Planned Parenthood to open new mill in Charleston, SC

pp charleston 2.jpg South Carolina Citizens for Life spotted a bombshell in Planned Parenthood Health Systems' 2007 annual report: On the last day of the year it purchased a building in Charleston, SC, with plans to "provid[e] a full range of preventative services... later this year. Photos, right, courtesy of PPHS's annual report.

Didn't mention the A-word.

An ob/gyn named Armstead "Bert" Pruitt currently practices in the building.

PP paid $1.25 million for it, according to the Charleston Co. Auditor via SCCL....

Perfect location: Within a 6-mile radius are Charleston School of Law; the co-ed Citadel Military College; Clemson University; College of Charleston; Medical University of SC, which may conveniently provide both patient and moonlighting scum residents/drs; Southern Wesleyan University; and even the Art Institute of Charleston, whose students will now enjoy more art projects to explore.

affiliate assets.jpgPPHS brokered a merger with PP of the Blue Ridge last year to now envelop 4 states: VA, WV, NC, and SC, boasting "the only regional Planned Parenthood affiliate of the southern United States," in its report.

Its net assets skyrocketed last year to $6.625 million.

In its May 1 STOPP Report, the American Life League suggested interesting reasons why PP is building mega-mills around the country. Read it below.

Planned Parenthood mega-centers partially explained

by STOPP International

May 1, 2008

As we have been reporting in the Wednesday STOPP Report over the last year, Planned Parenthood has been opening or trying to open large mega-center clinics all across the country. Such mega-centers are open or planned for Aurora, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; Stapleton, Colorado; Houston, Texas; Sarasota, Florida and a number of other places.

STOPP has obtained Planned Parenthood Federation of America documents that may partially explain these new mega-centers.

According to this information, PP is pushing for its affiliates to explore two new "business opportunities" ― that is PP's description. These are laboratory services and clinical research.

PP currently is engaged in some activities, such as providing Pap smears, that require it to send material to local laboratories for analysis. PP could save money if it did this laboratory analysis itself. However, it would obviously need a certain volume of business to make the investment in equipment and personnel worthwhile. We believe that PP is not only going to use its mega-centers to do the lab work for a large number of PP clinics in a region, but will also try to expand the business to offer laboratory services to local physicians and other medical groups.

The second "business opportunity" described by Planned Parenthood is clinical research. This could take many forms, but, given Planned Parenthood's highly concentrated young customer base, it is easy to imagine that this new business could include conducting drug trials on innocent young children. One need only watch a couple of days' worth of television commercials to see the veritable explosion of contraceptive drugs hitting the market. All of these drugs need to be tested on humans and PP seems to be positioning itself to do such clinical research in its mega-centers. Of course, drug testing is only one possibility. It is also possible that PP could do clinical research on new abortion techniques or engage in other ominous ventures.

We at American Life League are working with pro-life groups across the country to develop effective efforts to counter this new push by PP. As methods prove effective, we will bring them to you in the WSR so that you can use them in your communities. As all of this develops, we need your help. We ask every reader of this report to please do the following:

1. Let us know if there is a PP mega-center (a building of more than 20,000 square feet) planned for your area.

2. Use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain floor plans (from your local building or zoning department) of the existing or proposed facility and send a copy to us.

3. If you currently have a presence outside of the PP facilities in your area, keep up the great work and make sure all regularly scheduled (at least monthly) events are listed in the American Life League Map Room (www.all.org/stopp/maps).

4. Begin a presence outside of any PP facility in your area where there is not already a presence. You will find information on how to get started in our Map Room.

5. Pray that God will direct our efforts and thwart Planned Parenthood's efforts to expand its business.


Comments:

Maybe PP ought to change its name:
Super Planned Parenthood

Posted by: carder at May 5, 2008 7:05 AM


PP is the LAST place on earth I'd go for a Pap test. I'd rather do without than have those fiends touch me. Makes me sick...

Posted by: Patricia at May 5, 2008 7:23 AM


Patricia - When I was at school I went to PP for an exam. I had a bad experience at the school heath facility and didn't want to go back. PP was much more pleasant, not to mention affordable.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 8:22 AM


I'm sure it was a good experience and they probably did a good job for you Hiero, but what one has to keep in mind is that if PP is really murdering human beings as we say they are, then seeking other services from PP is akin to seeking other services from the Nazis back in the day. They had a large architectural contribution to Germany, and so it would be like me asking them to design a building for me. While they may be doing some good things or providing a needed service, the evil that they do makes them totally unacceptable and repugnant. The same attitude must be taken by the pro-lifer in regards to PP. If they are indeed murdering more than 250,000 humans each year, everything else they do is irrelevant. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 8:39 AM


Hi Bobby, "if" they are "really murdering human beings" like you say they are, then of course you are correct.

We boycott other institutions for less.

Since they're not "murdering" anyone, the constant attacks just look silly.

Posted by: Hal at May 5, 2008 8:54 AM


Hey Hal, been a while, ehh?

"Since they're not "murdering" anyone, the constant attacks just look silly."

Well, this is the crux of the issue, and I guess my point is that given the pro-life position, it shouldn't be difficult to see why a pro-lifer would have absolutely nothing to do with PP, which you do seem to realize. It just reminds me of the whole "abortion is only 3% of services" argument that I sometimes read here, as if that is supposed to mitigate what we believe are over 250,000 murders a year. Like you said, we boycott other institutions for less, so the PCer shouldn't be surprised when PLers don't accept the 3% argument.

BTW, I've just been thinking about this a bit lately. I'm not accusing Hiero of making that argument or anything like that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 9:12 AM


Wow, this is fantastic news, Jill! I'm glad to see that Planned Parenthood continues to grow and expand despite years of anti-choice harassment from STOPP. Looks like God's on our side.

Posted by: reality at May 5, 2008 9:35 AM


I'm not accusing Hiero of making that argument or anything like that.

I didn't think you were :-)

I was just pointing out that when I went for my pap, I didn't see any cloven hooves or anything like that. Everyone was really nice, and unlike the student health service, I didn't have to wait 2 hours for my appointment only to be treated like an inconvenience.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 10:09 AM


As an African-American I want to know why haven't they been shut down already? There are doing this to kill more black babies. That alone should have defunded them. This is terrible. Democrats claim to be fore African-American rights but apparently they have a problem with our children. This is exactly why I'm no longer a democrat. Too much racism on the democrat side for me. First slaver then Jim crow, then the KKK then the police, now they have turn in the KKK uniforms and put away the rope for abortion uniforms and Curette(s) disguising it as choice. What racist sickos.

Posted by: Adlyn at May 5, 2008 10:41 AM


Reality,

Is it me, or are you getting nastier???

No doubt someone is on your side...but I highly doubt it's God. Did you think the only "powers" in the world come from Him? I got news for you. We are in the midst of a spiritual battle. Battle, meaning there are two opposing sides. If God is the power on one side, then there must be a power on the other side. I'd venture to say that that is the power that is working for PP.

Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 10:43 AM


Adlyn,

Democrats may claim to be for the rights of African Americans but look at their history.
The KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of Southern Democrats determined to keep the newly freed black population in its "place".
Thank Southern Democrats for Jim Crow as well.
Democrats John and Robert Kennedy wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr.
Police Chief Bull Connor, notorious for turning fire hoses and attack dogs on black civil rights demonstrators was a Democrat.
Even as late as the mid-60's, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were filibustered by Southern Democrats who were determined to keep black Americans in the back of the bus, and away from the voting booth. President Lyndon Johnson would require the help of Republicans to pass this legislation.
One of those filibustering Democrats, Senator Robert Byrd, former klansman and klan recruiter, remains a powerful and respected Democrat in the US Senate to this day.
The other, the late Democrat Senator J.Wm Fulbright, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton, America's "first black president", who oddly isn't even black.
Adlyn, these are just a few, I stess few, examples I can give you. Personally, I'm at a loss to understand why ANY black Americans support the Democrats.

By the way, in the 1970's, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a man I at one time held in great esteem, condemned abortion as genocide against black Americans. In the 1990's he was walking hand in hand with PP president Faye Wattleton, a black woman, in a pro-choice demonstration.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 10:59 AM


hey Mary, could you cite a source on Rev. Jackson's stance in the 70's? That's very interesting; I haven't heard it before, and would like to use it.

Thanks!

Posted by: StudentFL at May 5, 2008 11:04 AM


Mary, you're aware, of course, that the majority of those racist Southern Democrats are now proud Republicans, right?

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 11:09 AM


Hey Hal, been a while, ehh?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 9:12 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is good to see Hal.

Could one of you moderators check on Jess?
She said something about computer trouble, but I still worry...

Posted by: Laura at May 5, 2008 11:14 AM


Laura,

Someone said they had talked to her recently, but I get an email to her and see what's up...

Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 11:21 AM


"Could one of you moderators check on Jess?"

She's been active on facebook as recently as Saturday, but I"ll double check on her and let ya'll know.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 11:24 AM


Hier,

Can you name a few and some of the civil and voting rights legislation they have filibustered?
Also, where are there Jim Crow laws still in effect because of Republicans? Are any Republican police chiefs turning fire hoses and attack dogs on black citizens? Have any Republicans used the "N" word on national TV as did (gasp) Senator Byrd? Speaking of Byrd, how about naming some former klansmen who are now Republican senators.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 11:25 AM


StudentFL

I can recommend that you go to www.nrlc.org. I'm sure the editor of the NRLC newpaper, Dave Andrusko, could help with this or you can check the archives on the NRLC blog.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 11:28 AM


Mary, look it up yourself. It isn't just the party officials either, it's the members. You have heard of the Southern Strategy, right? The entrenched racism of the Southern Democrats led to a party split, because civil rights were part of the Democrats national platform. The G.O.P. exploited the split by appealing to racist southern whites, and boom, Nixon was in office.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 11:35 AM


....anyway, none of that is really the point, which I got distracted from making. That being, forty to fifty year old history about one section of the Democratic party has very little relevance to how things currently stand.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 11:47 AM


Hier,

Please, there are any number of theories as to why Nixon won, one of them being the Vietnam War.
Also, was Nixon a racist? If so, some of the racist legislation he promoted. I believe it was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who put American citizens of color(Japanese-Americans) into concentration camps and put a klansman on the Supreme Court, with the support of senate Democrats I might add.

Also former klansman David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana as a Republican, despite objections from the Republican Party, and lost big time. Where were all these "racist" Republicans?

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 11:58 AM



Speaking of "racist" Republicans, didn't an Indian-American just win the governorship of Louisiana as a Republican? The first "non-white"(not quite accurate as Asian Indians are caucasian people) elected since Reconstruction.
Again, where are all these "racist" Republicans?

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 12:12 PM


Again, where are all these "racist" Republicans?

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 12:12 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, here's one:

"I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live." John McCain

Posted by: Laura at May 5, 2008 12:17 PM


Laura,

Are you referring to the people who tortured and held John McCain captive for 5 1/2 years?

My father survived the Siege of Bastogne and you should have heard the hatred he spewed at his fellow whites, the Germans, long after WW2 was over.

My father-in-law and uncle survived WW2 in the South Pacific and despised the Japanese.


I don't think it is too unusual for those who survive the horrors of war, torture and imprisonment to loathe their opponents, whatever color they are.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 12:25 PM


Mary - here are a few excerpts and links about the party split, and the transformation of southern Democrats to Dixiecrats, and then to Republicans.

Like I said, it's all past history, and doesn't really say much about current conditions, but I do think it's telling that currently, our Congress has no African-American Republicans, and with very minor exceptions, the Republican Party does not elect African-Americans to national office. Explain that.

Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1366

The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a splinter (or offshoot) from the party in the 1948 U.S. presidential election. For more than a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but in 1948 many bolted from the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States.

Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly realigned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

The Dixiecrat defection marked the exit of the South from the New Deal coalition and the reorientation of the national party toward its more liberal wing. By breaking with the Democratic Party, the Dixiecrat movement demonstrated to conservative southerners that allegiance to one party was neither necessary nor beneficial and thus served as the crossover point for many southern voters in their move from the Democratic to the Republican column.

* * *

The Dixiecrat party broke the Black Belt's historic allegiance to the national Democratic Party. Although some Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold, others remained uncomfortable with the party's position on civil rights and chose to be political independents, at least in national electoral contests, in the 1950s. Dixiecrat faithful contributed the early leadership of many local and state citizen councils and served as a stepping stone to the Republican Party.

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/frederickson_dixiecrat.html


President Franklin Roosevelt's electoral body in 1945 had included a diverse, in fact contradictory, set of elements — both conservatives and liberals, northern and southern Democrats and Republicans. By 1948, however, the civil rights issue revealed the real philosophical differences between northern and southern Democrats as never before. The move of Southern states from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican began to take place. In that environment, the Dixiecrats and the “Southern Strategy” was born.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 12:27 PM


I'm trying to put up a post with links, and it won't go up, so I'll post it without the links, and then I'll try putting up a separate post with the links.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 12:28 PM


Mary - here are a few excerpts and links about the party split, and the transformation of southern Democrats to Dixiecrats, and then to Republicans.

Like I said, it's all past history, and doesn't really say much about current conditions, but I do think it's telling that currently, our Congress has no African-American Republicans, and with very minor exceptions, the Republican Party does not elect African-Americans to national office. Explain that.

Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

___________________________________


The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a splinter (or offshoot) from the party in the 1948 U.S. presidential election. For more than a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but in 1948 many bolted from the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States.

Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly realigned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage.

_____________________________________

The Dixiecrat defection marked the exit of the South from the New Deal coalition and the reorientation of the national party toward its more liberal wing. By breaking with the Democratic Party, the Dixiecrat movement demonstrated to conservative southerners that allegiance to one party was neither necessary nor beneficial and thus served as the crossover point for many southern voters in their move from the Democratic to the Republican column.

* * *

The Dixiecrat party broke the Black Belt's historic allegiance to the national Democratic Party. Although some Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold, others remained uncomfortable with the party's position on civil rights and chose to be political independents, at least in national electoral contests, in the 1950s. Dixiecrat faithful contributed the early leadership of many local and state citizen councils and served as a stepping stone to the Republican Party.

_____________________________________

President Franklin Roosevelt's electoral body in 1945 had included a diverse, in fact contradictory, set of elements — both conservatives and liberals, northern and southern Democrats and Republicans. By 1948, however, the civil rights issue revealed the real philosophical differences between northern and southern Democrats as never before. The move of Southern states from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican began to take place. In that environment, the Dixiecrats and the “Southern Strategy” was born.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 12:30 PM


Darnit. Now I've got multiple posts. Mods, could you delete the extras? I'm sorry!

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 12:31 PM


"Darnit. Now I've got multiple posts."

Mwahahahaha!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 5, 2008 12:40 PM


Hier,

Thank you but I am aware there was a split and the history of it. However the fact remains it was men elected as Democrats, that filibustered Civil and Voting Rights legislation in the mid-1960's.
On May6, 1960: Republican President Eisenhower signs the GOP Civil Rights ACt after it survived a 5 day five hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
It was the Kennedy brothers, Democrats, not Dixiecrats, who wire tapped Dr. King.
Robert Byrd remains a Democrat.
It was Democrat Bill Clinton who awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fulbright, one of the Democrats who filibustered Civil and Voting Rights legislation.
It was Democrat Hillary Clinton who attended a birthday party honoring former nightrider Byrd.

The first African American senator elected by popular vote to the Senate was Republican Edward Brooke.

Its hardly surprising that most elected black officials are Democrat considering blacks vote 92% Democrat.

Again, where were all these "racist" Republicans when David Duke needed them?


Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 12:57 PM


Yes, I know about the filibusters. Strom Thurmond still holds the record for length for that. ....hmmm, and which party did Strom migrate to when the national Democratic party wouldn't support his racist views on segregation and Jim Crow laws? Oh yeah, the Republicans.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 1:04 PM


Hier,

And which party did Lyndon Johnson have to turn to when he needed Civil and Voting Rights legislation passed?

By the way, I didn't notice Senator Byrd migrating anywhere. For that matter, neither did Senator Fulbright.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 1:10 PM


...and where are all those racist Republicans now? How about Trent Lott?

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party.

Thurmond ran as the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in the 1948 presidential race against Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey. He carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state of South Carolina, of which he was governor at the time.

During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 1:14 PM


And Mary, both parties voted pretty overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 1:16 PM


You know, this whole argument is getting incredibly silly.

Here's the thing. You posted that because of some ancient history of racist Southern Democrats, that you couldn't understand why African-Americans currently align themselves with the Democratic party. I responded with probably the wrong point, which is that most of those racist Southern whites ended up aligning themselves with the Republican party, at least on national politics.

It may have been more appropriate to point out that what you were discussing is long past, and has very little to do with current politics.

Regardless, the tit-for-tat "look, racist Republicans", and the "oh yeah, what about Robert Byrd!" is kind of pointless. Although I do still think that the fact that the Republicans have elected only three African-Americans to national office since the southern conversion is a fairly glaring statement.


Posted by: Hieronymous at May 5, 2008 1:22 PM


Hier,1:14PM

Are you aware that Senator Byrd used the "n" word on national TV? Did you hear an iota of outrage over this? Did you hear any outrage over Hillary Clinton attending a former klansman's birthday party? Did you hear any outrage when Democrat senator Fritz Rollings joked about African leaders being "cannibals" and referred to Hispanics as "wetbacks"?

Interesting double standard, don't you agree?

I did hear that the Congressional Black Caucus was offended by Byrd's use of the "n" word but kept silent out of fear of him and his power.
Senator Byrd, after all, has never been a man inclined to tolerate black folk who get just a little too uppity.


Hier, 1:16PM

Doesn't change the fact that due to filibustering Democrats, Johnson needed the support of Republicans to get Civil Rights legislation passed.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 1:27 PM


Hier, 1:22PM

My friend, I lived through some of this "ancient" history, so please. I well remember Bull Conner, the Civil Rights movement, and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. I remember when Dr. King was seen as "uppity" and a "troublemaker". I would hardly call Senator Byrd, who is alive and well in the US Senate, ancient history, however old he is.
You say most of the "racists" have aligned with Republicans on a national so please, some examples of these people and the racist legislation they have attempted to pass.

I already told you the reason most black elected officials are Democrat is because blacks vote 92% Democrat.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 1:37 PM


@Laura: I've talked to Jess in the past few days. She's perfectly fine, but I don't think she's coming back here anytime soon. :-/

Posted by: Rae at May 5, 2008 2:51 PM


PP is the LAST place on earth I'd go for a Pap test. I'd rather do without than have those fiends touch me. Makes me sick...

Posted by: Patricia at May 5, 2008 7:23 AM
********
Oh yeah - dying of cancer would be so much more noble

Posted by: TexasRed at May 5, 2008 2:58 PM


Rae, 2:51PM

I'm sorry to hear that. I like Jess and hope she will return. Please give her my best.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2008 3:05 PM


Rae Rae,

Why is Jess not coming back anytime soon?!!

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 5, 2008 3:13 PM


She just got tired of it. She wasn't going to change her mind and she wasn't changing anybody else's mind...so one day she just decided she wasn't coming back.

She said a bit more but I don't think I'm privy to divulging that information

Posted by: Rae at May 5, 2008 3:19 PM


I miss Jess.

Posted by: Carla at May 5, 2008 3:28 PM


Rae,

That's understandable...I don't really come here because I think I'm going to "change anyone's mind". I do think I can learn things from talking to the people on here, though...that's probably why I stick around. She could just need a break, though. I took a break for like a week, and I feel better.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 5, 2008 3:36 PM


Hi Elizabeth! Missed you!

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 3:45 PM


Thanksssss! I missed you guys too..I mean I was always lurking..but just not commenting or getting into any heated debates.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 5, 2008 3:59 PM


If anyone is on the side of Banned Parenthood, its the DEVIL.

God is the AUTHOR of LIFE.


And this is NOT good news. This is more bad news for the poor and minorities who are targeted by this organization who is still doing the work of eugenist and extreme racist Margaret Sanger.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 5, 2008 6:31 PM


And this is NOT good news. This is more bad news for the poor and minorities who are targeted by this organization who is still doing the work of eugenist and extreme racist Margaret Sanger.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 5, 2008 6:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, that's pretty funny.
This article is from 2000. The % of White Californians has dropped to 43%. The state is more brown than white, the rest of the country will be the same in a few years, and you're still ranting about Sanger's eugenics program.

Thursday, Aug. 31, 2000
The Coming of the Minority Majority
By Frank Pellegrini
When predicting a presidential election, it's "as Missouri goes, so goes the nation." But for national trends, it's usually California playing the bellwether. And in California, the most populous state in the union with 33 million people, minorities are a minority no more.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's latest tally, non-Hispanic whites' share of California's population dropped to 49.9 percent some time last year. Over the past decade, their number has also declined, while immigration and good old-fashioned reproduction has boosted the number of Latinos by 35 percent in the past decade to 10.5 million and the Asian and Pacific Islander population by 36 percent to some 5 million. Blacks — who in California are a minority even among minorities — were nearly level at 2.2 million.

The rest of America doesn't yet look like California. But it will. According to Census projections, Latinos will surpass non-Hispanic blacks as the majority minority as soon as 2002, at which point they'll make up 12.4 percent of the population. Fifty years from now, Latinos will make up nearly a quarter of the population, while blacks will have increased only to a 13.2 share.

And by 2060, according to the projections, the U.S. will have gone the way of California. Non-Hispanic whites will make up 49.6 of Americans, with Hispanics at 26.6 percent, non-Hispanic blacks at 13.3 percent, and Asians and Pacific Islanders at nearly 10 percent.

So, will this change the way the shots are called in America?

If the trends of the past few years are indicative, not much. Today, the top 1 percent of Americans control 38 percent of the household wealth, and the top 20 percent control 83 percent — figures that have both increased in the past decade. And you can bet that those groups look more like Salt Lake City than Los Angeles. White is disproportionately the color of Congress, the Supreme Court and, most important, the corporate boardroom. The 29 percent of assembled minorities are, in broad strokes, the lower classes — earning less, going to prison more.

Not that, for the immigrant class, there isn't reason to hope — certainly the Italian, Irish and Polish newcomers of a century ago have joined the American elite to some degree, and perhaps Latinos, Asians and blacks can expect the same. Of course, the Italians, Irish and Polish looked a lot more like the elites that were already in place, and for America to be vertically colorblind, it may just take the "browning of America," by generations of inter-marriage, that Tiger Woods embodies and will occasionally talk about.

Or perhaps shining rhetoric will lead the way. "It is my hope that we can all see our state's diversity as a cause for celebration and not consternation," said Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D), California's highest-ranking Latino official, of his state's demographic milestone. "If there's no majorities, then there's no minorities. Maybe now we'll all be able to call each other Californians."

Demographers now say the advent, in sheer numbers, of minorities in general and Latinos in particular, will take place mostly where it always has: on the coasts, on the borders, and in urban centers where cheap labor and ethnic diversity is most welcomed. Just as California leads America, Los Angeles — mottled population, rich white minority — may be the future of places like the urban centers of the Northeast, Florida, Texas and Washington, D.C.

"Melting pot regions will become increasingly young, multiethnic and culturally vibrant," William Frey, a demographer with the University of Michigan and the Milken Institute in Los Angeles, told the Washington Post. "Heartland regions," says Frey. "will become older, more staid and less ethnically diverse."

Doesn't sound like Missouri's legendary bellwether status is built to last. George P. Bush (campaign slogan: "I was one of 'the little brown ones'") will no doubt give the Show-Me State a pass when he runs in 2024.

Click to Print

Posted by: Laura at May 5, 2008 11:19 PM


Poll:

"If abortion were not legal, would you have one, or have had one in the past?"
"If abortion had been legal when you were born, would your mother have aborted you?" (True, only your mother knows foresure!)
Does your mother, or any mother who has given birth, wish she rather had aborted you or her baby?
Do Pro-abort consider their children "choices" or "children"?

Posted by: Gera Schmidt at May 6, 2008 8:26 PM


Poll:

"If abortion were not legal, would you have one, or have had one in the past?"
"If abortion had been legal when you were born, would your mother have aborted you?" (True, only your mother knows for sure!)
Does your mother, or any mother who has given birth, wish she rather had aborted you or her baby?
Do Pro-abort consider their children "choices" or "children"?

Posted by: Gera Schmidt at May 6, 2008 8:26 PM