Archive for Poor

Responding to the claim that pro-life is just “pro-birth”

Posted in Carole OpEd, OP-Ed, Pro-life is Pro-Birth with tags , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2015 by saynsumthn

I read with great interest an opinion piece by Ashley M Gorman who wrote quite convincingly about the need for pro-life Christians to care about the born as well as the unborn.

Ashley Gorman Planned Parenthood

The piece, entitled, “What would really happen if we defunded Planned Parenthood and ended abortion” seemed to be separating those who picket, protest, and riot ( why she used that term I have no idea) with those who are committed to helping women in crisis and the children they deliver. Gorman makes some compelling arguments about the role of Christians who are called to care about those in need and I would generally agree with those points. But where she loses me is when she claims most pro-lifers are “pro-birthers”, writing:

    Christians want the baby to be born, sure. They care about the birth of the baby. But do they really care about the actual life of the baby or mother?

    It seems most pro-lifers are really just pro-birthers. They simply want the baby to be born, but when it comes to involvement in the quality of life for the baby or the mom, the majority of Christians don’t really care in an obvious or measureable way.

You see, as a long time pro-life activist, I have heard this very false accusation many times, mostly by the opposition.

Gorman claims because of her Christian beliefs she is opposed to abortion and Planned Parenthood and I have no reason to doubt her sincerity. But her accusation is without merit.

As I regularly tell the pro-choice community there is simply no possible way to document the claim that pro-life people are not helping the born. How could Gorman pretend to know the majority of pro-life Christians in the nation? How could she know how they spend their time, money, and who they minister to, help and lay their lives down for?

But, even if it was true that pro-life people only care about the baby being born – why would that be wrong? In a world where many Christians I speak with tell me that fighting abortion is my ministry but not theirs, is there not room for the reverse to be true? Why is it that pro-life people, with all the abuse they face on a regular basis, with the lack of help to minister outside abortion clinics and where every abortion clinic is not yet manned by a Christian, why must the needs of the world or as Gorman puts it “the born” rest squarely on the shoulders of pro-lifers?

Why doesn’t Gorman ask, where the Christians are generally to meet all these other needs?

However, if it satisfies Gorman ‘s curiosity, as a “pro-life Christian” I have personally helped many born people. A few of the ways I have done so, include taking women into my home, paying for an operation for a young teen with a financial need, feeding the homeless, the elderly, and the poor, visiting the sick, the downcast, the disabled, and the mentally impaired and personally giving away thousands of my own hard earned dollars to help the so-called born in this world.

And, if her curiosity is not yet satisfied, I know hundreds of pro-lifers who have done the same time and time again. It is an amazing thing that happens when people get out of their homes and onto the streets – God will bring people to you to minister to. Such is the case with every pro-life activist who speaks against abortion and offers help to women on the public sidewalk week after week after week.

Gorman continued:

    If we really want Planned Parenthood defunded or abortion to end, then we better get really familiar with our age-old buddy Isaac Newton. Every action has a reaction, remember? Both abortion and birth have consequences.

    If the action is abortion, the reaction or consequence is the loss of 1,050,000 human lives per year in the U.S. (This is the total amount of abortions in the U.S. annually. Planned Parenthood’s contribution is 327,000 abortions last year.)

    If the action is birth instead of abortion, the reaction or consequence is the gain of 1,050,000 human lives per year.

    If you are holding up a pro-life sign, then you’d better be ready for 1.05 million new babies in our country on a yearly basis, and you’d better have a better plan than just “have the baby and see you later.”

Really? Only those who hold up “a pro-life sign” need a plan? Not the pastors, the church leaders who often ignore the blood running in our streets from the children as they are crushed and dismembered in the womb? Just the over-worked, often tired, and maxed out pro-life needs to “be ready?” What nonsense !

Ashley Gorman PP

This lecturing from Gorman is patronizing and uncalled for. Of course, pro-life people know that if the baby is not aborted the child will be born. Come on, we’ve been in the trenches doing this for 40 plus years – where has she been?

But, to assume that the exact same number of babies will be born that are aborted is just ignorant to many facets of this very complicated issue. However, it is reasonable to assume the number will be substantial. What is not reasonable is to also assume that every woman who gets pregnant and is unable to access abortion needs help. Stats show that many married women and those of normal financial means seek abortion.

According to Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, the rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women (those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level) in 2008 was 137 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. But that rate drops exponentially for the same demographic having an abortion: 52 per 1,000. Interestingly, that same report dated July of 2015, claimed there was an increase of women with unintended pregnancies – this with all the contraception, chemical and surgical abortions available.

However, according to the abortion group’s latest stats, 40% of unintended pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion and 60% ended in birth. A reduction from 2001, when 47% ended in abortion and 53% ended in a birth.

What the numbers also showed is that women with higher incomes have abortions far greater than those with lower incomes:

    “Compared with higher-income women, poor and low-income women are less likely to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion. Consequently, poor women have a relatively high unintended birth rate,” Guttmacher states.

To her credit, Gorman points out the need for Christians to adopt children now and in the future.

“This will mean a lot more mouths to feed and mothers to mentor, and a lot less time for excuses on how busy we are
,” Gorman writes and I agree.

Gorman then rightly challenges both herself and the Christian, writing:

    This personally challenges me when I look around at my life, at my house even. We have an extra bedroom. It was originally intended for guests to have their own separate room and bathroom. But guess what? If the end of abortion ever comes, then I’d better be ready to have that room permanently filled with a mom in crisis or an adopted child. Sorry guests, you may have to—gasp!—travel a few extra feet to the bathroom next time or maybe even—how insane!—stay in a hotel for the weekend.

    See, this abortion thing is more than just opening up a sign at a protest. It’s opening up your home, your whole life.

But, I would disagree with Gorman for giving herself permission to wait for abortion to end before taking action, while criticizing “pro-life Christians” for being “pro-birth.” Gorman must lead by example – she must act on her own convictions first as Jesus tells us in Matthew 7 (NIV), “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

There are many points which Gorman makes which I would not disagree and you can read her words and judge for yourself here.

But, I am growing weary of the pro-life movement and specifically, those who tirelessly work to rescue children from the grip of death, being a scapegoat for the lack of participation in the church generally.

Look, pro-life people to their credit, are some of the most giving and selfless people I know. We are more than willing to do our share and despite what our critics claim, we have shown this to be the case by our very lives. To us, abortion ends every time a mother chooses life – for those babies, abortion is over.

It is true, that we need to care about the born in society. But, just because that is a true statement does not make the accusation that pro-life people who speak on behalf of the unborn don’t care about the born. For goodness sake, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. What we recognize is the need to promote a general culture of life where we care about the weakest member of society, and the elderly, the poor, and others in need. This will never happen as long as we advocate for abortion or ignore the cause of the unborn.

To Gorman and others like her, I say I agree with most of their words but I disagree with what I feel is the spirit behind the words. The spirit that points fingers at some of the hardest working and most devoted and giving people I know. I lovingly suggest that she lead by example and that the next opinion piece she writes on this subject detail her personal efforts to help the needy now and not just once abortion ends.

NARAL holds Men for Choice event to push abortion rights

Posted in Bro-Choice, Ginsburg, Men For Choice, NARAL with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

Nothing seems more unusual for so-called “women’s rights” than a bunch of Brochoice men getting together to promote abortion all while using the name of a radical FEMALE advocate of population control!

NARAL Ma Men for Choice 2015

NARAL mass Men for Choice Rep harold Naughton abortion 395_3648275792262145694_n

This week’s NARAL Men for Choice event, featured, Rep. Harold Naughton and Ma. State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) representing the Middlesex & Worcester District.

NARAL Mass Men for Choice

NARAL Men for Choice Jamie Eldridge 2

In promoting the event the Massachusetts abortion lobby group incorrectly titled it the Ruth Bader GINsberg which, if spelled correctly would be Ginsburg – but- you can’t expect abortion advocates to get their facts straight- right?

NARAL RBGinsburg Feb 2015 Men for Choice FB  2 852689446501722369_n

Maybe they got the spelling off this old tweet their national office sent out in 2014:

NARAL Ginsberg Tweet

Hey- I completely understand how one could make a mistake in spelling- I do it all the time- but- Ginsburg is the abortion lobby darling- I mean- how could they mess that up?

Oh…look – someone must have caught their mistake – NARAL corrected the spelling:

But not before tweeting it here here here here here and on Facebook here among other times.

NARAL RGG Men for Choice

Men for Choice RBG B-ppkrDUMAEMuZr

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an advocate of population control otherwise known as eugenics:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once 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.”

Recently the good Justice expounded on which populations we don’t want too many of – the poor !

Ruth Ginsburg and Bloomberg 2015 abortion

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr and Matthew Winkler, the radically pro-abortion Justice says that restricting abortion targets the poor – uh – the exact same people she once said abortion was created for.

Is that not ironic?

Ginsburg was asked if American women should be concerned about all the abortion restrictions across the county.

Ginsburg replied, “Women should be concerned because abortion restrictions in practical effect target poor women and poor women only.”

But…I digress…Back to NARAL’s Men for Choice celebration:

NARAL’s Men for Choice event looked pretty boring based on their tweets:

NARAL 2015 Men for choice Harold Naughton

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 2

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 3

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet 4

NARAL Men for Choice Tweet

However, this tweet of an old man sitting on the floor with a little child to advocate abortion was pretty disturbing and read, “Spotted at #MenForChoice 2015: multiple generations of activists. The future of #ReproRights is looking bright.”

Men for Choice NARAL Future generations

Well…I doubt that. If the future of abortion rights is to beg support from men – I would say it is in deep trouble!

Planned Parenthood “Heck Yes” to Ginsburg comes on heels of Gruber abortion comments

Posted in Abortion saves taxpayers, Gruber, Maafa21, Mark Crutcher, Planned Parenthood Ginsburg, Planned Parenthood poor care, Planned Parenthood Poor Women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Saves Taxpayers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

On the heels of a video by disgraced ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber who said that abortion would save the taxpayers money because it would basically eliminate the poor, comes Planned Parenthood’s “Heck Yes” on another eugenics leader who said something similar.

No sooner did eugenics documentary and Planned Parenthood history film producer, Mark Crutcher release a statement comparing Jonathan Gruber’s comments on abortion to statements made by Supreme Court Justice and radical abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that – abortion giant Planned Parenthood gave her the “Heck Yes” award.

Planned Parenthood Ginsburg Heck Yes

There were times in 2014 when we just wanted to stand up and give a round of applause,” writes the eugenics founded Planned Parenthood organization,”When people spoke up for women’s health and rights so boldly, so bravely, so perfectly, we couldn’t help but cheer them on. As this year comes to a close, we took a look back with Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Best and Worst of 2014, and asked you to vote for the top “Heck Yes!” moment of the year.

Drumroll please…
And the Winner Is:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Planned Parenthood continues, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us our “Heck Yes!” Moment of the Year for her scathing dissent in the Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. In June, she wrote that the Court’s ruling — which lets some bosses deny their employees birth control coverage — is so startlingly broad that it can override the health care needs of employees and their dependents across the country.

“There were so many gripping lines from her 35-page dissent it’s hard to pick our favorite. In one of the most ominous, she warned that the precedent being set “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

Maafa21 logo

Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher writes on his blog, “In 2009, we released Maafa 21 – a 2 hour documentary in which we proved that the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with women’s rights, or choice, or reproductive freedom or any of the other sales pitches you hear from the abortion lobby. The truth is, abortion was legalized as an instrument of eugenics and racial genocide.

RuthBaderGinsberg

“Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly 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.”

“Here’s my question: when she said that abortion was legalized to deal with populations we don’t want to have too many of, do you get the feeling she was suggesting that there might be too many rich white people in the world? Or is it possible she might have had some other folks in mind?

And the answer is clear – YES she did. if you want to know who Ginsburg was referring to- watch the film Maafa21 – which is available to view in full on the website http://www.maafa21.com.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

Ironically, just yesterday during a Congressional hearing with ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie exposed the very thing that Ginsburg stated in 2009 during his questioning of Gruber.

(Partial Transcript Below: )

MASSIE:I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?

GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects

MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?

GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..

MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?

GRUBER: I guess

MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.

GRUBER: I was

MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.

In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.

Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?

GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…

MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.

MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?

GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….

MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?

GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..

MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?

GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?

MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?

GRUBER: no I …

MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?

GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.

MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.

Crutcher summarized Gruber’s comments well, “Gruber tried bobbing and weaving around Congressman Massie’s questions but, in the end, it was clear his position was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. In one of his previous writings he had described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but you’d have to actually be as stupid as Gruber thinks you are not to understand what he was saying.

“So let’s recap. Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one. They know that this issue is about political power, money, race and eugenics, but unlike Ginsburg and Gruber, they don’t go out in the public and talk about it.”

Read Crutcher’s full statements here.

Worth reading is my blog: Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

Planned Parenthood uses Lady Liberty to promote agenda of limiting births of “the poor and huddled masses”

Posted in Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood Free Birth Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2014 by saynsumthn

STatue of Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

These lines from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet, “The New Colossus” are inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and imprinted on the American consciousness.

But – eugenics founded abortion giant Planned Parenthood has decided to use the image of Lady Liberty to call for population control

Blogger Jill Stanek found this tweet from Planned Parenthood which shows the Statue of Liberty holding birth control pills:

PP Lady Liberty BC pills

Of course, this ties in perfectly with Planned Parenthood’s agenda because we all know that they “want the poor!” so they can guarantee they do not procreate !

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

I just don’t have the feeling that we can control it,” the Planned Parenthood founder lamented about the population explosion.

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

Sanger 1965 Population Control

guttmachr

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher suggested 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”.

As late as 1970 Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

This former Eugenics VP also suggested that the United Nations be brought in to control population, “ 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,” Guttmacher told Boston Magazine in 1970.

Sanger-membAES

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 idea that the government has to pay for the birth control of the poor is really part of a eugenics agenda that began many years ago and Planned Parenthood who has been knee deep in Eugenics since it’s founding knows it.

To learn more about this agenda of Forced Population Control read my previous post here.

Abortion provider on tax funded Planned Parenthood “they’re leaving poor women behind”

Posted in Abortionist, Planned Parenthood Mega Centers, Planned Parenthood Poor Women, Planned Parenthood six digit salary with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 21, 2013 by saynsumthn

ClaireKeyespicture-1211Long Time Pittsburgh abortion provider Claire Keyes has accused Planned Parenthood who receives MILLIONS in tax dollars of ignoring the poor, “They’ve made a decision to go after the young and the hip and the affluent, and they’re leaving poor women behind,” she told the Wall Street Journal.

Claire Keyes is a writer for the pro-choice blog RH Reality Check, and say that most of her life’s work has been in abortion. She has been the director of Allegheny Reproductive Health Center for more than 25 years, but recently retired. For nearly two decades she has been training abortion counselors; she has presented at both the National Abortion Federation and the National Coalition of Abortion Providers and she co-authored, “How Do You Want Your Abortion”.

Keyes is right !!!!

Planned Parenthood reports that they killed 333,964 unborn children from abortion with our tax dollars in the year 2011 to 2012 according to their most recent report! In addition, according to Planned Parenthood’s “Services” fact sheet, its clinics performed 329,445 abortions in 2010.

2011to2012absPP

bling1233607244

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2011-2012 Annual Report, the Planned Parenthood abortion giant received $542 MILLION Dollars in Government Grants for year ending June 2012 !

2011to2012 govgrants

Planned Parenthood then took those hard earned dollars away from poor and middle class hard working people and it paid its president Cecile Richards, $382,687 plus $24,427 from related organizations plus $13,039 in other compensation ! For a Grand Total Salary of $420,153 !

PPFA9902012

PPAnnualReport2-500x281

The $524 MILLION is a huge jump in government revenue from previous years. In 2008, Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2008, and $363.2 MILLION Dollars on Government Grants ( Tax Dollars) in 2009– that is ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY of taxpayer money !!! Then in 2011 the government gave them $524.4 MILLION which is 1.44 MILLION dollars a day in taxpayer money !!!!

Cecile Richards; Planned Parenthood President

In 2008, Planned Parenthood paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation. ( View 2008 990 here ) Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year. In a 2010 PPFA 990, Cecile Richards reported earning $319,245 from PPFA and $35,471 from related PP organizations

What you may not know is how much money , in a time of economic depression, Cecile Richards and her crew at Planned Parenthood are making, paid for by hard working American Tax Payers like me and you.

Just how is Planned Parenthood spending YOUR money ???

They are building Ritzy MEGA Centers around the country which are muti-million dollars abortion clinics:

In 2013 After purchasing three parcels of land at 4636 S. Claiborne Ave in New Orleans near Napoleon Ave,Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, plans to open a $4.2 million dollar 7,000 Sq. Ft. abortion facility on Claiborne Ave in 2014. This facility will be the largest of its kind in Louisiana. – See more at: http://www.nolaneedspeace.com/#sthash.TEJLOfh0.dpuf

PPNOLA-BuildingDrawing

In 2012 Planned Parenthood spent $35 MILLION Dollars on a NEW Facility in New York- was that necessary?

In 2010, in Oregon alone- Planned Parenthood spent $12.5 Million Dollars on a Headquarters there ( Read here )

Planned Parenthood of North Texas has broken ground in southwest Fort Worth, Texas on a $6.5 million health center and administrative office. According to its website, the planned 19,000 square foot complex will be triple the size of the facility it is replacing.

Construction has begun on Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region’s new health center at 2430 Poplar Avenue in Midtown Memphis

$2 Million Dollars: 2012- Planned Parenthood plans to open its first health center in the Victor Valley by the end of the year on Park Avenue, next to the Coco’s Bakery. The site was built in the ’80s to house Chuck E. Cheese’s and was last used in 2006 as a furniture store.
A Victorville zoning administrator approved the site plan for the $2.2 million project in early May, since the medical office is a permitted use in that area and the project meets all city codes. The site plan calls for minor exterior improvements and parking lot alterations to the existing 10,000-square-foot building.

$2.3 Million: 2012- Planned Parenthood of Illinois’ Teen Awareness Group helped kick off the remodel of the Planned Parenthood health center at 302 E. Stoughton St.
According to a press release, the budget for the remodel is $2.3 million.

In June of 2012, a builder informed pro-lifer Terri Palmquist of the construction of the new Planned Parenthood “mega” abortion center planned for Bakersfield, CA— over 10,000 square feet — a few blocks west of Mercy Hospital, across the street from a residential area. The new location is about a block west of the existing Planned Parenthood office, where abortions have apparently never been committed, although abortion referrals have frequently occurred.

Planned Parenthood is building a 13,000+ sq. ft. facility in Virginia Beach (515 Newtown Rd.)

$2.3 Million: 2010- Planned Parenthood is preparing to start a $2.3 million building project to expand its services and client base in Champaign.
Beth Kanter, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, said the organization is planning a complete remodeling of its Champaign facility at 302 E. Stoughton St. and has raised more than half the money needed to pay for it.

Construction is moving forward on the new Planned Parenthood facility in the Glenwood community between Eugene and Springfield.

$1.69 Million– ALBANY, NY -September 13, 2010, Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood opens the doors at its new Albany health care center and administrative offices at 855 Central Avenue. The new facility takes up the entire third floor of the three story building, located between CVS and Orange Ford across from the Hannaford Plaza on Central Avenue. In addition to the Albany health center, the facility includes a large conference room, a library, and a “Teen room”, as well as administrative and education offices. “We now have 18,000 square feet of completely renovated space explained UHPP President/CEO Patricia McGeown. The total cost $1.692 million cost .

In 2011, Planned Parenthood Arizona opened a new 1,982- square-foot medical facility.


Months after Planned Parenthood paid $733,151 cash for a 17,050 sq ft unfinished shell in Auburn Hills, Michigan, it stands empty as a neighboring hotel owner continues to battle the abortion giant in court, claiming a deed restriction prevents the structure from being used as an abortion mill.

PPLM’s Central Massachusetts 11,000 square feet Center at 470 Pleasant Street in Worcester!

Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood announced the conclusion of a state-of-the-art facility at 855 Central Ave.The new clinic occupies 18,000 square feet of completely renovated space

Concord-based Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific has expanded from the East Bay after the national Planned Parenthood Federation canceled its affiliation with the former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate last September due to a host of financial and administrative problems. The Shasta Pacific affiliate’s new clinic is opening in a 1,600-square-foot space at 141 Camino Alto, a medical office building across from Mill Valley Middle School that also includes two dental practices, an orthodontist and a prosthodontist.

On May 11th, 2010, Planned Parenthood opened its 76,000 square foot facility at 4600 Gulf Freeway.

Planned Parenthood of MN, ND, and SD is building a 46,000 sq. ft., 3-story mega-mill in an industrial park….

Some argue that Planned Parenthood is a “good” organization despite the fact that they were founded by a RACIST KLAN speaker who was so connected with the Eugenics Movement that many of her Planned Parenthood board members were Eugenics members as well. Eugenics is the movement that forcefully sterilized thousands of Blacks in the US and Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger agreed with that ideology. For more on that history watch the documentary film: Maafa21

HERE: Planned Parenthood getting rich off the taxpayers

UPDATE : 2010 Report
1. PP North Texas, Dallas, TX (salary of previous CEO) $324,381
2. PP Mar Monte, San Jose, CA (Linda Williams) $315,950
3. PP Illinois, Chicago, IL (salary of previous CEO) $302,014
4. PP Hudson Peconic, Hawthorne, NY (Reina Schiffrin) $296,908
5. PP Northern New England, Williston,VT (Steve Trombley) $292,297
6. PP Orange & San Bernadino, Orange, CA (Joe Dunn) $278,871
7. PP Treasure Coast, West Palm Beach, FL (Lillian Tamayo) $275,238
8. PP MN, SD & ND, St. Paul, MN (Sarah Stoesz) $268,710
9. PP Heartland, Des Moines, IA (Jill June) $265,389
10. PP Southern New England, New Haven, CT (Judy Tabar) $264,766
11. PP Great Northwest, Seattle, WA (Chris Charbonneau) $259,405
12. PP League of MA, Boston, MA (Dianne Luby) $256,474

While Planned Parenthood touts itself as an organization dedicated to women’s reproductive health, more than one-third of the executives surveyed in the new report (36%) are men and only 12 percent of them have any health background while 11 percent have some sort of political background.

The report also surveyed the salaries of the top employees of the abortion business, which maintains its headquarters in new York City. The report shows Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and her chief lieutenants are paid well.

Top salaries at the Planned Parenthood’s national office, according to the PPFA Federal Form 990 for the year ending June 30, 2010 are:

President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322

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.

Vintage vid “I am somebody”, from a once Pro-Life Jesse Jackson

Posted in Jesse Jackson with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 9, 2012 by saynsumthn

H/T

“I Am Somebody,” which Jackson elsewhere called the Black National Anthem, was written in the 1950s by Rev. William Borders, Sr. Here he is in 1971, when Rev. Jesse Jackson recited the powerful poem, “I Am Somebody” on the children’s television show, Sesame Street.

It is particularly poignant that in 1971 Jackson was adamantly pro-life, and here he was on Sesame Street teaching little children that they may be small, and their faces and hair my be different, but they were still to be “respected, protected, never rejected.”

“I am Somebody! I am Somebody! I may be poor, But I am Somebody. I may be young, But I am Somebody. I may be on welfare, But I am Somebody. I may be small, But I am Somebody. I may have made mistakes, But I am Somebody. My clothes are different, My face is different, My hair is different, But I am Somebody. I am Black, Brown, or White. I speak a different language But I must be respected, protected, never rejected. I am God’s child!” — Reverend Jesse Jackson recited this poem on Sesame Street in 1971. Yasmin Brown was featured in this episode.

1970– In the 1970’s as a the head of the People United to Save Humanity, (PUSH), a Chicago based Civil Rights group, [Jesse] Jackson acknowledged that he personally abhorred abortion because he felt that only the intercession of his grandmother had prevented his mother from aborting him. He brought a pronounced religious opposition to abortion, telling a group of students, “I’m conceding that unless we put human life second only to God in our lives, we’re becoming a Sodom and Gomorrah… we have an obligation to take sex and life as a far more sacred event than we do now.

Militant Black spokesman from Black Nationalist groups and the Black Muslims denounced family planning and abortion as “black genocide”.

Leaders including Julius Lester, Dick Gregory, Daniel H. Watts, and H. Rap Brown called upon blacks to continue to reproduce in order to avoid race suicide.
(SOURCE: Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America By Donald T. Critchlow, Oxford Press, Published 1999; P. 142)

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

1971 The Rev. Jesse Jackson, director of Operation Breadbasket, joined a demagogic chorus the other day by charging that government efforts to spread birth control information are equivalent to genocide. (BIRTH CONTROL ISN’T GENOCIDE Chicago Tribune Jun 28, 1971)

1973– Jesse Jackson said, “Abortion is genocide. Anything growing is living…If you got the thrill to set the baby in motion and you don’t have the will to protect it, you’re dishonest…You try to avoid reproducing sickness. You try to avoid reproducing deformities. But you don’t try to stop reproducing and procreating human life at its best. For who knows the cure for cancer won’t come out of some mind of some Black child?” (Jet Magazine Mar 22, 1973; p. 15)

1973– Chicago black leader, rails against birth control and abortion clinics in the black community and warns against “genocide“. …(Chicago Tribune – Apr 19, 1973)

1974– Pro-lifers say that a resolution in favor of a human life amendment written by Jesse Jackson would be read at their meeting. (The Milwaukee Sentinel – Jul 24, 1974)

1975– Jesse Jackson joins Billy Graham’s wife for a constitution amendment banning abortion. Jackson and Mrs. Graham were among the signers issued by the Christian Action Council, which read in part, “A deep concern for defenseless human life, including the unborn as well as the handicapped, is a consistent element of Christian moral teaching from the days of the Apostles onward…It is not limited to any particular Christian confession or denomination.” ( Christian’s join Bishops Ban on Abortion The Milwaukee Journal – Dec 1, 1975) and (Protestant leaders back abortion plan: The Telegraph-Herald – Nov 27, 1975)

1977– Endorsing the Hyde Amendment Jackson wrote, “I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants.” ” You don’t stop reproducing or procreating life at its best . For who knows that the cure for cancer won’t come out of the mind of some black child? ” He later called abortion – genocide. (The Southeast Missourian – Jul 14, 1988)

1977– Jesse Jackson writes, “Abortion is a vital issue. It does require immediate and wide attention because it really is a matter of life vs. death , because it is a matter of rights vs. morality.” ( The Milwaukee Sentinel – Jul 18, 1977 )

1977 Writing for the National Right to Life News, Jackson writes:
Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. So when American soldiers can drop bombs on Vietnam and melt the faces and hands of children into a hunk of rolling protoplasm and in their minds say they have not maimed or killed a fellow human being something terribly wrong and sick has gone on in that mind. That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us “niggers.” It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in. order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking. life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified…What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?” (How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue:Right to Life News, January 1977)

1978 Jesse Jackson writes, “The pro-abortion forces say that the social conditions awaiting so many of the unborn are not good enough to live in. It is a legitimate concern, but in finding an answer in abortion they are overstepping their rights. In denying life because of social conditions , they are forcing their cynicism on others.”
( Abortion and Life, by Jesse Jackson Youngstown Vindicator – Jan 22, 1978)

1978– Rev. Jesse Jackson national director of Operation PUSH in Chicago, was among the scheduled speakers for the fifth annual March for Life, an anti-abortion rally on the Capitol steps. But Miss Nellie Grey said he was Ill and unable to attend. ( Thousand rally at Capitol in March for Life Observer-Reporter – Jan 24, 1978 )

1979 Jesse Jackson well known civil rights activist and president of People United to Save Humanity said recently, “Politicians argue for abortion largely because they do not want to spend the necessary money to feed, clothe and educate more people. Here arguments for convenience and economic savings take precedence over arguments for human value and human life…In my mind serious moral questions between $300.00 and $1000.00 to have abortion, but will not pay $30.00 for a hot school lunch for the already born children of these same mothers.” ( Anti-abortionists have rights: The Michigan Daily – Sep 7, 1979)

1980– Jesse Jackson , prominent black civil rights activist , says that the idea that life is private and that one may do with it as one wishes ‘was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.’ (Abortions no answer to society’s problems: The Phoenix – Aug 7, 1980)

1984: In 1984, during his bid for President, Jackson was asked: What level of aid should the government provide for abortion?
Answer, “I choose to put my emphasis on sex education and self discipline before the fact. I would never encourage abortion, except under medically extenuating circumstances. On eth other hand I do support freedom of choice…” He later supports birth control. Bangor Daily News – May 18, 1984

1984– Jackson supports Medicaid funding of abortions for low-income women .(Morning Call – Apr 8, 1984)

1988 Jesse Jackson is the only remaining US presidential candidate to openly support abortion as a woman’s choice (Toronto Star – Jul 4, 1988)

1988 As a Presidential candidate in 1984 and 1988 Jackson has consistently said that women must have the right to choose whether to have an abortion. In an issues brief, Jackson advocates government medicaid funding of abortions for poor women. But in the 1970‘s and early 1980’s- Jackson who is a Baptist minister- was taking a much different approach. In 1977, he sent an open letter to Congress urging support for an amendment by Rep. Henry Hyde R.-Ill. banning federal funding of abortions. ” As a matter of conscience, I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants,” Jackson wrote. In prepared remarks before an anti-abortion rally in Washington DC, in 1978, Jackson said “allowing abortions may leave us with a hell right here on earth.” As late as May 1982, in an interview with Our Sunday Visitor , a national Catholic Weekly, Jackson said legalized abortions symbolized, ” a definite drift to Sodom and Gommorah in our culture. All this to me is part of a great suicidal process.” When asked to reconcile his positions on abortion Jackson has said that it would not be proper for him as president to impose his religious views on the country. ( Jackson’s Flip Flops raise questions about consistency :Herald-Journal – Apr 24, 1988)