Tag Archives: Margaret Sanger

Planned Parenthood president visited White House 39 times since 2009

Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood
Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood

This story is from CNS News.

It says:

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, head of the taxpayer-subsidized abortion giant currently facing a firestorm for allegedly selling body parts harvested from aborted babies, has made personal visits to the White House 39 times since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, White House records show.

According to online records on the White House website, Richards first visited the White House on Jan. 20, 2009 — the same day Obama first took office. Since then, Richards has met with Obama alone at least three times and First Lady Michelle Obama at least twice. She also met with president and his wife together another four times.

[…]In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, received $528.4 million in taxpayer funding, according to its 2014 annual financial report. That year, the organization performed 327,653 abortions.

And in return, Planned Parenthood gives a boatload of money to Democrats, to help them get elected.

Planned Parenthood donations to Democrats
Planned Parenthood donations to Democrats

Source: Open Secrets

In the 2014 election cycle, Planned Parenthood gave 100% of their contributions to Democrats, and they are strongly backing Hillary Clinton in 2016.

That record of donations might explain why the White House is 100% behind Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting operation.

Investors Business Daily covered the White House response to the Planned Parenthood sting videos.

Excerpt:

The White House has denounced an anti-abortion group’s videos of Planned Parenthood’s activities as “fraudulent” and circled its wagons to defend the indefensible. What kind of White House is this?

For an institution that might argue that it doesn’t have a dog in this fight, the White House sure has stepped into the Planned Parenthood baby-parts selling scandal on the side of the flesh-peddlers.

Sounding a little surreal, White House press secretary Josh Earnest firmly stood up for Planned Parenthood on behalf of the Obama administration following the release of four undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress showing the family-planning agency’s leaders’ callous disregard for human life and its grotesque efforts to reap commercial benefit for itself.

At a White House press briefing Friday, Earnest called the videos “fraudulent,” falsely claimed that they were “heavily edited” when in fact they were released in full, and hemmed and hawed to reporter’s questions about whether President Obama had seen the videos, saying only: “I suspect someone has.”

“And where are you getting your information of the fact that it’s fraudulent, or the fact that they’re distorted and edited unfairly?” a reporter asked at Friday’s White House press briefing.

“Based on the public comments of Planned Parenthood, who has indicated that the views that are represented in the video are entirely inconsistent with that organization’s policies and with the high ethical standard that they live up to,” Earnest said, demurring again when the reporter asked if he was buying their talking points hook, line and sinker.

Yes, don’t believe your own eyes, voters. Josh Earnest is telling you that Planned Parenthood is a saintly organization, that lives up to the highest ethical standards. Keep voting Democrat, pro-life Democrats, everything is under control. You can keep your doctor, you can keep your health plan, and there is no organ harvesting for profit by Democrat special interest groups.

Obama has vowed to veto any bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. The organ harvesting must go on, and pro-life people must subsidize it, so that we are all equally guilty. It’s important that we all take part in this, so that those who are doing it can tell themselves that this is supported and condoned by taxpayers.

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

You might have heard that even Hillary Clinton is now saying that she found the videos “disturbing”. That’s true, but what she found “disturbing” was that someone had made the videos, not what was going on in the videos. It’s the fact that voters are seeing these videos that is disturbing to Hillary, not the organ harvesting for profit and the subsequent donations to the Democrat party.

Hillary Clinton loves Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton loves Planned Parenthood

She has no moral qualms at all about what Planned Parenthood is doing in the videos. Probably why she got the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. She is behind them 100%. And they are behind her 100%, having given her tens of thousands of dollars in donations.

Is Herman Cain pro-life? What are Cain’s views on abortion and Planned Parenthood?

(Video: Herman Cain’s speech at the 2011 National Right to Life Convention)

Let’s do analysis this in two parts: 1) what Cain says, and 2) what Cain does.

Life News explains what Cain said about abortion to Piers Morgan that confused people about his pro-life position.

As LifeNews.com reported, Cain gave an interview to CNN in which he used typical “pro-choice” language about government not making abortion decisions for women that applied, depending on the listener, to either abortions in the case of rape and incest or abortion policy in general. Either way, pro-life advocates have been disappointed today following the comments and they have called on Cain to clarify the comments — which he did in a short message on twitter later in the day saying he is “100% pro-life.”
The statement reads:

So, basically, Cain was saying that the lay of the land should be that abortion is illegal, and then women will have to get together with their families and decide whether they want to break the law or not, and that it was not Herman Cain’s job to be in that discussion. His job would come after in prosecuting the doctors who perform abortions, because he thinks that life begins at conception and the laws should reflect that commitment to protect the unborn.

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion. My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Here are Cain’s exact comments:

“Whats your view of abortion?” Morgan asks Cain in the interview.

“I believe that life begins at conception and abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why,” Cain said before Morgan interrupted him and asked, “No circumstances?” to which the presidential candidate replied, “No circumstances.”

Morgan told Cain that that sets him apart from many other Republican candidates who are pro-life but also believe in exceptions such as rape or incest or the life of the mother. He continued by asking Cain if he would want his daughter or granddaughter, if raped, to keep the baby — which Cain said “was mixing two things.”

“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”

Morgan told Cain that his views on the question of abortion are important because he may very well become president someday and turn into public policy.

“Not they don’t,” Cain said of his views becoming law. “I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”

Cain finished by saying he agreed with Morgan that his view is a departure from the political norm.

Cain’s view is that the government should prohibit abortion, and then you should be left free to decide whether to comply with the law.

Cain’s position reminds me of a famous story about the British in India, who were opposed to the Hindu practice of suttee/sati which involves burning widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands. Sir Charles Napier responded to the Hindu custom as follows:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

( Napier, William. (1851) History Of General Sir Charles Napier’s Administration Of Scinde, p.35)

That’s exactly what Cain’s position was, although I think that he would enforce the prohibition on abortion by fining or jailing the doctor who performed the abortion, and eventually the practice would stop, because there would be no money in it. Abortion is all about the money. When you take away the money, people stop providing abortions.

Cain’s pro-life record

What has Cain done for the pro-life cause with his own money? Life News explains.

Excerpt:

With the balance of power in Congress hanging in the air, a leading African American businessman says black voters in the United States should put their historical pro-life values above political party. That means voting for pro-life candidates rather than supporting Democratic candidates across the board.

Herman Cain is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is a political commentator and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

“More and more African Americans are pro-life,” Cain said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained. “Our message to African Americans is simple — it’s time you vote for candidates who support our values.”

Cain will underscore that message with a $1 million advertising campaign in key states and congressional districts targeting black radio programs and urban radio stations young African Americans enjoy. Some of the ads focus on abortion.

But there’s more to his pro-life record than just giving up a million dollars of his own money. He is a pro-life activist.

What has Cain done with pro-life groups? Life News explains.

Excerpt:

The National Right to Life Committee is today vouching for Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s bona fides, saying the businessman who is considered by many to be the current GOP frontrunner is pro-life.

NRLC’s comments come after a 48-hour period during which Cain has confused pro-life voters where he stands — by first using seemingly pro-abortion language saying government should have no involvement before finally clarifying he is pro-life and saying he wants abortions illegal.

“Herman Cain’s pro-life,” David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, told National Review. “He addressed our convention last June. We are quite confident in his pro-life position. When he ran in the primary for senate some years back … he ran as a pro-life candidate then in Georgia. We’ve known of him for a number of years, and he’s always taken a pro-life position.”

At that event, Cain, the former businessman and candidate, said the “Founding fathers got it right” including the right to life from conception.

“Don’t infringe on the rights of somebody else and that includes the unborn,” Cain said of what the Constitution requires.

Cain spent most of his time talking about the moral crisis and lack of God in the cultural conversations in America, saying, “We’ve got a moral crisis in this nation. One of the reasons we have this moral crisis today is because too many people are trying to take God out of our culture, little by little.”

“Those that believe taking the life of the unborn is a choice has gotten away from the Godly principles,” he said. “The way we’re going to protect the unborn in this nation is to work on the right problem, get God back in our culture.”

Cain said pro-life advocates must change hearts and then minds will follow and he urged pro-life advocates to do more to promote the work of pregnancy centers.

“Let young women know about alternatives to these so-called Planned Parenthood facilities. We have to inform and educate people and let them know about resources like the one in Dallas Texas where I visited called the Source for Women. When young women show up there, the first option isn’t getting an abortion, the first option is counseling to show these young ladies the alternatives to abortion,” he said.

Herman Cain’s opposition to Planned Parenthood is quite strong. Life News explains.

Excerpt:

During a presentation before a set of conservative bloggers in the nation’s capital today, likely Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, a pro-life businessman, bashed the Planned Parenthood abortion business — which went after him in return.

Cain said he supports revoking the federal taxpayer funding for the abortion business: “I support de-funding Planned Parenthood. “Tactically how [Congress] does it…I can’t tell you.”

The African-American then went further and talked about the racial overtones behind the founding of the abortion business by Margaret Sanger.

“You probably don’t hear a lot of people talking about this,” Cain said.  “When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world.”

“It’s planned genocide. It’s carrying out its original mission,” he said. “I’ve talked to young girls who go in there, and they don’t talk about how you plan parenthood.  They don’t talk about adoption as an option.  They don’t say, ‘Well, bring your parents in so we can sit down and talk with you, and counsel with you before you make this decision.’”

[…]In January, Cain also went after Planned Parenthood.

He told American Family Radio’s “Focal Point” program that he is pro-life and opposes the agenda of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion business.

“I absolutely would defund Planned Parenthood — not because I don’t believe in planning parenthood, [but because] Planned Parenthood as an organization is an absolute farce on the American people,” he said.

Cain, who is African-American, accused the abortion business of engaging in a racist agenda.

“People who know the history of Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, they know that the intention was not to help young women who get pregnant to plan their parenthood. No — it was a sham to be able to kill black babies,” he added.

Cain also talked about his pro-life views in general and alluded to judicial appointments.

“I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side,” he said. “I’m a Christian, I’ve been a Christian all my life. I’ve been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I’m very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated in their career, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that.”

“Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as president, if I run and get elected — not rewrite those documents,” he added.

I do think that Cain needs to be challenged now rather than later to clarify his views and to increase his knowledge. He has a year to do it before the election. Right now he is leading Romney in the national polls, and that’s good, because Mitt Romney’s record has been pro-abortion since 1994 and Mitt Romney refused to sign a pro-life pledge. So, if we have to pick a nominee in 2012, we have to pick Herman Cain over Mitt Romney. But Cain needs to improve his thinking and speaking on pro-life issues to prevent gaffes from occurring that make people think that he isn’t pro-life. His previous words were pro-life, his allies are pro-life, and more importantly, his previous record has been pro-life – right up to use a million dollars to support pro-life causes.

MUST-READ: The link between Darwinism, nihilism and public school shootings

Check out this amazing UK Times article. (H/T ECM)

First, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold:

“Harris wore a ‘Natural Selection’ T-shirt on the day of the killings. They made remarks on video about helping out the process of natural selection by eliminating the weak. They also professed that they had evolved to a higher level than their classmates. I was amazed at the frequent references to evolution, and that the press completely ignored that aspect of the tapes.”

[…]As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, the Denver lawyer Barry Arrington has come across more in a similar vein. “I read through every single page of Eric Harris’s journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes? It became evident to me that Harris consciously saw his actions as logically arising from what he had learnt about evolution. Darwinism served as his personal intellectual rationale for what he did. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshipper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles.”

And Pekka-Eric Auvinen:

Before he embarked on his shooting spree, Auvinen posted a lengthy apologia on the internet. Styling himself a “social Darwinist”, he said that natural selection appeared not to be working any more — had maybe even gone into reverse. He had noticed that “stupid, weak-minded people reproduce faster than intelligent, strong-minded ones”. The gene pool was sure to deteriorate if society continued to guarantee the survival of the second-rate. He had pondered what to do about this problem. He understood that life was just a meaningless coincidence, the outcome of a long series of random mutations, so there might not be much point in doing anything at all. But eventually he had decided he would do his bit by becoming a natural selector, aping the pitiless indifference of nature.

Auvinen left a special plea for his motivation to be taken seriously and for the world not merely to write him off as a psychopath, or to blame cult movies, computer games, television or heavy metal music, before concluding: “No mercy for the scum of the Earth! Humanity is overrated. It’s time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track.”

The article continues:

One conclusion implicit in evolutionary theory is that human existence has no ultimate purpose or special significance. Any psychologically well-adjusted person would regard this as regrettable, if true. But some people get a thrill from peering into the void and acknowledging that life is utterly meaningless.

Darwin also taught that morality has no essential authority, but is something that itself evolved — a set of sentiments or intuitions that developed from adaptive responses to environmental pressures tens of thousands of years ago. This does not merely explain the origin of morals, it totally explains them away. Whether an individual opts to obey a particular ethical precept, or to regard it as a redundant evolutionary carry-over, thus becomes a matter of personal choice. Cheerleaders celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday in colleges across America last February sang “Randomness is good enough for me, If there’s no design it means I’m free” — lines from a song by the band Scientific Gospel. Clearly they see evolution as something that emancipates them from the strict sexual morality insisted upon by their parents. But wackos such as Harris and Auvinen can just as readily interpret it as a licence to kill.

Darwin himself thought that his theory warranted racism and genocide:

Darwin looked forward to a time when Europeans and Americans would exterminate those he termed “savages”. Many of the anthropomorphous apes would also be wiped out, he predicted, and the break between man and beast would then occur “between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon; instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”. He took a sanguine view of genocide, believing it to be imminent and inevitable. “Looking to the world at no very distant date,” he wrote to a friend in 1881, “what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”

Convinced that the various races of mankind had travelled different distances down the evolutionary highway, and that two races could be fairly described as more or less evolved even when both had a track record of cultural achievement, Darwin insisted that natural selection explained why the Europeans had been able to see off serial invasions by the Ottoman Turks. Some of today’s Turks understandably resent being designated as genetically second-rate, which perhaps explains why the editor of Turkey’s most popular science magazine was instructed by his proprietor to cancel a special edition celebrating Darwin’s anniversary.

[…]Nowhere was the toxic doctrine of racial superiority more enthusiastically taken up than in the Third Reich. The Nazis believed that the Aryan race was already the most highly evolved, but could evolve further if defective genes could be eliminated. To purify the German gene pool, they decided to exterminate all the physically and mentally handicapped.

Darwin summed up his moral philosophy by saying that a man could “only follow those ideas and impulses that seem best to him”. Darwinian ideas, eugenics and its ugly sister, eugenic euthanasia, were accepted by the mainstream of the German scientific and medical professions. Indeed, so convinced were the staff of the clinic at Kaufbeuren-Irsee in Bavaria that they were acting rationally that, even after Germany’s surrender in 1945, they carried on killing handicapped people under the American occupation, until a US officer led a squad of GIs to the hospital and ordered them to desist.

The modern pro-abortion movement is rooted in the thought of Darwinian eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, who was quite explicit about weeding out the poor, the “unfit” and “inferior” races. Many people on the secular left believe that some people are not fit to live, and that these people should be weeded out by force. For example, Obama’s science czar advocates controlling the reproduction of undesirable people and that born babies are not human beings.

After you finish reading the UK Times article, check out this post over at Uncommon Descent. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

When we teach our children that their existence is an ultimately meaningless accident and that morals are arbitrary byproducts of random genetic fluctuations and mechanical necessity, should we be surprised that they place a lower value on human life than someone who is taught that all humans have inherent dignity and worth because they are made in the image of God?

[…]There are three and only three options.

1.  We can continue to fill our children’s heads with standard Darwinian theory (which Dennett rightly calls “universal acid”), understanding that at least some of them are going to put two and two together and realize that the acid has eaten through all ethical principles – and act accordingly.

2.  We can try to come up with a secular noble lie.  “OK kids.  You might have noticed that one of the implications of what I just taught you is that your lives are ultimately meaningless and all morals are arbitrary, but you must never act as if that is true because [fill in the noble lie of your choice, such as “morality is firmly grounded on societal norms or our ability to empathize with others”].

3.  We can teach our children the truth – that the universe reveals a wondrous ordered complexity that can only be accounted for by the existence of a super-intelligence acting purposefully.  And one of the implications of that conclusion is that God exists, and, reasoning further, He has established an objective system of morality that binds us all, and therefore the moral imperatives you feel so strongly are not just an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical states of your brain.

This reminds me of the essay “Men Without Chests” in C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”. Lewis writes that moral relativists undermine objective morality, which cannot be grounded rationally by atheism, and yet they are surprised when people actually act as though moral relativism is true.

The good news is that Darwinism is false. The bad news is taxpayer money from working parents is funneled into politicized government-run schools that teach children that Darwinism is true. High taxes ensure that parents are kept away from their children, since they must both work to pay for the government-run schools. The left’s opposition to stay-at-home mothers and fathers, (e.g., sex education, abortion, unilateral divorce, same-sex marriage, subsidies for single motherhood, etc.),  ensures that the government-run schools have more influence on children than the parents do.

MUST-READ: The Western Experience debunks the doomsday predictions of the left

I just got an e-mail this week from someone I know who voted for Obama. He was worried about the bogeyman peak oil. Where does the left get all these crazy views? I actually think that atheism causes people on the left to be afraid of the unpredictable future. They imagine insane doomsday scenarios and they become very frightened. They then try to make the world predictable by imposing totalitarianism, to control consumption of scarce resources.

It’s the secular equivalent of “Left Behind” fiction, only they actually believe it. It’s their religion.

But the thing is, it’s all false.

Take a look at this post by Jason over at The Western Experience.

Here’s the summary:

  • Who was Thomas Malthus?
  • What did he predict?
  • Why did his predictions fail?
  • Who was Paul Ehrlich?
  • What did he predict?
  • Why did his predictions fail?
  • Some more insane predictions of the left

You might want to read his short, informative post. (It’s a perfect post) And then remember, this is the worldview of the left. They believe this, right up to Obama’s mad science czar.

Previous stories about Obama’s science czar:

The fact that their predictions are always wrong doesn’t stop them from acting crazily.

How Obama harms the very people who voted for him

Sonja Schmidt from PJTV explains. (H/T Lex Communis)

Here are the 3 points from the video:

  1. Obama was supported by anti-woman, pro-drug, pro-violence rapper Ludacris during his campaign
  2. Obama supports welfare programs that replace fathers with government social programs
  3. Obama supports abortion, which has killed millions of black babies since 1973

A vote for a Democrat is a vote against family, marriage and children. Period.

The more money is transferred to single mothers, the less women need to be careful about who they sleep with. Big government creates fatherlessness. Big government destroys the family.