By Bethany Kerr:
Planned Parenthood has done a remarkable job deceiving millions of women into believing a lie - that PP cares about them and their reproductive "choices." But it doesn't take much research of PP's history to know this is not true.
Does PP really have an interest in serving women and supporting them in their time of need? Or does PP render service simply to control the population?
Does PP promote homosexuality because it wants people to be free with their sexuality, or is it really about controlling the masses?
A PP VP, Frederick Jaffee, offered the following specific proposals in 1970 for the U.S. to reduce its population growth:
Compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies
Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three
Childbearing confined to only a limited number of adults with payments to encourage abortions
Fertility control agents in our water supply
Discontinue tax relief to parents
Do any of these options sound "pro-choice" to you?
Look at the Alan Guttmacher's organization, which is supposedly unbiased and "has no agenda." Alan Guttmacher served as vice president of the American Eugenics Society as well as President of PP. It sounds to me like "population control" may have been one agenda in mind when he saw the "need" for the institution that bears his name.
In fact, Alan Guttmacher predicted in 1985 the "possibility that eventually coercion [in population programs] may become necessary." He told a reporter that coerced abortion may be needed the most "in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China." (Glasow, Richard D., Ph. D., "Ideology Comels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy," National Right to Life News, March 28, 1985)
And although PP has stated time and again, "We are supporting and fighting for everyone's freedom to make their own decisions about having children," this freedom apparently shouldn't extend to the people in China. PP does not criticize China's one child policy that forces women to have abortions after their first child. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Few women dispute that women's lives are better now than in the past..." (because of China's "family planning programs").
It's obvious to me this is not about women and it's not about choice. It's about controlling the masses, serving PP's agenda to keep the population count low. PP doesn't care who it hurts along the way. PP just wants to make sure its agenda is served. And it's seemingly getting closer to it's goal every year.
Here are some random quotes from PP representatives:
"The point is still under debate as to whether pregnancy is a disability, a disease, a choice or a right." ~ Rachel Cressman, PPFA program director, Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, July 20, 1978
"We are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though that is the exact truth." ~ Mary S. Calderone, PPFA medical director, 1968
"I [now] have one more thing in common with... the first leader of Planned Parenthood-Margaret Sanger.. the recipient of the Humanist of the Year Award in 1957." ~ Fay Wattleton, PPFA president, accepting the Humanist of the year Award, The Humanist, July-August 1986
"Emphasis shall be put on services [birth control, sterilization, abortion, etc.] to... teenagers and young adults." ~ Five-Year Plan, PPFA, 1975-1980
Now how does all this tie in with the idea of "pro-choice"?