Archive for Population Control

How the population control movement recruited a sitting Republican president

Posted in Black Genocide, Black leaders on abortion, Blacks oppose Birth Control, Blacks promote abortion, Bush, Bush Family, Eugenics, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood Black president, Planned Parenthood Blueprint, Planned Parenthood Free BC, Planned Parenthood Free Birth Control, Planned Parenthood funded by rich elites, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Planned Parenthood President, Planned Parenthood Republican Party, Planned Parenthood Republicans, Planned Parenthood Tax Dollars, Title X with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2018 by saynsumthn

Image: Nixon Signs Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (Image credit: Maafa21)

Live Action News’ series on Title X and the formation of federally funded population control programs has documented that the push for government dollars in the 1960s was derived from a eugenics-based effort to limit the populations of “low income,” impoverished communities. During this time frame, many within the population control community, including Planned Parenthood, were concerned about overpopulation, and some would argue the concern was focused disproportionately on minorities. This concern wasn’t new for Planned Parenthood, which has a history steeped in eugenics, an ideology that manifested itself in many ways, including the forced sterilization of many Black citizens. As Live Action News previously reported, many within Planned Parenthood’s organization and other population control groups thought coercion might be needed to stem the growth of people groups they deemed “unfit.”

Part two of the series noted how the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration began touting federally funded “family planning,” a term perceived to be more acceptable than “birth control” (emphasis on “control”) to the Black community. But it was under the Richard Nixon administration that these population control programs grew. Years later, it became public knowledge that President Nixon had made racist statements towards the same population groups these programs were created to “help.”

population control, planned parenthood

Planned Parenthood praised Richard Nixon over creation of Title X (Image credit: Twitter)

In the clip below from the documentary about eugenics, Maafa21, you can hear actual recordings of then-President Richard Nixon discussing the growth of the Black population with members of his staff. These discussions center around the legalization of abortion, but some believe they may also shed light on Nixon’s push for federally funded population control programs.

A partial transcript is below (warning – offensive language):

Nixon: ” … as I told you –  we talked about it earlier –  that a hell of a lot of people want to control all the Negro bastards.”

Nixon: “You know what we are talking about – population control?”

Unidentified Staff: “Sure

Nixon“We’re talking really – and what John Rockefeller really realizes – look, the people in what we call the “our class” control their populations. Sometimes they’ll have a family of six, or seven, or eight, or nine, but it’s an exception.”

Unidentified StaffSure

Nixon: “People who don’t control their families are people in- the people who shouldn’t have kids...”

In her writings from the Pivot of Civilization, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, a known member of the American Eugenics movement, states, “Surely it is an amazing and discouraging phenomenon that the very governments that have seen fit to interfere in practically every phase of the normal citizen’s life, dare not attempt to restrain, either by force or persuasion, the moron and the imbecile from producing his large family of feeble-minded offspring.”
population control, planned parenthood

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

In her book, “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility,” author Angela Franks notes:

In America, as early as 1929, Sanger was calling for a federal commission to study population, “both in its qualitative and quantitative aspects” for the purpose of protecting the “purity of our national blood-stream” and preventing the overcrowding of “public institutions with public wards at enormous economic loss.”

Franks and other authors detail those who went on to call for the study of population, leading up to the Nixon administration in the 1970s.

In 1968, George N. Lindsay, chairman of Planned Parenthood-World Population (as it was known then), urged President Richard Nixon to make more federal money available for poor people’s “family planning.” This move was in line with Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” to force the taxpayer to fund population control programs.

READ: Speaker reminds UN population commission: Each of us ‘began as an embryo’

The next year, 1969, the so-called “Planned Parenthood blueprint” was underway, and was referred to as “the ghetto approach” by the New York Times:

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood’s “blueprint” called for an expenditure of about one percent of the nation’s health budget, with an anticipated $78 million from taxpayers in 1970. It also called for an expansion of hospitals’ family planning services as well as programs financed by the federal anti-poverty program.

Then, in a July 1969 speech, President Nixon stated, “It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.” He then called upon Congress to “establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them….”
population control, planned parenthood

Richard Nixon

Programs like this raised red flags with members of the Black community, already struggling for power and equal rights. It became increasingly obvious that the Black community was most suspicious of population control programs funded by the government. In September 12, 1968, when the news hit that $500 million in U.S. foreign aid dollars would be used to disseminate birth control, journalist Drew Pearson noted in the Press-Courier, “Many black militants also see the government’s participation in birth control programs as “black genocide.” As one militant put it to this columnist: “Whitey is trying to get us before we’re born.” In some U.S. cities, the government finances clinics where disadvantaged persons get instruction in family planning and are given contraceptives free of charge.”

This clip from the documentary film Maafa21 details additional concerns expressed by those within minority communities:

To quell suspicions of “Black genocide,” Planned Parenthood, which was vying for those federal dollars, began adding African American leaders to its board. This move was described by an insider named Jeannie Rosoff, in an interview she conducted with Rebecca Sharpless in 2001:

There were always some preachers, black preachers, who kind of thought that the practice of family planning would encourage immorality somehow. That was one small strand. And then there were a lot of, I think, activist black men—and some women— who essentially thought, ―The more of us, the better. The way to improve the racial situation is by numbers. So that it’s fine to have all these babies. And when things began to spoil in the late sixties, with the Martin Luther King assassination, the Black Panthers, and the Black Power movement, then it sort of just went from, ―We should have all the babies with guns on the street, to, ―Anybody who tries to stop us from having babies is genocide. So that was another element of the opposition. And it was not easy for a group like Planned Parenthood, a basically all-white group, very upper-middle class, to deal with this and to deal with this and argue at public meetings and essentially say, ―Can it. It‘s not right and it’s not true. Planned Parenthood at that time hired a sort of ambassador to the black community on the assumption that nobody could argue with blacks except blacks. So they had to find somebody black to rebut this. You know, my feeling was that if you feel sure of your ground, then you should be able to argue the case even though it‘s very uncomfortable.

Image: Jeannie Rosoff, CEO Guttmacher Institute

Jeannie Rosoff, CEO Guttmacher Institute

According to a 1968 New York Times article, Planned Parenthood elected its very first Black board chairman Dr. Jerome H. Holland, who, according to media reports, “pledged his support for the group’s program, saying that those who call birth control a form of genocide are ‘not aware of the real meaning of family planning and its uses.’”

Image: First Black Chairman of Board Jerome Holland elected by Planned Parenthood, 1968

First Black Chairman of Board Jerome Holland elected by Planned Parenthood, 1968

Holland was no stranger to Planned Parenthood. He had been on the general board of directors for some time, serving on the executive committee of Planned Parenthood-World Population by 1963. He served as vice-chairman in 1967, where he presented Planned Parenthood’s infamous Margaret Sanger award to John D. Rockefeller III, also a population control advocate who was pushing federally funded “family planning.”

Holland was also added as chairman of the board of Guttmacher’s newly formed Center for Family Planning, which would later be named the Guttmacher Institute and become a “special affiliate” to Planned Parenthood. The Center for Family Planning Program Development, later renamed for Alan Guttmacher, was considered the watchdog agency over federally funded family planning programs, according to the previously mentioned interview by Rosoff.

She stated:

“So foundations wanted to have some kind of watchdog, policy oriented group to ride herd on the process. They did not think Planned Parenthood could be it because it was too self-involved. They also didn’t want to create a new entity because they thought, ―My god, they would have to support it forever. So the compromise was that they would give the money to Planned Parenthood but under the condition that some entity, which eventually became the Alan Guttmacher Institute, be organized within Planned Parenthood. It would have a separate name. It would have a separate address. It would have a separate national advisory board, even though the board of Planned Parenthood would still have the legal authority. And that‘s what existed between maybe 1968 and 1978, when AGI became totally independent…But that is the same group that had both the Planned Parenthood political function, the lobbying function in Washington—I mean writing legislation, lobbying legislation—and the AGI technical assistance function.”

READ: Westerners like Prince William push population control in Africa, but at what cost?

According to a 1971 report by the New York Times, a survey conducted by the Center for Family Planning Program Development alarmed the backers of federal programs when it discovered that just one out of five “medically indigent women of child bearing age was receiving subsidized family planning services in 1969.”

“So we then went for a really brand-new piece of legislation which is what became Title X of the Public Health Services Act. It was totally focused on family planning, with independent funding,” Rosoff said.

The Guttmacher/Planned Parenthood insider then described how the Title X push actually came about — and all indications by her words are that Planned Parenthood, through members of its “special affiliate,” the Guttmacher Institute (founded by the VP of the American Eugenics Society) sought out a political spokesperson to push what would become the Title X Family Planning program. Who was that political spokesperson? Rep. George H.W. Bush, who became president after Ronald Reagan.

Read parts one and two of this series. In part four, Live Action News will show how the creation of the Federal Title X Program was manipulated by people within the Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher organizations. Additional articles on Title X’s history include Planned Parenthood’s Blueprint and George HW Bush’s relationship to Title X and Planned Parenthood.

Editor’s Note, 11/8/18: Related links were added.

Alan Guttmacher (a man) pushed Planned Parenthood to perform abortions

Posted in Abortion History, Guttmacher, Illegal abortion, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood uses blacks with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2018 by saynsumthn

Past Planned Parenthood president instrumental in pushing to decriminalize abortion

This article is part of a series on the history of Planned Parenthood. Read parts one and two and four.

In reviewing the genesis of Planned Parenthood’s obsession with abortion, their founder Margaret Sanger’s views on forced sterilization and birth control, we’ve learned that it was actually under Alan F. Guttmacher’s presidency that abortion became part of Planned Parenthood’s mission. In the second part of this series, we gave some context to just how long Guttmacher had been pushing abortion prior to becoming a leader of Planned Parenthood. In part three, we will detail when Planned Parenthood publicly began to call for the legalization of abortion and began referring for the procedure.

In 1962, Guttmacher became president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and shortly thereafter, he told a friend, “I have not had the fortitude” to present to PPFA the idea of promoting abortion. “I think I would have a tough time in getting them to take a stand” he said. Any open support for legal change, he said, according to author David J. Garrow, “is going to take a long time.”

In reality, it did not take long at all.

Image: Alan F Guttmacher

Alan F Guttmacher

Pushing the “health exceptions” and redefining “life of the mother”

Guttmacher had been an outspoken advocate of decriminalizing abortion for years, but he became especially obsessed with abortion while in New York, eventually serving (in 1968) on Governor Rockefeller’s commission to examine the abortion statute in the state and make recommendations for change. In comparing the abortion rate of New York hospitals, Guttmacher observed that more whites than minorities were having abortions, writing, “the ratio of therapeutic abortions per 1000 live births was 2.6 for whites, 0.5 for Negroes, and 0.1 for Puerto Ricans…. [D]iscrimination between ward and private patients and between ethnic groups served to aggravate my dissatisfaction with the status quo and led to my desire for the enactment of a new law.”

Image: Alan Guttmacher, 1973 (Image credit: WGBH)

Alan Guttmacher, 1973 (Image credit: WGBH)

Guttmacher was a Humanist who did not view the life of the child as equal to the woman. He can be credited with pushing the so-called “health exceptions” for abortion. “By defining ‘life’ to include mental well being… Guttmacher claimed that there were instances in which it was appropriate to protect a woman’s ‘life’ by taking the life of her fetus,” writes abortion historian Daniel K Williams:

“I don’t like killing,” Guttmacher stated in a public lecture in 1961.

“I don’t like to do abortions but as many of you probably fought in World War II and killed because you wanted to preserve something more important, I think a mother’s life is more important than a fetus.”

Guttmacher’s focus on abortion for health purposes might be attributed to his twin brother, Dr. Manfred Guttmacher, a psychiatrist who happened to be a member of the American Law Institute (A.L.I.). The two Guttmacher brothers were both activists in the first birth control clinic in Baltimore.

“I have great respect for the American Law Institute. My twin brother Manfred, also a physician, an authority on forensic psychiatry, is a member of this group. Because of our twinship, I was privileged to attend a closed meeting two years ago,”Guttmacher wrote in Babies by Choice or Chance, in 1961.

Image: Manfred Guttmacher US National Library of Medicine

Manfred Guttmacher (Image: US National Library of Medicine)

According to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the ALI was founded in 1923 and was made up of a group of  judges, lawyers, and law professors, “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.” It was the ALI’s Model Penal Code on abortion that was used in the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that forced abortion on every state in the nation.

Guttmacher later described that closed meeting further in 1972:

 [O]n a Sunday afternoon in December, 1959 when Mr. Herbert Wechsler (Professor of Law at Columbia) unveiled his model abortion statute now called the A.L.I. bill. The recommended statute provided that a doctor would be permitted to perform an abortion:

(1) if continuation of pregnancy “would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother”;

(2) if the doctor believed “that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defects”; or

(3) if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.”

Image: article American Law Institute Model Penal Code on Abortion 1959

American Law Institute Model Penal Code on Abortion 1959

“The Wechsler abortion bill was passed by the Institute as part of the total revised penal code revealed to the public in 1962. Many, including myself, hailed it as the answer to the legal problems surrounding abortion, which had always been the doctors’ dilemma,”Guttmacher recounted, adding, “In 1967, Colorado, California, and North Carolina… and in 1968, Maryland and Georgia… all modified their respective statutes using the A.L.I. bill as the prototype.”

“Even though the A.L.I. Code had not yet been adopted by any state, its mere promulgation opened the medical profession’s eyes to the preservation of health as being a justification for abortion,” Guttmacher wrote.

The real reason for the abortion push: population control and eugenics

Guttmacher’s and Sanger’s views were very similar, as they were both vocal members of the eugenics community. Sanger once advocated that a woman should obtain a license to breed in order to have a child, while Guttmacher pushed the idea that “feeble-minded” and “unfit” persons should have abortions. He was, however, clever enough to say that these were to be voluntary measures, despite a history of force within the population control movement.

As author Donald T. Critchlow explained in his book, “Intended Consequences,” “Within Planned Parenthood… population control advocates found a prominent place. Thus, Planned Parenthood maintained its position of promoting birth control as a woman’s right, but it joined other groups in lobbying for family planning as a means of controlling the rate of population growth.”

Image: Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmcher

Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmcher

In his 1959 book, “Babies by Choice or by Chance,” Guttmacher writes:

It is my belief that it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy in which there is high likelihood of injury to the health of the mother, or one in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant. In addition, the quality of the parents must be taken into account. Feeble-mindedness, in the mother in particularly, and her ability to care for a child should be evaluated. Pregnancy occurring from proved rape, and pregnancy in a child less than sixteen serves no useful purpose. Further, chronic moral turpitude which unfits humans as parents, such as drug addiction or chronic alcoholism, if declared incurable, should furnish ground for pregnancy interruption.

On December 4, 1967, Guttmacher appeared on a panel at Harvard Law School to discuss which types of people Hospitals should approve for abortions. He admitted:

“… I would abort mothers already carrying three or more children…. I would abort women who desire abortion who are drug addicts or severe alcoholics…. I would abort women with sub-normal mentality incapable of providing satisfactory parental care…”(Source; “Abortion: The Issues”, Dr. Alan Guttmacher – President, Planned Parenthood, December 4, 1967, Harvard Law School Forum)

Lying about motives… and about illegal abortion deaths

Abortion was strategically pushed on the nation, as Live Action News has previously reported, through lies and deceptions on the numbers of women who died from illegal abortions. And yet, a 1967 article in the Harvard Crimson quoted Alan Guttmacher speaking at the Harvard Law School Forum, admitting that most abortions prior to legalization were performed by “reputable physicians” – something that was downplayed as advocates pushed legal abortion as being safer than illegal abortion:

Seventy per cent of the illegal abortions in the country are performed by reputable physicians, each thinking himself a knight in white armor.

At the same event, Guttmacher asked for liberalization of abortion laws, but according to a report published by the Harvard Crimson, not for outright repeal. He said, “To allow abortion on demand would relegate man to the status of the bull.”

The next year, in 1968, Guttmacher founded the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood, later renamed The Alan Guttmacher Institute. The organization, according to their website, was “originally housed within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).” In a speech he made in July of 1969, Guttmacher acknowledged that funding for his Institute came from grants “from the Kellogg, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations as well as several other lesser  foundations.” Some of these same organizations had been funding eugenics for years.

Image: article headline on Guttmacher

Alan Guttmacher sees abortion as necessary 1968

In April 1969, Guttmacher suggested adding a clause to permit abortion in New York for any woman over 40 years of age, but it was voted down. He also believed that “abortion statutes should be entirely removed from the criminal code.”

“Family planning” not welcomed by minorities

Guttmacher called abortion “family planning,” and, in that same July 1969 speech, he pushed the decriminalization of abortion, saying, “It is time that we come to grips with two methods of family planning which we have a tendency to skip over in this country. One is abortion. I doubt that any of you is satisfied with the archaic, punitive, medieval law which now exists in your state and in mine which permits abortion to be done only to preserve the life of the mother. Almost all realize that liberalization of the abortion law is absolutely essential to permit the practice of good, honest medicine, not hypocritical medicine, but honest medicine. The question is how extensively should we liberalize the law.”

Image: article

Guttmacher calls abortion family planning 1969

The problem they had was that the very people which Sanger and her eugenics boards (and Guttmacher with his abortion advocacy push) targeted, the Black community, viewed birth control and abortion to be genocidal efforts to limit the growth of the Black race. And Planned Parenthood had noticed that their own minority patients had been on the decline. “Figures for ethnicity only go back to 1964 when 47% of the total patients were nonwhite. This dropped to 39% five years later in 1968,” Guttmacher stated.

Image: article Guttmacher speaks about Blacks in 1969

Guttmacher speaks about Blacks in 1969

Guttmacher acknowledged this in his speech:

“In addition, we must take full cognizance of the fact that our work among some militant minority groups is considered genocidal. They charge that what we are doing is not really trying to give a better family life to the less privileged segments of the community but trying to retard the numerical growth of ethnic minorities. This was first brought to my attention five or six years ago when I was lecturing at the University of California. For the first time in a long life I was picketed, and this fascinated me. I was picketed by a group called EROS, so I went down and chatted with the pickets who were very intelligent-looking black men. EROS means Endeavor to Raise Our Size…. They protested the work of PPWP as a form of genocide.”

Image: article Racism seen as denting Birth Control 1966

Racism seen as denting Birth Control 1966

Black suspicions ran even higher, when during a 1969 White House conference on food, nutrition and health, Guttmacher again unashamedly pushed for the decriminalization of abortion.

Fannie Lou Hamer

His statements, along with comments by others at the conference, were supposed to be aimed at helping the poor with food, but, instead, he was pushing population control. This alarmed Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, who, the night before the conference ended, issued a scathing attack on Guttmacher and others of like mind, according to a report filed on December 20, 1969, by the The Free Lance-Star. The paper quoted the noted civil rights activist as denouncing voluntary abortion, calling it “legalized murder,” making it clear that “she regards it as a part of a comprehensive white man’s plot to exterminate the Black population of the United States.”

The paper then went on to defend Guttmacher’s eugenic motives as “humanitarian.”

Image: article

Media spins Black concerns about Guttmacher push for abortion

A January 28, 1966, internal memo from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe acknowledged that Planned Parenthood was aware of how the Black community viewed abortion. The memo outlined the plan for winning over the Black community, calling for a “Community Relations Program” to “form a liaison between Planned Parenthood and minority organizations.” The plan, according to Planned Parenthood, would emphasize that “all people have the opportunity to make their own choices,” rather than, as the memo states, exhortation telling them how many children they should have.”

Image: article Black community charges genocide from abortion

Black community charges genocide from abortion

One way to get the message out, according to the memo, is to “get assistance from black organizations like The Urban League and the AME church,” and to employ “more Negro staff members on PP-WP [Planned Parenthood-World Population] and Affiliate’s staff, as well as recruit more Negro members for the National Board – at least 5.”

Planned Parenthood approves abortion advocacy

A few short years later, in 1968, Planned Parenthood did just that. Coincidentally, the move to add more Black board members came at the same time that the organization unanimously approved a policy recognizing abortion and sterilization as proper medical procedures.

According to the New York Times, “It called for liberalizing the criminal laws that prohibit them.”

Image: article Planned Parenthood uses Black man to push abortion (Image: New York Times 1968)

Planned Parenthood uses Black man to push abortion (Image: New York Times 1968)

At that same meeting, Planned Parenthood elected the first Black board chairman as the face to push this new abortion agenda — Dr. Jerome H. Holland, who, according to the NYT, “pledged his support for the group’s program saying that those who call birth control a form of genocide are ‘not aware of the real meaning of family planning and its uses.’”

Guttmacher expressed pleasure that “the group had taken a positive stand on ‘the necessity to liberalize abortion and sterilization statutes,’” adding that abortion should never be used as birth control. The recommendation affirmed by the 100-member board had originated from Planned Parenthood’s medical advisory committee, which Guttmacher had been part of. That committee had held:

“[I]t was the right and responsibility if every woman to decide whether and when to have a child…

“The committee recommended the abolition of existing laws and criminal laws regarding abortion and the recognition that advice, counseling and referral constituted an integral part of medical care…It recommended also that Planned Parenthood centers offer appropriate information and referral,” the NYTs reported.

The board then took Guttmacher’s advice to stress “voluntarism” with regard to legalizing abortion as the best way to reduce population.

Image: Planned Parenthood first calls for legalizing abortion 1968 (Image: New York Times)

Planned Parenthood first calls for legalizing abortion 1968 (Image: New York Times)

Planned Parenthood first calls for legalizing abortion 1968 (Image: New York Times)

“After this plank was approved in 1969,” writes Larry Lader in “Abortion II,” “PP chapters soon started abortion referrals, and even clinics, as ‘an integral part of medical care.’”

Planned Parenthood refers for abortions 

In fact, by 1970, Planned Parenthood of New York had announced according to the New York Times, “a citywide abortion information and referral service would be in operation on July 1, when the state’s new abortion law takes effect. The service will advise women on abortions and refer them to doctors and hospitals willing and able to perform the operations.”

Image: Planned Parenthood announces they will be referring for abortion June 1970

Planned Parenthood announces they will be referring for abortion June 1970

That same year, Guttmacher added, “We look forward to the time when our clinics can be closed, when the government can fund enough money to serve the poor and research new birth control methods.”

In our next article in this series, we will discuss Planned Parenthood’s first abortion facility, which did not open until 1970, and will detail Alan Guttmacher’s role in the idea of stand-alone abortion facilities, revealing how abortion came to be seen as the ultimate method of population control.

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

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

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood History, Planned Parenthood President, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

A former Planned Parenthood president and vice president of the American Eugenics Society once advocated that if families did not limit births to just two children, then compulsory methods of population control could be necessary.  The idea, proposed by Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, a well-known eugenicist and one-time president of Planned Parenthood who established the Guttmacher Institute, came on the heels of radical proposals by Planned Parenthood board members and others that immediate compulsory means should be used to curtail population growth.

In 1970, Guttmacher addressed a group concerned about the so-called “population explosion.” Lee McCall, a reporter for the Sarasota Herald Tribune, attended the conference and noted that Guttmacher, as president of Planned Parenthood World Population “for the past eight years,” was invited to speak under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

McCall spoke with Guttmacher about “discussions” that had been floating around to limit children within families to “2 or 3.”

McCall wrote:

There has been discussion of limiting families to 2.2 children.

Dr. Guttmacher feels it inadvisable for Planned Parenthood to boldly vocalize such a plan.

‘It would be difficult,’ he said, ‘In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this.’

Despite his apparent hesitancy towards coercion, McCall goes on to quote Guttmacher as admitting that such a “plan” of compulsory population control would be “desirable.”

“So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time,” the former Planned Parenthood president told the reporter.

Keep in mind, this is the very organization which allegedly claims it was founded on freedom of choice. And Guttmacher was attempting to dispel the theory that abortion and birth control were racist efforts of genocide aimed to limit the birth rate of the Black community.

Racism seen as denting Birth Control 1966

This admission was profound and came shortly after the New York Times attempted to paint Guttmacher as a wanting “volunteer” birth control measures only.

In its 1969 article entitled, “Dr. Guttmacher is the Evangelist of Birth Control,” the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that many leaders sitting on Planned Parenthood’s board were in favor of coercive measures of population control. While painting the picture of an agency which was pushing birth control on the “ghetto” rather than the “middle-class” who were having more than the optimal amount of children, the paper noted that a “sizable” number of Planned Parenthood’s board was made up of “preponderantly white and well-to-do” people. They then quoted a Planned Parenthood board member who admitted the racist attitude of the organization, when he stated:

What it all comes down to is that we want the poor to stop breeding while we retain our freedom to have large families. It’s strictly a class point of view.

However, despite the majority of Planned Parenthood’s board holding a “class” point of view regarding who should be “encouraged” to use contraception, if Guttmacher was for “voluntary measures” of population control, compulsory measures were never ruled out.  Because, as the Planned Parenthood president saw it, if “voluntary measures” did not work, then force would be necessary.

This point of view can clearly be seen in a 1969 article from Medical World News Reports, in which Guttmacher floated the possibility that coercion could be used. His shocking statement was published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune where it quoted Guttmacher as suggesting that, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed.”

Guttmacher Compulsory Birth Control 1970

The following year (1970) Guttmacher told an audience at New Mexico State University that, “[…] if by 1990, the population is still growing at a rate of 2% then we must go to some kind of compulsory birth control.” (emphasis added).

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families saying, “It may be taken out of the voluntary category.”

In his 1959 book, “Babies by Choice or By Chance”, Guttmacher described the atomic bomb as “more merciless to our generation” and “more kinder to future generations” than “the explosion of the population bomb.” He bemoaned the fact that death rates were lowering, while birth rates were on the rise, writing, “Therefore if we want to decelerate the rate of population growth, it must be done by conception control.”

Babies by Choice or By Chance, by Alan F Guttmacher

This idea of temporary volunteerism was also noted by author Angela Franks, who wrote in her book, “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility”, that, “in the late 1960’s, Guttmacher put a limit on volunteerism: if we don’t see a population decline by 1980, he said, ‘we’ll have to get tough.’”

The fact is that Guttmacher’s ideas of forced or compulsory population control measures were in lock-step with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. After all, they were both members of the very racist American Eugenics Society, with Guttmacher serving as the group’s vice-president. As Live Action News has documented in the past, Sanger made sure that Planned Parenthood was knee deep in eugenics.

But, rarely reported by contemporary media is the fact that Sanger once suggested that parents should be required to have a “license” to even be allowed to have children at all.

License to Breed Margaret Sanger

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger outlined her plan article by article, which read in part (emphasis mine):

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

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

While Sanger’s plan may have been viewed as extreme in her day, and the idea of coercion may have been chided as evoking a potential backlash against Planned Parenthood, my colleague, Kelli wisely observed that the “two-child idea” advocated by Guttmacher was just as eugenic. In a recent Live Action News report, Kelli noted that the, “[…] view of ‘two children and no more’ has its roots in the eugenics movement, and at the heart of the eugenics movement lies Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger and her friends advocated population control for the ‘unfit’, while today’s eugenicists tend to couch their beliefs about family size in terms of environmental concerns.

Despite that fact that Guttmacher and Sanger were both (as eugenicists) concerned that the world population was a threat, it was under Guttmacher’s leadership that Planned Parenthood first vocalized abortion as part of the answer to “over-population.”

He noted this approval in the 1970 interview where he stated:

If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies – rejected children, battered baby syndrome and illegal abortions.

And, in that same year, Guttmacher admitted to a 1970 Cornell Symposium, (according to an April 7, 1970 article published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette), that although he did not know when life began, he believed that “unlimited abortion” was the only way to reduce population growth saying:

There is no question that the most effective way of reducing population growth is by unlimited abortion.

Today, Alan Guttmacher is painted by some as a hero of “reproductive rights” despite his promotion of coerced population control and abortion.  And, Guttmacher was correct about one thing, and that is that abortion has been an effective tool in the limitation of births. This was recently acknowledged by pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

It is no surprise that Guttmacher’s namesake institution, the Guttmacher Institute would later be referred to as a “research arm” and a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood.  After all, on their website, his Institute describes Guttmacher by saying, “No one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission.”

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

Jonathan Gruber: abortion reduces welfare, crime, and black births

Posted in Abortion and Crime, Black Birth Rates, Eugenics, Gruber with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber has been removed from the Massachusetts Health Connector Board after calling the American people stupid.

The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.

A look at the White House visitor logs reveals that Gruber was a regular at the Obama White House.

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”

Grubers abortion paper creepy eugenics

In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.

Gruber ab saves billions

In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”

Abortion and Selection Jonathan Gruber

Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

Effect of abortion birth rates distance

Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”

Abortion decreases welfare

Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

According to Life News, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, Donahue and Levitt concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s, Life News reported.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

freakonomics

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

Unwanted children are disadvantaged

Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”

So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?

Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.

I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.

Abortionist: Something besides life is owed to children

Posted in Abortion Quotes, Abortion Worker Investigated, Abortionist, Abortionist arrested, Abortionist Sexual, Theodor Lehrer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2015 by saynsumthn

A Google Maps street view of a South Florida abortion clinic shows a pro-life protester holding a sign in front of an abortion clinic owned by a doctor once was arrested for forcing an abortion on his wife and saying that something besides life is owed to the children he kills.

Googel view All womens Lehere abortion clinic

The abortion clinic is the All Women’s Medical Center, located at 2100 Commercial Blvd in Ft Lauderdale, Florida.

Theodor Lehrer img188

It is operated by long time abortionist Theodor Lehrer and is an abortion facility that I have personally protested.

LEHRER AWC Screen Grab

In 1988, this so-called “doctor” was arrested after his pregnant wife accused him of raping her and forcing an abortion on her in their home.

lehrer-wwn

According to the Miami Herald, which reported the arrest at the time, Lehrer was angry when his wife refused to have sex with her because she was sick from her 11 to 14 week pregnancy.

Lehrer’s wife said that when he came home, he handcuffed her, dragged her into the bathroom and strapped her to a portable table.

She pleaded with him not to rape her so he placed a gauze pad over her mouth but removed it for fear she would suffocate, Lehrer’s wife told police.

Theoror Lehrer then had sex with her and when she thought the attack was over- she says he forced an abortion on her. A doctor at the hospital where she was taken after police were called verified that she had been pregnant and recently received an incomplete abortion.

According to the article, the sensitive abortion doc admitted that he tied his wife but said he denied the abortion.

THeodor Lehrer forced abortion on wife _30838079510055049_n

But- this news did not stop pro-abortion groups like the National Organization for Women from supporting this abortionist.

img064

In 1989, the Florida Board of Medicine decided not to discipline Lehrer’s medical license because they discovered that his wife had Hodgkins disease and her physician said it was unlikely that she would be able to testify against him making the probabilty of a successful prosecution of the abortionist unlikely.

abortionist Theodor Lehrer DPR 45_3647452431806630935_n

Currently, Lehrer not only runs an abortion clinic he is an officer for NORTHRIDGE PROFESSIONAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. which has property at 5333 N Dixie Hwy, Oakland Park, FL 33334.

He now operates his abortion clinic under the corporate name, LEHRER FAMILY INVESTMENT CO., LLLP

In 1986, abortionist Theodor Lehrer wrote an op-ed on abortion which was published in the South Florida Medical Review, “A critical question is whether there is any point before birth,” he wrote, “at which fetal life attains a level of significance warranting legal protection because of the quality of humanness that out-balances a woman’s right to privacy over her own body,” the abortionist penned.

abortionist Theodor Lehrer OP ed

As a pro-choice physician I acknowledge that the fetus is alive, but do not view it as a separate individual. Biologically the fetus is completely dependent on the woman’s body and as such is only a potential human being. The woman’s rights and life outweigh any alleged rights of the fetus because the birth and rearing of a child should be a happy and fulfilling experience. It should be something that the woman feels positive about and part of her choice for her life.”

Theodor Lehrer then promotes the eugenics ideology that it is “immoral” to bring a so-called “unwanted” child into the world because they allegedly add to suffering and should be eliminated under population control abortion policies.

“Unwanted children add to suffering for the woman, child, family and society. Something besides life is owed to children. Couldn’t it be considered immoral for parents-and even for countries-to produce more children than they can provide adequate food and education for?

The abortionist, who wrote at the time that a majority of Americans viewed abortion as acceptable, ended the op-ed with “the voice of the people is God’s voice.”

Ginsburg: Abortion restrictions target poor, the populations we don’t want too many of

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

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.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

When she made that statement in 2009 people were stunned.

It eventually made it into the powerful documentary on eugenics and the racism of abortion, Maafa21, because her statement proved that abortion was created to get rid of “certain” populations.

And now the good Justice has told us which populations those are – 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.”

Poor women only – why- we don’t want poor women to not be able to get abortions, now do we?

Ginsburg pulled out the illegal abortion days when so-called “rich” women could jump from state to state to continue to obtain abortions.

She also wrongly presumed that abortions are “safe” today yet- women are dying in abortion clinics still. In fact, they are also being raped and maimed- but- then again, from a eugenics point of view, it’s only the poor ones dying from abortion now – so who cares, right?

Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

Posted in Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , on September 24, 2014 by saynsumthn

In 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outraged the public by admitting that abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

NYT Ginsburg Place of Women Court

The quote comes from an interview Ginsburg did for the New York Times with Emily Bazelon and she stated, “…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.”

RuthBaderGinsberg

That statement was so outrageous that it made it into a powerful documentary on eugenics called Maafa21.

Ginsburg, as with so many of her ilk, never stop at limiting the births of the poor or the feeble minded as described by many in the early days of eugenics. They also believe that everyone, except their small circle of elites, should be subject to population control limitations.

As displayed in a more recent interview with the Justice.

Ginsburg Elle

Ginsburg was again asked about abortion by Jessica Weisberg for Elle’s September 23,2014 edition, “Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?”

Ginsburg replied, “Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.

“The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…”

Weisberg then asked Ginsburg, “When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.”

Ginsburg replied, “Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Promote is the key word here. If this is all about choice why does the government need to “promote” birth control at all?

Ginsburg hit on something that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once admitted, that birth control must become a national policy to control populations.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

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

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

And so they have….to be continued…..