Archive for Depro

Planned Parenthood: Cruelty to Women and an Affront to Women’s Health and Women’s Rights

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Women, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guest Editorial, Planned Parenthood and Black Women, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics with tags , , , , , , on March 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Saynsumthn has covered Elaine Riddick’s pursuit for justice for her eugenics sterilization for years. So it is an honor to publish this Guest Editorial by Ms. Riddick.

ElaineRiddick
Planned Parenthood: Cruelty to Women and an Affront to Women’s Health and Women’s Rights

By Elaine Riddick, Executive Director, Rebecca Project for Justice March 18, 2014

Planned Parenthood is not a sanctuary for women’s health as women have been made to believe. Many women have no knowledge of the cruel and callous history of Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood is an infamous eugenicist and population control advocate who opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in 1921. The clinic was called the American Birth Control League and was renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1942, and later she created the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 1952.

Planned Parenthood’s fundamental strategy for Population Control of Black and low income women was forced sterilizations and abortions. Margaret Sanger persistently dehumanized Blacks, low-income children, the disabled, mentally ill, immigrants, and impoverished women, by classifying them as “human weeds”, “spawning… human beings who never should have been born”.

Euphemisms and sterilization target code words, for example, “feebleminded”, were used to describe Black women like me, Elaine Riddick. I was forcibly sterilized at the age of 14 years under North Carolina’s inhumane forced sterilization policy. A policy that was derived from Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood population control handbook, which spread across the United States by her loyal band of eugenicists and lobbying our elected officials. Those cruel and inhumane forced sterilization polices and abortion-on-demand policies were also exported to create the one-child policy in China; where mothers abandoned or killed their live birthed children to avoid persecution. IPPF programs through the US government also forcibly sterilized millions women and men in India.

(Elaine Riddick in the powerful documentary film Maafa21)

Currently, Planned Parenthood uses an arsenal of abortions on demand lethal contraceptives such as Depo Provera and Norplant called the “DDT of contraceptives”. They are called the DDT of contraceptives, because they cause extremely lethal side-effects and are banned or restricted in the United States, Europe, India and Israel.

However, Planned Parenthood the largest distributor of Depo Provera circumvents restrictions, and typically, Blacks, Latinos, low-income and vulnerable women & girls are targeted and injected without full informed consent of lethal side effects. In the U.S. less than 2% of white women are injected with Depo Provera, and in Europe the use of injectables such as Depo Provera is virtually non- existent.

In 1998, the FDA sent a letter to Pfizer the maker of Depo Provera requesting an immediate halt to advertisements that misled women about risk and side effects of Depo Provera. However, this practice of misleading women about risk continues through Pfizer’s distributor Planned Parenthood, by target marketing to Blacks and Latinos while concealing details about side-effects on their websites.

In 2013, Israel restricted Depo Provera with funding from U.S. reproductive health funder Shira Saperstein of the Moriah Fund. However, in the United States Shira Saperstein still works with Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates to callously promote Depo Provera as a safe contraceptive for low income women in the U.S. and Africa.

They mislead women about lethal harm of increased HIV/AIDS and breast cancer and other debilitating diseases documented by the FDA and NIH.

Norplant was pulled from U.S. markets in 2002 is still implanted in economically deprived women globally and is promoted by the International Federation of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council with malice and forethought. Thousands of poor women have died from diseases caused by Depo Provera and thousands struggle with permanent damage but the US government is silent.

Therefore, my goal as Executive Director of the Rebecca Project for Justice is to seek a practical humane policy solution that institutes informed consent procedures to protect women.

To achieve that goal, we have devised a four point strategy:

1) Policy: Drafting legislation to present at Congressional Hearings with the Global Health and Judiciary Committees this year;
2) Lawsuits: Class action suit lead by Attorney Willie E. Gary of the Gary Law Group;
3) Prosecution: Through a detailed letter to Department of Justice, we are demanding prosecution of doctors and institutions such as Planned Parenthood that conspire to conceal lethal side effects;

and 4) Media: Creating petitions and a public relations campaign with Tanya Wiley of WPC Communications.

Elaine Riddick is the Executive Director of Rebecca Project for Justice you can contact her her by e-mail here: Elaine.Riddick@RebeccaProjectJustice.org.

Black Leaders, Rights Experts Denounce Gates’ New Contraceptive that May Increase HIV Risk

Posted in Bill Gates, Depo-Provera, Eugenics with tags , , , , , on October 18, 2013 by saynsumthn

By Lisa Correnti and Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 18 (C-FAM) Melinda Gates’ campaign targeting African women with a new form of the contraceptive Depo Provera has provoked a coalition of Black religious leaders and human rights advocates. They are asking the U.S. Congress to stop funding the distribution of the injectable contraceptive overseas.

The leaders, who support abortion and contraception, say women of color and low-income women suffer severe health issues from Depo Provera. A new self-administered version puts women at further risk as it will be delivered without them being fully informed of the drug’s potential side effects. The contraceptive carries the potential to contract or transmit HIV at an eight-fold higher rate.

The wife of billionaire Bill Gates recently told the New York Times that she championed family planning after meeting with poor women in developing countries. The women wanted a contraceptive that comes in a shot, Gates said, because they could not negotiate condom use without implying that either they or their husbands had AIDS.

Kwame Fosu says Melinda Gates’ claim that women want Depo Provera is “disingenuous.”

“No African woman would agree to being injected if she had full knowledge of the contraceptives’ dangerous side effects,” Fosu told the Friday Fax. Fosu is policy director for the Rebecca Project for Human Rights.

“In fact,” he continued, “in countries where women are educated on the harmful complications, Depo Provera use is negligible.”

Gates’ comments illustrate an on-going conflict between public health officials’ efforts to contain the AIDS epidemic and family planning advocates who favor long-acting hormonal contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Unlike condoms, these methods do nothing to prevent HIV transmission.

In the case of Depo Provera, the risks of HIV transmission actually increase, according to data published in The Lancet. The World Health Organization strongly advises that women using progestogen-only injectable contraception also use condoms. Planned Parenthood – one of the largest international distributors of Depo Provera – does not recommend condom use nor do they disclose potential side effects.

Read more

Does abortion reduce welfare costs?

Posted in Abortion Welfare with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 28, 2012 by saynsumthn


by Brian Clowes Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:29 EST

November 27, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) – Supporters of the Culture of Death tend to lack foresight, and do not seem to possess even a rudimentary understanding of human nature. These defects inevitably lead to many cases of the “law of unintended consequences.”1

One good example of this principle is the ongoing effort by population control groups to flood Africa with condoms in an attempt to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Condom manufacturers refuse to publicize their high failure rate, however, and so African nations where more condoms are used have much higher rates of HIV/AIDS than those nations whose people widely reject their use.2

Another example of this lack of foresight is the claim that, when the State pays for a poor woman’s abortion, it saves a lot of money by avoiding the costs of a delivery and another child added to the welfare system. In fact, this is one of the most persuasive arguments offered by pro abortionists in support of Medicaid funding of abortion.

In support of this belief, pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the costs incurred by a child on welfare. They began using this tactic in their battle against the Hyde Amendment, which banned most federal funding of abortion. Senator Charles H. Percy (R Ill.) testified, “If we can avoid a $100,000 cost for a $200 [abortion] investment ― and make a humanitarian investment at the same time ― what sense does it make to say, `We cannot afford $200 for this expenditure [for an abortion]?’”3

Leaders of the pro-abortion movement sometimes accidentally reveal the naked racism behind these comments. Notorious California abortionist Edward Allred said, “When a sullen Black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it’s time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry these people have.”4

Of course none of this is new, and abortion is not the only weapon targeting poor women in the United States in the name of cost-cutting. Donald Kimelman of the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed the true goal of our domestic population controllers in a 1990 article ominously entitled “Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?” He wrote:

As we read these two stories [about Norplant and Black poverty], we asked ourselves: Dare we mention them in the same breath? To do so might be considered deplorably insensitive, perhaps raising the specter of eugenics. But it would be worse to avoid drawing the logical conclusion that foolproof contraception could be invaluable in breaking the cycle of inner city poverty ― one of America’s greatest challenges.

Kimelman went on to suggest that welfare mothers could be implanted with Norplant for free and perhaps receive increased welfare benefits as a reward.5 And speaking of unintended consequences, Norplant was later banned by the FDA for the harm it caused women, resulting in a massive class action lawsuit against Norplant’s producer.
It seems reasonable to ask why, if Kimelman was truly concerned about poverty in general, did he not also recommend the use of Norplant for poor White women?

Others asked this same question. Vanessa Williams, president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists, called Kimelman’s article, “A tacit endorsement of slow genocide.”6 Four days after Kimelman’s article, Inquirer columnist Steve Lopez sarcastically suggested that contraception would not reduce the underclass quite as fast as “just shooting them.” The Inquirer quickly apologized for Kimelman’s article after a wave of complaints. But the racist and eugenicist thinking of many of those who want to “help” poor women had been exposed once again.

Abortion As Human Culling

Kimelman was not the only journalist to step on his tongue after the introduction of Norplant. Anthony Bouza, former Minneapolis Police Chief and columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, wrote an editorial with the oxymoronic title “A Mother’s Day Wish: Make Abortion Available to All Women.”

He described the “at risk” population as “poor, Black and Indian,” and said that their offspring are “marked for failure.” He went on to say:

When abortions are illegal, poor women deliver and keep their babies. Then they plunk them in front of a TV set, watch them get abused and conditioned to violence by parades of males, and expose them to all the factors the criminologists describe as the precursors to a life of crime … Making abortions freely available to the impoverished young women who produce our criminals is very likely the most important crime prevention measure adopted in this country in the last 25 years.7

If Bouza’s allegation is true ― that abortion is our “most important crime prevention measure” ― why are 7.2 million adults in prison or on parole or probation, 3.1 percent of all adults in the entire population?8 This is a fourfold increase since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, when only 0.8 percent of all adults in the United States were subject to the criminal justice system. If abortion is so effective at fighting crime, why does the United States possess the dubious distinction of having the largest percentage of its population imprisoned among all the countries of the world, including the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and South Africa?

Don’t expect answers to these questions from abortion advocates ― especially pro abortion journalists. They have a very big axe to grind, and nobody had better bother them with the facts.

Taking the Long View

Obviously, an abortion does indeed cost much less than delivery and care for a baby, but as always, the pro-abortion view is extremely short-sighted and completely neglects the future benefits to society provided by a child over his or her lifetime.

To begin with, pro-abortionists invariably assume that welfare children will be “on the dole” until they are eighteen. However, less than five percent of all children born into welfare families will remain on welfare until they are adults. In fact, the average period of welfare dependency for a child is just two years.9

A first-trimester Medicaid abortion currently costs about $515.10 By comparison, the cost of all kinds of public assistance for a child, including prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care, and two years of all types of public assistance for the child is about $22,300.11 So, at first glance, abortion seems to be a very good financial deal indeed for the long-suffering taxpayer.

But hold it ― not so fast. What about the future benefits that a child generates during his or her lifetime?

The Federal, state and local taxes paid by a child and his or her employers during 30 years in the work force amount to about $955,900.12

Pro-abortionists consider only the short-term benefits to the State, which is the difference between the cost of caring for a child and the cost of an abortion, which is ($22,300 – $515), or $21,785; but the long-term benefit to the State of paying for the child’s delivery and care is ($955,900 – $22,300), or $933,600. In other words, the State pays on average $22,300 and gets $955,900 back, a benefit-cost ratio of 43.8 dollars received for every one dollar spent, which is a very good deal indeed.

But this is not the only part of the equation. We must also consider that each person continuously generates wealth during his working career and consumes goods and services that help support the livelihoods of many other people. At current levels, this sum amounts to an average of about $2,764,000 per person.13

Therefore, we see that every person aborted costs society at large a total of about $3,720,000. So, for every single dollar spent on a Medicaid-funded abortion, society loses ($3,720,000/$515) = more than $7,200.

Does anyone other than hardcore abortion advocates think that this is a fiscally sensible or responsible position to take?.

Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and research at Human Life International (HLI), the world’s largest international pro-life and pro-family organization. A version of this article appeared in The Wanderer

Endnotes
1 This term originated when the occupying British government became concerned about the proliferation of venomous cobras in Indian urban areas. The government offered a reward for every dead snake brought in, and people began breeding the cobras for extra income. When the British learned of this practice, they discontinued the reward. The breeders then released their thousands of cobras, resulting in the problem being much worse than it was before.
2 Calculations and references are contained in the short book The Case against Condoms. For an electronic copy of this book, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org.
3 July 29, 1977 testimony by Sen. Charles H. Percy (R Ill.) against the Hyde Amendment, 95th Congress Congressional Record of that date.
4 Abortionist Edward Allred, quoted in the San Diego Union, October 12, 1980.
5 Don Kimelman. “Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1990.
6 Clarence Page. “Hope Best Way to Fight Poverty.” The Oregonian, December 31, 1990, page C5.
7 Anthony Bouza. “A Mother’s Day Wish: Make Abortion Available to All Women.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mother’s Day 1990 editorial, quoted in Mary Ann Kuharski. “Aborting the “At Risk” Population: Racism Rears its Ugly Head.” ALL About Issues, Winter 1991, pages 16 and 17.
8 United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office], 2012 [132nd Edition]. Table 348, “Adults under Correctional Supervision.” The entire Statistical Abstract is on the Census Bureau’s Web site at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
9 Greg J. Duncan. Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty [Detroit: University of Michigan Press], 1984, pages 77 and 90.
10 Guttmacher Institute. “Are You in the Know: Cost of Abortion Services in the United States.” The average cost of a first-trimester surgical or medical abortion is shown at $470 at 2009 prices. Updated to 2012 prices, this is about $515. See http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion-costs.html.
11 The cost of delivering a baby averages about $13,000 in 2012 (Cost Helper Web site at http://www.costhelper.com). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program costs: United States Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 2012 [132nd Edition], Table 570, “Federal Food Programs: 1990 to 2010.” Women, Infants, Children Program (WIC) costs: 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 570, “Federal Food Programs: 1990 to 2010.” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program): 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 565, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ― Families and Recipients: 1980 to 2009,” and Table 567, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ― Expenditures by State: 2000 to 2009.”
12 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 475, “Federal Budget Receipts by Source: 1990 to 2011;” Table 475, “Federal Budget Receipts by Source: 1990 to 2011;” and Table 442, “State and Local Governments — Revenue by State: 2008.” Personal expenditures are in Table 677 of the 2012 Statistical Abstract, “Personal Consumption Expenditures by Function: 2000 to 2009.” This Table shows that personal expenditures in 2009 were about 10,001.3 billion dollars. To account for inflation and population growth, which increased about a combined total of five percent per year, this number is about($10,001.3 billion) X 1.05^3 = $11,578 billion in 2012 dollars. If we divide this number by the July 1, 2012 population of the United States, we get ($11,578 billion/316,300,000) = $36,605 of personal expenditures per person annually. The category “personal expenditures” includes many items. Some of these subcategories are “Household and Household Operation,” which includes household furniture, semidurable household furnishings, cleaning and polishing preparations, and household utilities (electricity, water, gas, fuel, oil, coal, and sanitation), and telephone or telegraph. The subcategory “Medical Care” includes drug preparations and sundries, dentists and physicians, health insurance, and hospital costs. The subcategory “Transportation” includes purchase price of new and used vehicles and their upkeep public transportation, and airlines, bus, train, and other fares. The subcategory “Recreation” includes toys, magazines, newspapers, radios and televisions, records, etc. The subcategory “Personal Business” includes attorneys, life insurance, and funeral and burial expenses.