Planned Parenthood chooses to ignore science and perpetuate the overpopulation myth
(Posted by Bryana Joy on December 28th)
Originally posted at The College Conservative “There is only one country in the world for which we project the median fertility to not fall below 2.1 children in the projection period between 2010 and 2100,” said the UN Population Division in the 2010 Population Estimates and Projections Revision. In their informative video series, Overpopulation Is a Myth, The Population Research Institute explains, ”by the end of this century, we’ll be losing 1 billion people every twenty years.”
The delusion that planet earth is overpopulated and spiraling into uncontrollable and unsustainable population growth is one of the most destructive myths of our time, and is responsible for the deaths of millions. From Paul Ehrlich’s ludicrously inaccurate predictions in The Population Bomb, to climate change alarmist Al Gore’s recommendation of “better choices” to curb what he considers excessive childbearing in developing countries, scare tactics have been shamelessly employed for the purpose of nurturing the big and burgeoning myth of overpopulation.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed a bill establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, known as the Rockefeller Commission, chaired by John D. Rockefeller III. Two years later, this same Commission released the 1972 Rockefeller Commission Report on U. S. Population. The report recommended,
“that present state laws restricting abortion be liberalized…such abortions to be performed on request by duly licensed physicians under conditions of medical safety. In carrying out this policy, the Commission recommends that federal, state, and local governments make funds available to support abortion services in states with liberalized statutes [and] that abortion be specifically included in comprehensive health insurance benefits, both public and private.”
Enter Roe v. Wade, the tragic landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme court to legalize abortion. There has been a lot of talk lately of yanking federal funding from the world’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, due to abuses uncovered by the Live Action video team and other investigators. While we’re commonly told that the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions, this claim is so ridiculous that it hardly even merits a response.
But what if Planned Parenthood didn’t cover up child sex abuse or provide abortions? Then would it be OK to support them? I mean, what’s wrong with providing free condoms to couples who don’t want kids, right?
What many people – even pro-life people – don’t realize is that Planned Parenthood isn’t just about abortion. It’s about population control, and it always has been. Abortion is just a means to that end. In fact, it’s only one of many despicable means to that end. Get ready to be properly horrified, because I’m about to offer for your reading pleasure one of Planned Parenthood’s deepest, darkest secrets: The Jaffe Memo.
In 1969, Planned Parenthood was asked by the government to produce some ideas to help with overpopulation. They came up with a sheet of “Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility,” known as The Jaffe Memo, after Planned Parenthood’s then-Vice President, Frederick Jaffe.
SEE THE JAFFE MEMO
This shocking table includes the following suggestions as policy changes suitable to an agenda of population control:
-Postpone or avoid marriage
-Alter image of ideal family size
-Compulsory education of children
-Encourage increased homosexuality
-Educate for family limitation
-Fertility control agents in water supply
-Encourage women to work
-Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
-Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three
-Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults
-Payments to encourage sterilization
-Payments to encourage contraception
-Payments to encourage abortion
-Abortion and sterilization on demand
Unfortunately, The Jaffe Memo is just one particularly frightening example of Planned Parenthood’s obsession with population control methods. Kirsten Powers explains,
“According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in ‘achieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.’”
Okay, so Planned Parenthood is all about population control. But what’s the big deal? What’s wrong with population control efforts, as long as they are implemented through “informed individual choice”? I would answer that question with another question: how can it be the proper function of the government to take sides on such a controversial issue and spend taxpayer money to indoctrinate the population? Are our reproductive rights not being violated when the government uses our money to fund organizations that have suggested such far-fetched and ridiculous ideas as those in the Jaffe Memo? Are we being fairly treated, citizens of the United States? Or are we being brainwashed?
In addition to all of this, there’s one other really big point that makes the taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood utterly ridiculous: overpopulation is a myth! Human Life International puts it best:
“Over the past 40 years, there has been much disagreement over whether or not population control programs are necessary for those nations with the most rapidly growing populations. There can be no disagreement now, however, except among those organizations whose incomes depend upon it. The time for population control has come and gone. It is now necessary to plan ahead. We have successfully averted a ‘population explosion,’ and now we must work just as hard to avoid a ‘population implosion.’”
The problem is that fertility rates are dropping worldwide, and while the population may be going up right now, growth is actually going to start slowing very soon. When the government gives taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, they are forcing you to contribute monetarily to an outdated cause that is not supported by science. You are being coercively required to fund the dramatic population decline of the human race.
Lila Rose, President of Live Action
The Obama administration's staunch defense Planned Parenthood hurts women and raises some serious questions about the pro-choice movement's concern for women's health
(Posted by Bryana Joy on December 20th, 2011)
Investigative journalists from Live Action conducted a series of “sting” operations on Planned Parenthood clinics in January of this year. Actors posed as a pimp and a prostitute working a child sex ring and asked for advice on how to skirt legal requirements designed to protect minors from sexual abuse. Clinic workers offered assistance and suggestions, going out of their way to aid the supposed pimp. Needless to say, the tapes caused quite a stir, and prompted some Americans to rethink the issue of Planned Parenthood’s government funding. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is an abortion provider that also offers other reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood received 360 million dollars of taxpayer money in 2009, and about one third of its funds are supplied by government grants and contracts. As a result of the sting videos, there was an effort to defund the organization at the federal level, with an amendment which passed the house but died in the senate. Nonetheless, several states have decided on their own to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, including Indiana, Kansas, New Jersey and North Carolina.
Once these states’ intentions were made known, it didn’t take long for things to get ugly. The Obama administration declared Indiana’s measure illegal and ordered the state to restore the family planning funding to Planned Parenthood. If Indiana did not comply, it would lose its 4.2 billion dollars of Medicaid money – the government aid funds that are utilized by low-income women. The administration also warned that other states’ Medicaid funds would be in jeopardy if they chose to follow Indiana’s example.
This heavy-handed federal action was accompanied by a flood of accusations of the usual sort leveled at pro-life activists. President Obama stated that Republicans were trying to “turn back the clock” on women’s health. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards called Indiana’s measure,
“a dangerous bill that would have a devastating impact on women’s health and take away health care from thousands of women in Indiana, leaving them at greater risk for undetected cancers, untreated infections and unintended pregnancies…” Unfortunately for Cecile Richards, the truth of the matter is that there are over 800 Medicaid providers in Indiana and Planned Parenthood only serves 1% of Medicaid patients. Under the law that Indiana passed, a Medicaid patient trying to set up an appointment for feminine care with Planned Parenthood will simply be referred to a nearby primary care physician and provided with the same health services. Live Action tested this in a series of calls to Indiana Planned Parenthood clinics. Indiana’s law, which has been suspended pending a decision from the 7th Circuit of Appeals Court, would not have kept a single woman from her Medicaid money or her healthcare. The Obama administration’s decision to suspend Indiana’s Medicaid money is a threat to thousands of women’s health care plans.
In July 2011, Texas governor Rick Perry signed into law a bill that effectively defunded Planned Parenthood in the state of Texas. SB 7 also prevents hospital districts from using local tax funding for elective abortions, and encourages adult stem cell research by giving health officials authority to regulate adult stem cell banks. But when the Texas Health and Human Services Commission submitted a request for federal funding of the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program earlier this month, the Commission was told that it would have to defy the new law if it wanted the money.
What this means is that the Obama administration won’t provide money for Texas’ Medicaid Women’s Health Program unless Texas gives a portion of that money to Planned Parenthood and allows Planned Parenthood to be among the Medicaid providers. And this in spite of the fact that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did give Texas a waiver allowing Texas to move all Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries to doctors in managed care plans. Tom Suehs, HHSC’s executive commissioner, said in a statement that the denial of funds was itself “inconsistent with federal law,” since states have the right to “establish qualifications for Medicaid providers.”
Perhaps Texas Gov. Perry said it best when he accused the Obama Administration of “holding women's health care hostage because of Texas' pro-life policies.” While we’re always hearing claims from pro-choice groups that opponents of Planned Parenthood don’t care about women’s health, the shoe is definitely on the other foot in this case. Women’s health may be important to the Obama administration, but what’s more important to them is that it be provided by Planned Parenthood. And if it can’t be – well, tough. It’s the government-sanctioned clinical program or the highway. (Originally posted at the Washington Times Communities)
Debunking the myth about selfish conservatism and raising questions about the effectiveness of government humanitarian aid
(Posted by Bryana Joy on December 15th, 2011)
(Cross-posted at The College Conservative
)In practically every lengthy abortion debate thread online, some naïve pro-abortion commenter is bound to ask a pro-lifer, “Well, are YOU willing to adopt all of the unwanted children?” This particular jab is one of just a few insults that seriously offends me, and I am likely to get a little irritated whenever I find it necessary to respond to a contentious person who flings this canned remark around in a discussion. Aside from the fact that the “question” has no bearing whatsoever on the debate about the ethics of abortion, I find it personally offensive because I am personally passionate about adoption. In a similar way, and for the very reason that I care about people so enthusiastically, it annoys me to listen to proponents of the worn and ridiculous myth that conservatives tend to be selfish and don’t care about people. You’ve heard it all before: conservatives are war-mongers, greedy and tightfisted, guilty of the blood of oppressed peoples all over the world. Back in October, Leslie Marshall wrote a scathing article about “Christian Hypocrisy on the Religious Right,” saying,Those on the religious right want to defund programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, healthcare, etc. What I want to know is: why aren't these so called people of God offering their homes to the homeless, food to the hungry, a coat to someone who is poor and cold?
Contrary to what we keep hearing from our friends on the left, conservatives do care about people, and we act on our concern with hefty donations of financial aid to the needy and destitute. In fact, according to a study done by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, those who identify themselves as ideologically conservative give 30% more to charitable institutions than those who identify themselves as ideologically liberal. Religious Americans also give four times more money to charity yearly than secular citizens, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than those who never attend church. But the key word here is volunteer. We want to give our own money in our own way, and we object to being forced to fund the organizations and programs the government considers the most beneficial.
Why do we object? It’s not because we don’t want to make a few sacrifices and share the love with the less fortunate. Rather, we don’t feel that these government programs really help the less fortunate, and we think we can do better by the under-privileged, the at-risk and the poverty-stricken if we give our money to private charities that work more efficiently and produce better results.
As an example, take the so-called “welfare” system. Over the past year, my opposition to government welfare programs has increased dramatically. However, it has not increased because I am frustrated by the injustice that is being done to me when I am required to fork over a substantial percentage of my income to a government which I feel is wasteful and encroaches on my liberties. Actually, my opposition has become more earnest due to the fact that I have become acquainted with so many people who have profited temporarily from the welfare system but who have become losers in the long run, because a government handout robbed them of their initiative and their ambitions. I have experienced firsthand how government aid programs destroy society by artificially preventing the natural consequences of bad investments, injudicious spending, and idleness. People who are protected from their own mistakes must be expected to make the same mistakes over and over again. This is why we have generational cases of single-motherhood, poverty and educational failure. An aid program that only provides money and cannot personally know its beneficiaries, cannot truly provide long-term solutions to social problems. It is only a band-aid, pitifully taped onto a gaping wound. It can never become more than that.
Let’s take a look at another, much more inflammatory situation. I learned last week that the Obama administration has established a $3 million “Global Equality Fund” to promote homosexuality and pay for homosexual political advocacy worldwide at taxpayer expense. Life Site News explains that State Department guidelines suggest this could include everything from funding foreign political activists to campaigning against legislation that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to hosting gay pride parades and concerts by Lady Gaga in far-flung countries. In other words, if you’re a U.S. taxpayer, you might be paying to campaign against traditional marriage amendments all over the world! Is that the type of “humanitarian cause” you want to give to?
Would you not rather donate to causes that seek to end human trafficking and child sex slavery, or to provide education for children in poverty or to help raise funds for potential adoptive parents? Whatever it is that you’re passionate about, would you not rather give to that cause yourself? Would you not rather present your money and your time to a group or a foundation that you trust and admire?
Government has no money that it has not taken from you. Therefore, government cannot buy anything, for everything that government buys is in fact purchased by you. You are providing the funds. Government is only deciding how they should be spent. Sadly, when government takes your money away to give it to causes you oppose, they are also limiting your capacity to fund the causes you do support. Are you happy with the way that government is spending your money? Contact the State Department here to complain about your tax dollars going to promote homosexuality through the “Global Equality Fund.”
Oh, and on the subject of bleeding hearts, here's a bit of trivia to share with your liberal relatives during the upcoming holiday week – if liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation’s blood supply would rise 45%!
Neil Postman, author: Amusing Ourselves to Death
What Orwell Missed: Not Just Gulag Bound, But Amusing Ourselves to Death
"It is not necessary to conceal anything from a public insensible to contradiction and narcotized by technological diversions"
(Posted by Bryana Joy on December 03, 2011)
(Cross-posted at The College Conservative
)The political activists which are the most astute when it comes to history today are conservatives. This is why we are the ones concerned about government overreach, the breakdown of the family and the moral bankruptcy of our nation. By studying the past, we’ve come to understand the inevitable consequences of these courses of action. We realize that excessive government involvement leads to tyranny, and that the disintegration of the family unit is sure to produce a disoriented and emotionally unhealthy citizenry. We know that the searing of a society’s collective conscience is a sure road to chaos, and that widespread idleness and disdain for wholesome labor opens the door to depravity and perversion. But the one thing that we history buffs find most alarming is the communist ideology – because it’s been arguably the most destructive ideology in recent history.
Communism, which is “scientific socialism,” and the only form of socialism that has been implemented in a significant way, is estimated to have caused the deaths of between 23 million and 149 million people. George Orwell and Ayn Rand, two firsthand witnesses of totalitarian communist regimes and vehement critics of the system, both became popular and influential writers whose works have had a profound influence on the conservative movement. Orwell is known for his satirical Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Ayn Rand authored Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. Their works depict communist societies, where manipulation and coercion are masked as equality and justice. They create fictive settings in which government employs the despised tactics of book-burning and censorship and silences the press in order to effectively control the public. Today, conservatives hold up these writings as examples of the consequences of unfettered government, and suggest that we are “Gulag Bound.” Liberals make a big show of promoting banned books and support campaigns like “Delete Censorship”. Neil Postman says we’re all wrong.
In his landmark book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, published in 1985, Neil Postman turns on its head the notion that the absence of Newspeak and the renewed interest in opposition to censorship,which has reached historically unparalleled proportions, is a positive sign, or that we are to be congratulated for having avoided the doom laid out for us by Orwell. Orwell, he suggests, did not warn us of the real threat we are facing. Orwell could not have warned us, because Orwell could not have known. It probably didn’t even occur to Orwell that the world in 1984would not need to be scared into submission by heavy-handed policies, but would walk docilely into the slaughterhouses of the intellect with their iPhones in their hands and their headphones in their ears. Orwell didn’t tell us that it is not necessary to conceal anything from a public insensible to contradiction and narcotized by technological diversions.
Postman’s main premise in his book is that the medium used to communicate a message affects what that message will be. Television, he explains, is not just a different medium of communication than typography – it expresses a completely different message. Being image-based, television has, in taking over communication in the Western world, put the lid on the long Age of Exposition which was made possible by the printing press, and ushered in a new Age of Show Business. Television has fragmented the mental powers of our culture, divorced information from action, and served, in general, to distract our national consciousness through consistent entertainment away from relevant issues. In short, television has made government suppression of ideas unnecessary because people are no longer capable of deep and complex thought.
While censorship is a subject that people on both sides of the political spectrum love to get riled up about, Postman explains why it isn’t really an issue:
I would venture the opinion that the traditional civil libertarian opposition to the banning of books…is now largely irrelevant. Such acts of censorship are annoying, of course, and must be opposed. But they are trivial. Even worse, they are distracting, in that they divert civil libertarians from confronting those questions that have to do with the claims of new technologies…The fight against censorship is a nineteenth-century issue which was largely won in the twentieth. What we are confronted with now is the problem posed by the economic and symbolic structure of television. Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it. Our Ministry of Culture is Huxleyan, not Orwellian. It does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual.
We are a “public adjusted to incoherence and amused into indifference,” he ventures. And our danger is not that we are unable to read the controversial books that have acted upon our culture, but that we no longer care to do so.
So, are we “Gulag Bound?” Probably. Thinking people are watching the times and warning us of the fast-approaching totalitarian chasm splitting the road. But the immediate danger facing us is the fact that there are so few thinking people left, and that most of them are non-thinking by their own choice simply because Jay Leno and football are so much more fun. If we are heading for the gulag, we are heading for it in perfect freedom, with our eyes wide open.Purchase the book here: