Skip to comments.Ex-Planned Parenthood Director: ‘My Goal Is to Make Abortion Unthinkable’
Posted on 01/16/2018 11:37:58 AM PST by boatbums
A former Planned Parenthood health center director says her main goal is not to make abortion illegal or even to defund Planned Parenthood, but, instead to make the entire idea of abortion unthinkable.
Abby Johnson, now a national pro-life leader, tells Breitbart News that, as the March for Life approaches Friday, it is understandable many pro-life activists are focused on eliminating taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.
But, if Im totally honest, my main goal is not to defund Planned Parenthood, Johnson said during an interview. My main goal is not even to make abortion illegal. My goal is to make abortion unthinkable, so that women would know there are other options available and that there are real and reputable healthcare centers that can take care of all their healthcare needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
She will not see The Promised Land .....
I’m for defunding, prosecutions, and anything else that contributes to zero abortions.
Many local governments come up with ways to keep out liquor stores, strip joints, and other problematic businesses.
I’d like to see communities start making codes that made it impossible for Planned Parenthood offices to operate within their city limits.
Neither did Moses.
Some time ago, there was some talk that Democrats “might back some pro-life candidates.”
Obviously, there will be no real effort to “back pro-life candidates,” because, as Weaver notes: “Ideas have consequences.”
The “idea” of socialism lies at the core of the Democrat Party’s cultish and oppressive Progressive ideology; and, for socialism to work, then, population must be restrained. See below:
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library— http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/MckyT/mckyPL2.html#The Impracticability of Socialism — “A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation,” edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson’s essay, “The Impracticability of Socialism”:
Note the writer’s emphasis that the “scheme of Socialism” requires what he calls “the power of restraining the increase in population”—long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
“I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a ‘proletariat,’ and Socialism is still a power in politics.
“I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the ‘ne’er-do-wells’?
“I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day’s length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
“Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove.” EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
I believe that when Roe is reversed it will happen all of a sudden and seemingly from out of no where.
Hence, my comment...
Exactly. Abortion is murder.
And everyone will say “oh, wasn’t that easy! Why were you making a fuss for so long?” And then totally ignore that it was the making of a fuss for so long that made the reversal happen.
Abortion continues where the Holocaust left off.
It’s too late for this generation. Maybe later people can see murder of the baby for what it is. I hear and see some of these abortion sycophants and they are as cold, callous and brainwashed as a die hard Nazi.
Moses did see the promised land:
Deuteronomy 34:1-4 (NKJV)
Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is across from Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the South, and the plain of the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to give Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.”
Also, he actually did enter it as well:
Matthew 17:1-3 (NKJV)
Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
This mountain is believed to be Mt. Tabor.
People have to get to the point where the unborn child is acknowledged as a human being deserving of the right to life - the first inalienable right our Constitution guarantees its citizens. Justice Blackmun admitted in his ruling that made abortion a right in 1973 that they weren't at that point of knowing when human life begins. Science has advanced now that there is no longer any question that human life BEGINS at conception and no one can credibly deny it.
Numbers are dropping. Hopefully we’re headed that way.
I don’t agree with her thought that funding isn’t a problem. Other parts of her comments gloss over problem areas.
I appreciate part of her thoughts.
As long as we are still breathing, there is hope for repentance and reconciliation through faith in Jesus Christ. No one is beyond Christ's forgiveness and grace.
Oh, I want prosecutions, too. I want these witches PUT BEHIND BARS who contracted for their murder of their kids. I want EVERY woman to be afraid to contract for murder of a child.
Abortion/child murder has always been around and the Holocaust was another confirmation that some humans are more "worthy" of life than others to those in power.
Well stated, FReeper Friend boatbums.
Way to go Abby, change hearts. This is the heart of the matter, changed hearts, which shouldn’t be hard considering how very ugly, horrible and murderous “abortion” is. Getting the facts out should do it. Aim them at the heart. The left constantly does this and wins, only their “facts” are wicked lies. The truth is so much more powerful than lies.
We can also work on the politicians and the law, but when people’s hearts are turned back to the right this battle will then be won!
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.