Archive for License to Breed

Planned Parenthood’s abortion history and Margaret Sanger Timeline ( Part 1 of 4)

Posted in Abortion History, Abortion legalization by state, Abortion prior to Roe, Abortion Vintage, ACLU, Alan F. Guttmacher, American Law Institute, Eugenics, Frederick OSborn, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood History, Roe V Wade History with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2018 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood, abortion corporation

Believe it or not, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger did not introduce abortion to the organization. It was a man, Alan F. Guttmacher (after whom the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute is named), who did so. But Sanger has a very controversial history as an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics and as a member of the American Eugenics Society. The philosophy of eugenics not only fed her work within the Planned Parenthood movement, but her lesser known advocacy of euthanasia as well. The organizations Sanger founded, such as the American Birth Control League (ABCL), and later, Planned Parenthood, also have ties to many eugenics proponents. Under the philosophy of eugenics, minorities and the poor, as well as others deemed to be “feebleminded or unfit” were sometimes sterilized by the state. And at times, state sterilization boards used Planned Parenthood to commit these surgeries.

Sanger’s advocacy of eugenics reveals that her desire was initially to sterilize those she deemed “unfit.” It wasn’t until after these inhumane, eugenic methods were challenged in court that abortion was introduced into Planned Parenthood as an organization.

This clip from the documentary film, Maafa21, recounts a case in which eugenics courts utilized Planned Parenthood’s services to do the dirty work of eugenic sterilizations:

In 1921, Sanger founded the ABCL after opening her first birth control clinic in 1916. In 1923, according to the Margaret Sanger Papers, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB) began as the Clinical Research Bureau (CRB), and on January 19, 1939, the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) was formed through a merger of the ABCL and the BCCRB. At a special membership meeting held on January 29, 1942, the BCFA changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America Formerly BCFA

Sanger’s obsession with eugenics originated with her introduction to Henry Havelock Ellis in 1914, a psychologist and author of several books on sex, according to biographer Larry Lader. Lader once recounted that Sanger had “skimpy” knowledge about abortion, and that the topic caused a split between Lader and Sanger. “Ironically, I would eventually split with Margaret over abortion — only in a theoretical sense since, by 1963, she was too ill to carry on our old discussions,” Lader wrote in “Abortion II.” “Margaret had always opposed abortion…. Naturally, she was right in the context of her time,” he continued.

Image: Margaret Sanger (Image Credit Milwaukee Sentinel)

Margaret Sanger (Image Credit Milwaukee Sentinel)

Sanger believed in birth control to “stop the reproduction of the unfit”

Today, thanks to Lader and the media, Sanger is probably most well known for her push for contraception. But Sanger’s birth control agenda had a sinister eugenics plot behind it, as she admittedin 1919, when she stated:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control…. 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 unfit… Eugenics 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 was a nurse by trade and had witnessed the horrors of illegal abortion. In fact, as early as 1912, before there were appropriate medicines to combat infection, Sanger witnessed a patient die from what she believed to be an illegal abortion. Sanger was not necessarily opposed to abortion, but as it had not yet been legalized, her focus was eugenic sterilization and birth control. In her book Woman and the New Race, published in 1920, Sanger suggests that birth control is a better choice than abortion:

When society holds up its hands in horror at the “crime” of abortion, it forgets at whose door the first and principal responsibility for this practice rests. Does anyone imagine that a woman would submit to abortion if not denied the knowledge of scientific, effective contraceptives? Does anyone believe that physicians and midwives who perform abortions go from door to door soliciting patronage? The abortionist could not continue his practice for twenty-four hours if it were not for the fact that women come desperately begging for such operations…The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced, it has been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced. The question that  society must answer is this: shall family limitation be achieved through birth control or abortion?”

Margaret Sanger talks abortion in Woman and the New Race

As abortion continues today despite the availability of multiple kinds of contraception, it appears that Sanger, in claiming women seek abortion only because they don’t have birth control, was wrong.

Sanger called birth control “less repulsive” than abortion

She goes on to admit, “In plain, everyday language, in an abortion there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient…. Frequent abortions tend to cause barrenness and serious, painful pelvic ailments. These and other conditions arising from such operations are very likely to ruin a woman’s general health.”

Poster from Birth Control Federation called Abortion Facts

Then, she briefly advocates for legalized abortion, while maintaining her focus on “prevention,” writing, “We know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient, and we also know that particular diseases can be more easily combatted after such an abortion than during a pregnancy allowed to come to full term. But why not adopt the easier, safer, less repulsive course and prevent conception altogether? Why put these thousands of women who each year undergo such abortions to the pain they entail and in whatever danger attends them?”

She goes on to claim that “every argument that can be made for preventive medicine can be made for birth-control clinics,” adding that without these, “the rapid increase of the feebleminded, of criminal types and of the pathetic victims of toil in the child-labor factories,” will continue.

Sanger understood that life begins at the moment of fertilization, writing this in her Family Limitationpamphlet, originally published in 1914: “Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called an abortion. No one can doubt that there are times where abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception.”

Margaret Sanger in Family Limitation noted life begins at fertilization.

In 1921, Sanger proclaimed that “the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of eugenics.”

In 1926, as Live Action News has previously detailed, Margaret Sanger met with the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan, entertaining additional invitations, according to her own report of the meeting. The event took place in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and Sanger described in it in her autobiography:

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

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

Sanger’s writes about meeting the Klan in autobiography

Sanger believed having children was a privilege (granted by the state), not a human right

In 1934, Sanger suggested requiring a “license” to have children. To the likes of Sanger, the concept of becoming a parent was never one of “choice” but rather something reserved only for the privileged few and only if they obtained the approval of either the government or eugenics leaders.

License to Breed Margaret Sanger

In her publication, “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.

Then, in 1936, Julian S. Huxley, brother of novelist Aldous, who authored Brave New World, published an article in the Eugenics Review, where he proclaimed that birth control had to be taught to the so-called “lowest strata” of society who were “reproducing relatively too fast.” Sanger once said that Huxley “brings to the Birth Control movement the most distinguished intellectual background England can boast.” Huxley wrote:

First comes the prevention of dysgenic effects. The upper economic classes are presumably slightly better endowed with ability – at least with ability to succeed in our social system – yet are not reproducing fast enough to replace themselves, either absolutely or as a percentage of the total population. We must therefore try to remedy this state of affairs, by pious exhortation and appeals to patriotism, or by the more tangible methods of family allowances, cheaper education, or income-tax rebates for children. The lowest strata, allegedly less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast.

Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world; and so on. That is to say, much of our eugenic programme will be curative and remedial merely, instead of preventive and constructive.

Huxley was an outspoken elitist on population control who, in 1946, became UNESCO’s first Director-Genera. He was the vice president of the Abortion Law Reform Association, and like Sanger, he once endorsed euthanasia. Then, in 1959, Huxley was awarded for his work by Planned Parenthood.

Julian HUxley spoke to Planned Parenthood

Julian Huxley spoke to Planned Parenthood (Image credit: Maafa21 documentary)

Interestingly, months later in 1937, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially recognized birth control as an integral part of medical practice and education. Then, North Carolina became the first state to include birth control in a public health program. We later learned that they were also heavily influenced by the eugenics movement.  

In 1938, Sanger set up a “Committee on Planned Parenthood,” announcing it in her publication, the American Birth Control Review, writing, “As a first step in a campaign to expand the nation-wide activities and services of the American Birth Control League, the Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood will conduct a fund-raising campaign for $263,990 this Spring in metropolitan New York.”

Image from Sanger's publication

Committee on Planned Parenthood 1938 ABCL

By 1940, the group had raised over $118,000 for the cause with $10,000 coming from Albert D. Lasker.

Planned Parenthood once touted birth control as a way to reduce abortion… but it hasn’t

In 1939, the New York Times used the term “Planned Parenthood” in an article headline, quoting Sanger as claiming that, “The only way to halt the increasing abortion rate and strike at the roots of a racket… is through medically guided birth control advice.”

Image of article

Planned Parenthood mentioned in 1939 in NYT

Behind the scenes, Sanger’s organization was trying to gain the trust of the Black community. Her work in eugenics and her members’ continued advocacy of the very racist movement created some ambivalence.  The problem they faced was that the Black community saw birth control and abortion as genocide. But Sanger had a solution: to use Blacks themselves to introduce and promote “birth control.”

Thus, in 1939, Sanger created her “Negro Project,” as described in a letter she penned to Clarence Gamble regarding her desire to use Black ministers in furthering her organization’s agenda, because, she said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” and if it did, these ministers could “straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Excerpt: Margaret Sanger Letter to Clarence Gamble, Negro Project

Then, on March 6, 1942, the NYT announced that the BCFA had changed its name to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood founded in 1942 (Image: New York Times)

In 1946, Frederick Osborne, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society (AES) who signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood” was elected president of the AES.

Osborn once wrote, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.” Some speculate that Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “Every Child a Wanted Child,” may have originated with Osborn. It is no wonder that Osborn also said that “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

1950’s Planned Parenthood Logos

A few years later, in 1950, Margaret Sanger proclaimed in a letter to Mrs. Stanley McCormick, “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. 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. Contraceptive research needs tremendous financial support…”

The push to add voluntary abortion for “medical, eugenic, and humanitarian reasons” began

Then, in 1959, the American Law Institute (ALI) proposed permitting legal therapeutic abortions. The ALI’s Model Penal Code on abortion was the premise of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision.

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code on Abortion (Image: Chicago Tribune, 1966)

In 1960, Psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Kummer and Zad Leavey, Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles, suggested at an annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), that abortion laws be changed to allow for, as the New York Times reported, “medical, eugenic and humanitarian reasons.”

In 1962, Alan Guttmacher, M.D. began his years as president of Planned Parenthood. The following year (1963) Betty Friedan published her book, The Feminine Mystique. Then, in 1964, the platform of the American Eugenics Party was presented and read in part, “The United States is already over-populated. We must stop all immigration and impose birth controls.”

Harriet Pilpel and Alan Guttmacher

In 1965, Harriet Pilpel, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union who later became chairwoman of the Law Panel International of Planned Parenthood Federation, according to the New York Times, published The Right to Abortion, calling abortion “the most widespread… method of fertility control in the modern world.”

Pilpel added, “If we really want to cut our population growth rate on a voluntary basis, we should make abortion available on a voluntary basis, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.”

That same year, more pressure was applied to the AMA to adopt a resolution in support of abortion. Sitting on the AMA’s Committee on Human Reproduction was Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a leader in the Planned Parenthood movement and director of SEICUS at the time. She argued, according to the New York Times, that, “A woman should not have to go through with having a baby she will shudder to see.”

Sanger died in 1966, several years before abortion was decriminalized in most states. That same year, Lader published his infamous book, Abortion.

Margaret Sanger Dies 1966

In 1967, Lader and Nathanson hijacked the women’s movement and influenced Betty Friedan to add an abortion plank to NOW. Soon after, in 1969, Lader helped to found NARAL.

Also in 1967, the AMA approved a measure to adopt an abortion policy that would allow therapeutic abortions for the health of life of the mother, to prevent the birth of a child with a physical or mental defect, and to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

That same year, California, Colorado, and North Carolina modified their statutes on abortion as well.

The next year, Planned Parenthood would also approve abortion and call for liberalizing laws that criminalized abortion.

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

This was part one in Live Action News’ series on the history of Planned Parenthood’s move to committing abortions. You can read part twopart three, and part four in additional articles. 

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.

Are Sanger’s eugenic efforts still a hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission?

Posted in Margaret Sanger and AES, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood Eugenics Connections with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 9, 2017 by saynsumthn

From Live Action News |

In celebrating their 100th birthday, Planned Parenthood supporters continue to praise their founder Margaret Sanger (even featuring her on their 100 year website) while simultaneously attempting to distance the organization from her eugenicist beliefs. The problem is that they continue to hold Sanger up as an icon, despite her support of one of the most demeaning ideologies of recent centuries.

planned-parenthood-100-years-features-margaret-sanger

In celebrating their 100 year anniversary, Planned Parenthood says (as pictured above) the organization “was founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams.” But is this true? Was Planned Parenthood really founded on those ideas? Not quite.

Alexander Sanger (image credit IPPF)

Alexander Sanger (image credit IPPF)

In an interview with Vox, Margaret Sanger’s grandson Alexander Sanger, who is the current Chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council and a former president of Planned Parenthood New York City, tried to gloss over his grandmother’s beliefs by claiming that she only “dabbled in eugenics”:

Now, she also dabbled in eugenics. She was not a full believer in all of eugenics, and disagreed with some of the things eugenicists believe in. But at various points in her life, she was opposed to women who she felt were incapable of being mothers from becoming mothers.

How does being “opposed to women who she felt were incapable of being mothers from becoming mothers” square with the idea that women should have “information” and be able to “fulfill their dreams,” as is advertised on the website graphic above? What if those women dreamed of motherhood? And we are supposed to believe that Sanger was some sort of feminist icon?

If Margaret Sanger was “not a full believer in eugenics” as her grandson suggests, it wasn’t where the so-called “unfit” were concerned. The founder of Planned Parenthood clearly advocated eugenic solutions for that “class of people” she deemed unworthy to have children, even calling for a “license to breed” and the permanent sterilization of those she deemed “feebleminded.” If Sanger differed from rank and file eugenicists, it was that she also supported those she called “fit” to voluntarily limit their children. In her autobiography, Sanger wrote:

Eugenics, which had started long before my time, had once been defined as including free love and prevention of conception. Moses Harman of Chicago, one of its chief early adherents, had run a magazine and gone to jail for it under the Comstock regime. Recently it had cropped up again in the form of selective breeding, and biologists and geneticists such as Clarence C. Little, President of the University of Maine, and C. B. Davenport, Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Station for Experimental Evolution, had popularized their findings under this heading…. I accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands.

The fact is that despite the claims of Planned Parenthood’s supporters, not only did Sanger have a strong belief in eugenics, she made certain eugenics movers and shakers were deeply embedded in her organization. Below is a sample list of American Eugenics Society founders, leaders or members who were a part of Margaret Sanger’s board or organizations:

American Eugenics Society members on Margaret Sanger's Board (image credit Maafa21)

American Eugenics Society members on Margaret Sanger’s Board (Image credit: Maafa21)

And here is Margaret Sanger herself, listed as a member of the American Eugenics Society. Hardly a “dabble,” as her grandson has suggested:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger a member of the American Eugenics Society (image credit Maafa21)

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger a member of the American Eugenics Society (image credit Maafa21)

Margaret was such a strong believer in eugenics that she even attempted to merge her publication with the Eugenics Society (which again doesn’t sound like “dabbling” to me). An April 1, 1925, article in the New York Times documented Sanger’s intentions:

Mrs. Margaret Sanger founder of the American Birth Control League, said that the league was ready to unite with the eugenic movement whenever the eugenists were able to present a definite program of standards for parenthood on a eugenic basis rather than a eugenic ideal.

nyt1925merge-abcl-eugenics1

mergeabclwitheugenicsThis letter, written by Sanger in June of 1928 and published in her Birth Control Review under the heading, “Shall the Birth Control Review be combined with a Eugenics Magazine?” Sanger details her meeting with American Eugenics Society representative, Leon Whitney, to merge her publication with that of the Eugenics Society in order to “reach[] a wider audience and cover[] a more extended field.” Whitney was the former executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society and Sanger willingly published his writings in her Birth Control Review.

woman-and-the-new-race-eugenics-publishing-company-margaret-sanger2Some of Sanger’s writings, listed below, were even published by the eugenics movement (Source: Margaret Sanger, Pioneer of Birth Control, by Lawrence Lader and Milton Meltzer):

• What Every Mother Should Know, originally published by the Eugenics Publishing Co. in 1916
• What Every Girl Should Know, originally published by the Eugenics Publishing Co. in 1922

Planned Parenthood promoters try to convince the public that Sanger — a member of the American Eugenics Society who, by the way, also advocated for euthanasia — was simply a product of her day. But the facts paint a much different picture. Despite the evidence, Planned Parenthood’s supporters are working overtime to gloss over their founder’s beliefs.

Planned Parenthood Board Member Max Michael

Planned Parenthood Board Member Max Michael

In an op-ed praising abortion giant Planned Parenthood’s work as “health care equity,” Max Michael, MD, a member of the Planned Parenthood Southeast Board of Director, recently wrote:

Like many great organizations, Planned Parenthood is not without its flaws. While Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of tremendous achievement, she was also a flawed and imperfect leader. She devoted her life to enabling women to have control over when and whether to have children, yet she also had beliefs, practices, and associations that Planned Parenthood acknowledges, denounces and works to redress.

Michael’s words coincidentally seem to mirror Planned Parenthood’s published talking points.

Planned Parenthood proudly calls Sanger a “reproductive rights trailblazer,” “woman of heroic accomplishments,” and “a true visionary,” while at the same time claiming to denounce her views, even giving Sanger a pass for speaking to the Klu Klux Klan, writing:

However, it is true that Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926. Sanger’s passion to spread and mainstream birth control led her to speak to any group interested in learning how to plan their reproduction. Planned Parenthood strongly disagrees with Sanger’s decision to address an organization that spreads hatred (Sanger, 1938, 366).

Planned Parenthood praises Margaret Sanger, 2008

Planned Parenthood praises Margaret Sanger, 2008

Planned Parenthood leaves out the fact that Sanger was encouraged by the results of her speech to the Klan, saying, “In the end, through simple illustrations I believe I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”

As the public learns the truth about Sanger’s beliefs, they tend to become less supportive of Planned Parenthood’s mission. It is this reality that likely prompted an unusual response from a Planned Parenthood spokesperson in 2011, after a member of the Humanist Community Forum in California asked her how she would respond to statements that Margaret Sanger was “such a racist.”

Guadalupe Rodriguez, Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in Silicon Valley, Alameda and San Mateo Counties, answered (watch the exchange at 37:44):

What we say is that she did make these statements – they were wrong then and they’re wrong now. We’re not standing by anything that she said–we’re not standing by her beliefs. We are a vastly different organization now than we were when she first started the group. We’ve evolved…. What we say is her statements and her beliefs were wrong then and they’re wrong now and we don’t stand with her – we are a different organization.

Planned Parenthood has a strange way of “denouncing” and “disagreeing” and not “standing by” Sanger’s beliefs — they named their most prestigious award after her. Sadly, even though Sanger’s beliefs were despicable, many journalists and politicians alike have accepted the infamous Margaret Sanger Award without hesitation.

Planned Parenthood’s doublespeak regarding Sanger is troubling, to say the least. The organization has called her one of the “greatest heroines,” while simultaneously denouncing her eugenic efforts. Privately, they acknowledge that Sanger’s vision was the foundation of Planned Parenthood’s mission. A 2008 Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains annual report says of Sanger, “Sanger’s early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission.”

 

NARAL tweets: Abortion is fundamentally about “Parenting” i.e. Killing is parenting?

Posted in License to breed, NARAL, RH Reality Blog with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 12, 2015 by saynsumthn

Naral Pro-choice America is tweeting, “Being pro-choice *is* fundamentally about *parenting!

NARAL Prochoice parenting

The NARAL Tweet takes you to RH Reality Blog’s tumblr page where they posted this:

RH Reality prochoice parenting

They think that because Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL has announced that she was pregnant with twins, that it is, “confounding anti-choice activists.”

NARAL Pregnant twins

Well not really.

See, we have always known that the babies the abortion lobby wants killed are NOT their own.

In their warped elitist world – they are the ones “deserving” to have children.

After all wasn’t it Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger and other eugenics leaders that she followed, who suggested the government enact a “License to breed?”

guttmachr

In fact, as late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.” (read about that here)

He endorsed the concept of limiting births by force.

As early as 1966 , in an article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher lauded the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” he wrote, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.

Later, Guttmacher figured out that society would frown on the idea, so he endorsed a plan that he says would work, ABORTION, “If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.

LICENSE TO BREED

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

LicensetoParent

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

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

Hardin AES

The idea of Forced Population Control is not a new concept as I detail here but was opposed by society generally.

In 1970, Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood to go public with their ideas to “limit births” because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here) and here.

So, in conclusion, NARAL prez having babies is not a surprise.

What is a shock is that somehow being for the “choice” to kill your baby at any time prior to birth and for any reason under the sun makes you a “good parent.”

That- is ridiculous!

Former Planned Parenthood prez Alan Guttmacher population control plan: limit births to two children

Posted in Garret Hardin, Guttmacher, License to breed, Limit Birth, Margaret Sanger Children, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Overpopulation, Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood abandons choice, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Global Family Planning, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Planned Parenthood limits choice, Planned Parenthood opposed by Blacks, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

guttmachr As late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

Guttmacher endorses Force Full Article

The statement was made to a Sarasota paper while he was speaking under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

Alan Guttmacher, who was the residing president of Planned Parenthood World-Population at the time, sat down with Sarasota Herald Tribune reporter, Lee McCall for an interview.

Guttmacher told McCall that Planned Parenthood was an “excellent organization.”

McCall reports that Guttmacher pointed out that even though there have been discussions of limiting families to 2.2 children for what we would consider a forced population control system, Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here).

Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “It would be difficult. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. 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.”

Guttmacher endorses force

Guttmacher goes on to endorse a plan that he says would work, ABORTION, “If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.

Guttmacher also said this, “We look forward to the time when out clinics can be closed, when the government can fund enough money to serve the poor and research new birth control methods.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guttmacher VP AES article
The same year, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.

GuttmacherColorfulUNForce
Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.

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 “It may be taken out of the voluntary category“, Guttmacher said.

That created a huge backlash which set off accusations again by minority communities that Planned Parenthood was wanting to limit families especially black ones.

In an attempt to squelch that – Guttmacher denied that he wanted family limitation- and the media published the lies hook, line and sinker.

Guttmacher denies wanting to limit families

In 1971, Guttmacher again railed on about the importance of government limiting the size of families and said the government had been “niggardly” in their attempts to combat over-population. By then the backlash against force had begun so, Guttmacher began to advocate for “Volunteerism” as a PR way to get his population control measures received.

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher sees the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” writes Guttmacher, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible. ”

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

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”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

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

This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.

License to Breed Sanger Bizarre Ideas

Maafa21 details the use of force for population control.

The idea of Forced Population Control not a new concept as I detail here.

Hardin AES

In another example from 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society. In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

shockley In 1967 when eugenicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.” He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange. Shockley was a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference.
William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant
___________________________________________

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.
Minkler Quote Article

In 1972, Minkler made this astonishing statement, “We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.”

Back to Alan Guttmacher

Most people have no idea that the organization he started the Guttmacher Institute is the official research arm of Planned Parenthood and quoted nationally.

Forced Population Control not a new concept

Posted in Ehrlich, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Holdren, Huxley, Jaffe Memo, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 29, 2013 by saynsumthn

Force M21

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

Beyond FP Berleson

In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

From the film Maafa21

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ALAN GUTTMACHER

guttmachr

Then….In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

Guttmacher VP AES article

Followed by this statement, made by Planned Parenthood and the Eugenics Society’s Alan Guttmacher in a 1970 interview with the Baltimore Magazine ,
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

AlanGuttmacherEUgenicsQty 1954-55

Guttmacher was on the board of Planned Parenthood and also VP of the American Eugenics Society:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BirthControlWater

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HARRY LAUGHLIN:

Harry Laughlin was an official with both the American Eugenics Society and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League and, in 1928, his plan for using forced sterilization to eliminate those who might produce what he called “degenerate offspring” was published in the Birth Control Review.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DONALD MINKLER:

Governments may have to use FORCE to control populations, that was what Donald Minkler told to Planned Parenthood in 1972.

Minkler Pp

“We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.” Dr. Donald Minkler, 1972.

Minkler Quote Article

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melvin M Ketchel

In 1969, Ketchel believed that adding Birth Control o water was the answer to population control. Ketchel was a professor of Physiology at Tuffs Medical school.

Melvin Ketchel

Melvin Ketchel 2

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Samuel Holmes

The idea of forced eugenics was not something that suddenly developed in the 1970s.

Samuel Holmes Maafa21

In a 1929 speech, American eugenicist Samuel Holmes had proposed that mandatory birth control should be used as a tool to eliminate what he called the menace to the white race that had been created by increases in black population. His solution was to have a quota system in which the right to have a child would be controlled by the government and determined by race. At the time, Holmes was on the National Council of the American Birth Control League which would later become known as Planned Parenthood.

Holmes ABCL

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JULIAN HUXLEY

Huxley M21

In 1936, eugenicist Julian Huxley, proposed that the genetically inferior classes could be made to have fewer children if they were denied easy access to welfare. Another part of his proposal was that medical care to these same people should be restricted in order to reduce the survival rates of the children they did have. He also called for the forced sterilization of anyone who was unemployed beyond a certain length of time. Huxley was later honored by Planned Parenthood and was a featured speaker at one of their annual conventions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Garrett Hardin

Hardin AES

Hardin Right to Breed

In 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society.

In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

“I suggest that we celebrate 1976 as a year of reproductive’ pause to come as close as possible to a zero birthrate,” Dr. Garrett Hardin, a professor of human ecology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told a population conference attended by members of the John Muir Institute, a conservation organization.
• “Even if it did not succeed completely, I think we should at least make the effort—as a kind of symbolic gesture,” he said in an interview later.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIMIT BIRTHS:

Overcrowded World

Dr. Donald Aitken

Astrophysicist Dr. Donald Aitken said: “I’d like to see Mr. Nixon, stand up a few years from now and say,’Nothing has happened. Population must be controlled. We must set an example. .
” ‘So the government has to step in arid tamper with religious and personal convictions— and maybe even impose penalties for every child a family has beyond two.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

University of ‘ Colorado’s Prof, of Economics Kenneth E. Boulding has proposed a system of “Marketable licenses” to have children as the only one which will combine the minimum of social controversy necessary to the solution of the problem, with a maximum of individual liberty’and ethical choice.

Dr. Walter E. Howard

Dr. Walter E. Howard, professor of wildlife biology at the University of California at Davis, told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science he
thinks the public is not ready for laws concerning reproduction, but that “in time government controls must come.”
Procreation could no longer be considered a private matter, he said, adding, “Once the public becomes informed, I believe a social stigma will develop against large families.
Couples will be embarrassed to have more than one or two children in the very near future.”

Edgar Chasteen

Edgar Chasteen , founder of Compulsory Birth Control for All Americans, said: “Freedom will be the death of us all; if only we can recognize how necessary compulsion is to our society.”

Edgar Chasteen

Dr. Malcolm Potts

The menace of the world population e x p l o s i o n , said another speaker, Dr. Malcolm Potts, is so enormous that the alternative to a concerted, rational program now might well be “the government putting hormones in the water supply in 1984 or carrying me off for a forcible vasectomy (sterilization operation) because I had two children.”

From the public health viewpoint, he said, “I stand by my deliberately provocative statement that the pill should be in vending machines and cigarettes on prescription, According to an article in the “WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1969

Waterloo Daily
REPORTER:

On October 7,1971 the Waterloo Doily Courier, Waterloo, Iowa, reported that a reporter for Black Hawk County District Court Judges Ralph Hasner (deceased) and George Heath, responded to a two-part Waterloo Courier series last May on Black Hawk County welfare spending with this suggestion:
‘•Seems to me the best bet for the taxpayer would be to require that any woman be sterilized after the birth of her second illegitimate child. Also, the father of child number two should be sterilized. Then at least no more would be produced.” Jensen, now living in Colorado, admits that “perhaps” he was being “too tough.”,But he also suggested that
people should “get mad enough that they will insist on sterilization. Then deliberately having child after child as a means of making a living will go out of style.”

Judge Blair Wood

Black Hawk County District Judge Blair Wood is one who sees possible legal support for compulsory sterilization or birth control.
“Three factors seem to support a form of compulsory sterilization — a long – term shot or pill is after all merely temporary sterilization,” says Judge Wood.

Judge Wood also thinks a long-lasting birth control shot “would be more palatable to the court than irreversible sterilization. “Then the court could take another look at each individual situation after six months or a year and decide whether another shot was needed in order to extend that person’s temporary sterilization for another six months or year.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MARGARET SANGER

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had board members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“.

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”.

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. 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.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ralph MacMullan

University of Michigan, recently, Mr. MacMullan inquired as to how we can check or .reduce the population of these United States.
“I suspect, however,” he said, “‘that the key to success lies in convincing .people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”

McMullan

“How do we go about stabilizing our population? I don’t know …Many measures have been suggested — mass sterilization, abortion, birth control chemicals in the water supply—you
name it. I suspect, however, that the key to success likes in convincing people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”

McMullan 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Malloy

” there is nothing farfetched about developing a nontoxic waterborne chemical that would temporarily inhibit human fertility without deleterious side effects.”
So says editorialist Michael Malloy, wringing his Hands in a recent issue of the National Observer.

Malloy

‘Such a chemical in our municipal water supplies would reduce the birth rate while avowing every couple to have as many children as they wished simply by avoiding public water. This would ‘immediately eliminate most illegitimacy our society. It would make the “unwanted child” a pathetic memory. It would free our cities from much of their crushing welfare burden. “So let’s target our population control on the least responsible instead of the most responsible people,” he urges.
“Let’s put. the sacredness of human life back in the center of our morality and stop all. these abortions. Let’s allow people to have as many children as their hearts have room for, and still reduce our population. In short, let’s find something to put in the water.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C. Scott Littleton

Littleton 4

Littleton 3

C Scott Littleton

Littleton

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J Van Overbeek:

BirthControlWater

Compulsory BC for Poor

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAUL EHRLICH

Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich advocated forced population control and was also a speaker at Planned Parenthood events – He also served on the Board of Advocates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Ehrlich PP

Ehrlich PPFA

EHrlich 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN HOLDREN

Holdren Eugenics9273513_orig
Current White House science advisor John P. Holdren co-wrote the 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which lays out in detail a wide-array of coercive and voluntary-submission population control methods. One of the most drastic is that of “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods” (p. 787). Other drastic proposals include starving the poor by consolidating the global food supply and depriving nations who don’t meet population reduction goals of proportionate food rations (p. 942-3).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Frederick S. Jaffe

jaffe-memo

Putting sterilants in the water, though, dates back further to a 1969 memo sent in private from Planned Parenthood VP Frederick S. Jaffe to the Rockefeller-created Population Council’s President Bernard Berelson. It advocated drastic coercive measures including “Fertility control agents in water supply” and “encourage increased homosexuality.” But much of the one-page memo also aimed to dangle state benefits over expectant mothers to encourage abortions, sterilization and birth control through payments, tax credits and public housing policies.

Both Jaffe and Berelson are recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award for their population control work. Rockefeller-funded Sanger is a classical Eugenicist, and the founder of the Birth Control League that later transformed into Planned Parenthood. She was a key player in the highly inflammatory “Negro Project” (to reduce numbers in the black population) wherein she bluntly wrote in 1939 that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nolan Finley

NolanFinley

In 2012, The Detroit News published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death– all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:
“Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

Population Control author: Nobody has the right to have three children

Posted in Ehrlich, License to breed, Limit Birth, Margaret Sanger with tags , , , , , , on January 23, 2013 by saynsumthn

population-bombThe author of the 1972 book the Population bomb,Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich, has told Raw Story that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

“Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” Ehrlich told Raw Story. “It’s not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, it’s giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they don’t have so many children that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives are in danger.”

“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich continued. “That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, it’s crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor aren’t going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich aren’t going to have a chance either.”

Ehrlich seems to agree with the old school Eugenics movement as well as members of that movement like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

SangerFarmsandOpenSpaces

In 1932, Margaret Sanger called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

LicensetoParent

1934- BABY CODE Sanger wrote:
” A License for Mothers to Have Babies” written by Margaret Sanger and published in the American Weekly Magazine in 5/27/1934 (Library of Congresss, Papers of Margaret Sanger)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code should be to provide for a better distribution of babies. to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of city, county, or state health departments or under the support of charity, or as nonprofit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.

Article 3. 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 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records for any given year show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county concerned shall be taxed by the State according to the degree of the variation. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control clinics or in other ways calculated to improve the situation involved….

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.