Archive for Rockefeller Foundation

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.

Group that brought abortion pill to US has eugenics history

Posted in Abortion pill, American Eugenics Society, Bernard Berelson, Eugenics, Every Child a Wanted Child, Frank Notestein, Frederick OSborn, Guttmacher, Population Council, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

The Population Council has a shocking 65-year history, and it’s nothing to celebrate

(From Live Action News)

John D Rockefeller-founded Population-Council

The Population Council, the eugenics organization credited with bringing the abortion pill RU-486 to the United States, turns 65 this month — but it is nothing to celebrate.

In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council and served as the organization’s first president.  According to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, Inc., was incorporated following Rockefeller’s Conference on Population Problems, “…to stimulate, encourage, promote, conduct and support significant activities in the broad field of population.”

Like its founder, the Population Council’s other members were concerned about population issues — and, like other population organizations such as Planned Parenthood, high ranking Population Council leaders were well connected to the eugenics movement.

Frederick Osborn

 

Frederic Osborn followed Rockefeller as Population Council president in 1957. Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society who signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood,” published in April of 1938. Osborn once wrote, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.” Some speculate that Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “Every Child a Wanted Child,” may have originated with Osborn. It is no wonder that Osborn also said that “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

Frank W Notestein

Frank W. Notestein followed Osborn as president in 1959. Like Osborn, he was member of the American Eugenics Society and as the American Philosophical Society, according to a biography published by Princeton University. He was also one of the organization’s original four trustees, according to the Population Council’s 1957 Annual Report.

In 1939, Notestein and Osborn served together on the Medical Advisory Board for Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Federation. By 1967, under Notestein’s leadership, the Population Council released a controversial film, entitled “Family Planning,” which featured Disney’s iconic cartoon figure Donald Duck. It was one of many efforts in the 1960s and ’70s to indoctrinate the culture on the use of birth control.

By 1970, Notestein was serving on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood-World Population.

Bernard Berelson

Bernard Berelson took the helm of Population Council in 1968, as its fourth president. A year later, in 1969, Berelson published an article which suggested that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods. The article was published in the journal, “Studies in Family Planning,” published by the Population Council. Berelson was also featured in the Population Council’s first issue of “Population and Development Review.”

 

Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. sat on the Population Council’s first Medical Advisory Board. Guttmacher, a former Planned Parenthood president, was also vice president of the American Eugenics Society. His ideas of forced or compulsory population control measures were in lock-step with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, who made sure that Planned Parenthood was knee deep in eugenics. Guttmacher’s namesake institution, the Guttmacher Institute, would later be referred to as a “research arm” and a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood.

Alan Guttmacher, president of past Planned Parenthood (screenshot: CBS news)

Thomas Parran, Jr. was on the original Population Council’s board of trustees. On paper, he has a very distinguished career, having been named the nation’s sixth U.S. Surgeon General, building support for the passage of Social Security as well as the establishment of the World Health Organization. His name even appeared on the public health building of the University of Pittsburgh as “one of the giants of 20th-century medicine.”

Thomas Parran (Photo: NIH/NLM)

But according to USA Today, “Parran’s legacy was tainted in 2010, when the U.S. government apologized to Guatemala for the syphilis experiments that exposed 1,308 men, women and children to syphilis without consent from 1946 to 1948. Parran approved of the experiments, conducted by U.S. Public Health Service physician John Cutler.” (Cutler and his wife Eleise contributed to the Population Council and Cutler’s wife admitted that she served on the board of Planned Parenthood.)

Earlier this year, Philly.com reported that Parran was suspected of being the “intellectual inspiration of the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study”:

Regrettably, Parran’s great work, impressive resume, and proud legacy are besmirched by his ethical violations. The truth of his association with horrendous experiments using impoverished Alabama sharecroppers, federal prison inmates, and an array of vulnerable subjects in Guatemala who were purposefully infected with syphilis were already known. But newly discovered evidence disclosing his role as the architect of the Tuskegee study may have caused his already troubling case to reach the tipping point…

Pitt trustees now must confront evidence showing Parran was more than a distant bureaucrat during the Tuskegee study. New documents disclose that Parran believed the African American population of Macon County, Ala., was perfect for a nontreatment exercise. “If one wished to study the natural history of syphilis in the Negro race uninfluenced by treatment,” Parran wrote in January 1932, “this county would be an ideal location for such a study.”

Eugenics founded Guttmacher praises Eugenics founded Population Council which turned 65

The Rockefeller family has long been connected to eugenics. According to author Rebecca Messall, “Rockefeller money funded eugenic scientists decades before Hitler put eugenic theories into practice.”

Rockefeller eugenics (image: New York Times)

According to author Edwin Black (emphasis added), “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims… The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

According to author Edwin Black (emphasis added), “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims… The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

Black added, “In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.” (NOTE: In 1933, Rüdin’s call for racial purity was published in Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review. According to the documentary film, Maafa21, Rudin would be chosen by Hitler to write Germany’s eugenics laws.)

Rockefeller III once claimed that birth control was “directly related to the matter of meaningful peace.”

In her review of the book, “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population,” written by Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly, C-Fam author Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D, discovered what led up to Rockefeller’s founding of the Population Council:

John D Rockefeller III (Image: Rockefeller Foundation)

In 1952, at a secret, invitation-only gathering in Colonial Williamsburg, John D. Rockefeller III brought together what would become the modern population control establishment. Setting the agenda for the following decades were the heads of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Academy of Sciences, and top scientists “from embryology to economics,” including past and present Nobel Prize winners.

From verbatim transcripts of the “Conference on Population Problems,” just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes, Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many people the world could hold along with “whether ‘industrial development should be withheld’ from poor, agrarian countries like India.” By decreasing mortality and encouraging “breeding,” development would increase inferior populations and further degrade “the genetic quality of the human race.” They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates were justified in order to save “Western Civilization” from being dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World countries.

Thus was born the Population Council, which would in turn become the nexus of the entire population control movement, going on to coordinate the work of the United Nations, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – founded three weeks later – as well as major pharmaceutical firms.

In 1994, with the encouragement of the Clinton administration, french pharmaceutical manufacturer Roussel-Uclaf assigned the US rights of marketing and distribution of abortion pill RU-486 to the Population Council. The right to distribute the harmful drugs were later handed over to Danco Laboratories, a sub-licensee of the Population Council.

In 2015, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that from fiscal year 2010 through 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reported sending about $236 million to six organizations and their affiliates and member associations: Advocates for Youth, Guttmacher Institute, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and the Population Council.

Today, abortion remains among the Population Council’s strategic priorities, according to its latest annual report.

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

Depo-Provera dangers in Eugenics

Posted in Depo-Provera, John C. Cutler, Pfizer, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Population Council, Rockefeller, United Nations, USAID with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 26, 2013 by saynsumthn

In June 2013, Rebecca Project for Human Rights published a policy report: Depo-Provera: Deadly Reproductive Violence. Kwame Fosu, Policy Director for the Rebecca Project for Human Rights explains, “this is a definitive report that details incidents of misconduct by Pfizer major health providers.” In addition, the Rebecca Project analysis also examines reported concerns of Depo Provera research in Ghana.

Pastor Lennox Abrigo, who is President, National Action Network DC Chapter, and President of the Civil & Human Rights Depo Provera Coalition said, “this Depo Provera briefing is going to be a respectful, thoughtful discussion about the dignity and health of Black women, and women of color, in the United States and globally. Our community’s harm and voices have to be heard by our elected leaders, Pfizer, Planned Parenthood and all Public Health institutions that continue to promote this dangerous drug without Black Box warnings.”

According to the report:

The governmental imprimatur is supplied by the pro-Depo Provera policies of the USAID. This policy provides the cover for private foundation money, and our government policy is influenced and advocated by the Population Council, Planned Parenthood and population control advocates, ostensibly advocating for a woman’s right to choose. To
administer Depo Provera injections, especially if one is receiving federal funding, Medicaid and USAID payments, without enforcing full information requirements about side-effects and harm, robs millions of women of their dignity and fundamental civil rights, denying them of their inalienable right to be free to reject a dangerous drug and choose safer contraceptives. BMGF, Planned Parenthood, Pfizer and Depo Provera advocates constructively arrogate to themselves a separate standard of regulatory oversight. They illegally promote and administer Depo Provera by concealing its danger, minimizing fatal harm to women and making false claims with impunity. They are legally required to disclose side effects of Depo Provera and other drugs with Black Box warnings to patients/consumers.

In 2004, the FDA identifying that Depo Provera causes serious side-effects8 issued a Black Box Warning.

UNETHICAL DEPO PROVERA EXPERIMENTS
UNITED STATES:
1967-1978: The largest test on humans of Depo-Provera begins and is conducted for eleven years through the Grady Clinic in Atlanta, Georgia on 14,000 low income women. These “trials” were conducted on women human subjects without being aware of the fact that they were part of an experiment; and, the researchers deliberately did not inform the women participants that Depo Provera had grave side effects. Many women developed cancer and/or died during the trials, but these cases were not reported to the FDA.

The director of the study, Robert Hatcher, further violated the law refusing to submit an annual report during the entire study. Women with medical conditions, such as cancer, were still given the shot. Record keeping on the clients was sloppy and more than 13,000 women had no follow-up44 (Committee on Women, Population, & the Environment).
GHANA:

The African continent has been a theater for unregulated, unethical human experimentation and turpitudinous malpractice, without informed consent forms (sample) normally provided to American women. In a seminal family planning experiment, discussed in the Rebecca Project Human Rights’ 2011 report: The Outsourcing of Tuskegee:
Nonconsensual Research in Africa46, researchers experimented with Depo Provera on approximately 9,000 impoverished women in Navrongo, Ghana. The Navrongo Experiment47 occurred in Navrongo, Ghana (1999-2006, Funded by: USAID/Population Council/Rockefeller Foundation). Dr. James Phillips and Population Council researchers violated US research laws by withholding informed consent forms from the women they used as human subjects and injected with Depo Provera. The African women in Navrongo were told they were being provided with routine healthcare, while data was specifically collected and analyzed for the research experiment and published by Dr. James Phillips et al.

Furthermore, the Navrongo Experiment was designed by Dr. James Phillips who deliberately fabricated and falsified research data for desired outcomes. Phillips co-published with Dr. Binka and other compensated Ghanaian doctors who are knowledgeable and/or complicit in this fraud.

Presently, Dr. Phillips serves on the faculty of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and his research fraud spans from Africa to Southern Asia. The problem with Columbia University and USAID supporting Phillips’ extensive research fraud in Africa is, as with the Tuskegee Experiment (conducted by Dr. John Cutler with the United States Public Health Service- PHS), and the Guatemala Experiment51 (also Dr. John Cutler with PHS), is that Dr. Phillips’ fraudulent Navrongo research is routinely referenced in UN and US documents as valid family-planning policy. USAID is fully aware that informed consent was not provided (the Rebecca Project provided details to the DHHS, DOJ, and USAID) and that violates US ethical research IRB procedures52 and international law. Fabricated research outcomes and unethical experiments should not be referenced in official US policy. U.S. drug companies and U.S. researchers have effectively outsourced the Tuskegee Experiment and routinely conduct nonconsensual and/or unethical research in Africa and the developing world. Pfizer v. Abdullahi directly confronted the issue. In a July 2009 ruling, a U.S. Court of Appeals found that the prohibition of non-consensual medical experimentation on humans is binding under customary international law, thereby allowing Trovan victims in Nigeria the right to seek relief against Pfizer in U.S. courts. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Pfizer’s appeal after the U.S. Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, submitted his brief
urging the court to deny Pfizer’s petition.

Read More

Congressman William Lacy Clay and the Congressional Black Caucus held a briefing to examine a comprehensive report released by the Rebecca Project.

Panelists at the briefing called for an end to the federal funding of Depo Provera and for accountability for healthcare administers that fail to inform women of the “black box warning” issued by the drug’s manufacturer Pfizer.

Many foreign governments that fund Depo Provera for use in Africa now prohibit the unethical administering of the drug and require women have full knowledge of potential health risks prior to receiving the shot, however, according to the Rebecca Project the U.S. has yet to enforce such mandatory guidelines in their distribution of Depo Provera through overseas health contractors.

Even more egregious, USAID, Gates, Rockefeller and Mellon Foundations, and the Population Council funded a Depo Provera trial (1994-2006) on 9,000 poor women in Ghana without disclosing they were being used for a reproductive health experiment.

Long before Depo Provera received FDA approval in the U.S. – USAID directed funding overseas for its use on women in poor developing countries.

Depo Provera was denied FDA approval three times before the FDA approved the contraceptive for domestic use in 1992. This was after regulations were changed requiring clinical trials in rats and mice instead of the dogs and monkeys from previous tests that showed high frequency of cancer.

Despite calls from a coalition of Black religious leaders and human rights activists USAID and partners — the Gates Foundation, DFID, UNFPA, and PATH, continue to direct millions for the distribution of Depo Provera to poor women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Depo Provera side effects listed in the Rebecca Project report:

In 2004, the FDA identifying that Depo Provera causes serious side-effects issued a Black Box Warning stating: (1) women may lose significant bone mineral density that is not fully reversible and, therefore, (2) Depo Provera should not be used as a long-term birth control method for more than two years. Other serious side effects, with mandated Patient Counseling and Information are: (3) blood clots in arms, legs, lungs, and eyes, (4) stroke, (5) bleeding irregularities, (6) weight gain, (7) ectopic pregnancy, and (8) delayed return to fertility and lack of return to fertility. (9) In addition, scientific research in 2012 reported that women using Depo Provera have double the risk of developing breast cancer.

To eliminate blacks from Germany, Hitler called on eugenicist which had a leadership role in Margaret Sanger’s Population conference

Posted in Eugen Fischer, Harry Laughlin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger and Nazis, Nazi with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2013 by saynsumthn

Quoted from the documentary film: Maafa21

Eugen Fischer

To eliminate blacks from Germany, one of the people Hitler called on was a eugenicist who had once written that blacks are an inferior race of savages who should only be allowed to survive as long as they are of use to the Aryan race. His name was Eugen Fischer and, about 20 years earlier, he had been one of the leaders of a system of concentration camps in southwestern Africa where blacks were rounded up to be executed, experimented upon or held as free labor.

Under Hitler, Fischer would serve on committees that planned the sterilization of all blacks in countries that came under German control. He would also be one of the first Nazi scientists to become publicly affiliated with the Carnegie-funded eugenics laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

Eventually, Fischer would also be put in charge of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was here that many of the Nazi programs for creating racial purity were developed.

Fischer Sanger

In 1927, Margaret Sanger organized the World Population Conference in Geneva Switzerland and gave it front page coverage in her Birth Control Review. The events program shows that several of its attendees were colleagues of Sanger’s from the American Eugenics Movement. It also documents that among those who were given a leadership role in the conference was Eugen Fischer, the man who eventually lead the Nazi effort to eradicate blacks from Europe.

In an August 28,1935 New York Times article, Fischer praises Hitler, and asks the World Population Congress at that time to “greet him with me: Hail Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler.”

FischerPraisesHitlerNYT87281935

Fischer was Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics from 1927 to 1942, Fischer authored a 1913 study of the Mischlinge (racially mixed) children of Dutch men and Hottentot women in German southwest Africa. Fischer opposed “racial mixing,” arguing that “Negro blood” was of “lesser value” and that mixing it with “white blood” would bring about the demise of European culture. After 1933, Fischer adapted his institute’s activities to serve Nazi antisemitic policies. He taught courses for SS doctors, served as a judge on Berlin’s Hereditary Health Court, and provided hundreds of opinions on the paternity and “racial purity” of individuals, including the Mischlinge offspring of Jewish and non-Jewish German couples.

[POSTWAR CAREER] Fischer retired in 1942 as Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics. After the war he worked to secure university teaching positions for many of his former students (including Otmar von Verschuer). As professor emeritus at the university of Freiburg, Fischer continued to lecture and publish articles in anthropological journals. He died in 1967.

This image is for the promotion of Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race (or for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum general press kit) only. Any reproduction of the images must include full caption and credit information. Images may not be cropped or altered in any way or superimposed with any printing.
Fischer Credit: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem

Dr. Eugen Fischer reading Heredity Journal. Dr. Eugen Fischer, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity from 1927 to 1942, authored a 1913 study of the racially mixed children of Dutch men and Hottentot women in German southwest Africa. Fischer opposed “racial mixing,” arguing that “Negro blood” was of “lesser value” and that mixing it with “white blood” would bring about the demise of European culture. After 1933, Fischer adapted his institute’s activities to serve Nazi antisemitic policies. He taught courses for SS doctors, served as a judge on Berlin’s Hereditary Health Court, and provided hundreds of opinions on the paternity and “racial purity” of individuals, including the Mischlinge offspring of Jewish and non-Jewish German couples.

Eugen Fischer, collaborated with Charles Davenport in the management of the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. On the occasion of the International Eugenics Congress in Rome, in 1929, they drafted a memo to Mussolini encouraging him to move ahead on eugenics with “maximum speed.” In 1936, Harry Laughlin’s contributions to race hygiene in Germany were recognized with an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg.

Hitler read Fischer’s textbook Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene while in prison at Landsberg and used eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure Aryan society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). When he came to power in 1933, Hitler charged the medical profession with the task of implementing a national program of race hygiene – a key element of which was passage of an act permitting involuntary sterilization of feebleminded, mentally ill, epileptics, and alcoholics. Within a year, more than 50,000 sterilizations were ordered, and doctors competed to fill sterilization quotas. By the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, an estimated 400,000 people had been sterilized.

http://www.dnalc.org/mediashowcase/media_item.html?id=507

Abortion pill RU-486 created as an inexpensive drug for eugenic “population control” has connection to Nazi gas Zyklon B

Posted in Abortion, Abortion pill, Hitler, Maafa21, Nazi, Rockefeller, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Today, September 28, 2010, marks the ten-year anniversary of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of Mifepristone (popularly known as RU-486).

These following quotes/facts are from the powerful documentary : Maafa21 which shows how the US government and other Elites are using abortion to limit black births:

When three pro-choice researchers investigated the original motive behind the creation of the abortion pill, RU486, what they discovered was that the scientific basis for it was actually developed in United States during the 1960s by the National Institutes of Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In their 1991 book, these researchers claimed to have found data showing that this agency was looking for an inexpensive and effective drug to control the populations of foreign countries that the government had classified as “under-developed.” The abortion pill was to be tested in these environments and, if successful, the plan called for it to then be introduced into Black, Hispanic and Native-American communities in the United States.

After the abortion pill, RU486, was approved for sale in the U.S., the controversy surrounding it kept the abortion lobby from being able to find an American company to produce it. That forced them to look for a foreign manufacturer and, after an eight-year search, a company owned by the Chinese government agreed to manufacture the drug for the U.S. market. The company’s management made this decision after the Rockefeller Foundation agreed to provide financial backing for the project.

Minute 3 and 8 Minutes

Connection between Rockefeller and RU486. At the end of World War II, the German chemical manufacturer, I.G. Farben, was identified as the company that supplied the gas used in the Nazi concentration camps. The gas was called Zyklon-B and evidence later showed that Farben’s executives knew how it was being used. In fact, evidence was uncovered to indicate that Farben engineers had actually designed the gas chambers. This led to some of them being tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity including genocide and slavery.

After the war, I.G. Farben would change its name and become known as Hoechst AG. One of Hoechst’s subsidiaries, Roussel Uclaf, is the French company that developed RU486. The same company that produced the gas used in the Nazi death camps also produced the abortion pill RU-486

In June of 2006, shortly after a FOIA Act granted Judicial Watch uncovered government documents on RU-486, called “The Clinton RU-486 Files,” the Interim reported that, In his first official act as president, Clinton ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration to co-ordinate the marketing of abortion drug RU-486 on American soil.

Clinton had previously received advice from Ron Weddington, whose wife argued the pro-abortion side in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case. In a January 1992 letter supporting the legalization of RU-486, Weddington made a Brave New World-style pitch on socio-economic grounds, arguing: “Something’s got to be done very quickly. Twenty-six million food stamp recipients is more than the economy can stand.”

Weddington went on to write that the next president should “start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of the country,” as “our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labour. We don’t need more babies.”

The report brings to light a number of disturbing revelations, including the use of official U.S. political, economic and diplomatic pressure that was used to persuade the RU-486 manufacturer, Roussel Uclaf, to make the drug available to American consumers. In one confidential memo, then-HHS Secretary Donna Shalala mentioned that she and then-FDA Commissioner David Kessler personally changed Roussel Uclaf’s position.

Interestingly, the documents also show that Roussel Uclaf offered to give the RU-486 patent to the U.S. government at no cost, in order to protect itself from legal liability in case anything went wrong.

Clinton obtained the patent by writing an official letter to Roussel Uclaf, saying the U.S. required “safe and effective medical treatment,” and thanking the company on behalf of “the women of America.”

According to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, the drug has claimed the lives of 560,000 children and at least six women in the United States, in part because the Clinton administration pressured the FDA to circumvent the usual requirements for certifying a drug as “safe and effective” in order to bring RU-486 to market. “This dangerous abortion pill needs to be pulled off the market immediately,” he said.

From Maafa21, Exerts from the Letter Ron Weddington sent to President Bill Clinton (Clip below) “ … 26 Million food stamp recipients is more than the economy can stand.” • “… you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that.” • “I am not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion.” • “Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.

Greenies vs. Bill Gates and the abortion/eugenics crowd featuring genetically modified foods

Posted in Abortion, Bill Gates, Black Genocide, Black Victims, Brian Clowes, Czar, Environment, Genetically Modified Food, Guttmacher, Holdren, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Rockefeller, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 2, 2009 by saynsumthn

An Interesting article from Frontline Magazine – Personally – I do not trust either side on this one:

Bill Gates vs. the Famine Lobby

Posted by Ben Johnson – Oct 30th, 2009

The left-of-center philanthropist says starving Africans should be allowed to eat genetically modified foods.

Bill Gates took on the Famine Lobby while addressing a forum on the world food supply in Iowa. Speaking at the World Food Prize Symposium in Des Moines, Gates took aim at the chorus of environmental leftists and organic food advocates who believe Africans should starve rather than eat genetically modified (GM) foods. “Some voices are instantly hostile to any emphasis on productivity. They act as if there is no emergency, even though in the poorest, hungriest places on earth, population is growing faster than productivity,” he said.

The opposition is significant, because Gates is left-of-center himself. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with assets of $29 billion as of 2005, has focused on the “population” side of the “problem” in the past, sending billions of dollars in grants to such pro-abortion groups as Planned Parenthood; Population Action International, Population Services International, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Population Resource Center. Gates has also financed such organizations as the Tides Center, the Tides Foundation, the National Council of La Raza, and has supported a gun control initiative in Washington state.

( My Note – More on Gates and Eugenic/Abortions in Maafa21 )

However, Gates announced he will issue a $120 million grant to increase food productivity in sub-Saharan Africa through the planting of genetically modified seeds. In Des Moines, Gates cited a Stanford study from 2008 concluding African farmers will lose one-quarter of their productivity within 20 years if they continue to plant the same strains of corn. However, “If the seeds perform well, African farmers can expect to produce two-million more tons of maize in a year of moderate drought.” Radio Iowa reports Gates has “committed more than a billion dollars” in all.

Taking on the Green Left

In proposing this initiative, he is standing up to the Green Left, which has long favored environmental “purity” to human well-being. Greenpeace cooked up the term “Frankenfood” to demonize genetically modified foods a decade ago. Jeremy Rifkin called GM foods, “a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust” and compared their cultivation to “Nazi eugenics.” So successful was their campaign that many ecological groups have equated the agricultural corporation Monsanto, a leader in biotechnology, with the antichrist.

Dire predictions aside, GM foods not only potentially increase food production but have replaced the need to spray crops with chemical pesticides, which sickened or killed Africans. Those farmers who spray can now streamline the process, saving them much time and money. The modified crops are more resistant to cold, drought, herbicides, pests, and disease. They also supplied nutritional gaps in the consumption patterns of the poor. For instance, so-called “golden rice” spliced Vitamin A into rice, which could stave off blindness among the world’s poor who eat little more than rice. (Giving credit where credit’s due, golden rice was developed with aid from the Rockefeller Foundation.)

The “Nazi” concerns floated by the Green Left have proven more theoretical than actual. Greenpeace has long claimed GM foods increase allergies; however, the World Health Organization – hardly a corporate, capitalist shill – concluded, “No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.” Although six EU nations ban GM foods, Jaap Satter, a senior policy adviser at the Dutch Agriculture Ministry, has said, “You cannot say anymore that there is a scientific reason to be against genetic modification.” The National Research Council summed up the situation: “no conceptual distinction exists between generic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes.”

Some environmentalists seem concerned the foods will be too successful at feeding the poor. Al Gore has worried, “The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right…we’re far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain.” Given the environmentalist movement’s hatred of population – best exemplified by Obama Science Czar John Holdren’s justification of compulsory abortion in the United States – this may be the real locus of their disdain.

So deep is the Green Left’s hatred of GM foods that even an organizations Gates founded has given genetically modified food a chilly reception. “The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa was established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” and the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006 “with the objective of improving agriculture in Africa.” However, its leader, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, vowed in 2007: “We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs [genetically modified organisms] in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds.”

The scare tactics and shunning of American and Euro-socialist leftists is theoretical and faulty – but their mania has reaped a deadly harvest among the world’s most vulnerable people.

Let Them Eat Twigs

In 2002, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa refused to accept tons of U.S. food aid for his starving nation, because the aid contained genetically modified food (maize, specifically). “Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health,” he said. The deluded president continued, “I will not allow Zambians to be turned into guinea pigs no matter the levels of hunger in the country.”

The levels of hunger were staggering. Nearly one-third of Zambia’s 10 million people faced famine. Some 14 million Africans faced starvation region-wide. Nonetheless, the president privately upbraided officials in the UN World Food Programme for distributing GM foods, which fed 125,000 people in five camps. The WFP reported some impoverished Zambians “resorted to eating little more than twigs and ash from the fire in a brown soupy concoction.” Desperate, rural villagers broke into the palace where the stockpiles were rotting and stole 2,000 bags of maize.

In response, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, signed a “statement of solidarity” with Zambia. Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace went further, alleging the humanitarian aid constituted a sick capitalist ploy.There is a constant drip of pressure from the U.S. government and biotech industry to make sure Africa is softened up for GM,” he theorized. “Europe is closed to them and they need a market for it.”

Others offered more than ideological support. Zimbabwe joined the boycott, preventing GM grain’s importation. Angola followed suit in 2004. Lesotho and Mozambique milled all such grain so it would not be planted and “infect” other crops.

Not all were limited to the EU and Africa. In 2004, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez passed “possibly…the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the western hemisphere.”

Organic Astroturf

At home, the opposition has been remarkably well-heeled. National Review’s Deroy Murdock found:

In 2001, the 30 leading anti-biotech groups…spent $341.4 million, including Greenpeace USA’s expenditure of $23,748,737, Environmental
Defense’s $38,794,150 and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s $41,625,882. Between 1996 and 2001, this crusade’s lavish underwriters included the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($11,906,500), the Ford Foundation ($39,978,020) and the Pew Charitable Trusts ($130,996,900).

It also included a large portion of the organic food market. Somehow, this story of an industry trying to spike a competitor did not make MSNBC or the pages of Mother Jones.

Whatever the dangers, the prohibition of GM foods is a moral issue. As Velasio De Paolis of the Pontifical Urban University has said, it is “easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full.” However misled he is on other issues, Bill Gates deserves credit for standing up against the Green Left on this point.

The question remains, will he do so on the issue that seems closest to his heart: the eradication of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa? In a recent speech on the topic Gates admitted, “two tools helped to bring the death rate down: One was killing the mosquitoes with DDT.” Before Rachel Carson’s crusade – based entirely on scientific theories that never panned out – DDT use had nearly eradicated malaria. Now, according to one report, “there are approximately 350 to 500 millions cases of malaria, killing close to one million people” annually. “Every day, malaria takes the lives of 2,000 children in Africa alone.” Yet instead of backing DDT use, Gates has sought to find a vaccine.

If Gates truly wants to put the well-being of Africans above political correctness, DDT is the best place to start.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Read: BILL GATES’ PLANNED-PARENTHOOD-PRESIDENT DAD INSPIRED PRO-ABORT FUNDING

More on Maafa21

READ: Study: Genetically Modified Foods cause Sterility – EUGENICS ?