Planned Parenthood Ever So Quietly Defunded

a reply to: dantanna

Condoms can break. Some men refuse to wear them.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire

Recent articles have reported on an unearthed video from 1947 of Margaret Sanger demanding “no more babies” for 10 years in developing countries. A couple of years ago, Margaret Sanger was named one of Time magazine’s “20 Most Influential Americans of All Time.” Given her enduring influence, it’s worth considering what the woman who founded Planned Parenthood contributed to the eugenics movement.

Sanger shaped the eugenics movement in America and beyond in the 1930s and 1940s. Her views and those of her peers in the movement contributed to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including people she considered “feeble-minded,” “idiots” and “morons.”

She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “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” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks.

In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “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 that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

Her own words and television appearances leave no room for parsing. For example, she wrote many articles about eugenics in the journal she founded in 1917, the Birth Control Review. Her articles included “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925) and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), to name a few.

a reply to: dantanna

Lol, you honestly think women use abortions for birth control? That's like saying people prefer to treat mosquito bites with amputation (hey, never gonna itch again, amirite!).

Its obtusely asinine and factually incorrect, not to mention a morally reprehensible stance to take.

What a weird hill you've chosen to die on.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Much of the controversy stems from a 1939 letter in which Sanger outlined her plan to reach out to black leaders — specifically ministers — to help dispel community suspicions about the family planning clinics she was opening in the South.
“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 that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote. It was, as the Washington Post called it, an “inartfully written” sentence, but one that, in context, describes the sort of preposterous allegations she feared — not her actual mission. The irony is that it has been used to propagate those very allegations. Cruz’s letter to the director of the National Portrait Gallery, for example, quotes only the first half of the sentence.

Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy. As she framed it, birth control was the fundamental women’s rights issue. “Enforced motherhood,” she wrote in 1914, “is the most complete denial of a woman’s right to life and liberty.”

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.”
She was, of course, not alone in this viewpoint: In the 1920s and 1930s, eugenics enjoyed widespread support from mainstream doctors, scientists and the general public. Planned Parenthood officials are quick to note that, despite her thoughts on the idea in general, Sanger “uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles.”

time.com...

a reply to: Wayfarer
Well if they were not so politically motivated to support baby murder, then I guess those services would still be subsidized right???

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

Eugenics?
That was the original intention of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
But people keep ignoring that.

" Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society..." blackgenocide.org...


The face of a Democratically supported demon,Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and advocate of birth control, is shown at New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in 1961. The Democrats have been subversively oppressing black people since the slave trade was legal. And they continue to pull the wool over their eyes.

a reply to: Violater1

Fake news. Your video isn't even about blacks at all.

I can't believe your inadequate post received stars.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

personally I am hoping that they refer all those medicaid patients to their country health clinics for everything but abortions... or find some other way to discourage them from showing up at their doors for their birth control, pap smears, ect..
it seems like many think that planned parenthood will just start providing free care for the medicaid patients.. since ya know, they get so much in donations and all...

unfortunately, the way that they wrote the law just might force other non-profit entities to send away the medicaid patients also... and deny children some important diagnostic testing and treatments...

or are you gonna suggest that they just depend on their donations for that care also???

heck the country health clinic in my area has one day where people can come in for things like std testing... ONE DAY... and the fact that it's on a first come first serve basis kind of gives me the impression that there's a good possibility that you might get sent away after waiting there a day!!! and they most certainly don't have the equipment or expertise to diagnose something like cystic fibrosis let alone treat it!!!

originally posted by: intrptr
I remember that women also sought abortions anyway and since doctors who swear a Hippocratic oath refused the 'service', women sought alternative means, sometimes resulting in horror stories about abortions provided by back alley practitioners with coat hangers, resulting in sometimes death from infection, etc.

What I remember anyway. Probably also manufactured for sentimental reasons, in order to start the Eugenics Program.

No, it's true. I was alive back then and remember friends who had to do that.

Abortions have always been with us since very ancient times... in many places unwanted children were simply given to someone to dispose of at birth. Perhaps you remember the Greek and Roman practices of abandoning babies on hillsides to be eaten by wolves. Perhaps you've heard about the Ebers Papyrus from ancient Egypt (1500 BC) with its recipe for inducing abortions. Or maybe you read the stories of "baby farms" where they were left to starve or were poisoned. Or the more recent mass graves of children found in Ireland on the grounds of a home for unwed mothers that was in operation from 1925-1970.

And this doesn't count the number beaten to death or abused to death or neglected to death within families all across the world.

originally posted by: dantanna
good. i use condoms, it works brilliantly. no stds (zippo, get checked for everything) and no kids. my money is spent on my adventures lol, not some kids. condoms are great, if only women would use condoms instead of abortions for birth control.

Why should WOMEN use condoms? Men should be educated to use them... but it's going to take educating men that this is the way to go.

originally posted by: Deplorable

I'm looking right now and not finding this story coursing through MSM coverage. I don't get it.

Not defund completely. Blocking it from getting Medicaid reimbursements for one year.

And it's a single issue within a much larger problem about the bill. More are concerned about the "pre-existing conditions" section... and if you're retired or disabled, this could mean a huge increase in premiums (particularly if you live someplace like, say, Texas, which refused government supplement money for Obamacare and as a result, insurance here in Texas remained unaffordable to many.)

a reply to: Byrd

the idea that if a women doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just keep her legs crossed never did work out too well, did it??

people should really take a look at how the poor and unwanted were treated in the early part of the 20th century with it's poor houses here and work houses in england and realize that women being given control over their own reproduction via birth control probably played a large part in seeing these atrocities vanish.
ya, we still have foster homes, and we still have children who have no foster home to be place into, and we still have children waiting for adoption, but it's nothing like the horrors of the past.

Good.

a reply to: Byrd

I outlined all my views on abortion in my proposed abortion legislation thread. It is actually pretty reasonable if I may say so myself. Would still be legal, just have an annual limit with plenty of exemptions for things like incest, rape, mortality factors, etc.. etc..

Either way, this is less a by-product of politics, and more a product of budgeting. come October, some very serious global financial matters will need to be addressed due to the fact that the Eastern bloc and BRICS nations have created their own alternate versions to our entire financial domination systems. Electronic debit, development banks and all. They are much less predatory too with the terms, making it an attractive alternative to the world, thus damaging very much the power and value of our currency.

It is due to these impending factors more than anything, that we are seeing a scaling back of many social programs and agency funding from the government due to the real threat on our economy.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Wait, did you actually propose your own legislation for 'Baby Murder' because of how disgusted you are at 'Baby Murder'? I guess its ok as long as big Mr. WorldStarCountry comes up with the idea.

The mind reels.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Violater1

Fake news. Your video isn't even about blacks at all.

I can't believe your inadequate post received stars.

I guess it went over your head. Perhaps your a lot like Drax.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I would see your point if I actually believe that the money that might be saved by this legislation was going to reduce the spending, but it isn't is it?? no, it will just make up for some of the cost of expanding the military budget, cutting taxes for the richest among us, building a wall!
I am one of the disabled, and I am telling you here and now... if I could have gotten the care I needed when I needed it, I probably wouldn't be disabled! I watched as the dmv fees were increased, the state taxes were increase, the sales taxes were increased, all so they could come up with the money for medicaid, I paid the taxes so my neighbors could get their healthcare, but ended up having to quit my job, losing my insurance, going bankrupt because of the medical bills long before there was even a diagnosis! and still there was no help from the gov't. my husband passed away leaving me with practically nothing, no job, no income... AND STILL NO HELP!!

it kind of sucks being one of the sacrificial lambs tossed aside while they try to preserve a fake economic system that hasn't been working for the last 30 or so decades!

a reply to: Wayfarer
I had to be realistic and accept that writing a single line that says "from hereon until the end of time, the act of abortion will forever be illegal in the USA" would pretty much be a non starter and never even be debated.

Half of my proposal gives the father a consenting voice for termination or not, also with a ton of exemptions. Why don't you give it a read, mister I only ever have sarcasm to add to a conversation, EVER.

We had a healthy debate with ideas going back and forth on both sides.

But forget all that. How about we discuss the economic realities that are going to see a lot more subsidies getting cut over the next decade, and eventually even base closures. That is the underlying reality of this defunding. The whole moral objections to abortion are merely a plus.

a reply to: dawnstar

yea that does suck. Sorry to hear of your situation. And these are the desperate years in which everything will be cut before they finally actually start shutting down bases around the world. Everyone will realize it finally when the bases in Europe and some in Asia are not only scaled back, but some even shuttered for good. USAfriCOM is fairly affordable enough to keep bribed in their host countries. We probably see a lot get diverted there.

its not all doom and gloom though. its not like we will just collapse like the soviet union. Where there is disaster and financial ruin, there is always an opportunity for prosperity. Cycles go boom bust. We just happen to be around in a time where we have the misfortune to see it play out over the next two decades. But we will be back, don't you worry!

a reply to: Deplorable

Bill stops abortion funding

Pro-life advocates praised the bills elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood.

No it doesn't.

There is so much ignorance in this thread!

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.