Since
Roe versus Wade 1973
60,069,971 Abortions in the US
36% White
= 21,625,189
25% Hispanic
= 15,017,492
30% Black
= 18,020,991
9% Other =
5,406,299
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since
Planned Parenthood International 1952
3,564,000,000 Abortions in
World
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Population 2018
327,535,104
White
61.3% = 200,778,950
Hispanic
18.1% = 59,283,835
Black
12.7% = 41,596,945
Other
7.9% = 25,875,538
-------------------------------------------------------------------
White
Population = 200,778,950
White
Abortions = 21,625,189
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic
Population = 59,283,835
Hispanic
Abortions = 15,017,492
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black
Population = 41,596,945
Black
Abortions = 18,020,991
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Population 2018
7,632,819,325
World
Abortions since 1952
3,564,000,000 Abortions
Percent
of total 2018 population
47%
The
Democrats Dangerous Dilemma
Revisionist
History and Abortion
History has a way of protecting the truth. Take today, for example. Revisionist History has become a new art form
as we experience the twenty-first century.
There are two kinds of Revisionist History. One is the practice of looking back on
recorded history and finding errors or omissions that were missed by the
author. When incorporated into the prior
history the events may alter more recent historical facts.
I call that filling in the missing gaps in earlier recorded
history and presenting the truth. In my
mind it is more of an edit and addendum to what was previously written to
correct the account.
The second type of Revisionist History is far more sinister in
motive and deceptive in execution.
Generally speaking, it is an attempt to whitewash history or falsify historical
events by revising them to meet a perceived current perception. Twisting the truth to promote an alternate
version of the truth, either by adding inaccuracies to the story or by erasing
history to tell a different story.
For example, take the case of abortion. If you were to believe the stories being told
today, you would think Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood one hundred
years ago, was a champion for women’s rights, for giving women the right to control
what happens to their body (abortion), and for promoting birth control.
Thanks to Ms. Sanger and her work Planned Parenthood
International began a partnership with the United Nations to bring birth control
and abortion to the world in 1952. By
1973 her people were the driving force behind the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court
case legalizing abortion and defining the federal standards for when it could
take place and what conditions must be met.
Noble indeed, but not the whole truth by any stretch of the
imagination. For in the course of
revising the history of Planned Parenthood a dark chapter in their evolution
was simply and conveniently deleted from the books and minds.
You see, the motivation for Sanger a hundred years ago was not
to help women in need, nor to give rise to the feminist and women’s rights
advocates of the future, it had much darker intentions.
Here is her motivation in her own words that is missing from
the Revisionist History of Planned Parenthood of today. Read them and you will realize her decades of
championing birth control and abortion were far removed from the women’s
health, rights and empowerment credited to her today.
Eugenics
Eugenics is a nice-sounding word, combining as it does the
Greek words for “good” and “birth.” And Francis Galton, who made up the word
and the idea, proposed Eugenics “for the betterment of mankind.” The actual definition is rather horrible: the
controlled and selective breeding of the human race.
Margaret Sanger, who was a member of the American Eugenics
Society and was the editor of the Birth Control Review, describes the
philosophy of eugenics on the cover of her magazine, the Birth Control
Review:
“More Children for the Fit. Less for the Unfit.”
Then she made it clear
whom she considered unfit:
“Hebrews, Slavs, Catholics, and Negroes.”
She set up her Birth Control clinics only in their
neighborhoods. She openly advocated the idea that such people should apply for
official permission to have babies:
“as immigrants have to apply for visas.”
In her often-quoted book of 1931, "My Way to Peace,"
Sanger recommends that the government:
“. . . keep the doors of Immigration
closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be
detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons,
insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others
in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and
segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted
or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to
offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)”
One of the prominent supporters of that horrific eugenics
program was Clarence Gamble, and Gamble was a director of Margaret
Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned
Parenthood.
In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,”
the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals
of promoting birth control, writing (emphasis added):
“We who advocate Birth Control, on
the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of
the unfit but upon stopping all
reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for
those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in
the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover
that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied
to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth
Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the
rising stream of the unfit….”
Sanger was highly motivated to
stop the procreation by those she deemed “unfit.” In a personal letter to
Katharine Dexter McCormick in 1950, Sanger called for:
“a
simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty- stricken slums,
jungles, and among the most ignorant people.”
But,
Sanger added;
“Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now,
immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types
of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the
government not feeding them.”
In
1932, Sanger also called for those who were poor (and those 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.”
Sanger and the Ku Klux Klan
Margaret Sanger is usually described as a “birth control
pioneer” who founded Planned Parenthood, but she also met with members of the
Klan, advocated eugenics, and supported the use of sterilization to
rid the planet of the “unfit.”
Sanger wrote about her meeting with the Klan in her
autobiography. Yet somehow this fact is made light of, glossed over, or
completely ignored by the media.
On page 366 of her autobiography, Sanger described her meeting
with the Klan, where she says she received additional invitations to speak with
similar groups:
“I accepted an invitation to talk to
the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…. I saw through the door dim figures
parading with banners and illuminated crosses…. I was escorted to the platform,
was introduced, and began to speak…. In the end, through simple illustrations I
believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar
groups were proffered.”
Sanger and Hitler’s Nazi Master Race
The birth control movement and the eugenics movement
were the same movement — to the point where Margaret Sanger twice
tried to merge her organization with major eugenics groups.
One eugenics expert, Eugen Fischer, whom Sanger featured as a
speaker at a population conference she organized, had already run a concentration
camp — in German-ruled Southwest Africa, before World War I, where he
murdered, starved and experimented on helpless native Africans. It was
Fischer’s book on eugenics, which Hitler had read in prison, that convinced
Hitler of its central importance.
Another longtime official of Planned Parenthood, Garrett
Hardin, had a decades-long track record of serving in eugenics organizations,
and as late as the 1980s was calling for mass forced sterilization of Americans
as a necessary solution to the “population problem.”
The same people served on the boards of the American Eugenics
Society and Sanger’s organizations for decades, and they worked closely
together on countless projects — ranging from researching the birth control
pill as a means of diminishing the African-American birth rate (they tested the
early, hazardous versions of the Pill on impoverished rural women in Puerto
Rico), to passing forced sterilization or castration laws in more than a dozen
states that targeted blacks and other poor people accused of “feeble
mindedness” or “shiftlessness” and diagnosed as “unfit” parents.
The eugenicists, self-appointed experts on human quality of
life, had peddled their theories not just in Britain and America but in
Germany, where they helped to directly inspire Nazi sterilization and
extermination programs aimed at the handicapped, Jews, and the small population
of black or mixed-race Germans — children of French colonial troops whom Hitler
considered a grave menace to “Aryan” racial “hygiene.” One of Sanger’s regular
authors in The Birth Control Review wrote in a U.S. newspaper in the
1930s defending the forced sterilization of such mixed-race children, for the
sake of Germany’s “health.”
Hitler’s Bible, by Sanger’s Friend
Friends and associates of Sanger (such as Harry Laughlin)
accepted awards from Nazi-controlled universities, visited with Hitler and
Himmler, and boasted that the forced sterilization programs which they had
instituted in America were used as models by the Germans. One author who served
on Sanger’s board and published regularly in The Birth Control Review was
Lothrop Stoddard, a high official of the Massachusetts Ku Klux Klan, whose book
The Rising Tide of Color Against White
World Supremacy, Adolf Hitler cited in Mein Kampf as “my bible.”
Adolf Hitler officially instituted Eugenics, leading an entire
country in carrying out its principles, not only to breed what he believed to
be a superior race but to eliminate everyone whom he considered to be inferior.
Where did Hitler find early support for his Eugenic ideas? From Margaret Sanger
and her circle.
Eugenic Scientists from Nazi Germany wrote articles for
Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and members of Sanger’s American Birth
Control League visited Nazi Germany, sat in on sessions of the Supreme Eugenics
Court, and returned with glowing reports of how the Sterilization Law was
“weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly
humanitarian way.”
Margaret Sanger began publication of The Birth Control Review
1917. She was the sole editor of the Review until 1928 when the American Birth
Control League (another Sanger foundation) took the reins. A new series began
in 1933 and it completely ceased publication in 1940.
From Sanger's "Dream Journal"
[Tucson, Ariz.] Feb 3rd
1942.
“Last night I dreamed of Hitler–- Saw
him in a room so close that I could see his eyes wink. Dream not very clear at
3 Am. just awoke–- But house I was in with others raided by Nazis. I hid under
a table with others but one womans leg was discovered then we all were brought
forth. Hitler came in to execute war plans & operations using this house as
his base. A bird flew into the room from the window & lighted near me-– It
was white & a dove-– Hitler caught it held it up high over my head & told
me to pick out a feather–-I did so & awakened.”
AD MSP, MN-SSC (MSM S70:513-14).
Presidential
Intervention and Politics
Most people view the Democrat Party as Pro-choice and the
Republican Party as Pro-life. From a
platform position that is right but both parties have walked the fine line
between the two sides of this volatile issue. A decade before Roe versus Wade
was adopted, the first Catholic President in our history, John F. Kennedy, a
Democrat, was not even queried about the issue. In spite of the lack of
interest in the issue, the JFK legacy is quite clear, he has a major pro-life
legacy.
Kennedy appointed Byron White to the Supreme Court.
Justice White was the writer of the dissent in the Roe v. Wade case that,
with Doe v Bolton, legalized abortion at all stages.
Here is an
excerpt of White’s dissension:
“…I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the
Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and
announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and,
with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with
sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.
The
upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are
constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued
existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of
possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw
judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but,
in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the
power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
President Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to reverse the
pro-life to pro-choice position in the party platform although he was careful
to avoid any hint of government funding of abortion. When his Vice President Al Gore ran for
president he further advanced the cause of pro-choice and made pro-choice an
essential element in the Democrat platform for decades to come.
President Obama is the first president to become a pro-abortion
extremist. He never supported any
meaningful restriction on it. He opposed
a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed
the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law
by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce
the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.
In 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that his
first act as president would be signing the Freedom of Choice Act. The act
would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe
v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on
abortion. The National Organization for Women said it would “sweep away
hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
The fact is that the right to abortion is at the heart of
contemporary liberalism. Roe v. Wade is liberalism’s Great Writ. Nancy Pelosi
considers the right to abortion more sacrosanct than the First Amendment. She
would never tamper with or restrict the former; she wants to amend the latter
to allow for more campaign-finance regulations.
Obama successfully cemented the Democrat Platform as the
social agenda for liberal and social change, reversing years of Democrat
tolerance of pro-lifers within the party.
He successfully replaced the pro-life tolerance with a progressive
agenda designed to lure in multiple social causes and merge them under a social(ist)
umbrella.
Today we see the consequence.
When genetic
research became profitable
At the same time the political parties were realigning as the
Democrat flipped from pro-life to pro-choice as demanded full federal funding
of abortion, the medical industry was rapidly transforming as well.
Scientific advances may not have helped determine the critical
fact of when life began, but it did lead to the genetic research field and the
conversion of health care from a social service to a profit center driven by
profits with no regard to morals.
Perhaps the most ironic result of the advances is that
cellular research and genetic engineering established a hope for genetic
breakthroughs that could extend the life of humans. It was called the Human Genome Project, and
it began just as Clinton was about to run for president. Remember, it was Clinton who moved the
Democrat party from pro-life to pro-choice.
The Genome Project was an international scientific research
project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that
make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human
genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.
Launched in 1990, two years before Clinton’s election, it was
completed in 2003, the year before Obama gave his famous speech to the Democrat
National convention that would catapult him to the presidency just five years
later.
Sadly, the results of the project created a huge demand for
stem cells, tissue from human organs, and a multitude of other issues that would
erase all concern for morality or ethics well into the future.
Suddenly, those millions of aborted fetuses became a potential
unlimited profit center for medical research, backed by the profit-driven financial
investors in the medical community.
Total abortion clinics are under active investigation by
federal agencies for the illegal sale of human parts, tissue, stem cells and
who knows what else from the aborted fetuses.
We are talking about an industry with billions upon billions of dollars
in potential revenue from the national and international sale of fetus body
parts.
What is happening in the real world in light of the fact
agencies are prohibited from profiting off the sale of body parts?
Statements from a whistleblower on the illegal sale of body
parts by clinics or funeral homes involved in abortions.
“So A is
like brain, heart, lungs, liver, spleen,” explains O’Donnell, listing the
body parts that were “really high demand.”
“So if
you really do your job, you get up to 11-20 specimens, you’re getting $20 per
specimen. If it’s 1 to 10, you’re doing just blood, you’re getting $10 for one
blood draw.”
Regarding current investigations underway:
"The facts are, Planned Parenthood took money for
harvesting baby body parts and its partners charged hundreds of dollars each
for arms, lungs, brains, and eyes, potentially making thousands of dollars on a
single aborted child," said Live Action founder Lila Rose.
Body brokers like Donor Services are also known as
non-transplant tissue banks. They are distinct from the organ and tissue
transplant industry, which the U.S. government closely regulates. Suppliers of
transplant tissue must obtain federal recognition and operate as charities. It
is illegal to buy or sell organs such as hearts, kidneys and tendons for
transplant.
But no federal law governs the sale of cadavers or body parts
for use in research or education. Few state laws now provide any oversight.
That means almost anyone, regardless of expertise, can dissect and sell human
remains.
Reuters identified 34 body brokers that have been active
across the United States during the past five years. Twenty-five of the brokers
were for-profit corporations. The other nine were structured as nonprofits,
including Donor Services – the only broker Reuters could find that still
doubles as a funeral home.
If crooks have already infiltrated the system what are the
professional crime syndicates doing, especially when there are billionaires desperate
for access to life-saving body. For more
information see the next article on how much your body parts are worth on today’s
black market.
Undermining the
Democratic Party of Today
Here is the dilemma facing the Democrat party today. They attracted multiple worthy and high-mind causes
and coalitions into the party based on the lure of being the banner issues for
the party, and for consolidating the efforts of many of these advocacy groups.
In the process the groups are losing their individual
identities and focus by being diluted into the Democrat advocacy machine, and
the same groups are being alienated from their original support base because
social advocacy is an individual perception, issues are individual in nature,
and all socials issues compete with each other for public attention.
Important social causes are being lost in the babble of
politics, fund raising for political purposes, and access to public forums,
because they aligned with the wrong political party. Both parties have done this, but the liberal,
progressive side of the Democrat party has far more groups competing for
attention.
Beyond the impossible blending of competing and explosive
issues, there are some strange ironies that result from being the platform for
all social advocacy by the Democrats.
Polls show that up to 65% of all legal and illegal immigrants
from Mexico and South America oppose abortion.
Seven-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (70%) think
abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Among black Protestants, forty-five percent say abortion
should be illegal in all or most cases.
Among Catholics, forty-seven percent say abortion should be illegal
in all or most cases
The Public Religion Research Institute found 54 percent of
Latino millennials said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.
The message is clear.
No matter what the Democrats do, half of their core constituents will
oppose the party position. According to
the latest 2018 Gallup poll, fifty percent of all Americans support conditions
on abortions, while just twenty-nine percent support unrestricted abortions.
A new CBS poll has revealed that the majority of young
American women do not support unrestricted abortions, take issue with a lot of feminist
ideologies, and do not think the mainstream media is a reliable source of
information.
The poll found that only 28% of women support abortion being
legal in all cases. 34% of women supported abortion being legal in most cases.
25% think abortion should be illegal in most cases, and 13% of women think that
abortion should be illegal in all cases. Lifenews
points out the significance of these numbers. “In the end, that means 72%
are likely in favor of some kind of abortion restriction.”
Less than half of the women surveyed thought of themselves as
feminists. 46% of the respondents considered themselves to be feminists, while
54% did not.
Only 7% of the women polled said that they “almost always”
trust the media to give them accurate information. Lifenews
points out that “this [CBS] poll only adds to the reasons why [women
distrust mainstream media]: while women’s news sites regularly assume that all
“women” support abortion and feminism, that’s not the case.”
The Democrat party platform is doomed because nearly fifty
percent of the core Democrats are opposed to the party position. Major decisions face the immediate future of
the party.
The alliance between the liberal Democrat party and the Mainstream News Agencies has also worked against the Democrats as the news media is an even more unreliable source of honest news than the politicians.
