It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Planned Parenthood Ever So Quietly Defunded

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
Fair enough. I think that's a valid exercise to go through for each person who would consider this topic - that is, asking themselves, "under what circumstances would I be willing to kill another human being?"

I would agree that exercise is pertinent to the discussion at hand. At risk of being accused of making a generalization, I suspect most would not be able to go through that exercise and honestly say they would never, ever kill another human being under any circumstances. As an example, despite my stances on abortion and war, I have to admit if my wife's or children's lives were directly threatened, I would defend them with as much lethal force as needed if it was necessary to preserve their lives.

From that point, then you can move into "under what circumstances would I be willing to approve of the killing of another human being."




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

They just need to cease their entire abortion practice then, so they can reasonably recieve govt. funding.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Fools

PS I am "pro-abortion". I am just "anti anyone's but my own BS".


Fixed that for ya.


No you didn't. If you think pamphlets or descriptions of things count as pre-natal care or breast exams, then I guess you are right. If you don't think reading something is healthcare then you are wrong.

I dare you to ask for an OBGYN at planned parenthood. Ask for an exam of any kind other than an something to do with an abortion. You will not get it. You will be referred to your health care provider.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Go here:

www.plannedparenthood.org...

type in a zip code. you will be told what the planned parenthood office provides in services. So far I have yet to find much more than aids/std tests and abortion.

I am sure there are a few here and there that are more involved - but it seems the norm here is preventing std's and abortions. Neither of which are bad things to help people out with. But pretending its a doctors office for poor women is ridiculous.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: intrptr

while sanger was imprisoned for distributing literature that informed women how to prevent conception, the eugenicists were lobbying congress to implement sterilization programs aimed at reducing the number of the unwanteds in the country...
ya see, it's perfectly fine for them to decide just who should or shouldn't reproduce, but no, that decision shouldn't be in the hands of the women who actually do the reproducing!!!



Of course not. The further back you go, the more men are the deciders, and they blame God.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd

Nixon passed it during his tenure. Added to an existing Public Health Service Act. A third of their budget is based on government assistance.

Point is they are a political arm that gets lots of Medicare funding as well as donations from the Gates Foundation, The Buffets...name it and they contribute. Whenever I hear about them Eugenics comes to mind.

There are 1000's of other service providers, many free, that are out there for women so them losing funding is not bad...it just cuts wasteful spending that should be used for government services.
edit on 05pm31pmf0000002017-05-05T15:23:34-05:000334 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

They just need to cease their entire abortion practice then, so they can reasonably recieve govt. funding.


Is that how it works in the UK?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Its a good thing they're de-funding PP, because did you know that abortions are just a tiny, Tiny, TINY fraction of the services they provide. They are also responsible for such evil as preventative women's health screenings (mammograms, pap-smears, birth control, etc) for low income or financially limited women.

At last some common sense truly godly folks are in control to reign in this abhorrent evil.
Absatively! And where will the line-up start for these godly folk to adopt the 'babies' they've saved! And of course, there will be a reflection upon the welfare roles as well. Kudos to the godly for stepping up to pay more in taxes for that. Never mind supporting more law enforcement to counter the coming rise in the crime rate: Abortion and crime: who should you believe?.
God bless their pointed little heads!



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
The way I read your post, it seems you are suggesting, then, that the solution to high crime is preemptive capital punishment. Yes?
edit on 5-5-2017 by PrairieShepherd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Did you read this part of your quote?

That’s not to say that Sanger didn’t also make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”


Of course it says she was not alone at the time in thinking that way.
Which is why my original response to a question regarding why did the government start funding PP in the first place was:
"Eugenics?"

There was a time in history when it was considered to be a good idea to involuntarily sterilize anyone who was deemed unfit - for many reasons. It was a very dark time.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Violater1

Nope not over my head at all.

Margaret Sanger was NOT a racist.

Margaret Sanger was NOT an advocate of forced sterilizations of blacks.

What Margaret Sanger's personal opinion about adultery was has nothing to do with providing birth control as an option for women (married or not) who don't want to have 18 kids.

Margaret Sanger was a saint who saved many many women from a life of misery and early death.


Quotes from Margaret Sanger:

“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 7).


“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” (“A Plan for Peace,” 1932).


“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” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).


“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. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).


In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger revealed: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”


That sounds a great deal like the Nazi point of view during the Holocaust.


This line of thinking from its founder has left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.


The US Holocaust that no one talks about:
That Time The United States Sterilized 60,000 Of Its Citizens

Government support of Planned Parenthood seems like a pretty good way to further their goals, while all the time pretending that it was for the good of women.

source



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah



Which is why my original response to a question regarding why did the government start funding PP in the first place was:
"Eugenics?"


That depends on how you define "eugenics". Empowering women and their families when it comes to deciding when to have children and when to NOT have children is NOT eugenics.



The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs”, was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act.

Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.

Title X is legally designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these health care services.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah
yes, they had sterilization programs being forms around the same time as they were throwing sanger in jail for distributing information to women on how to prevent conception....
why do you think that was???



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Violater1
Nope not over my head at all.
Margaret Sanger was NOT a racist.
Margaret Sanger was NOT an advocate of forced sterilizations of blacks.
Margaret Sanger was a saint who saved many many women from a life of misery and early death.


Yours and my definition of a saint are polar opposites.
You can shout “NOT, NOT, NOT all you want but it still doesn’t change the truth.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was active with the Klu Klux Klan and the eugenics movement in the beginning of the twentieth century. studentsforlife.org...
Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 Negro Project, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." From Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right (New York: Grossman, 1974, 1976) 332-333. Gordon is a feminist and a strong abortion supporter.
The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse—a manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own elimination. The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending social-service rhetoric and organizational expertise. . . Soon clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to Blacks and Margaret's dream of discouraging "the defective and diseased elements of humanity' from their 'reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning" was at last being fulfilled. From Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano's, 1922) 108.
How about one of several meetings with the KKK? Sanger’s 1938 autobiography, pages 366-67,” Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey…After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.”
And this quote from National Public Radio. “She also talked about birth control being used to facilitate "the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." www.npr.org...
ATS; Deny ignorance!

edit on V432017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:43:47 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

edit on V532017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:53:07 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: BlueAjah
yes, they had sterilization programs being forms around the same time as they were throwing sanger in jail for distributing information to women on how to prevent conception....
why do you think that was???


Maybe in regard to the topic that I was actually discussing, it might be more relevant to see when the US started funding PP and why.

When did the US stop forced sterilizations?

This Supreme Court case led to the sterilization of 65,000 Americans with mental illness or developmental disabilities from the 1920s to the ’70s.

source

When did the US start funding PP?

Owing to the complexity of federal and state budgets and somewhat confusing financial data from Planned Parenthood, it is difficult to tell precisely how much money the organization has gotten from the government over the years. But Planned Parenthood has been drinking from that spigot since at least 1970, when Congress passed Title X, the national “family planning” program, and it has grown increasingly reliant on government funding to cover substantial portions of its budget.

source

So, it made me wonder...
Did the government decide that since the public was fighting against forced sterilizations, causing the program to end, the other way to accomplish their goals was to fund an organization that would do the job for them? But instead of sterilization, it turned into murdering babies.

I don't think that Sanger herself at that exact time, during which she was arrested, was funded by the government. But since her views aligned with others at the time regarding eugenics, the organization that she created was used for the same long-term goals, which aligned with the government's.


edit on 5/5/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
corrected the above. Thanks DBCowboy.
edit on V542017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:54:30 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

edit on V542017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:54:49 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Thank you DBCowboy. I got rid of the arrows.
edit on V552017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:55:28 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

Good.

tax-payer money should not be used to subsidize sex or the results thereof.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
And where will the line-up start for these godly folk to adopt the 'babies' they've saved!


not gonna see that line form.

when the fetus is in utero it is oh so important and these pro lifers care oh so much

once the thing is born though their caring pretty much goes away.

the same people that want to do away with abortions are usually for stopping peoples welfare type benefits.
they dont seem to care that there may be health ramifications or the fact that mommy might not be able to feed the child....

"shouldnt have got pregnant then" is a typical response but that does not change the fact that unwanted babies are born to be discarded or not cared for due to a myriad of reasons.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

edit on V552017Fridaypm31America/ChicagoFri, 05 May 2017 16:55:44 -05001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join