance will aid employers, job seekers, and workers in complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus advance EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan priority of addressing the emerging issue of the interaction between these two anti-discrimination statutes.”

Much of the analysis in the enforcement guidance is an update of longstanding EEOC policy. The guidance sets out the fundamental Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requirements that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work.

But the government department which can go after employers also details their rules on contraception in section D entitled: Discrimination Based on Use of Contraception:

Depending on the specific circumstances, employment decisions based on a female employee’s use of contraceptives may constitute unlawful discrimination based on gender and/or pregnancy. Contraception is a means by which a woman can control her capacity to become pregnant, and, therefore, Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on potential pregnancy necessarily includes a prohibition on discrimination related to a woman’s use of contraceptives.38 For example, an employer could not discharge a female employee from her job because she uses contraceptives.39

Employers can violate Title VII by providing health insurance that excludes coverage of prescription contraceptives, whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes.40 Because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, a health insurance plan facially discriminates against women on the basis of gender if it excludes prescription contraception but otherwise provides comprehensive coverage.41 To comply with Title VII, an employer’s health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives on the same basis as prescription drugs, devices, and services that are used to prevent the occurrence of medical conditions other than pregnancy.42 For example, if an employer’s health insurance plan covers preventive care for medical conditions other than pregnancy, such as vaccinations, physical examinations, prescription drugs that prevent high blood pressure or to lower cholesterol levels, and/or preventive dental care, then prescription contraceptives also must be covered..

EEOC Contraceptions

In addition to the RULES- I found the verbiage in the footnotes very interesting as well:

37 See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception (Dec. 14, 2000) (because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, employer’s explicit refusal to offer insurance coverage for them is, by definition, a sex-based exclusion), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html (last visited May 5, 2014).

38. What is written in the footnotes is even more eye opening: 38 Id.; see also Cooley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 979, 984 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (“[A]s only women have the potential to become pregnant, denying a prescription medication that allows women to control their reproductive capacity is necessarily a sex-based exclusion.”); Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (exclusion of prescription contraceptives from employer’s generally comprehensive prescription drug plan violated PDA). The Eighth Circuit’s assertion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936, 942 (2007), that contraception is not “related to pregnancy” because “contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy” is not persuasive because it is contrary to the Johnson Controls holding that the PDA applies to potential pregnancy.

39. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides for religious exemption from a federal law, even if the law is of general applicability and neutral toward religion, if it substantially burdens a religious practice and the government is unable to show that its application would further a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In a case decided in June 2014, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., — S. Ct. —, 82 U.S.L.W. 4636 (U.S. June 30, 2014) (Nos. 13-354 and 13-356), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the RFRA as applied to closely held family for-profit corporations whose owners had religious objections to providing certain types of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not reach the question whether owners of such businesses can assert that the contraceptive mandate violates their rights under the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. This enforcement guidance explains Title VII’s prohibition of pregnancy discrimination; it does not address whether certain employers might be exempt from Title VII’s requirements under the First Amendment or the RFRA.

40. See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; see also Section 2713(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (requiring that non-grandfathered group or individual insurance coverage provide benefits for women’s preventive health services without cost sharing). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources and Services Administration released guidelines requiring that contraceptive services be included as women’s preventive health services. These requirements became effective for most new and renewed health plans in August 2012. 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713T(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(b)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(b)(1) (plans and insurers must cover a newly recommended preventive service starting with the first plan year that begins on or after the date that is one year after the date on which the new recommendation is issued). The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued regulations clarifying the criteria for the religious employer exemption from contraceptive coverage, accommodations with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans), and student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education. Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 39869 (July 2, 2013) (to be codified at 26 C.F.R. Part 54; 29 C.F.R. Parts 2510 and 2590; 45 C.F.R. Parts 147 and 1560). But see supra note 39.

41 See Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 1272 (“In light of the fact that prescription contraceptives are used only by women, [defendant’s] choice to exclude that particular benefit from its generally applicable benefit plan is discriminatory.”).

42 See supra note 37. The Commission disagrees with the conclusion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), that contraception is gender-neutral because it applies to both men and women. Id. at 942. The court distinguished the EEOC’s decision on coverage of contraception by noting that the Commission decision involved a health insurance policy that denied coverage of prescription contraception but included coverage of vasectomies and tubal ligations while the employer in Union Pacific excluded all contraception for women and men, both prescription and surgical, when used solely for contraception and not for other medical purposes. However, the EEOC’s decision was not based on the fact that the plan at issue covered vasectomies and tubal ligations. Instead, the Commission reasoned that excluding prescription contraception while providing benefits for drugs and devices used to prevent other medical conditions is a sex-based exclusion because prescription contraceptives are available only for women. See also Union Pacific, 479 F.3d at 948-49 (Bye, J., dissenting) (contraception is “gender-specific, female issue because of the adverse health consequences of an unplanned pregnancy”; therefore, proper comparison is between preventive health coverage provided to each gender).

As for the EEOC’s guidelines on Pregnant women and Abortion – those read:

Title VII protects women from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating having an abortion. However, Title VII makes clear that an employer that offers health insurance is not required to pay for coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or medical complications have arisen from an abortion. The statute also makes clear that, although not required to do so, an employer is permitted to provide health insurance coverage for abortion. Title VII would similarly prohibit adverse employment actions against an employee based on her decision not to have an abortion. For example, it would be unlawful for a manager to pressure an employee to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion, in order to retain her job, get better assignments, or stay on a path for advancement.61

And…

b. Insurance Coverage of Abortion

The PDA [THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT] makes clear that if an employer provides health insurance benefits, it is not required to pay for health insurance coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. If complications arise during the course of an abortion, the health insurance plan is required to pay the costs attributable to those complications.

The statute also makes clear that an employer is not precluded from providing abortion benefits directly or through a collective bargaining agreement. If an employer decides to cover the costs of abortion, it must do so in the same manner and to the same degree as it covers other medical conditions.

One thing is puzzling- I have not seen where the EEOC actually defines when a “pregnancy” begins. I have not fully read through it all. If my readers can locate this, please post a comment !

But – given the way this administration has used many of their “agencies” to go after those who do not politically agree with them, are these “guidelines” the latest tool for the pro-abortion Obama administration to go after businesses who do not comply? We shall soon see…..