CRTL exposes Planned Parenthood’s scalpel on blacks
Colorado Right to Life has added this banner to its Truth Truck:
CRTL unfurled the banner at this year’s Martin Luther King, Jr., March in Denver. CRTL has lately been targeting the new Planned Parenthood in Parker, and plans to begin driving the Truth Truck into the minority communities to African-American churches.
I’ve discussed before how Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry target blacks (here, here, and here). Also see BlackGenocide.org and Black Americans for Life.
May.09, 2007 9:38 am |
Industry watch |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m thinking that banner’s going to back fire… seeing how blacks don’t like it when whites play the race card for them… particularly when it’s this ridiculous.
Cameron, s-p-e-l-l it out. What exactly is ridiculous?
And yesterday you defended your eugenics founder, who advocated “playing the race card” to its worst conclusion – chopping up the card.
And btw, your premise is wrong anyway. I heard this little eye-opener in a speech by a black leader recently: “Blacks respond to graphic images differently than whites. They study the signs. They are unaware.”
The letter the quote was pulled from was sent to an African American pastor. Have you ever said said something and had it misinterpreted? Imagine saying something like this. “I am setting up a booth here to protest the treatment of veterans, but I don’t want people to mistake me for protesting veterans.” They wanted to reach out to the African American community, and help the women get better health care, but she didn’t want to send the wrong message. And, of course, today here you are, getting the wrong message.
Your
Hmmm.. This is what I have about that quote:
December 10, 1939
Margaret Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble
“I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.”
(side note – rrom planned parenthoods website:
“It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.”)
Then the letter continues:
The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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.”
(Note, planned parenthood leaves out “to any of their more rebellious members.”
I will just let her words stand on their own. I do not believe RTL has taken anything out of context.
oh..
And PP website agrees that the letter was sent to Dr. Clarence Gamble. He was an heir to the Proctor and Gamble soap company.
I don’t think he was an African American Pastor.
valerie, i think he was refering to historical context rather than the context of the letter.
Valerie: My apologies I was confusing several of the things I was reading on the PP site. (such as the quote that is falsely attributed to Sanger but was actually said by the founder of the NAACP, W.E.B. Dubois) and that the content of the letter was about African American pastors.
Valerie, are you saying PP has edited Sanger’s original letter on its site?
Dan –
Who is “he”?
Cameron?
Well, he said this:
“Not wanting people to think you want to exterminate blacks is hardly any evidence of an intent to exterminate blacks. This quote is from a letter in which Sanger wants to recruit black leaders to combat this erroneous notion, and the quote is out of context standing alone… ”
When you read the letter in context, she was wanting to recruit black DR’s and ministers to do “her” bidding. Which is why she wanted them trained by “the federation” meaning being trained by her and her ideals.
I do find it interesting what PP leaves out:
“I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician”
This statement really refects badly on Dr. Gamble who was a leading birth control advocate.
“which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. ”
She is referring to the black population that she, what was it according to Cameron, “worked with minority women 24/7 and believed that they were the women most burdened with a lack of reproductive assistance and education. ” hmm… She was so caring about the black population that she referrs to them as ignorant, superstitous, and doubtful.
oh – and my favorite line excluded by PP: “”to any of their more rebellious members.” Hello? why would the “rebellious members” think that they wanted to exterminate the black population? Maybe because she was doing all the training of the black Dr’s.?
Now – my source (which is information I gathered when in college from various articles and books) did leave out: “His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.” Now, I don’t think leaving that statment out hurts or helps the pro-life cause. But when you put the everything together why would the black Dr’s success be dependant on being trained by her?
Jill –
Yep. They edited the letter.
When they quote her there are alot of ……. in them. I have no idea what is being left out.
Jill, Planned Parenthood definitely has edited portions out of the letter, and then has the gall to claim that it’s taken out of context by pro-lifers, using the edited version to prove it… LOL… I find it laughable.
It appears that Sanger was a guest speaker at a KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ 1926
– Emily Taft Douglas, Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y., 1970, p. 192.
I’m trying to get more info on this though….
As I stated before Margaret Sanger addressed the women’s auxillary of the Ku Klux Klan. Now, unless Ms.Sanger was living on another planet, she could not possibly have been blissfully ignorant or the Klan or what they stood for. I mean, lynching, cross burning, and running around covered in your bed linen is hardly subtle. Nor is spewing racist and anti-semitic rhetoric and terrorizing black citizens.
Perhaps to Ms. Sanger, an audience was an audience. Or maybe these were people close to her own heart.
Is this the kind of help Ms Sanger had in mind for the african american community?
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
Over 1,400 black babies die in America every day by the
abortionists’ knives and PP puts their clinics in minority areas
for a reason.
To get an African-American perspective I recommend two websites.
http://www.blackgenocide.com
http://www.blackgenocide.org
Don’t forget, Sanger was known as Hitler in a skirt and
Hitler as Sanger with a moustache!
She was intent on creating a “race of thoroughbreds.”
Here’s a picture of her at the KKK rally:
http://members.cox.net/gaelic/SangerKlan.jpg
Some quotes from Margaret Sanger:
Wow, you’re great researchers and educators, ladies. You’re teaching me a few things.
This seems like a good place to add something I learned yesterday when researching the NOW vs. Scheidler post.
Dr. Alan Guttmacher, after whom Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute is named, not only served as president of Planned Parenthood 1962-74 but vice-president of the American Eugenics Society 1956-63 and director of same 1964-66.
Here we have another version of what was said in the letter:
Dr. Alan Guttmacher, after whom Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute is named, not only served as president of Planned Parenthood 1962-74 but vice-president of the American Eugenics Society 1956-63 and director of same 1964-66.
Ha…figures! I wonder if we look up the founders of ALL the pro-choice organizations, what we might find?
Since we already found out that SIECUS was founded by a pedophile…
My, My, My,
Margaret Sanger is the poster child for some of the pro-choice crowd that comes on here.
If you didn’t cite where you got those quotes from,
I would have sworn it was someone we knew…
Wait – there’s a way to stop Cameron! HUH? Did I miss another memo?
Now, now Valerie,
Tempting as it may be, this is NOT a good enought reason to switch sides.
Is it?
BOO!
Did I scare away the hiccups?
HIC!
Didn’t work.
Maybe the Lemmings can help? oh…Is Johnny still in the garage? That might help. ;-)
Ugh.
Loved that list MK!!!
Valerie, try Bitters. It works every time.
Don’t listen to Heather Valerie,
Being bitter is a waste of time.
SH spent the night in the garage with Johnny because she brought Johnny to the party…
Bethany,
How interesting that you found that picture of Margaret Sanger at the Klan rally. I mean bedsheets and all!! Perhaps this picture should be post on placards at pro-life rallies. I hope you got to visit the sites I recommended for an African-American perspective.
I often wondered if the previous president of PP, African-American Faye Wattleton ever became aware of this history. Ms. Wattleton was gorgeous, telegenic, well-spoken, a media darling, and devoted to the PP cause. Suddenly she was gone, suppposedly to host a new talk show, something this country certainly needs more of. What better platform did this woman already have for her cause and what better person did PP have to promote it?
That’s always been a mystery to me. Maybe someone on this site knows something I don’t.
Center for the Advancement of Women: After Faye Wattleton resigned from Planned Parenthood in 1992, she hosted a talk show and then helped to found the Center for Gender Equality which became the Center for the Advancement of Women. Faye Wattleton serves as president of that organization.
MK, Bitters is a drink.LOL
Where is that pic. of Sanger?
http://members.cox.net/gaelic/SangerKlan.jpg
MK: Find the passage in scripture that says that the killing of a fetus is equal to the killing of a person. I think you will have a good deal of difficulty finding that explicitly stated in the Bible. You might even come across a verse in the OT that says that accidentally killing a fetus is only subject to a fine, whereas accidentally killing a woman would garner the death penalty.
And let’s look at those quotes, shall we? I don’t know what part of the quotes are missing, but let’s get something straight. I don’t think anyone thinks Margaret Sanger was a perfect person, but you all seem to have the inability to look at anything from a historical context. Abraham Lincoln, who led to the freedom of slaves, did not think that African Americans were equal to whites. He still thought that they were inferior. To us it sounds terrible that this man who helped so many African Americans didn’t think they were equal human beings, but in that historical context, it was amazing that he was able to separate himself from the societal norms enough to fight for change. Now, Margaret Sanger was living and working in a time period where a good majority of the people were in favor of eugenics. So, saying “look at the person who started birth control, she’s an evil eugenicist!” is ridiculous, because she wasn’t any different than the people around her. The fact that she even cared enough about these downtrodden women’s health and the mortality rate of their born infants separates her from others. So, not perfect, and we certainly are creeped out by eugenics today, but not some sort of extraordinarily evil human being.
Bethany, Thank you. OMG what a racist!
MK,
Thank you for the info. Since we never hear of her anymore, I was curious.
MK: Find the passage in scripture that says that the killing of a fetus is equal to the killing of a person. I think you will have a good deal of difficulty finding that explicitly stated in the Bible. You might even come across a verse in the OT that says that accidentally killing a fetus is only subject to a fine, whereas accidentally killing a woman would garner the death penalty.
Lynn, the entire Bible confirms that life begins at conception, and is precious, and your verse in Exodus is used incorrectly by pro-choicers everywhere. I have already discussed this in previous topics but if you’d like I can pull them back out and show you.
And let’s look at those quotes, shall we? I don’t know what part of the quotes are missing, but let’s get something straight. I don’t think anyone thinks Margaret Sanger was a perfect person, but you all seem to have the inability to look at anything from a historical context. Abraham Lincoln, who led to the freedom of slaves, did not think that African Americans were equal to whites. He still thought that they were inferior. To us it sounds terrible that this man who helped so many African Americans didn’t think they were equal human beings, but in that historical context, it was amazing that he was able to separate himself from the societal norms enough to fight for change.
Now, Margaret Sanger was living and working in a time period where a good majority of the people were in favor of eugenics. So, saying “look at the person who started birth control, she’s an evil eugenicist!” is ridiculous, because she wasn’t any different than the people around her. The fact that she even cared enough about these downtrodden women’s health and the mortality rate of their born infants separates her from others. So, not perfect, and we certainly are creeped out by eugenics today, but not some sort of extraordinarily evil human being.
This isn’t an excuse at all. Being a nazi was “normal” at one time, doesn’t make it any less awful. If everyone thought that killing infants was okay, would it be morally acceptable for me to say it was allright too? If I fell into that way of thinking would I not be just as evil as the rest?
Society doesn’t force anyone to choose anything. Margaret Sanger was evil, regardless of how many other people around here might have been evil.
The idea that you think others being evil makes your being evil okay is preposterous.
The fact that she even cared enough about these downtrodden women’s health and the mortality rate of their born infants separates her from others.
So…. If I was a person who advocated killing newborns, and pushed for this to become legal to parents who decided it was right for them…. but I also cared about womens’ health, and made efforts to help women in need…. the good would overweigh the bad and I would be guiltless, even if newborns were killed for decades as a result of my efforts?
No, the entire Bible does not confirm that personhood/ensoulment begins at conception. I have actually read a good deal of the Bible, and a good deal of verses that supposedly support the pro-life cause. And I am very familiar with the verse in question, and the only answer I’ve ever gotten for it is that the laws for the people in the Old Testament were not perfect laws, because God knew his people were not capable of following perfect laws.
Beth: Am I condoning eugenics? Am I saying, YAY EUGENICS! woo!! Eugenics are great! Let’s support that! No, I am not, obviously. However, I am saying that people are entrenched in the time they lived. You cannot judge Margaret Sanger through today’s same lens of what is good and bad. You can say, yes, eugenics was wrong, and it was wrong that at that time most people believed that having perfect babies was a good goal. But, you can’t say that the majority of the people at that time were all immoral and evil, because they didn’t know better. That would be like me saying that the people in the Bible were evil sexist bigots because they treated women like property. I know that in that time period, women were not treated equally, but the people didn’t know any better. I can’t look down on the people in the Bible who treated women as property for being immoral and evil, because there was no reason at that time for them to think they were doing wrong. They probably, in fact, thought they were doing right. My only point is that everything occurs in a historical social context, and we can’t judge people’s actions in the past by the same standards of today, and conclude that they were immoral for their time period. We can say that if the same actions happened in our time period, it would be immoral, but that is because our standards and judgments of morality our different than theirs were.
Beth: I was comparing Sanger’s views that were similar to the people of her time period and Lincoln’s views that were similar to the people of his time period. Even though she probably did not see all races as equal (just like Lincoln did not see the races as equal), Sanger cared about the health and well-being of other races (just like Lincoln cared about the black people not being slaves anymore).
And Sanger was not an abortion proponent. She was against abortion.
But, you can’t say that the majority of the people at that time were all immoral and evil, because they didn’t know better.
Yes they did, Lynn. Didn’t know any better? You think people are that stupid?
Thats a ridiculous cop-out. I don’t care what time you lived in, and what was considered acceptable by society…each individual person makes a choice to support evil or good, and most individuals know right from wrong. If everyone in the entire US besides me thought rape was acceptable, I would not bow into that belief, because I know in my heart it is morally unacceptable.
So does that mean that a hundred years from now when people look back on this sick period of time where we killed (not just talked about it but actually did it) people that were “less than perfect”, brain damaged, terminally ill, or unwanted in utero, we will be able to say:
that people are entrenched in the time they lived. You cannot judge abortionists through today’s same lens of what is good and bad. You can say, yes, abortion was wrong, and it was wrong that at that time most people believed that having choice was a good goal. But, you can’t say that the majority of the people at that time were all immoral and evil, because they didn’t know better.
Lynn:
“Sanger cared about the health and well-being of other races (just like Lincoln cared about the black people not being slaves anymore).”
WOW, are you completely missing the point of all of this.
She did not care about the women’s health. She cared about stopping the reproduction of the people she deamed un-worthy to be reproducing.
This is the founder of PP. We have every right to examine the truth behind this person, just as you have every right to examine the truth behind the founders of our country. (Since you continually bring up Lincoln, I am assuming this is what you are doing).
Planned Parenthood, Today’s feminism, BC, and abortion all came about through people that did not have the best interest of women in their actions. Sanger wanted to eliminate the un-worthy and try to force people into a specified number of children for their family. She wanted to use BC to have population control. Abortion became legal through lies and deceit. Roe and Doe through their own admissions were both used.
Here are some of their statments from testimony given to congress:
Roe: http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4394
“I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case.”
” I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America.”
“Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists.”
“I was living on the streets.”
“I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies.”
“I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying? Even Senator Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by the New York Times to finally admit
PS to Valerie’s comment to Lynn. To compare Sanger to Lincoln is to say Lincoln thought the solution to slavery was to kill blacks.
Jill –
Good point!
Valerie,
Are you saying Margaret Sanger wasn’t a nice lady?
LOL
MK –
I know it hurts you to know the truth about her, but someone had to tell you.
HIC!
“Sanger cared about the health and well-being of other races.” And that’s how she got the nick name “Hitler in a skirt?”
Lynn,
Yes those were the life and times of Margaret Sanger. I suppose we could look back on Nazi atrocities and say the same thing.
We can’t use that though as an excuse. Perhaps Lincoln did regard Blacks as inferior, as was pretty much the norm. That didn’t stop him from doing what was right, which was to end slavery. Yes I know, there is much controversy over his motives. The point is he ended it. Thankfully President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, was not in office as there may well not have been any Emancipation Proclamation. Johnson was an avowed racist who wanted to send the free Blacks back on the plantation. It was also the norm to be openly biased against any racial, religious, or ethnic group who one disliked for whatever reason. That was no excuse to abuse people.
Perhaps Ms. Sanger was following the norm of her day but her association with the Klan? By any standard that is extreme. Since the Klan enjoyed great power and inflicted terrorism, torture, and murder on the Black populace openly and at will, Ms. Sanger could not have been oblivious to what the Klan represented and what crimes they committed. Under these circumstances, I find her “concern” for the reproductive health of the Black women a little hard to believe. Her association with the Klan would suggest that she wasn’t particularly concerned about the health of Black people, be they men or women, who were being humiliated, lynched, tortured, and murdered by Klansmen.
“Perhaps Lincoln did regard Blacks as inferior, as was pretty much the norm. That didn’t stop him from doing what was right, which was to end slavery”
Lincoln actually didnt care about slavery at all his first term, he only supported full out abolition his second term because of the political shift. He had only been for non extension previously.
Quote from lincoln during the civil war, that im sure youve seen “If I could save the Unio without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it…What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”
he didnt care about slavery in terms of the war, he just wanted the country reunited. He didnt force the south to ratify the thirteenth amendment because he thought it was right alone, but because of political pressure from the North. Also, that forced approval of the south is the only reason why it passed as well, gotta love little historical tid bits.
But as I said before, the Republican party had originally been for non-extension, in fact Lincoln had offered to allow them to re-enter the union without ending slavery. The Confederacy just refused to negotiate with the union and was determined to have independence.
oh, and the emancipation proclamation didnt free the slaves, only those in states under rebellious rule, which the union had no control over ;)
Dan,
Like I said, there are varying opinions and theories concerning Lincoln. I’ve never argued that he was motivated only by humanitarian concerns and I don’t believe he was. Again, how can we be certain he wasn’t to some degree? I’m sure slaves freed in the rebellious areas could not have cared less what motivated the Emancipation Proclamation, whether it was humanitarian or political. However limited it was or what motivated Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation was certainly the right thing to do. I know in my city the African-American community holds a large yearly celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation, so this obviously has some relevance to African-Americans.
I haven’t seen the movie “Wilberforce” about the British abolitionist who eventually ended the transatlantic slave trade but I understand his first piece of legislation was to limit the number of slaves on a ship. So what good did that do? It certainly didn’t stop slavery. It was a start. Perhaps the same can be said of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Its a question in my mind if Andrew Johnson would have done the same. Only speculation on my part. Again, who knows? I’m sure theories and debate abound on this subject as well.
Dan, its like the ongoing debate over how Kennedy would have handled Vietnam had he not been assasinated. Even though I lived in the era, I’m not sure which argument to believe. They’re all very convincing. Again, who can know for certain?
Valerie,
I would like to add to your excellent post about Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe.
Several years ago, after McCorvey’s identity was revealed as the “Jane Roe” of Roe v Wade, she sought out feminist and abortion establishment recognition and praise. Was she not after all their great heroine? How could they not treat her like the icon she most certainly was?
She was in for a rude shock. What she got was elitist snubbery. The hick had served her purpose so what did she expect? At one large abortion demonstration she was actually uppity enough to think she would be allowed to enter the tent of the feminist and abortion movement leadership. The feminist and abortion leaders finally agreed to allow her into their exalted presence, but only if her, uh, friends waited outside. Much to her credit, McCorvey said if her friends were not welcome, then neither was she. No one begged her to stay.
McCorvey talked of the loving acceptance she received from pro-lifers. Though she was slow to convert it was being treated with love and respect by pro-life people that helped win her over.
Mary, That’s something I never would have known. Thank you for your post.
Heather4life,
You’re very welcome. I remember thinking back then how truly pathetic she and her efforts were. I’m glad she has found acceptance and respect with the pro-life movement.
Mary, Why did they shun her?
They didn’t need her anymore.
Hi Bethany. I should have known. A selfish self serving pro choice crowd? Nah, couldn’t be.
Bethany,
That about sums it up.