Archive for Population Control

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, Guttmacher, 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…..

Planned Parenthood leader called abortion a form of birth control

Posted in compulsory birth control, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Commpulsory Birth Control, Rockefeller with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

Guy Gervais, a past president of Planned Parenthood of Orange County, admitted that abortion is a form of birth control almost a year before the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion on demand in the United States.

Guy Gervais Planned Parenthood
_______________________________________________________________
In a March 11, 1972 letter to the editor, Gervais called abortion an “absolute necessity” as a “medical backup to birth control deficiencies.”

AB BackUp BC
_________________________________________________________________________

In a letter to the editor published April 4, 1972, Gervais wrote, “I do accept reality and know that abortion is the most widespread form of birth control employed world wide.”

Gervais goes on to imply that voluntary use of contraception is needed now but that involuntary methods may be used at some point, “When one thinks of the worldwide problems due to overpopulation, I can think of no solution other than to advocate any and all forms of birth control on a voluntary basis – lest it become compulsory later on.”

PP Prez Abortion is Birth Control

_________________________________________________

This idea of compulsory population control is nothing new and Planned Parenthood leaders have thrown this idea around for years:

In fact, at a 1968 convention of Planned Parenthood, John D Rockefeller 111, recipient of the 1967 Sanger award bantered around the suggestion of compulsory family planning when he said, “The growth of world population is so rapid and its consequences so serious that this may be the last generation which has the opportunity to cope with the problem on the basis of free choice. Hence it does not seem unreasonable, that, if we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we may make compulsory family planning inevitable for future generations.”

Rockefeller Compulsory BC

_____________________________________

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

Guttmacher endorses Force Full Article

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “It would be difficult. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time.”

Guttmacher endorses force

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

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

Guttmacher denies wanting to limit families

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

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

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.

License to Breed Sanger Bizarre Ideas

Maafa21 details the use of force for population control.

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

Hardin AES

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

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

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

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

Minkler Compulsory BC
Minkler Quote Article

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