Archive for The Pill

Birth Control and the Church how did we get here ?

Posted in birth control, Birth Control and Eugenics, Birth Control and the Church, Church Timeline on Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

A documentary film series produced in 2013, but one I have only recently viewed, maintains that the modern church’s stand in accepting birth control is contrary to centuries of early church teaching.

Kevin Peeples Birth COntrol The MOvie

Birth Control The Movie was directed by Kevin Peeples based on his own personal journey to answer the question: As a Christian, is birth control up to us?

Little did he realize that his journey coincided with producers Scott Matthew Dix and Nathan Nicholson.

The series consists of two DVD’s: BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?, which looks into why there is no fundamental difference between the Church of Jesus Christ, and the world, on the issue of child prevention.

And Birth Control is it up to us?

Birth COntrol how did we get here is it up to us

For the purpose of this blog, I will review BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?

The film features interviews with authors, historians, theologians, radio talk show hosts and others, such as Dr. George Grant, Dr. Allan Carlson, Geoffrey Botkin, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Lila Rose, Kevin Swanson, and Julie Roys.

RC Sproul JR

The Bible says that the serpent is more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. There are a million ways in which the serpent has gotten the church to think his thoughts after him. This is one of those places where we are fed in our selfishness of viewing children as a burden. But, we’ve got a calling to make manifest the reign of Jesus over all things. And that’s why now and always we have the obligation to raise up godly seed…” says Christian minister R.C. Sproul Jr.

Experts in the film maintain that today the Christian use of birth control is based in selfishness over money, materialism and convenience, but that this attitude is a new one that has not been upheld over the centuries of Biblical teaching. Basically saying that the church abandoned it’s historical positions on family and children and the command to procreate and has used the issues of the day to approach scripture rather than using scripture to define the issues of the day.

The film begins with a verse out of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and makes the claim that from the beginning God ordained children for marriage.

One of our weaknesses in the modern church is all we know about is the modern church,” the film begins.

It has only been in the twentieth century with the influence if evolution and eugenics that Christians have publicly embraced the lifestyle of child prevention as Biblical theology. So how did we get here?” they ask.

George Grant

What first caught my eye when I watched the trailer for the film was that author and teacher George Grant who wrote the book, “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood” was featured in the film.

Gran Illusions O1,204,203,200_

I have already done timelines for eugenics and also for how the church accepted abortion prior to it’s legalization so watching this compilation of the acceptance of birth control sparked my curiosity.

Birth control was coined by Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood the film points out but was never the mandate of God’s people who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply according to Genesis and continues into the New Testament of the Holy Bible where the family is elevated over and over again.

In historical terms, the film goes through several Biblical eras where the family or the “dominion mandate” is again upheld as commanded in Genesis.

As a student of eugenics I was aware of how the idea of limiting births came about- beginning with Thomas Malthus and leading to eugenics and abortion.

The concept of breeding the so-called superior over the inferior was imperative to Malthus as well as limiting the looming population time bomb, producers claim.

Next, the film lays out an interesting timeline of how the church went from complete opposition to contraception and the limitation of children by unnatural means to one of accepting it in just over forty years.

One of the main forces driving the decline of fertility in the United States was the rise of the industrial revolution, the timeline begins.

Malthus and Darwin

The timeline goes through the teachings of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose ideas of evolution laid a groundwork for the eugenics movement.

It then explains the Comstock laws which prohibited contraception, put in place by Anthony Comstock until they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

Anthony COmstock

The film describes Anthony Constock as a young Christian who saw contraception as “the devil’s attack on young people. He frames contraception as one that had to be tied to abortion and pornography.”

Margaret Sanger

What makes the documentary unique is the way it details not only the views of so-called “birth control pioneer” Margaret Sanger who eventually locked into the views of eugenics but also the way it details how the church initially opposed the idea of fertility limitation before eventually accepting it.

In 1874, the average clergy person had 5.2 living children, the film points out.

Keep that stat in mind because the film will soon reveal how quickly it changes.

    In the 1880’s, Nevada dramatically weakened their marriage laws by making divorce laws easy.

Francis Galton

    Around that same time, Sir Francis Galton coins the term “eugenics.”
    In 1890, the Lutheran Church Missouri Senate pastors had 6.5 children in the US.
    In 1896, the Comstock laws were challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld.
    By 1901, there was a transition away from and agricultural based economy to a machine based one.

Lambeth Conf contraception

    1908, at the Anglican Church’s 5th Lambeth Conference Bishops earnestly called upon all Christian people to, “discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.”

    But, by 1911, the birthrate of Anglican children falls 55% to only 2.3 children.

What this stat showed, according to the film, was that Bishops and clergymen were engaging in the practice of contraception, while calling it a sin at the same time.

1912 firist international congress on eugenics

By 1912, the first international congress on eugenics commences. It’s leaders strongly embraced evolution and Sanger meets eugenics influences.

Sangers the Woman Rebel

By 1914, Sanger launched the “Woman Rebel” a newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “no gods no masters.”

Sanger wrote, “[Our objective] is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

Sanger most merciful thing

The film camps on Margaret Sanger for a while detailing her charges under the Comstock laws, her flight to England to avoid those charges, her various meetings with Malthusians, her introduction to eugenics and her return to the United States.

If she could argue for birth control using the so-called scientifically verifiable threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and over-population as it’s back drop. Then, she could have a much better chance at making her case,” Grant says.

But, the film states, it was eugenics that left a lasting impression on Margaret Sanger.

Sanger, the film says, cunningly used the divisions between Protestants and Catholics at the time to convince Protestants that birth control was a Catholic issue alone.

    By 1916, Sanger illegally opened the first back ally birth control clinic which was shot down in less than two weeks.

But, all this talk of contraception was taking a toll on the church, as the film points out:

    BY 1918, just after World War 1, the birth rate of Lutheran Church Missouri Senate Pastors fell 40% to 3.7 children.
    In 1920, the Lambeth Conference gave this warning, “We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception.”

    American Birth Control League 1921 Margaret Sanger

    But, by 1921, Margaret Sanger and her cronies lobby Anglican Bishops throughout the decade and Sanger’s American Birth Control League is formed.

Lila Rose

In starting the American Birth Control League,” Live Action founder Lila Rose says.

Margaret Sanger wanted to make birth control something that was socially acceptable. Because at he time it was seen as very taboo. It was seen as something that was antithetical to loving marriages that were open to children and very open to life. So, she wanted to popularize it especially to limit children and families that she thought shouldn’t be procreating and should be having no children or only a few,” Rose adds.

    By 1921, the second international eugenics congress was held in New York City.
    In 1923, the Lutheran Church, Missouri City’s official magazine, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of “spattering the country with slime,” and labeled Margaret Sanger a “she devil.

    Sanger lectures KKK 1926
    In 1926, Sanger establishes the “Clinical Research Bureau,” she also meets with the Klu Klux Klan.
    By 1929, Sanger had founded the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in an attempt to overturn restrictions on contraception under the Comstock laws.

Lambeth COnferenec 7th allows contraception

A major turning point for the church was the 1930 Lambeth conference, for the first time, Anglicans allowed the use of contraception by stating, “In those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.”

Around this same time, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod dropped its campaign against the BCFA. But, the film points out that while some Protestants were liberalizing the use of contraception, the Catholic Church was holding fast to its prohibition.

In 1936, the Comstock Act was struck down by a test case set up by Margaret Sanger. It held the Act could not ban shipments originating from a doctor and held a distinction between moral and immoral uses of contraception.

The next year the American Medical Society upheld the use of contraception.

Margaret Sanger Negro project

    In 1939, World War 11 begins and Sanger enacts her Negro Project.

By 1945, the public is becoming aware of the horrors of the Nazi eugenic program. Sanger has connections to some of those who helped Hitler’s regime, such as Ernst Rudin.

Margaret Sanger   birth control the movie

Despite her connections to Hitler and eugenics, Grant points out that Margaret Sanger has been reinvented as a heroine.


“No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler,
” Grant states.

George Grant

Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names forever live in infamy. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped this wretched fate. In spite of her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or the other with the intentions, theologies, and movements of the other three. Sanger’s faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory,” he states.

BCFA Planned Parenthood 1942 and 1944

During the time the Nazi crimes were becoming a reality to America, Sanger’s organization was renamed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you look at Planned Parenthood’s advertisements what you quickly see is their disdain for the church and it’s teachings, for it’s traditions and it’s influence, ” Grant points out.

Over the course of the years, Planned Parenthood has specifically targeted lingering doubts about the authority of the church to speak with any sort of moral authority,” he adds.

In 1951, Sanger was able to obtain a grant from Biologist Gregory Pincus to begin hormonal contraception research. And, by 1953 she garnered the support of her wealthy friend Katherine McCormick who expanded funding by up to 5000% with clinical trials using human subjects.

Lambeth 9th COngress pill

In 1958, the 9th Lambeth congress openly accepts contraception as a “choice before God” calling it “responsible parenthood.”

National Council of Churches Pill Responsible parenthood

    In 1961, The National Council of Churches allowed birth control and even embraced abortion, emphasizing motives and essentially turning it into a “privacy matter.”

Griswold V COnneticut COmstock

In 1965, the Supreme Court declared the Comstock law totally unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut pointed to emanations from the Bill of Rights which pointed to the so-called “right of privacy.”

The film claims that by the 1950’s and 60’s the evangelical church began changing the scriptures regarding the issue of birth control, claiming that the commands in Genesis were not commands.

By the middle of 1966, Margaret Sanger had died.

The timeline continues – showing examples of modern evangelicals, who the film claims compromised on the message of contraception.

Geoffry Botkin

“One of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was how willingly Christians were being pulled along and manipulated along to go along with the entire agenda that was anti-baby, anti-family, pro-contraception, pro-eugenics agenda. And, they felt almost like they had a duty to embrace it because it was “scientific” and they wanted to be modern, they wanted to be with it, they wanted to be cultural. And so in embracing it they rejected the very doctrines of Christianity,” says Geoffrey Botkin.

Grant summarizes that abortion continues in America because the church by and large still holds to the idea that contraception and unnatural family limitation is acceptable, going as far as implying it is pragmatic disobedience to God.

In the modern evangelical church there is almost unanimity against the sinfulness of abortion, ” Grant says.

George Grant

“The bottom line is that while we decry abortion, and the abortion clinic. We decry Planned Parenthood, we decry pro-abortion candidates, when our own circumstances get difficult, when our own economy seems to be constricted. When our own finances are compromised, we’re willing to act on pragmatism rather than principle time after time after time.”

“As a result, abortion in America remains at the forefront of the injustices perpetrated by all of us precisely because the church has not stood on principle and obeyed our God,” Grant concludes.

The film lays a compelling argument that contraception was never acceptable in early church teaching. It documents step by step the influence birth control gained in Protestant church teaching and beliefs.

One of the most interesting facts that I see is how the same ideas that helped usher in the concept of birth control also helped lay the framework for abortion on demand. Yet, many within the church are fine with it.

The debate over whether acceptance of birth control among married couples appears to be settled in modern Protestant church teaching or lack of it.

The question remains, is it settled in God’s mind? That is the question all Bible believing Christians must wrestle with as they seek obedience to our Lord.

If you would like to get the film or find out more about it you can check out the film’s website here.

Contraceptive Dangers Rising Concern Over Side Effects

Posted in Abortion pill, birth control, Birth Control Dangers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

Note- This came out in 2005- research has been done to prove further dangers since:

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 8, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Even as governments and family planning groups continue to push contraceptives, new evidence is coming forward on their dangerous side effects. In England, the minister for children, Margaret Hodge, declared that she was in favor of injectable contraceptives for schoolgirls, BBC reported Nov. 16.

“What is really interesting is this contraceptive injection,” she declared. “If people are having sex, you don’t want them to have babies at that age.”

Hodge’s enthusiasm for contraceptives flies in the face of scientific warnings. On Aug. 23 Reuters reported on research by a team from the University of North Carolina and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Women who use the injected contraceptive Depo-Provera have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases, they concluded.

Charles Morrison, of Family Health International, said that more study is needed, but it is possible that Depo-Provera itself causes a susceptibility to sexually transmitted diseases. “We did adjust for differences in condom use, differences in multiple partners, differences in the number of sexual coital acts,” he told Reuters.

Depo-Provera is also under scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The agency has now stipulated that the drug must carry a special warning that prolonged use can cause significant loss of bone density, the Associated Press reported Nov. 17.

Shortly after the FDA announcement, another study confirmed the problem of bone loss due to Depo-Provera, Reuters reported Dec. 23. Researchers from the University of Iowa compared 178 women using the injectable with 145 women not using hormonal contraception.

Average bone density at the hip fell 2.8% one year after starting Depo-Provera and 5.8% after two years. Loss of bone density in the spine was similar. This compares to average bone loss of less than 0.9% among the control group.

Deadly side effects

Another contraceptive with troubling consequences is the so-called patch. Last April 4 the New York Post reported on the case of 18-year-old Zakiya Kennedy, who died as a result of blood clots, formed as a result of her patch contraceptive. She had switched from using birth-control pills to the patch about three weeks before her death.

The newspaper followed this up with a Sept. 19 report tying the Ortho Evra patch, the only kind marketed in the United States, to the deaths of at least 17 women in the past two years. The article added that scores of other women using the patch have suffered complications, including 21 “life-threatening” cases of blood clots and other ailments. The data came from FDA reports obtained by the newspaper.

The article added that the manufacturer claims the patch has been used by 4 million American women since it went on sale in 2002. A company spokesman commented that the illnesses and deaths are “consistent with the health risks” of the pill, which it says kills 0.3 to 1.9 women in every 100,000 users ages 15 to 29.

Concerns over the health risks of another contraceptive forced the FDA to step in a few days ago to correct a TV commercial. Reuters reported Dec. 30 that the FDA warned Barr Pharmaceuticals that its ads for Seasonale pills failed to mention the side effect of frequent and substantial bleeding.

The FDA warned the company that the commercial misleads consumers by excluding this information, to make the birth control pill seem safer. The warning came in a letter to the company released by the FDA on Dec. 29. In addition to the bleeding problems the pill’s label warns that other side effects can include blood clots, heart attack and stroke. But the commercials, observed the FDA, use “compelling visuals” and “fast-paced scene changes” along with other techniques that distract from warning information.

Good news proved false

One recent report at first seemed to disprove health worries over contraceptives. The British newspaper Guardian on Oct. 26 noted that some studies had concluded that the pill could help protect women from heart disease and strokes. Plus, another study of women in America concluded that the pill did not increase the risk of breast or cervical cancer.

These results were presented at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine conference in Philadelphia last October. The data came from the ongoing Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, which is tracking a group of more than 160,000 women.

The report in the Guardian was skeptical about the positive news. It noted that the WHI study had previously reported data linking hormone replacement treatment to an increased risk of breast cancer, heart disease and strokes. The contraceptive pill and HRT are practically the same, the article noted.

The doubts proved to be prescient. On Nov. 27 the London-based Times reported that the WHI had subsequently rejected the findings drawn from its data and demanded a retraction.

Jacques Rossouw, acting director of the WHI, admitted to the Times that the study lacked credibility. “The researchers just looked at base-line data, which is very poor data,” he said. “That is why the findings are so bizarre. These kinds of results are just not credible.”

The Times followed this story up with another article, on Dec. 13, that warned of higher stroke risks for women who take the pill. Based on a study of more than 5,000 people, researchers from Canada, the United State and Spain have concluded that migraine sufferers who take the pill are up to eight times more likely to suffer a stroke than those not using it. The Times added that migraines affect an estimated 6 million people in Britain, with women being more susceptible to the problem.

So-called morning-after pills are also associated with health problems. A July 30 report by Medical News Today summarized the findings of a study published by Dr. Gene Rudd in the September issue of the Annals of Pharmacotherapy.

Last July 22, Barr Laboratories reapplied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to receive approval for Plan B to be made available over-the-counter, after the FDA’s initial refusal. Rudd’s article contains data arguing that easing access to Plan B would place the health of many women at risk.

Rudd noted that nonprescription access to Plan B would keep many women out of doctors’ offices and away from appropriate, comprehensive care. Additionally, Plan B may encourage more risk-taking behaviors such as “unprotected” sex that increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Health concerns are not limited to contraceptives. The abortion pill RU-486 has been linked to a number of deaths. A well-known case is the 2003 death of Holly Patterson, an 18-year-old Californian who succumbed to septic shock after taking RU-486.

Holly’s father, Monty Patterson, said that the FDA should ban the abortion pill after a third death was being linked to its use, the Associated Press reported Nov. 16. That same day, the New York Times reported that the FDA has asked that the warning label on the RU-486 be strengthened.

In an opinion article published Nov. 19 in the New York Times, Donna Harrison, an obstetrician-gynecologist and member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused authorities of having given the green light to the abortion pill in 2000 due to political interference by the Clinton administration.

She explained that documents recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Clinton administration “pushed to get RU-486 approved before the 2000 election despite the lack of reliable data demonstrating its safety.” That news may have come too late for at least a few RU-486 users.

Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement

Posted in Abby Johnson, birth control, Blood Money, Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2010 by saynsumthn

By Rebecca R. Messall
Posted: 06/03/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

On a Sunday dedicated to honoring motherhood, May 11, 2010, the Denver Post chose to celebrate everything glaringly responsible for preventing or terminating motherhood. And, to someone like me who is slightly older than the “Pill” and who was 18 at the time of Roe v. Wade, the appearance of the Post’s Mother’s Day article was curious because there is much more that people should know about the threesome of Margaret Sanger, the “Pill” and Planned Parenthood, the nations’ largest abortion provider.

Margaret Sanger belonged to an organization called the American Eugenics Society, organized in the early 1900’s. Members from the American Eugenics Society actually formed Sanger’s original group whose name was changed to Planned Parenthood, but even the latter’s first three presidents were officers or members in the AES, including Alan Guttmacher. Sanger is listed as a member in 1956 under her then-married name, Mrs. Noah Slee.

Later called social biology, genetics, and population control, eugenics was a “scientific” endeavor born from evolutionary biology. It was never confined to state-sponsorship under Communists and Socialist dictators. Eugenics operated quite openly in the United States, England and around the world. The efforts of the American Eugenics Society resulted in many states passing laws to sterilize more than 63,000 Americans. Several states passed official apologies in the 1990’s. The eugenics movement, particularly Margaret Sanger, ranted against the Catholic Church for opposing eugenic legislation and ideology.

Leaders of the American eugenics movement were later troubled that Hitler tarnished the word “eugenics;” however, they did not abandon the quest for a thoroughbred stock of humans, such as Margaret Sanger herself touted. They simply chose new words to describe eugenics. As recently as 1968, one of the leading evolutionary biologists and an officer in the American Eugenics Society, Theodosius Dobzhansky, said that the word “genetics” meant the same thing as “eugenics” and commended the goals of eugenics. The control of reproduction remained the primary goal of eugenics in order to improve the human gene pool. Throughout its existence Planned Parenthood has been a key tool to reduce or eliminate births among blacks, other minorities and the disabled.

The Post’s Mother’s Day article typifies the popular narrative, which was really a sophisticated marketing campaign so good that no one questions it. Almost never, anyway. It sought to convince women to become customers of a then-unpopular product by convincing them that, prior to the commercial launch of the Pill in the 1960’s, our mothers and grandmothers were veritable slaves to their wombs, their husbands and the very concept of marriage.

Coincidentally, of course, legal abortion also covered up the “Pill’s” failure rate. In the new movie, “Blood Money,” former abortionist Carol Everett says her abortion facility intentionally passed out low dose birth control pills to increase the likelihood of customer pregnancies and those money-making back-up abortions.

In the 70’s, one of the messages was that women had a singular duty not to add another child to a polluted, war-torn mad, mad world which would be blown up at any minute by nuclear war. However, the other sub-text, the one where evil should have been blatantly denounced if media, politicians, academia and the rest of us had not been so – to put it charitably – timid, was the pronouncement that disabled and minority children were particularly “unwanted” and specially targeted for elimination through abortion and the parallel development of genetic tests for destructive uses.

Now, nearly all Downs Syndrome babies are terminated before they are born, as part of a public policy by the U.S. Supreme Court laid down in Roe and reiterated again and again. Pro-life leader Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. writes, “Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness.”

Largely, the eugenics/population control movement has been powered by huge trusts with billions of dollars in global assets. As investment vehicles, they likely receive income from corporations engaged in a global distribution of birth control pills, IUDs, patches, injections and so forth. If so, their capital holdings, dividends and bonuses are gilded by U.S. taxpayer funding for the system of product distribution, funding appropriated as a quid pro quo from politicians grateful for the campaign donations. Money talks. Blood money.

Rebecca R. Messall is a practicing attorney in Denver. She is the author of the article, “The Long Road of Eugenics: From Rockefeller to Roe v. Wade,” Fall 2004 Human Life Review (New York).

For more on this topic – Watch the film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America