Saturday, October 29, 2005

I'll see you

I’ll see you forever
For you are a part of me
And I myself a part of thee
Inseparable in God

Thre is no tomorrow now
Though sun may rise and set
And sleepy eyes may slumber, still
Eternity now is set

It’s stamped upon my heart and yours
It’s seal : the Love of Christ
Which willingly I have received
And cherish more than earthly life

This soul awaits a body that will not die-
This soul awaits to see Him with it’s eye-
This soul awaits our meeting in the sky-
For faithful is our God
Who once did die , but now’s ALIVE :
We’ll se Him forever...

copyright 2005 by david severy

Sunday, September 25, 2005

The Mathematics of Life

The following from James Baxter. (visit His site at: http://www.choicemaker.net/)


The Mathematics of Life

In ancient Israel, the pre-born human being was

considered to be a person and, at birth, one-year

old. The wisdom of Israel held that the value of

the single life defined the value of the Twelve

Tribes of Israel.



History records that when the individual person

is of expedient non-value, the value of the plural

unit, the whole society, becomes regressive and

expendable.



Today, there are those who say, "Abortion is

such a messy negative subject." The American

new age holocaust is what it is. Regardless of a

sophisticated rationale it is a form of cannibalism

- devouring one's own kind - and has no place as

a 'choice' in a free humane society based on individual

worth. America!



If the individual is worth zero what will our Nation

be worth? Isn't the whole the sum value of the

parts - the individuals who make it up?



Is there any other kind of human? After all, isn't

every "group" merely a verbal convenience about

individuals?



Ask any ten-year old, "If one equals zero what

does twelve equal?"



If each individual is worth zero what will society

be worth? The consequences accrue to each and

every individual in our Country.



Dear Reader: Don't you qualify as an individual?

Are YOU prepared to be weighed in the balances

of your own choosing? The perverse cause

produces the perverse effect. Obviously and

sadly it is happening.



Dear Trendy-One: Are there any questions about

our Nation? YOUR future? How about arithmetic?

The next step down? Assisted suicide. Murder +



"The fool foldeth his hands together and eateth

his own flesh."
Ecclesiastes 4:5

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

The Studies

Dear little lambs, this may be as good as it gets:



As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, as noted in the bar graph below.
View Printable PDF Version (article below)

Overview:Breast Cancer and Abortion
Q-A: Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) suffer an increased risk of developing breast cancer?
A woman’s breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (ie, cancer producing) influences before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones), and hCG (human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [1]. If this process is artificially interrupted by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop suddenly and dramatically, thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman’s breast cells. This is referred to as a “hormonal blow” by researchers. These cells are now “vulnerable” to carcinogens because they started the maturation process but were never able to complete it. (Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation).
Q-B: Do any animal models support the claim that abortions early in life increase breast cancer risk?
Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [2], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of the rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer and 69% of the virgin rats developed breast cancer, but 0% of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed breast cancer.
Q-C: Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?
As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer [3]. In 1981, Pike et al [4] published their notable work showing that young women (under the age of 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but in 1994, Daling et al [5] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before their FFTP suffered a 40% increased risk. This risk increased to 150% if the adolescent had her abortion before the age of 18. In addition, Daling et al noted that if adolescents under the age of 18 aborted a baby that was more than 8 weeks old, they suffered an 800% increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulous and comprehensive meta-analysis (ie, a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [6] found that women who had an abortion before their FFTP had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer whereas women who had an abortion after their FFTP sustained a 30% increased risk.
Q-D: If Dr. Brind et al’s study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?
Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind’s study came under intense scrutiny; however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling — a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) — was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al’s results were “very objective and statistically beyond reproach.” [7] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [8] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Q-E: Was there any problem with the study by Melbye?
Yes. It is astonishing that the New England Journal of Medicine allowed it to be published in its submitted form. It had several glaring problems that have been pointed out in a follow-up letter to the New England Journal of Medicine [9]. The main ones include the following: 1) Melbye’s data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result; 2) The follow-up period for the “cases” (ie, women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was over 20 years for the “controls” (ie, women who did not have an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion (ie, too short of a latent period); 3) Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were “misclassified” as not having them — thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions; and 4) The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, whereas women who had late-term abortions (ie, after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89%. Both of these results received little media attention.
Q-F: Dr. Melbye claimed that his study did not suffer from “recall bias.” What did he mean by this?
Some researchers have claimed that retrospective studies suffer from “recall bias.” (An example of a retrospective study is one in which women with breast cancer would be interviewed and asked questions about their risk factors such as family history, induced abortion, etc.) The recall bias hypothesis can be defined as the following: “The hypothesis that people who develop a disease (eg, breast cancer) are more likely than people who do not develop that disease to admit that they participated in a ‘controversial risk factor’ (eg, an induced abortion or oral contraceptive pill [OCP] use) for that disease.” In essence they claim that women who have breast cancer are more likely to be truthful about the fact that they had an induced abortion than women who do not have breast cancer.
Q-G: On what basis do such researchers make such a claim?
This claim of recall bias is based on a study by Lindefors-Harris et al [10] from Sweden. She compared the responses of “cases” and “controls” to the national register which reportedly keeps an accurate record of all women who had an abortion. The study claimed to show that in the group of women who indeed had an induced abortion (according to the national register), the women who had breast cancer were about 50% more likely to admit that they had the abortion than the women who did not have breast cancer. The study has been criticized by Daling, a prominent epidemiologist, who noted that the study actually showed only a 16% “recall bias” (versus the reported 50% figure), when analyzed properly [5].
Q-H: Were there any problems with the study?
Yes. The study noted that 7 out of the group of 26 women with breast cancer who stated that they had an abortion at a young age, actually did not have an abortion according to the national register. This implies that 7 women out of the 26 women, or 27% of these “cases,” stated that they had an abortion at a young age, when they really did not. Obviously, this undermines the credibility of the study. Who would place any confidence in a study in which more than one quarter of a group of women with breast cancer reportedly lied and said they had an abortion when they actually had not?
Q-I: Is there any way to get around the “recall bias” problem?
Yes. A direct way to “get around it” is to measure it. Researchers did this already in the oral contraceptive and breast cancer debate in which some researchers claimed that women with breast cancer would be more honest about their history of oral contraceptive use. A number of studies refuted this claim by going back to a woman’s medical records and comparing the results of her interview response to that of the written record. All three of the studies that did this found less than a 2% difference between “case” and “control” responses [11,12].
Q-J: Can the same technique be used in regard to the abortion and breast cancer studies?
Absolutely. Most good obstetricians and gynecologists obtain a thorough medical history of their patients especially on their initial visit. A standard question would be to ask a woman how many miscarriages and/or induced abortions she had. If one wished to measure the degree of “recall bias” between “cases” and “controls,” one could simply compare their oral responses to that of the written medical record. Any degree of bias would be recorded and accounted for.
Q-K: This seems so basic. Why has it not been done?
That is a good question. Perhaps the question that should be asked is: Has someone done it and not reported it for fear of going against the bureaucratic forces within the political and medical establishments?
Q-L: Do women who had an abortion or miscarriage, or used oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) early in their reproductive life develop a more aggressive breast cancer?
Yes. Olsson et al has noted [13]: “These results indicate that the rate of tumor cell proliferation [ie, rate of growth of cancer cells] is higher in patients with breast cancer who have used oral contraceptives at an early age or who at a young age have had an early abortion. . .”


Q-M: Do miscarriages carry the same risk of breast cancer as induced abortion?
Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones) or hCG levels that would result from a healthy pregnancy. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a “hormonal blow” to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions. However, several studies show that miscarriages before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) may still carry a significant risk of developing breast cancer as noted in Table 2A below. (Further research in this area is critical to determine if an early miscarriage does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer.)

Table A:

RISKS OF BREAST CANCER IN WOMEN WHO HAD A MISCARRIAGE BEFORE THEIR FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCY

AUTHOR
YEAR OF PUBLICATION
PERCENT CHANGE
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL




Pike et al [138]
1981
151% increase
unknown
Brinton [101]
1983
9% increase*
0.8-1.5
Hadjimichael [107]
1986
250% increase
1.7-7.4
Rosenberg [149]
1988
10% decrease*
0.7-1.4**
Ewertz/Duffy [106]
1988
163% increase*
0.83-8.32***
Adami [96]
1990
20% increase*
0.7-2.0
Daling [103]
1994
10% decrease*
0.6-1.3
Rookus [141]
1996
40% increase*
1.0-1.9
* This result reflects a trend towards an increased or decreased risk but does not attain statistical significance
** Inappropriate age matching in this study: median age of "cases" and “controls” were was 52 and 40 respectively


Q-N: Is the prognosis of a pregnant woman who currently has breast cancer improved if she has an induced abortion?
No. Clarck and Chua noted that: “Those (pregnant women with breast cancer) undergoing a therapeutic abortion had a poorer prognosis compared to a live birth and even a spontaneous abortion.” [20] King et al obtained a similar result. “. . .patients who had termination of the pregnancy had a five year survival rate of 43 percent, whereas patients who underwent mastectomy and who went to term had a five year survival of 59 percent.” [21].

Q-O: What should women be told in general about having an abortion at a young age and the risk of breast cancer?
Women who have an elective abortion before their firstborn baby suffer at least a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer according to the best meta-analysis done to date. The risks are almost certainly higher for women who have had an abortion before the age of 18, or those who have additional risk factors, such as a positive family history or use of oral contraceptives before a FFTP. (The person who is interested in an excellent review article describing the physiologic reasons behind the link between abortion and breast cancer should see Canty’s article [22].)


References:

1. Russo J, Russo IH. Toward a physiological approach to breast cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. 1994; 3: 353-364.
2. Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 1980; 100: 497-512.
3. Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48: 1-63.
4. Pike MC, Henderson BE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer. 1981; 43: 72-76.
5. Daling J, Malone K, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86: 1584-1592.
16. Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10/ 1996; 50: 481-496.
17. Lagnado L. Study on abortion and cancer spurs fight. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 11, 1996.
18. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 81-85.
19. Brind J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 1834.
10. Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, et al. Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134: 1003-1008.
11. Chilvers C, McPherson K, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women (UK National Case-Control Study Group). The Lancet. May 6, 1989: 973-982.
12. Rookus MA, Leeuwen FE. Oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in women ages 20-54 years. The Lancet. 1994; 344: 844-851.
13. Olsson H, Ranstam J, et al. Proliferation and DNA ploidy in malignant breast tumors in relation to early contraceptive use and early abortions. Cancer. 1991; 67: 1285-1290.
14. Brinton LA, Hoover R, et al. Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1983; 47: 757-762.
15. Hadjimichael OC, et al. Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1986; 53: 281-284.
16. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, et al. Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol. 1988; 127: 981-989.
17. Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 1988; 58: 99-104.
18. Adami HO, Bergstrom R, Lund E, Meirik O. Absence of association between reproductive variables and the risk of breast cancer in young women in Sweden and Norway. Br J Cancer. 1990; 62: 122-126.
19. Rookus M, Leeuwen F. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 1759-1764.
20. Clarck RM, Chua T. Breast cancer and pregnancy: the ultimate challenge. Clinical Oncology. 1989; 1: 11-18.
21. King RM, Welch JS, et al. Carcinoma of the breast associated with pregnancy. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1985; 160: 228-232.
22. Canty L. Breast cancer risk: Protective effect of an early first full-term pregnancy versus increased risk of induced abortion. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997; 24: 1025-1031



Currently 28 of 37 Studies Show an Induced Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer

Other Half of Studies


Overview of TPRI
Breast Cancer & Abortion
Breast Cancer & Oral Contraceptives
Postfertilization Effect of Emergency Contraception
Postfertilization Effect of Oral Contraceptives
Newsletters
Support TPRI
Medical Ethics
Frequently Asked Questons
Guest Book
Home

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Facts for thought

In 1871 the AMA recommended dealing with medical abortionists in the following manner:
"These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society . . . respectable men should cease to consult with them, should cease to speak to them, should cease to notice them except with contempt . . . Resolved, That we repudiate and denounce the conduct of abortionists, and that we will hold no intercourse with them professionally or otherwise, and that we will, whenever an opportunity presents, guard and protect the public against the machinations of these characters by pointing out the physical and moral ruin which follows in their wake."
The American Medical Association on Abortion: An Anatomy of Contrasting Policy Statements

————When Does Human Life Begin?————
1871 — "No other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception."
1967-70 The AMA abortion policy statements of 1967 and 1970 include no references to the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.
————What is Abortion?————
1859 — "The slaughter of countless children; such unwarrantable destruction of human life."
1967 — "The interruption of pregnancy; the induced termination of pregnancy."
1871 — "The work of destruction; the wholesale destruction of unborn infants."
1970 — "A medical procedure."
———What Should the Ethics of Abortion Be?———
1871 — "Thou shalt not kill. This commandment is given to all without exception . . .it matters not at what stage of development his victim may have arrived."
1967 — "This is a personal and moral consideration which in all cases must be faced according to the dictates of the conscience of the patient and her physician."
———Who Should Perform Abortions?———
1871 — "It will be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion."
1970 — "Abortion should be performed only by a duly licensed physician."
———Who Are Physician Abortionists?———
1871 — "Men who cling to a noble profession only to dishonor it; false brethren; educated assassins; modern Herods; the executioners."
1967 — "Conscientious practitioners; conscientious physicians."
——What Should Be Done to Physician Abortionists?——
1871 — "These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."
1970 — They should be permitted to perform as long as they take place "in an accredited hospital."
W. Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust, Landmark Press, 1983, p. 191

Dr. Leon Alexander, an authority writing after the Nuremberg trials, said it well, and the parallel with the creeping deterioration of today's societal ethics is telling. "The beginnings were at first merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick." L. Alexander, "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," New England Jour. Med., vol. 241, July 14, 1949, pp. 39-47


A very early admission of the agenda (in the U.S): "The reverence of each and every human life has been a keystone of Western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected." Editorial, Jour. CA State Med. Assoc., Sept. 1970

Rationale
THEN "A doctor may interrupt a pregnancy when it ‘threatens the life or health of the mother [and] an unborn child that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be destroyed.’" (German Penal Code and Hamburg Eugenics Court, 1933)
TODAY "A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes that pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defects." (American Law Institute Model Penal Code, 1962)
THEN "Only persons of ‘German or related blood’ can be citizens; this does not include Jews." (Reich Citizenship Law, 1935)
TODAY "The word ‘person’ as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." ( U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973)
THEN "The authority of physicians is enlarged to include the responsibility for according a ‘mercy death [to] incurables.’ " (Hitler’s Euthanasia Order, Sept. 1939
TODAY "The abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently and primarily a medical decision and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician." (U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973)
Obedience to Authority
THEN "The accused did not act wrongly because they were covered by law [and] were carrying out the laws of the land." (Hadamar Euthanasia Hospital Trial, 1945)
TODAY "I did nothing which was illegal, immoral or bad medicine. Everything I did was in accordance with law." (Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin, 1975)
THEN "The physician is merely an instrument as in the case of an officer who receives an order." (Dr. Karl Brandt, Doctors’ Trial, 1947)
TODAY "The physician is only the instrument of her decision." (Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, 1974)
Subhumanity of the Victims
THEN "The Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars personify a repulsive yet characteristic subhumanity." (Dr. August Hirt, 1942)
TODAY "For the first four and one-half months the fetus is subhuman and relatively close to a piece of tissue." (Amitai Etzioni, Ph.D., 1976)
THEN "It had nothing to do with humanity — it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass." (Franz Stangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971)
TODAY "What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live grown-up individual." (Drs. Walter Char & John McDermott, 1972)
THEN "Whenever Jews are left to themselves they bring brutal misery and depravity. They are pure parasites." (Adolf Hitler, 1943)
TODAY "A parasite can commit murder, what attention has Catholic thinking or the law given to the fetus’s capacity to murder its mother?" (Dr. Natalie Shainess, 1968
THEN "If it is now pointed out that the Jew is human, I then reject that totally." (Antisemitic speech, Reichstag, 1895)
TODAY "It is a wild contention that new-born babies are persons." (Dr. Michael Tooley, 1972)
The Language of Killing
THEN "Fifty-nine thousand persons were evacuated by July 31." (Warsaw, Poland, 1942)
TODAY "The uterus was evacuated." (Dr. David Edelman & Colleagues, 1974)
THEN "The Baron de Hirsch ghetto would have to be emptied." (Max Merten, 1943
TODAY "The uterine cavity was emptied." (Dr. A.K. Mukerjee, 1973)
THEN "The removal of the Jewish element." (Hans Frank, 1943)
TODAY "Remove the products of conception." (Dr. Thomas Dillon & Colleagues, 1974)THEN "The treatment was administered to the children of the Haar-Eglfing Institution." (Dr. Pfannmuller, 1945)
TODAY "Abortion as treatment for the sexually transmitted disease of unwanted pregnancy." (Dr. Willard Cates & Colleagues, 1976)
THEN "The method of injection is a completely painless method." (Dr. Adolf Wahlmann, 1945)
TODAY "Evacuate the conceptus painlessly within 45 seconds." (Dr. Harvey Karman, 1972)
Experimental Exploitation
THEN "If you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized." (Testimony of Dr. Julius Hallervordan, 1947
TODAY "In the case of abortion the fetus cannot be ‘helped’ by being experimented upon since it is doomed to death anyhow, but perhaps its death can be ennobled . . . when the research has as its objective the saving of lives (or the reduction of defects) of other wanted fetuses." (Drs. Willard Gaylin & Mark Lappe, 1975
THEN "The victims of this Buchenwald typhus test did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain . . . people were saved by these experiments." (Dr. Gebhard Rose, Doctors’ Trial, 1947)
TODAY "With changes in the abortion laws fetuses as valuable research material is on the increase." (Dr. Leroy Jackson, 1975)

Friday, August 05, 2005

THE NEGRO PROJECT

THIS FROM TANYA GREEN AND THE CONCERNED WOMEN OF AMERICA:


The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans 5/1/2001
By Tanya L. Green



“... I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”


—Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

CONTENTS
Introduction
Malthusian Eugenics
The Harlem Clinic
Birth Control as a Solution
Web of Deceit
“Better Health for 13,000,000”
“Scientific Racism”
Sanger's Legacy
Untangling the Deceptive Web
End Notes



Introduction

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march's sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.


“'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1


The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.


The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.



Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.


Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus' magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:


All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.4

Malthus' disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.5


Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.6


Despite the falsehoods of Malthus' overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger's publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Rudin.7 Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.


Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization's board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without exception.” And Planned Parenthood's international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.8


The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area—those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.9


Sanger's early writings clearly reflected Malthus' influence. She writes:


Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.10

In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:


It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11

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.13

Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.”14 She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.” Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be “of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”15


In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime ... since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds [emphasis added].”16


Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:


the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
the father's wages were “inadequate ... to provide for more children.”


Sanger said “such a plan would ... reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”17


Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.



The Harlem Clinic

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL's perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.18 In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic's own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:


were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York's black population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
comprised 12 percent of New York City's population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City's unemployment;
had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
had a death rate from tuberculosis—237 per 100,000—that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.19


Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois,20 one of the day's most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.


That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.21 The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.


Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem's leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.”22 She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.


Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem's largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker.23 But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he'd allow that awful woman in his church.”24


Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family's income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.


Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks.25 Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.


Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic,26 an indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger's labyrinth.



Birth Control as a Solution

The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among blacks about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, they believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the “rationale” of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called “The Negro Number,” featured a series of articles written by blacks on the “virtues” of birth control.


The editorial posed this question: “Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” The answer: “Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality ... if they only knew how.”27


DuBois, in his article “Black Folk and Birth Control,” noted the “inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.”28 He criticized the “mass of ignorant Negroes” who bred “carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] ... is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”29


DuBois called for a “more liberal attitude” among black churches. He said they were open to “intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].”30


Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University's first black president, wrote “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks.31 He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.


Further, “the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.”32 Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.


Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as “pathetic.” In his article “God's Chillun,” he wrote:


The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].33

Terpenning considered birth control for blacks as “the more humane provision” and “more eugenic” than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust.34 He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.


Sadly, DuBois' words of black churches being “open to intelligent propaganda” proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases, poverty, unemployment and a host of other social ills—not the least of which was racism—Sanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.


Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community's most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled “better health” and “family planning.” No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one's children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking the forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger's motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.



Web of Deceit

Prior to 1939, Sanger's “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.”35 Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.


Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge.36 Yet Sanger's reply reflects Gamble's ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:


I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people.37

Another project director lamented:


I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with ... a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.38

Sanger knew blacks were a religious people—and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:


The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added].39

Sanger's cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA's National Advisory Council reads like a “who's who” among black Americans. To name a few:40


Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation's oldest black sorority), Washington, D.C.
Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People


Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting the BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition's board later cancelled, citing “last minute changes in floor space.”41


Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. “This has come as a complete surprise,” said Sanger, “since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.”42 She said the cancellation resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition.43


Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated “the need for birth control as a public health measure.”44 She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.45


At Sanger's urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) “unanimously passed a resolution,” which read in part: “That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.”46 He added that since the funds for the Exposition “came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,”47 which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.


“Better Health for 13,000,000”

The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.”48


The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians in the United States.49


An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that “no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,”50 indicating the project's target. The report claimed to have brought “to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, ... [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.”51 However, the report presented “no definite figures ... to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.”52


The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association.53 BCFA chose this site in part “because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state's maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.”54 Again, the message went out: Birth control—not better prenatal care—reduced maternal and infant mortality.


Although Berkeley County's population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were “overwhelmingly in the majority.”55 Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. “We have ... simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes,” he said.56


While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients' view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had “no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was 'against nature' was in the air.”57 Comparing the results of the two sites, “it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area.”58 However, “the final total success was lower [in the rural area].” However, in Berkeley, “stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs].” After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.59


The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as “inherently immoral.”60 However, “when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, ... and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, ... the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed,” said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.61


A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee's speech: “The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of us who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].”62 She peppered her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, ... who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].”63


Sanger even managed to lure the prominent—but hesitant—black minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention's Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that “the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. ... I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject.”64 Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches' Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: “There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.”65


Sanger's assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger's message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun's wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk.66 “[I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,” Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger.67 “At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].”68


By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America's best and brightest into believing birth control's “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations69 into endorsing Planned Parenthood's eugenic program.70


Sanger's successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community's overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement—and Sanger's embracing of that ideology—the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.



“Scientific Racism”


Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization's eugenic origins.71 It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.


In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”72


It's reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthood—even after 1929—Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn't support.


Sanger's defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control's “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.


Grant presents other arguments Sanger's supporters use to refute her racist roots:73


blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities are well represented in the “upper echelons” of Planned Parenthood Federation of America;
the former, high-profile president of the organization, Faye Wattleton, is a black woman;
“aggressive” minority hiring practices have been standard procedure for more than two decades;
the “vast majority of the nation's ethnic leadership solidly and actively supports the work” of the organization.


These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls “scientific racism.” This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. “The issue is not 'color of skin' or 'dialect of tongue,'” Grant writes, “but 'quality of genes [emphasis added].'”74 Therefore, “as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate 'a good quality gene pool'—as long as they 'act white and think white'—then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, 'the best of their race,' then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added].” By the same token, “individual whites” who show “dysgenic traits” must also have their fertility “curbed right along with the other 'inferiors and undesirables.'”75


In short, writes Grant, “Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a 'defective gene pool' is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.”76


The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. ... It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.”77


“There is no way to escape the implications,” argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. “When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn't take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”78



Sanger's Legacy

It is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood's past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. The poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood's own records reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black79—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood's research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.”80


“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We're losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That's just pure genocide. There's no other word for it. [Sanger's] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community ... say it's okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”81


Some blacks have even made abortion “rights” synonymous with civil rights.


“We're destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here,” Hunter laments. “Who knows the musicians we've lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?” He recites an old African proverb: “No one knows whose womb holds the chief.”82


Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood's eugenic past in the black community today. “When I travel around the country ... I can only think of one abortion clinic [I've seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”83


Hunter noted the controversy that occurred two years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. “Clinics should promote abstinence,” she said.84 Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome's suggestion, however, proposals for the school clinics were “dropped immediately,” reported Hunter.


Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes.85 “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”86


In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city's school-based clinics with not only violating the state's fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a “calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children,” the suit alleged.87


One of the parents in the group was “shocked” when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. “I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic,” she said. “[They are worse than] the Klan ... because they're so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it's as ugly as apartheid.”88


A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron, Ohio.89 The residents received a “promotional bag” containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald's gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.


The affiliate might say they're targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it “unrealistic.”


Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, “blasted” the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed “the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.”90


He then criticized Planned Parenthood: “Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.”91



Untangling the Deceptive Web

Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger's evil machination against their community far too long. They've been silent about abortion's devastating effects in their community—despite their pro-life inclination. “The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else,” said Hunter.92 “Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.”


“Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do not care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is ... to educate our people,” said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.93


Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The “Say So” march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse steps—to commemorate the number of black babies aborted daily—spokesman Damon Owens said, “This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn't solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.”


Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C.-based grassroots organization. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. “Our goal is to bring people together—from all races, colors, and religions—to work on pro-life issues,” said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff.94 “Black Americans for Life is not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.”


Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. “Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.”


Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood's evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can “choose life ... that [their] descendants may live.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes

The BCFA members voted unanimously at a special January 29, 1942, meeting to change the organization’s name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By then, BCFA had 34 state league affiliates. The state leagues followed suit in changing their name and bylaws. Particularly, the New York State Federation for Planned Parenthood’s old bylaws stipulated that the object was: “To develop and organize on sound eugenic, social and medical principles, interest in and knowledge of birth control throughout the State of New York as permitted by law [emphasis added].” The new bylaws replaced “birth control” with “planned parenthood.” “Eugenics” was dropped in 1943 because of its unpopular association with the German government’s race-improving eugenics theories. Robert G. Marshall and Charles A. Donovan, Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 24-25.
For more information on population control you may call 800-458-8797.
George Grant, Killer Angel (Franklin, Tennessee: Ars Vitae Press, 1995), 50.
Ibid.
Ibid., 51-52.
Grant, rev., Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 2nd ed. (Franklin, Tennessee: Adroit Press, 1992), 56.
Ibid., 95-96. Rudin worked as Adolf Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and founded the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.
Ibid., 95.
Marshall and Donovan, 8.
Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922), 108.
Ibid., 116-117.
Ibid., 123.
Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization,” The Birth Control Review, October 1926, 299. Sanger delivered the address before the Institute of Euthenics at Vassar College on August 5, 1926. Sanger’s address sounds eerily familiar to the 1999 controversial Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK) program. The program offered to pay drug-addicted women $200 cash if they underwent sterilization or had long-term chemical birth control (which may actually cause abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy) inserted into their bodies. The billboard ads were placed in inner cities. See CWA’s January/February 2000 publication of Family Voice.
Ibid.
Letter to Smith, which included her essay, 7 May 1929, Margaret Sanger Collection, Library of Congress (MSCLC).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Letter from Nathan W. Levin, comptroller for the Julius Rosenwald Fund, responding to Sanger’s request for funds, which opens with, “I am pleased to enclose our check in the amount of $2,500, representing the balance of our appropriation to the Harlem Birth Control Clinic for 1930.” 5 January 1931, MSCLC.
The Harlem Clinic 1929 file, MSCLC.
Letter from Sanger to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, 11 November 1930, New York, MSCLC. DuBois served as director of research for the NAACP and as the editor of its publication, The Crisis, until 1934.
Ibid.
Letter from Sanger to Dr. Peter Marshall Murray, asking for his sponsorship of the clinic, 2 December 1930, MSCLC.
Flier, 7 December 1932, MSCLC.
BCCRB memo, 3 February 1933, MSCLC. Both Powell and his son, Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., were part of the black elite. The younger Powell established himself as an effective civil rights leader during the Depression years when he fought discrimination against black workers. He succeeded his father as pastor in 1936. He served on the National Advisory Council to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) during the implementation of the Negro Project. He later served as an U.S. representative from 1945 until 1969.
Letter from Elizabeth G. Lautermilch, R.N., to Sanger, which included two (undated) newspaper clippings from leading black papers, 19 November 1932, MSCLC.
Letter from Sanger to Margaret Ensign, 17 April 1933, MSCLC.
George S. Schuyler, “Quantity or Quality,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 166.
DuBois, 166.
Ibid.
Ibid., 167.
Charles S. Johnson, “A Question of Negro Health,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 167-169.
Ibid., 168.
Walter A. Terpenning, “God’s Chillun,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 172.
Ibid.
Marshall and Donovan, 17.
Ibid.
Letter from Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939, MSCLC.
Grant, 97.
Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939.
BCFA Division of Negro Service, stationery, 1940, MSCLC.
BCFA stationery, July 1940, MSCLC.
BCFA statement, 8 July 1940, MSCLC.
Ibid.
Ibid., 2.
Ibid., 3.
Letter from Green to Mrs. J. B. Vandever (same form letter sent to other protestors), 17 July 1940, Chicago, MSCLC.
Ibid.
Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, M.D., “Negro Project” report, BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 1, MSCLC.
Ibid., 3.
Charles S. Johnson, “Better Health for 13,000,000” report on Negro Project demonstration programs, 16 April 1943, 8, MSCLC.
Ibid., 10.
Ibid., 13.
Ferebee, 5.
Johnson, 15.
Letter from Seibels to Claude Barnett, 11 July 1940, 2, MSCLC.
Ibid.
Johnson, 14.
Ibid., 18.
Ibid., 18-19.
Ferebee, “Planned Parenthood as a Public Health For the Negro Race,” BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 3, MSCLC.
Ibid., 5.
Ibid.
Ibid., 4-5. Ferebee was not the only black woman Planned Parenthood used to sing its praises. Faye Wattleton, also attractive, articulate and well educated, served as president from 1978 until 1992. She currently serves as president for the Center for Gender Equality in New York City.
Letter from J. T. Braun to Sanger, 8 December 1941, MSCLC.
Letter from Sanger to Braun, 22 December 1941, MSCLC.
Marshall and Donovan, 21.
Ibid.
Marshall and Donovan’s quote from the 18 May 1943 letter from Braun to Sanger, 21.
The list included: the NAACP, National Urban League, National Medical Association, National Association of Colored Nurses, Negro Newspapers Publishers Association and the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) memo to “State Legislatures and Local Committees from Field Service Department, Subject: Directory of National Negro Organizations with which the PPFA Has Developed Working Relationships,” 18 March 1949, MSCLC.
The National Council of Negro Women became the first national women’s organization to appoint a permanent national committee on Family Planning on October 18, 1941. Division of Negro Service, Birth Control Federation of America newsletter, Christmas 1941, 3, MSCLC.
Planned Parenthood, “Margaret Sanger,” October 2000. PPFA claims it has the “respect” of black leaders, like the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who compared the civil rights movement to the birth control movement. Dr. King was among the first recipients of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Margaret Sanger Award in 1966, the year of her death.
Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” The Birth Control Review, April 1932, 107. Sanger gave this address before the New History Society on January 17, 1932, in New York City.
Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 102.
Ibid.
Ibid., 103.
Ibid.
Ibid., 96.
Ibid., 102.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1992 Service Report, “Characteristics of Abortion Patients,” 12.
“Who Has Abortions? Survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute contradicts popular notions about the kinds of women who receive abortions, ” U.S. News and World Report, 19 August 1996, 8. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) December 2000 report shows that while the number of abortions dropped more than 30,000 from 1996 to 1997, a record 36 percent—up from 32 percent in 1990—of all abortions were performed on black women, even though blacks comprised just 12 percent of the population. The report notes that abortion rates are higher in urban areas “where access to abortion is easier” (“Abortions Decline,” USA Today, 11 January 2001, 14A).
Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 14 November 2000.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Sharon Weston Broome, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 16 November 2000.
Grand Illusions, 98.
Ibid. The latest figures show 63 percent of school-based clinics are located in urban areas. Source: National Survey of School-Based Health Centers, 1997-98, Making the Grade, Washington, D.C.: George Washington University. We have more information on school-based clinics.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Lisa Ing, “Condom Giveaway Based On Profiling, Pro-Lifers Contend,” The Washington Times, 31 July 2000, A2.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“African-Americans for Life: Black Baptist pastor speaks at Catholic Interparish Council,” Gulf Coast Christian Newspaper, February 1996.
Michele Jackson, “Should Pro-Life Black Americans Work Separately or Join NRLC?” National Right to Life Committee News, March 1998. NRLC has 50 state affiliates and nearly 3,000 chapters. It encourages action at the state and local levels.
Ernest Ohlhoff, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 6 April 2001.



Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Each One

EACH ONE

d. severy copyright 2005

Each one a mystery, a labyrinth untold.
Steeped now in secrecy, but ready to unfold.
No man knows, save He who rose:
What tale will be told, o let my people go.

Perfection went away, leaving us to groan.
Blood poured upon the earth, o how man does roam.
Far from the Way he knew, far from the Way of Truth;
O the tales been told, o let my people go.

Though hid from pedant’s* eye, each one is foreknown;
Destined to live and die, then no more to roam.
ut not short their destiny, they for life were meant to be
Tales to be told, o let my people go.

Small though their bodies are, each one has great worth.
With silent cries they cross the bar, denied their first birth.
Ushered into Holy Light, before the Father and the Christ,
There to tell the tale, yet no more to weep or wail,
Lest they weep o for thee, o let my people go.

It’s we who should weep and wail,
we who must tell the tale,
Crimes yet undone should not prevail,
this must be the goal.

Warn now, I warn you well,
your soul may be bound for hell,
It’s murder and must be told,
o let my people go.

*pedant: in this case, one who is unimaginative or
who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

Monday, July 25, 2005

OUR POSTERIRY

July 25, 2005
To America’s Editors
AND TO ALL LITTLE LAMBS EVERYWHERE

OUR POSTERITY



The preamble to the Constitution, states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To overlook the purpose of the Constitution regarding the generations to come, that is: “our posterity” - is to fail to see the clear and definitive basis for the securing and protecting the pre-born fetus’s opportunity for the blessings of liberty : those same blessings which we heartily enjoy and have defended with the lives of our citizenry time and time again. With out the birth of the fetus: Latin: (meaning) little one, there would be no national posterity at all.


The bitter war fought to Gain our freedoms was, without doubt, fought for many reasons. The list of grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence is long with many issues of oppression from the British Crown. I fear those who wrote them had reached the limit of their tolerance for their predicted fate written by Paul, the Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Timothy (2 Tim. Ch 3:12-13):

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

It is said that some persons chose to return to England rather than disobey the King’s laws, for they were not impositions on their faith, but on their pocketbooks and property. Having said this I make the following observations.

1. Though born in of a bitter bloody conflict, the nations “fathers” did exercise no small faith in the God of heaven in writing the Constitution of the United States.

2. We cannot go back to change the motives or result of the efforts of those men in that day.

3. It seems imperative that we now go on to prove not their political wisdom or correctness, but to prove the Wisdom of the God they sought and did honor in their works, and prove His Absolute correctness in all things.

God is forgiving of men’s impatience in Christian persecutions, and of the sinful motives that culture that impatience. We, the people, seem to have less and less power to guide what our founders then set in motion. Yet now, in this our day, we must need only repent and seek the good and perfect will of God regarding proper Christian response to persecutions from our Government.

There are always “grievances” we can muster in this life. For Christians, few rise to the level required to approve civil disobedience, let alone war. The apostles absolutely delighted that they were persecuted in the same, though lesser degree, as their Savior. But they did not go to war. They simply ignored the edict of the Jewish rulers of the Sanhedrin, that they cease to teach and preach on the name of Jesus. Is it so, as in their case, that only the silencing of the Gospel of God warrants such a response? Are their other worthy grievances for which we may disobey the directives of our governors?



For this man, the gross injustice of abortion does rise to this level. Why? I submit the following reasons:

1. Abortion places a higher value on life for the born that for those who are to be born. God has no respect of persons. Christians are not to show favoritism. It follows that they should not at all tolerate a sin that so egregiously opposes God’s Way of love for all men.
2. Abortion also endangers the life and limb of Christian parents own daughters, who in some states may have the baby aborted without parental notification or consent!
3. Abortion promotes a culture of immorality as it relieves the (joyous) burden of rearing children, allowing for the parents, both married and unmarried to pursue sexual and financial pleasures outside of God’s will. The pursuit of these brings more “unwanted” children in the form of fetuses, and more abortions. But these souls are not unwanted by God, who has the power AND the Authority to slay the parents or make barren the womb. Yet it seems that God has permitted other calamities to unfold against us and our neighbors.

Our preference for our own things, our own conveniences and our own pleasures above and before the future of the unborn child is greed and idolatry. And the consequences will not be agreeable to the spirit of idolaters. They will be bitter as they have always been.

Twenty five percent of our posterity has been slaughtered for 32 years, 1973 to the present day. The economic calamities have been literally untold. We suffer the loss of economy generated by the needs of children for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. We suffer the loss of 40,000,000 taxpayers: Federal, State, Local, AND Social Security Payroll Taxes. American jobs go unfilled by native born citizens, as we are outsource jobs abroad, and import legal and illegal laborers to fill them. Legal and illegal workers export our currency enriching our friends, enemies and competitors. We educate thousands of foreign citizens each year, many of whom take their education home to their native nations who compete with us economically. Ten years after Roe v Wade was decided, the nation began it’s slide into debt which has not stopped yet. The war in Iraq, which itself may be a judgment of God is thrusting our debt to foreign nations ever higher. God raises up one nation against another, and perhaps to correct both. But would not all right thinking people prefer that God not use their nation in this way? Recently China has bid to purchase a U.S. oil company, causing alarm in our Congress but no surprise from this man. Sin is a reproach to any nation. Our immorality has and will continue to weaken us in ways that even the pragmatic atheist ought to understand.

It is often said that our greatest “resource” is our people, and that children are our future. I cannot at all understand why the blessings our posterity will be to us, are refused and summarily dispatched by human will back to the dust from which they came. It is the saddest crime, having demonic origins which have incorrectly persuaded many lifeless souls of the “impossibility of any thing good coming from these children.” It is sadder too, considering the self-justification necessary to persuade one of abortion’s correctness, and the great psychological (soulish) harm the parents must endure should they come to their senses and see their sin. To realize one’s guilt of the murder of their son or daughter is a heavy burden indeed. And sadder still again, God must and will punish unrepentant sinners with the second death, which is nothing less that an eternal sentence to hell.

Yet perhaps the saddest of all is the silence of so many, who ignoring abounding opportunity, could raise their voices,- by pen, or in the street, even on talk radio, and by email/fax,- and cry aloud, decrying the SIN of Abortion, so like the sin of the idolaters of ancient Israel, whom God rebuked, saying, from Jeremiah Ch. 35

30For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.
31For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,
32Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
33And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.
34But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
35And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
WE NEED BOLDNESS TO CONFRONT THIS PERNICIUOS EVIL HEAD ON SEEING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN BODIES, BODIES MEANT TO BE THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
We need not fear what man thinks of us. We may set our face like flint and tell the truth.
Isaiah 50:7
For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
Paul warned the Corinthian church, rebuking their carnality:
1 Corinthians 3:
16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
How sobering this surely is, that God will DESTROY them that destroy His living temples.
I am compelled to proclaim that abortion is a sin, a greviuos sin that God hates as he hates “feet swift to shed innocent blood.” Proverbs 6:16-19
I do not approve the murder any man, be he an abortionist, or yet in the womb. So I ask myself: What sort of civil disobedience would be an effective protest in defense of the little ones, and to prevent "legal" approbation of abortion? Some possibilities: 1. Disregard for the laws preventing the blocking of abortuaries, resulting in jail. This burdens the state financially and places the believer in a setting where he/she may minister the Gospel to prisoners. 2.The with- holding of taxes, either to an escrow account or into the ministries of counsel/provision/ and adoption for the pregnant parents. I do not recommend to you, dear reader, other than prayer as to the wisdom of these ideas. I hope that you might share wisdom God has given you with me.
David B. Severy, 5009 Ready Ave., Apt. B Baltimore, Maryland, 21212- U.S.of A, lambsev@yahoo.com - www.lambsev.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

An Honest Murderer ???

Two things can be said for Eric Rudolph, he is consistent in his view of abortion and he was willing to act, not only to speak, and certainly not willing to remain silent. His acts will be judged by God, just as 40,000,000 acts of abortion will also be judged by God.

We live in an amazing time. We are in an uproar over the deprivation of an adult life. We have gone to war, at least partly to stop a man who poisoned his own country men. Our own flesh and blood sons and daughters have lost their lives in Iraq. Yet we have aborted and deprived 40,000,000 from the enjoyment of not only their adult lives, but their post natal infancy, their toddling, their childhood, their puberty, their teenage years and their young adulthood and old age. Why? Why are we not in an uproar, daily in the press and media?

And why do so many support this holocaust of infants, this indiscriminate genocide we call abortion on demand? So the parents of these 40,000,000 escape the duty and expense of raising them. And so they can go on enjoying their sexual acts with no concept of their purpose, or the design of sexual pleasure give in them.

Of course it needs to be said that heathen people, as those who countenance abortion are (at the least they think and act like heathens) not going to understand this, they are lost in the idolatry and worship of their sex organs. They have lost control and wound up pregnant. Their society promotes this at nearly every turn, movies, television, magazines, and internet. Even some of the so called conservative radio talk show hosts in my city (Baltimore Md.) are guilty of some very coarse sexual humor (double entendre).

What is more troublesome is that the so called Christian “churches” are populated by many who support a woman’s right to “choose” her own comforts over the life of the preborn human man or woman. They have certainly forgotten the golden rule, Love your neighbor as yourself. If they thought sincerely about this, the second great commandment of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they might see the child in the womb next door as their neighbor and support his/her cause. Because they do not, they may find soon their consciences seared as with a hot iron, having become past any charitable feeling toward their fellow man, simply interested in old numero uno. I honestly believe the man or woman who will not oppose abortion on demand, which is murder, will ultimately find him/herself in opposition to God.

As for Eric Rudolph, I forgive him his sins of murder, and of presuming to send men and women to their judgement in what may be “pre”mature timing. I do note that God could have stepped in and killed Eric before he ever committed his first murder, yet He “chose” not to do so. May God who mercifully does not kill us all in this moment for our many sins against Him also forgive Eric and take him into His eternal Kingdom. (I have had a nephew/niece? taken from me by abortion, and have also had to forgive my own kin.)

Sincerely, David B. Severy Baltimore, Md. lambsev@yahoo.com www.lambsev.blogspot.com