Posted on 06/29/2008 11:09:15 AM PDT by wagglebee
Planned Parenthood is in search of a makeover. For years, the organization has been the biggest abortionist in the business, but as abortion is losing its cachet, Planned Parenthood is trying to reinvent itself. It seems that killing children for cash is just not as fashionable as it used to be.
According to Stephanie Simon of the Wall Street Journal, Planned Parenthood wants to "[open] new avenues for boosting revenue and, they hope, political clout." The first step in the organization's redo involves marketing itself to customers in a higher income bracket. Planned Parenthood is building new centers with larger waiting areas, wooden floors, nice lighting and other amenities which create a more inviting environment and, presumably, make clients feel less shameful about the act they are contemplating. A new "green" clinic is going up in Massachusetts, made of recycled and earth-friendly materials. "Express centers" are being located in malls so that young women can have quick and easy access to birth control, tests for sexually transmitted diseases and counseling. Gift shops make the centers more appealing to their young clientele.
In its early years Planned Parenthood was directed by Margaret Sanger who advocated for a "right" for women to choose to kill their unborn children. She also promoted a Congressional plan which would, in part, "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
Sanger wanted to use reproductive controls to halt the "vicious cycle" of poverty and ignorance. She argued, "There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."
Sanger advocated "choice" as a tool for eugenics. "Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment." Yet she did not believe that this exalted idea of choice should apply to "the undeniably feeble-minded." In other words, Sanger thought the mentally handicapped should be sterilized by force, people should be sterilized to remove unwanted traits from the populace, and the country should seek racial perfection.
Planned Parenthood's modern advocacy of "choice" is rooted in Sanger's lack of regard for the rights of the unborn. Sanger saw "choice" as a means of perfecting America through the destruction of millions of unborn children. Planned Parenthood perpetuates Sanger's legacy by presenting "choice" as a means of improving the lives of individuals and communities by eliminating unwanted, "inconvenient" children. Its clinics dispose of over 200,000 such children per year. The number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood hit an all-time high in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
This high body count, no doubt, is part of the reason Planned Parenthood wants to change its abortion-centered public image. Nevertheless, the organization will not quit providing abortions or discourage them. Rather, it is hoping to hide its assault on human life behind nice new amenities. Apparently it believes that comfortable furniture, soft lighting and convenient locations will help people forget what goes on behind the closed doors of the surgical ward.
The new "green" Planned Parenthood building is, perhaps, the most ironic element of its remodeling plan. The organization proudly proclaims its concern for the environment even as it destroys more human beings than any other group in America. Planned Parenthood is the most infamous organization in an industry which kills more than twice as many Americans per year as cancer. By "going green," Planned Parenthood is attempting to hide its true color, red—the color of the blood produced by its daily death toll.
Worthy of note is the fact that federal and state grants make up about a third of Planned Parenthood's funding. Another third is provided by private donors. By remolding its image, the merchants of death are, no doubt, hoping to increase the share that comes from both. Branding is, after all, key to the success of any fundraising campaign.
This is one makeover, however, that just won't work. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make you want to kiss it. No matter how hard Planned Parenthood tries to dress it up, abortion still kills children and hurts women.
“mentrualpoetry.com”??
Puhleeeze...
Here are just a few of the votes he has cast that NARAL HATES:
Voted against a resolution in support of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s constitutional right to safe and legal abortion services.4
Repeatedly voted for (and cosponsored) the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, with no exception to protect a woman’s health, and carries up to a two‐year prison sentence for doctors.5
Supported the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a law that grants separate legal status to an embryo or fetus,6 which anti‐choice Sen. Orrin Hatch (R‐UT) boasted “undermines abortion rights.”7
Voted to codify a controversial regulation that allows states to make an embryo or fetus – but not a pregnant woman – eligible for health‐care coverage.8
Sadly those who hate McCain more than they value Truth or Life have no ability to apologize. They will slur him until they draw their last breath. Very sad.
Pathetic.
Looks to me like you’re the one pouring out untruth and bile against conservatives.
Also looks to me like you’re therefore a real good fit in the McCain camp.
How is pointing out his egregious record a "slur"?
So who should good folks vote for EV? In your opinion, of course.
Someone who doesn’t trash the Constitution.
Save your emotional outrage for those moved only by their hearts and not their heads. It won't work on me.
I thought this was a crash course on how to put lip stick on a pig! The title is misleading.
Bullfrogg
So who would that be?
She concluded,
The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.12
The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:
It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.
Do you also agree with these quotes?
Sure do.
And so should anyone that wishes to live in the first world and not the third world.
So your head answers how? When can and should you kill innocent life?
So America today is the ‘third world’?
So who would that be?
So who would that be?
(Second request.)
A fetus that is allowed to become a person is going to require food, water, shelter, etc.
If that fetus can't be expected to become a person that will proportionally increase the production of the above, then maybe abortion is the right choice.
Easy energy and advances in the sciences have allowed humanity to produce a surplus in food, shelter, etc, year after year to be consumed by greater and greater numbers of people.
Do you think it can go on forever? And do you think as things get tougher, that those hungry masses are going to respect YOUR needs for energy and food, etc?
Why do Mexicans risk dying in the desert to come to the United States? Because Mexico has already moved past the point of overpopulation. There is very little surplus left. Any surplus is taken and consumed, mostly through the Democratic process.
It all comes down to productivity versus fecundity. If productivity doesn't increase proportionally with population, then what is produced must be divided into smaller and smaller pieces. Or go someplace else where they can get a bigger share of the pie.
Parts of America surely are.
More and more people with lower and lower (and sometime no) productivity.
LOL, the old Malthusian fallacy. More people means more possibilities.
Out of curiosity, two questions - what faith do you practice and who are you voting for in the Presidential race and why?
Where are “Parts of America...” the thrid world? And how has abortion played out in that area?
So who would that be?
So who would that be?
So who would that be?
(Third request.)
{{{CRICKETS}}}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.