little lambs

It is not just about the babies, it is about us.

2010-10-20T09:58:00.001-04:00

It is not just about the babies, it is about us.
by David B Severy

Abortion is the most heinous crime, number one in my point of view. First let me lay out some facts:

Every year we abort 22% of our naturally conceived fetuses ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#2). They would each become a part of our nation for better or worse as do the other 75%. But 18 years after they are aborted someone else must be found to fill the gap we make by aborting them. In 1991 had they lived, (18 years after Roe vs. Wade was decided) all the aborted fetuses of 1973 would have turned 18 years old. In 1992, 1993 and each successive year until 2010 another years "crop" of aborted individuals would have turned 18. Their absence is profound. Between 1973 and 1991 25,000,000 babies were aborted (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf see page 4). All would be between 18 and 37 years old today. So we effectively have made room for the 20 million illegals that do the work they would have done.

Additionally we must see that the economic activity that occurs in raising each child from infancy to adulthood (18) is forfeited to those illegals that fill the jobs related to their expenses. Add in the money sent out of the country by illegals. Also add in whatever number of the aborted who would have become engineers or scientists or doctors. America continues to slip in the number of necessary professionals it produces and we look to other nations to supply them.

The loss to our nation due to abortion is enormous. In fact we are now producing on average less than 2 children per married couple. This means we are not growing in population but shrinking. Both the illegal Hispanics and the legal Muslim communities are increasing in population. If the rates hold steady the nation will change dramatically in the next 50 years. That might be ok, but it might not be ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

We also must consider the question of how our children view their elders when they understand that their own lives were a choice rather than a highly prized right and privilege. This leads to questions about the stability of our national psychology and morality. The estimate is that half of all pregnancies are "unintended." Here we enter into the arena of judgment, and I will share why abortion is the worst crime an individual can commit and the worst a society can sanction.

Humanity is not one step better than gutter rats if it chooses to behave like them. Rats are about one thing survival. Humans have the capacity to live above the lifestyle of the rat, far above it. And by our intellect we do live above it. But when we use our intellect to live only for our selfish pleasures we become nothing more than calculating perverse clever rats. I believe in the Lord Jesus the Messiah of Israel and all who believe Him. But I will give at least some kudos to any form of religious belief, societal form or political entity that values the child. It is still said in some quarters "the children are our future." They are certainly a part of our future unless we deny them their own.

So we should not fool ourselves about abortion. It is in most cases, easily over 90% of all cases, the elimination of an "unintended" UNWANTED child. It is NOT done for the health of the mother, nor to save her life. It is done because the parents have chosen not to take responsibility for the consequence of their sexual act. Bottom line people want to go on living without the “burden” of another mouth to feed, another mind to educate, and another child’s soul to love.

What passes as an act to improve the life of the parents ultimately has torn down the quality of life of the society in which they live. It is a sad state of affairs. When will we wake up? When will we embrace the results of our sexual acts, even the adulterous and promiscuous acts? Those results are souls just like we are. By aborting them we inhabit the most perverse gutters, dirtier than the worst slum rat ever inhabited.

The baby aborted goes straight to the arms of Jesus while we roll in the filth of our sexual misbehavior and the blood of 50 million abortions. Can the curse we bring on our nation be understood now? Twenty million illegals, 9% unemployment, economic recession, jobs sent overseas, war, drug abuse everywhere, pornography everywhere, no moral consensus, no political consensus… what will it take to wake us?

My answer is prayer and the preaching of the Gospel of God in Christ who loves us enough still to tell us the truth, and in fact to be the Truth we need. It is time for those in the pulpits to lead their preachers and teachers into the streets. It is time for the gospel to become the No. 1 message of the pro-life movement. Only the gospel can empower any man or woman to succeed, for success cannot be found apart from the Living God of the living, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I need to add this, and thank you Nancy U. for reminding me: It is because the contents of the womb are entirely human from conception to birth that abortion is so evil and wrong. We are valuable in God's sight beyond our understanding. He sent His ONLY Son to be a fetus and baby and child just like each of us were. We may call abortion a choice, and it is a choice. It is a choice to MURDER a human being, a PERSON. It is INFANTACIDE and it is A HOLOCAUST. Fifty million babies have been aborted. Fewer that one million and ten thousand Americans have been killed in ALL the wars this nation ever fought!

.................................................. 50 periods (50,000,000 babies)

. 1 period (1,000 000 battle deaths)

More to this than meets the eye...

2010-05-01T14:32:00.003-04:00

(It is a pro life article, read to the finish and see...)

Illegal immigration, why do we have this problem?

Many see it as a problem, and not a few are completely untroubled by it. As you might expect from me, I find the problem of illegal immigration to be found rooted in mankind’s greatest trouble: SIN. And there go most of those reading… on to another blog or web page. It is either true or not that sin is a problem, and that it is the source of all problems. If you think it is so, read on.

But what could it be that allows for the presence of perhaps 30 million illegal’s in this nation from Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, Eastern Europe Russia? We know why they come, they come for the money. Perhaps they come for the “freedom” but if they had money in their own countries would they come for the “freedom?” So who is giving out the money?

Employers and the government, the Capitalists (the employers) and the Socialists (the Government) are giving out the money. One requires you work for it and the other that you vote for it. Both are attracting illegal immigrants like honey attracts bees. So why don’t our own citizens go after this money? Most do, and most get the money, and they get it from the same two sources for the same two services, working and voting. So why do we need illegal immigrants?

We need them to do the work Americans do not want to do and we need them to do the work Americans are too dumb to do. Talk about the MIDDLE class… Make that the MEDIOCRE class.

We are now too proud to pick fruits and vegetables and not smart enough to become engineers.

But why? Could that SIN thing relate to the mess we are in? Yes, it could and does.

Many people in America are not Christians and do not agree that sin is the issue. Yet many Christians or so called Christians do not believe in sin or hell. Many other people will say that they are spiritual, and/or that there is a spiritual part of life which is very real, but they will deny sin as a reality. And others just deny the spiritual part of human life altogether.

What is at the root of the denial of sin? The desire to escape judgment in this life, and for those who think there is a God and a life after death, they desire to escape judgment in that afterlife. If they only knew how simple God has made it for us to enjoy Him and His afterlife. But that is another part of the “equation.”
What is critical to understand is that those who disbelieve sin disbelieve the one who defines sin. They will not acknowledge God, God’s authority and sovereignty. And to the point here, they will not acknowledge that God knows what sin is. Simply put, God knows what is right and what is wrong absolutely in every real case. We may know, or we may not; God does.

So we are left with two kinds of people on earth, those who seek the truth as to what is right and wrong, and those who seek to do as they wish with as little harm to themselves as possible. These are the two kinds of people. I am moving in one direction or the other. You are moving in one direction or the other.

If you are seeking to do it your way for your own benefit, what is right or wrong will not concern you much.

Not getting caught is what matters.

So it is easy to see that those who would rather sell cars than wash them compete to get those jobs… when cars are selling. Those who would rather ship fruit that pick it… the same. And those who would rather earn seven figure incomes as banking/business moguls than five/six figures as engineers, they compete for those jobs. So we have illegal immigrants picking fruit, washing cars, and surprisingly they are engineering our software in sales, industry and medicine.

But there is one other factor that really puts the proverbial kibosh on reversing the trend. It is something so obvious it pains me to think how little we see it. Surely many just float down the river in Egypt regarding ABORTION, but it really puts a finishing touch on our NEED for people to come over our borders illegally OR LEGALLY to do the work we want done.

One out of four babies conceived in America are aborted. Does this or does this not open up 25% on out of every four jobs to a foreign born person? The math seems quite simple. All other things aside, every aborted child can never hold a job in their home country. If United States citizens continue to abort 25% of their offspring, their progeny, their posterity, their own flesh and blood CHILDREN they will never ever recoup the kind of economic social and SPIRITUAL prosperity they once enjoyed. The will continue to decline until the nation bears little resemblance to what it was in 1776, 1876 or 1976. It is already happening.

The tea parties are just what? They are the moral minority plus those whose pocketbooks are finally being touched to deeply. Forget the tea party. It will do nothing except perhaps return the grievous social problems we experience into the hands of republicans who are no better equipped to fix them than democrats. We need Jesus to fix them, and if we will let Him fix us, if you and I will let Him fix us, perhaps we may have an opportunity again to fix the nation.

(The truth is that other methods birth control also suppress the birth rate and add to the decile in native born citizens. We prefer either not to raise children or not to overburden ourselves with more that 1.2 kids)

Fini.

Seen today on a t-shirt.

2008-03-25T14:51:00.003-04:00

Seen today on a t-shirt at Towson Univ. Cook Library: "You think you know but you have no idea."

That sort of sums up my thoughts for us as a race, the human race that is. We think we know…

I have noticed more and more the changing face of the U.S. : so many Latinos, and not a few Africans, Asians, and South Asians. I even heard a member of a surveyor's crew calling out coordinates in a eastern European accent! I would be moved to paranoia as many are, except to remember that they are all human and for the most part all have human aspirations much the same as I do, and you.

From 1986 to 2005 The number of new legal immigrants admitted remained relatively stable at about 400,000 annually(http://www.migrationpolicy.org/) that is: eight million over the last 20 years. It is said that there are 12-20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. of A. Why has this happened? Why have 20-30 million foreign born people come to this country to live? Some come for freedom. Some come for educational opportunities. Others are recruited by industry. Each is a story in itself to be sure.

Many U.S. citizens, almost all the sons of immigrants, cry aloud, bemoaning this wave of immigration. The minor holocaust of 9/11 certainly amplified the chorus of nay and doomsayers. But if you ask this writer, we are in part, in large part responsible for this situation. The following has not been received well by those I have spoken it to, nonetheless I think we must consider our complicity in immorally and illegally making room for 20-30 million foreigners in this country.

We will fast approach the infamous distinction of having aborted 50 million. Call them fetuses, babies, unborn, preborn, infants—it hardly matters; what cannot be disputed is that almost half of those aborted would now be 18 years old, and would be English speaking persons at some adult stage of life. Many would be employed. Some would be in college. Some would be in the military, and others in Green Peace, some Democrats, others Republicans. Some would be disabled or chronically ill, or in prison. But most would be pulling their weight, and adding to the strength of the nation. In short, they would be human, and as a whole they would be just like the rest of us, but for the fact of their termination, their abortion.

Had they lived, they would be competing in the market place just like we are. And they would be spending their wages and salaries just like we do. In fact, there would be far fewer aliens sending U.S. dollars out of country! Our economy, stupid, would enjoy the fruits of their labors: millions (billions?) of dollars that now find there way into other nations economies.

I expect that half of all reading this will blow off my theory as ridiculous. But these are those who find the idea of a fetus being human ridiculous. I would not mind being deceived of all I have said. But of this I cannot be deceived: preborn infants are human at conception; their abortion is murder in the sight of God and of some men and women. If the fetus is not a human being, what are those who say it is not a human? And if and since fetuses are human, it is clear that those who have supported abortion have been deceived. And what are the deceived? They ARE DECEIVED. The deceived know not that they are deceived. Their deception calls all their knowledge into question. If you say it is no crime to abort a human fetus, I cannot even trust you to tell me water is wet.

2007-08-28T17:41:00.000-04:00

Click for:

Latest Post(s)

Abortion and Breast Cancer LINKED. Click for:

Proof site #1
Proof site #2
Proof site #3
Proof site #4
Proof site #5

Where are we?

2007-07-29T14:46:00.000-04:00

CLICK: Rev. 6:9-11

lambsev's blog group

2007-07-29T14:22:00.000-04:00

Click to visit:

The Lamb's poet

little lambs

lamb alive

lambsev @ myspace

lambspace

lamb.space.googlepages.com

want to help me?

2007-07-03T18:54:00.000-04:00

Submit your articles, or testimonies to me at lambsev@gmail.com. I they are worthy of the topic and need I will post them here wirh or without credit to your name.

Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits

2007-06-16T03:49:00.000-04:00

Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).

For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.

Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."

"During a year of great change and growth, and in a political climate of increasing assaults on sexual and reproductive rights and health, Planned Parenthood continued to make enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide," the statement adds.

Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."

"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time."

At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.

The report showed that income from clinics was down about $1.5 million from the previous year -- the first such decline in the organization's 50-year history -- while donations also fell by $3.6 million.

So why was Planned Parenthood able to report such a high profit?

"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.

"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said.

"Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."

The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI).

"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement.

Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted."

"This is essentially a savings account," he said. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."

Ratio of abortions to adoptions

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it "did not record a single adoption referral."

In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.

The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."

"You will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in the PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott observed.

Cybercast News Service previously reported that Planned Parenthood has faced financial struggles for the past several years. The organization's 2003-2004 fiscal year report showed it was performing more abortions at fewer clinics than in the past.

Cecile Richards became the group's new president in February of 2006, just as the clinics in her home state faced cutbacks and even shutdowns because of budget amendments passed by the Texas legislature.

And last December, STOPP International said that 2006 had been "another year of struggle for Planned Parenthood" since the number of clinics the organization operated had dropped to its lowest level since 1987.

Several abortion rights groups Thursday declined to comment on the finances of another organization.

In a recent statement, PPFA President Cecile Richards argued that more funding was needed for its work.

"Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly-funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the need," she said. "Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.

"As the leading advocate and provider of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood knows that affordable health care services and access to medically accurate health information and education are the keys to reducing teen pregnancy and to building strong, healthy families," Richards said.

But on Thursday, Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.

"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."

FRC's Perkins agreed. "With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout," he said.

All the abortion lies fit to print

2007-06-16T03:46:00.000-04:00

All the abortion lies fit to print

By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, January 3, 2007

It's official: The editors of The New York Times have no shame. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Times' own ombudsman, Byron Calame.

On Sunday, Calame wrote a stunning column debunking an April 9 New York Times Magazine cover story on abortion in El Salvador. The sensational piece by freelance writer Jack Hitt alleged that women there had been thrown in prison for 30-year terms for having had abortions. Hitt described his visit to one of them, inmate Carmen Climaco. "She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence" for aborting an 18-week-old fetus, Hitt reported.

The magazine featured heart-rending photos of Climaco's 11-year-old daughter, eyes filled with tears as she clutched a photo of her jailed mom. Cruel. Horrible. Outrageous. And utterly, demonstrably, false.

Climaco had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn baby. This information was uncovered by pro-life groups. Lifesite.net obtained the court documents in Climaco's case and published them on their website in late November. Calame followed up and also independently obtained the documents easily -- records which Hitt didn't bother to try and get for himself to verify the propaganda being fed to him. Reported Calame:

"The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn't meet the magazine's normal standards. Although Sarah H. Smith, the magazine's editorial manager, told me that relevant court documents are 'normally' reviewed, Mr. Hitt never checked the 7,600-word ruling in the Climaco case while preparing his story. And Mr. Hitt told me that no editor or fact checker ever asked him if he had checked the court document containing the panel's decision."

Obtaining the public document was as easy as requesting that a stringer for the Times in El Salvador walk into the court building without making any prior arrangements. Which is exactly what Calame did. It took the stringer mere minutes to get the court ruling.

The facts did not fit with Hitt's pro-abortion narrative. Authorities found Climaco's dead baby hidden in a box wrapped in bags under the bed of Mrs. Climaco. Moreover, Lifesite reported, forensic examination showed that it was a full-term normal delivery. The child was breathing at the time of birth. The official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.

Hitt's main sources of info came from a pro-abortion group called Ipas. The group would profit from legalized abortion in El Salvador since it peddles abortion vacuum aspirators. Hitt's translator consulted for Ipas, which launched a fund-raising campaign to free Carmen Climaco and bring her to America. Pro-abortion groups recycled Climaco's story, citing the Times' bogus propaganda to scare up opposition to any abortion restrictions here.

The Times' pro-abortion poster child is a woman convicted of infanticide. But the Times, questioned by its own public editor, refuses to acknowledge Jack Hitt's false reporting.

There is "no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported," the editors imperiously told Calame. They refuse to issue a correction, publish an Editors' Note or inform their readers of the ready availability of the court decision that exposes Jack Hitt's deception about the Climaco case.

Calame concluded that "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." That's too polite. The Times slung bull and they refuse to clean it up. The Times' Climaco-gate, like the Associated Press' Jamil Hussein-gate and Reuters' fauxtography scandal and CBS's Rathergate, will go down in mainstream history as yet another case of textbook media malpractice.

The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper's commitment to accuracy, fairness and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco. The next time journalism elites wonder why newspaper circulation is plunging, remember: Carmen Climaco. The next time MSM apologists deny liberal bias, ask them rhetorically -- "Atlas Shrugged"-style -- "Who is Carmen Climaco?"

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

©Creators Syndicate

NO ROOM

2007-03-28T17:27:00.000-04:00

In recent years, television, movies, and video games have grown more and more bloody and violent. Many (most?) Americans watch them and play them without any real thought as to their appeal, acceptance, or effect. Why do we now tolerate daily what was once abhorrent to us? How have we so easily adjusted to the gore?

I remember when I first saw CSI. The show was so bloody and grotesque I turned it off. Now I can watch it and barely squirm. Are we being adjusted to accept this without squirming? The world at large lives with wars, and with terrorism, yet is never adjusted to the shock of their blood and that of their loved ones spilt senselessly on the ground.

What truly saddens me, and sickens me is that our children suffer the bloodiest violence of any age group. The number one cause of death in the U.S.A. is not heart disease, or any other disease, it is simply abortion. The CDC reported the number of deaths in 2004 to be 2,398,343. They also report the leading causes of death for 2004, the latest year, found in the list below.

Age Groups
Rank
1-85
1 Heart Disease 652,029
2 Malignant Neoplasms 553,806
3 Cerebro-vascular 149,942
4 Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 121,951
5 Unintentional Injury 110,872
6 Diabetes Mellitus 73,134
7 Alzheimer's Disease 65,965
8 Influenza & Pneumonia 59,391
9 Nephritis 42,304
10 Septicemia 33,099

Yet in none of the CDC reports on “death” have I seen the word abortion appear. They do "track" abortion, calling it “legal induced abortion”.

One cannot escape that the fetus, the baby is alive until it is aborted. One cannot deny its DNA is different than the mother’s DNA. One cannot deny that unless the life is taken from the fetus, it will grow to become viable. Viable is the term used to mean the fetus can likely survive being born. Presently that means it must be very near 24 weeks old. But should one ever extinguish the hope of viability? This word viable itself is derived from roots meaning “live” or “alive”. From Merriam Webster’s Online dictionary, the definition of viable, comes this: Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL .

In a CDC web page I found this and quote: “In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.” (From Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000 by CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm ). Notice that deaths of 14 women, (the mothers) are acknowledged as death, but for the 857,475 abortions reported to the CDC, none were acknowledged as death! “Wanted dead and alive” seems to apply, as the CDC also reports on infant mortality. I quote from the CDC again: “The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000.
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm ).

The conclusion is that the CDC does not consider the fetus worthy of the appellation baby, or reckon abortion as the death of a baby. It is noteworthy that fetus is from Latin, a language still much alive in medicine and science, and fetus translated means “little one”. Yet the CDC does not associate the aborted fetus with death in any manner at all. If they did, abortion statistics, as deaths would be acknowledged as the number one cause of death in the US and many other countries. Even though now in slight decline, abortions still exceed 1,200,000 per year in the USA. Compare that figure to the chart above.

So why make all this trouble about abortion? Should we to be able to look at pictures of abortion as casually as we do CSI Miami, or 300 (the movie), or Grand Theft Auto. With this in mind open the following links:

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRD,GFRD:2007-12,GFRD:en&q=abortion&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Even with all the fake blood and guts I have seen on TV, these pictures are still very difficult to look at. If you are not offended at me for suggesting that abortion end, be at offended that most who see the need for abortion do so for their own freedom from responsible sexuality and freedom from child rearing- Moms and dads alike. There is no room for neutrality regarding abortion. It is murder. It's acceptance in this country, called the land of the free, the home of the brave, betrays the hypocrisy and/or the ignorance of many, from the least to the greatest of us. Yet again I dare say: THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEUTRALITY REGARDING ABORTION.

Written by David B, Severy © 2007

2007-02-12T01:48:00.000-05:00

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER LINKED

2006-10-09T12:54:00.000-04:00

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER LINKED

20 Year Old Findings Suppressed by Pro-choice Advocates

Since 1973 the rate of breast cancer among women in the U.S A. has nearly doubled. Abortion became legal in 1973. The rate has tripled since 1960. In Denmark, where abortion has been legal since 1939, studies show a 90% increase in risk for breast cancer in women who have had them. The studies overall have been so definitive that abortion proponents have suppressed the reports. A recent 1996 study was discredited by its own author because the studies did not agree with their pro-choice bias! Sadly, some women will likely not believe the same science that made abortion as a “procedure” safer (not safe) than those performed in the proverbial ‘back alley”, has now shown the a/bc link (abortion/breast cancer).

Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College, a doctor of Epidemiology, broke the story in with his study in the U.S. in 1982. He states that 13 of 15 U.S. studies uphold his findings, as do 28 of 37 studies worldwide. Now the truth must out by way of the web until it gains the recognition it deserves, that which it must get to save needless suffering. Breast cancer in women is a very painful, often disfiguring disease. Not to mention DEADLY when discovered too late. What was Dr. Brind’s reward for discovering this life saving information? He was “disassociated” from two unpaid (volunteer) positions at N.Y. hospitals.
“However, in questioning Brind’s credentials, she noted that he has been fired from Beth Israel Medical Center and Mount Sinai Medical Center, both in New York. Brind, who held unpaid positions at both institutions, said the disassociations occurred after he wrote an article for an English publication on the abortion, breast-cancer link.”

In Fargo, ND an abortion clinic was sued in March, 2002 over lack of sufficient (any?) warning to their clients about the link between breast cancer and abortion. Why? : Because the clinic was distributing info that decried the reports of the link in the medical community. They have a dog in that fight. If it is important enough to women to avoid breast cancer perhaps they will choose the child, or be more careful sexually. See the quote and link immediately below.
‘A recent example comes in the form of a court case in Fargo, North Dakota. The Red River Women's Clinic was distributing a pamphlet to potential customers that said, "Anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer and endangers future childbearing. None of these claims are [sic] supported by medical research or established medical organizations."’ (Emphasis in original.)

Others have taken a milder approach, witness the exerpt below from a June 2002 web article : “Abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before full-term pregnancy, appears to have no protective effect. In some studies, premature termination of pregnancy appears to increase breast cancer risk.” From Oncolink : Team Univ. of Pa. Cancer Center And this report points up the long known fact that bringing a baby full term and delivered actually reduces the risk of breast cancer. It seems clear that women are designed to have children, not abort them.
25
UI - 9243587
AU - Canty L
TI - Breast cancer risk: protective effect of an early first full-term pregnancy versus increased risk of induced abortion.
SO - Oncol Nurs Forum 1997 Jul;24(6):1025-31
AD - University of Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX, USA.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the question of whether an early first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) protects against breast cancer and whether interruption of the pregnancy with an induced abortion increases breast cancer risk. DATA SOURCES: Published medical and epidemiology journal articles, books, scientific reports, news interviews of researchers, scientific journals. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continually increasing breast cancer rates cannot be explained by the American Cancer Society risk factors, which account for only 25% of cases. Induced abortion is a newly recognized risk factor and has been prevalent in our society since it was legalized in 1973. CONCLUSIONS: Early FFTP confers protection, while induced abortion confers risk. Most specific and controlled variables studies indicate 150% risk for abortions performed on women younger than 18 years of age. Studies have yet to discover the full impact of induced abortion because women who underwent legalized abortion in 1973 are just reaching ages of highest breast cancer incidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSES: Awareness of a controversial risk factor and its relevance to women allows nurses to include this information when educating and supporting patients. Specifically, nurses need to include questions on this reproductive risk when eliciting a patient's reproductive history. Nurses should further be aware of the emotional impact disclosure may have. Also from ONKOLINK

So I resubmit the story: Abortion Breast Cancer Link Swamped In Tide Of Cowardly Political Correctness. And again, dear reader, you must be the judge.

These facts were found on three different web pages each written by a different author :

Fact: Estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
Fact: Most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
Fact: Maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy. Fact: Abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.
Fact: Pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.
Fact: The incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.

www.lifenews.com/ >>>-> search exact phrase: “abortion breast cancer link”

BEST story of the decade

2006-07-01T12:51:00.000-04:00

(used with the authors permission)
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CELEBRATION CRASHED BY ABORTION SURVIVOR

by Ted Harvey, assistant minority leader, Colorado House

She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.

I want to share with you an awesome experience I had in the Colorado House of Representatives on May 8. It is a humbling experience to look back and realize that God used me to play a role in His divine orchestration.

I was leaving the House chambers for the weekend when our Democrat speaker of the House announced that the coming Monday would be the final day of this year's General Assembly. He went on to state that there were still numerous resolutions on the calendar which we would need to be addressed prior to the summer adjournment. Interestingly, he specifically mentioned that one of the resolutions we would be hearing was being carried by the House Majority Leader Alice Madden, honoring the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

As a strong pro-life legislator I was disgusted by the idea that we would pass a resolution honoring this 90-year legacy of genocide. I drove home that night wondering what I could say that might pierce the darkness during the debate on this heinous resolution.

On Saturday morning, I took my 8-year-old son up to the mountains to go white-water rafting. The trip lasted all day. As we were driving home, exhausted and hungry, I remembered that I had accepted an invitation to attend a fundraising dinner that night for a local pro-life organization. One of my most respected mentors had personally called me several weeks earlier and asked me to attend, so I knew I'd have to clean up and head over.

After our meal, the executive director of the organization introduced the keynote speaker. I looked up and saw walking to the stage a handicapped young lady being assisted to the microphone by a young man holding a guitar.

Her name was Gianna Jessen.

Gianna said "Hello," welcomed everyone, and then sang three of the most beautiful Christian songs I have ever heard.

She then began to give her testimony. When her biological mother was 17 years old and seven and a half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. As God would have it, the abortion failed and a beautiful 2-pound baby girl was brought into the world. Unfortunately, she was born with cerebral palsy and the doctors thought that she would never survive. The doctors were wrong.

Imagine the timing! A survivor of a Planned Parenthood abortion arrived in town just days before the Colorado House of Representatives was to celebrate Planned Parenthood's "wonderful" work.

As I listened to Gianna's amazing testimony, the Lord inspired me to ask her if she could stay in Denver until Monday morning so that I could introduce her on the floor of the House and tell her story. Perhaps she could even begin the final day's session by singing our country's national anthem!
To my surprise she said she would seriously consider it. If she were to agree, she wanted her accompanying guitarist to stay as well. A lady standing in line behind me waiting to meet Gianna overheard our conversation and said that she would be willing to pay for the guitarist's room. Gianna then said that she would think about it.

As I was driving home from the banquet, my cell phone rang. It was Gianna, and she immediately said, "I'm in, let's ruin this celebration." Praise God!
When Monday morning came, I awoke at 6 a.m. to write my speech before heading to the Capitol. As I wrote down the words, I could sense God's help and I knew that this was going to be a powerful moment for the pro-life movement.

Following a committee hearing, I rushed into the House chambers just as the opening morning prayer was about to be given. Between the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy. I took the note to the speaker and asked if I could have my friend open the last day of session by singing the national anthem. Without any hesitation the speaker took the microphone and said, "Before we begin, Representative Harvey has made available for us Gianna Jessen to sing the national anthem."

Gianna sang the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner that you could possibly imagine. Every person in the entire chamber was completely still, quiet and in awe of this frail young lady's voice.

Due to her cerebral palsy, Gianna often loses her balance, and shortly after starting to sing she grabbed my arm to stabilize herself, and I could tell that she was shaking. Suddenly, midway through the song, she forgot the words and began to hum and then said, "Please forgive me; I am so nervous." She then immediately began singing again and every House member and every guest throughout the chambers began to sing along with her to give her encouragement and to lift her up.

As I looked around the huge hall I listened to the unbelievable melody of Gianna's voice being accompanied by a choir of over 100 voices. I had chills running all over my body, and I knew that I had just witnessed an act of God.

As the song concluded the speaker of the House explained that Gianna has cerebral palsy and is an activist to bring awareness to the disease. "Let us give her a hand not only for her performance today, but also for her advocacy work," he said. The chamber immediately exploded into applause -- she had them all in the palm of her hand.

The speaker then called the House to order, and we proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests. For dramatic effect, I waited until I was the last person remaining before I introduced Gianna.

As I waited for my turn, I nervously paced back and forth praying to God that he would give me the peace, confidence and the courage necessary to pull off what I knew would be one of the most dramatic and controversial moments of my political career.

While I waited, a prominent reporter from one of the major Denver newspapers walked over to Gianna and told her that her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before.

Finally, I was the last person remaining. So, I proceeded to the microphone and began my speech.

Members, I would like to introduce you to a new friend and hero of mine -- her name is Gianna Jessen. She is visiting us today from Nashville, Tennessee, where she is an accomplished recording artist.

She has cerebral palsy and was raised in foster homes before being adopted at the age of four.

She was born prematurely and weighed only 2 pounds at birth. She remained in the hospital for almost three months. A doctor once said she had a great will to live and that she fought for her life. Eventually she was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.

Because of her cerebral palsy, her foster mother was told that it was doubtful that she would ever crawl or walk. She could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of her foster mother, she eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. Shortly before her fourth birthday, she began to walk with leg braces and a walker.

She continued in physical therapy and after a total of four surgeries, she was able to walk without assistance.

She still falls sometimes, but she says she has learned how to fall gracefully after falling for 29 years.

Two years ago, she walked into a local health club and said she wanted a private trainer. At the time her legs could not lift 30 pounds. Today she can leg press 200 pounds.

She became so physically fit that she began running marathons to raise money and awareness for cerebral palsy. She just returned last week from England where she ran in the London Marathon. It took her more than eight-and-a-half hours to complete. They were taking down the course by the time she made it to the finish line. But she made it, nonetheless. With bloody feet and aching joints, she finished the race.

Members would you help me recognize a modern-day hero -- Gianna Jessen?

At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.

Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her.

As the applause began to die down, I raised my hand to be recognized one more time.

Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.

My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.

The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.

You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.

As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…"

BANG! The gavel came down.

Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my speech -- the climax of the morning -- the speaker of the House gaveled me down and said, "Representative

Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

At which point I said, "Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

Silence. Deafening silence.

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile.

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.

The headline in The Denver Post the next day read "Abortion Jab Earns Rebuke." The majority leader is quoted as saying, "I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother's womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives.

The paper went on to quote Gianna, stating she was glad I told her story.
"We need to discuss the humanity of it. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb," she said. "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

All I can say is, "Glory to God!" He orchestrated it all, every minute of it, and I was so honored to have been chosen to play a part. May we all continue to be filled with and to fight for the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you'd like to contact Ted Harvey, you may e-mail him at ted@tedharvey.com
For the fuller story and more : www.TedHarvey.com and wwww.tedharvey.com/gianna.htm

Should We Be Surprised?

2006-02-11T15:19:00.000-05:00

Pro-Abortion Scientist Finds Abortion Causes, Rather Than Prevents, Serious Mental Disorders

Results indicate over 90% of abortions therefore likely committed in violation of law

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand, February 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New research from a pro-abortion New Zealand scientist has found that abortion causes serious mental disorders. The study, by David Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences, tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years. It showed that women who have had abortions, even when previous indicators are taken into account, have a much higher than average experience of serious psychological disturbances.

Fergusson had anticipated that his research would prove the abortion advocate propaganda that abortion relieves anxieties and gives women a greater sense of control over their lives. He assumed that problems experienced by post-abortive women would be traceable to mental health problems that had existed before the abortion.

In England and New Zealand, indeed, in most jurisdictions around the world, abortion is legal when a woman’s health is considered to be threatened by the continuance of pregnancy. The key to making this provision the equivalent to abortion on demand has been to define “health” as including “psychological health” as broadly as necessary to allow abortion in every case. The great majority of abortions are committed on the “mental health” myth, according to the abortion industry’s own admission.

That myth may now be seriously challenged by the research that showed women who have abortions, experience “elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders.”

The abortion industry is not going to be pleased with the results of the research. Fergusson presented his results to New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee, and according to The New Zealand Herald, the committee told Fergusson that it would be “undesirable to publish the results in their ‘unclarified’ state.”

See a more extensive review of the major implications of this research in today’s LifeSiteNews.com *Special Report* by the Elliot Institute:

Abortion Causes Mental Disorders: New Zealand Study May Require Doctors To Do Fewer Abortions
Pro-Choice Researcher Says Some Journals Rejected Politically Volatile Findings
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/060210a.html

Heart Healthy

2006-01-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

Study Finds Normal Sexual Relations Have Health Benefit
but Not Gay or Other Sex

By Terry Vanderheyden PAISLEY, Scotland, January 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Research has long confirmed the health-promoting benefits of sexual intercourse. By strengthening the emotional bond between spouses, regular sexual intercourse has been shown to reduce the risk for heart attack by up to 50% in some studies. A new UK study adds to those findings revealing that only heterosexual intercourse - not homosexual sex or self abuse - has significant stress-reducing effects, as measured by blood pressure responses to stressful situations. The research conducted by Dr. Stuart Brody from Paisley University is summed up by its title: "Blood pressure reactivity to stress is better for people who recently had penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) than for people who had other or no sexual activity." Published in the February issue of Biological Psychology, Brody found that blood pressure measured during stressful periods - such as after public speaking or doing "verbal arithmetic" - was significantly reduced in those who had "PVI" within a two-week period. Those who had engaged in the abnormal sexual practices had no alteration of their stress response. On average, a 14 point (systolic) reduction in blood pressure was observed in those who engaged in "PVI" before a stressful event. "The magnitude of the sexual behaviour effect on BP reactivity is greater than of other factors in the literature," his research stated. "The effects are not attributable simply to the short-term relief afforded by orgasm, but rather, endure for at least a week," he added, as reported by New Scientist. Brody speculated that oxytocin, the "pair-bonding" hormone, released between heterosexual partners may be the reason for the calming effects. Adding to this have been other reports confirming that not only is heterosexual sex more beneficial than other sexual practices, those benefits are most pronounced among couples in committed, life-long marriages. A 100-page report, by Dr. Matthew D. Bramlett and his team at U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in Hyattsville, Maryland, confirmed that married people, as reported in the Washington Times, "are likely to live longer, engage in less risky behavior, be more health conscious and have more satisfying sexual lives, higher wages and larger savings than unmarried people. Marriage Means Happier Relationship Says Study http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02072504.html

I'll see you

2005-10-29T14:17:00.000-04:00

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...

The Mathematics of Life

2005-09-25T17:45:00.000-04:00

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

The Studies

2005-09-06T15:17:00.000-04:00

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

Facts for thought

2005-08-09T15:34:00.000-04:00

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)

THE NEGRO PROJECT

2005-08-05T12:21:00.000-04:00

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

Each One

2005-07-26T18:20:00.000-04:00

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

OUR POSTERIRY

2005-07-25T16:02:00.000-04:00

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

An Honest Murderer ???

2005-07-19T11:32:00.000-04:00

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

Sandra Day O’Connor’s Vacancy

2005-07-01T14:55:00.000-04:00

The only issue of any real importance before the Supreme(ly unseemly) Court today is Abortion. Unfortunately the country seems to be without much active protest against this mind numbing heart hardening crime against humanity.

The level of greed indicated by persons who both promote and profit from the "proceedures", and from the absence of "expensive" children is not appalling to a sinner like myself. But God, who chooses our delusions (Isaiah 66:4) never even dreamed of the sacrifice of infants (Jeremiah 32:35).

Who replaces Mrs. O'Connor will be good for the nation only if he/she leads us closer to the day when our posterity is protected from murderers cloaked in medical uniforms spewing "liberal democratic" rhetoric. (liberal and democratic are good words made filthy by these creeps and other kinds of creeps)

Consider that nearly half of the 40,000,000 aborted boys and girls(that's 20 million) would today have already entered the work force or college or the military; and additionally would be paying taxes and Soc.Sec. payroll taxes. It only makes sense to me that we return to the day when we raise our own children and let them enjoy the fruits now being (legally and illegally) offered to the flood of foriegners on our soil.

Well, God got it right again: Proverbs 14:34--->Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. We are reproached every time an illegal fills a job, and everytime a legal alien takes an education and a career out of the country(they call it outsourcing).

Abortion is so hard to think about, you know. But if you don't, and don't oppose it, you will oppose little if any other abomination.

The Better Half as Medicine

2005-05-24T09:25:00.000-04:00

******************************!*****************************************************
Dearest Ones, great and little,
Here is a part of an article in today's paper. It shows that God was right saying "It is not good for man to be alone.", and "he who finds a wife finds a good thing". May God bless ABUNDANTLY all the faithful wives out there who are blessing, loving and caring for their husbands. Dave, aka lambsev, also at www.lambspoet.blogspot.com aka the Lamb's poet. PS I wonder what research on homosexual male "couples" might show regarding Prostate cancer? D.

Marriage a balm for patients with prostate cancer
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 24, 2005
There's a new secret weapon in the battle against prostate cancer: A wife.
The University of California at Los Angeles announced yesterday that married prostate cancer patients have "significantly improved quality of life" over their single counterparts when facing the rigors of treatment and its aftermath.
Married patients experience an improved sense of "spiritual well-being," fewer adverse effects from treatment and less anxiety about the disease, according to new research. Married men even have less distressing symptoms.
"The message for men with prostate cancer is this: It is good to be partnered and have a support system following treatment," said Dr. Mark Litwin, a urologist with the university's Jonsson Cancer Center.
Prostate cancer is the second-deadliest cancer for men and will strike 232,090 of them this year, according to the American Cancer Society.

"I KNEW THAT!"

2005-05-15T15:26:00.000-04:00

Dear Ones, I discovered the following article on the web site www.fresh_hope.com. It's another read it and weep, mourn, wail AND REPENT (TRUE)story. Something we all need to know about, and share; though the crafty devil will try to thwart knowledge of it. Dave

Revealed: how an abortion puts the next baby at risk
By Michael Day (Filed: 15/05/2005)

Having an abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early in a later pregnancy, according to research that will provoke fresh debate over the most controversial of all medical procedures.

A French study of 2,837 births - the first to investigate the link between terminations and extremely premature births - found that mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation. Many babies born this early die soon after birth, and a large number who survive suffer serious disability.

Peter Bowen-Simpkins: 'termination may have late complications'
The research leader, Dr Caroline Moreau, an epidemiologist at the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris, said the results of the study, which appear in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, provided conclusive evidence of a link between induced abortion and subsequent pre-term births.

Last night anti-abortion campaigners seized on the evidence to demand that all women seeking a termination be warned, routinely, that they are jeopardising the well-being of future babies. A series of earlier, smaller studies had failed to provide clear evidence of a link and so women currently opting for an abortion are not warned of the risk.

Dr Moreau said: "Clearly there is a link. The results suggest that induced abortion can damage the cervix in some way that makes a premature birth more likely in subsequent pregnancies."

Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure.

Mr Peter Bowen-Simpkins, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a consultant obstetrician at the Sancta Maria Hospital in Swansea, said the study revealed that abortion might not be as safe as previously supposed. "This study shows that surgical termination of pregnancies may have late complications and may not be without risk," he said.

About 185,000 women have abortions in Britain each year, for social or medical reasons, and last night anti-abortion campaigners seized upon the new study as evidence that the risks have been underplayed.

Jack Scarisbrick, the chairman of the campaign group Life, said: ''We have been saying for years that surgical abortion inevitably increases the risk of later problems. It seems that the abortion procedure carries with it risks that women will know nothing about until they become pregnant with a 'wanted' child later on."

About 80,000 babies in the UK and Ireland are born prematurely each year; 17,000 of these need intensive care.

A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births "because so far, they have not been established".

photo of the CENTURY

2004-10-20T18:41:00.000-04:00

Dear ones,
again, this story with its amazing photo is worthy of another
post. click on:
www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024070.cfm

you've never seen anything quite like this, i'm sure

little lambs

2004-10-16T13:39:00.000-04:00

Dear Ones, When I started the blog I was an ametuer. Well, I'm still an ametuer, but the new name better reflects the blog's purpose, don;t you think? lambsev

More Abortion Facts

2004-10-07T11:55:00.000-04:00

I'm still looking for the site I copied this list from, I want to give credit and make the site accessable, lambsev

Abortion is the medically induced, premature death of a pre-born baby in the womb. There are several methods used:

*** Suction Aspiration
The method of abortion most commonly used in first trimester abortions. A powerful vacuum suction tube is put into the dilated uterus. The suction tears the soft baby apart and removes it from the uterus.

*** Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
The dilation of the cervix which permits the insertion of a sharp surgical instrument will be used to dismember the baby's developing body.

*** Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E)
Used after 12 weeks, this method is identical to the D&C method except that forceps are used to twist and tear away the body that now has calcified bones.

*** Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection)
Used after 16 weeks. A long needle is inserted into the mothers abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby breathes in swallowing the deadly toxin and is poisoned. The mother delivers a dead or dying baby.

*** Prostaglandin
Hormones, developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co., are injected into the amniotic sac to induce contractions. In an article about this method, one of the complications listed was 'live birth'.

*** Hysterectomy
Similar to a Cesarean Section, this method employed by abortionists almost always results in a live birth. The baby is left to die by neglect or direct art.

*** Dilatation and Extraction (D&X)
By pulling on the baby's legs with forceps, the legs arc delivered, followed by the torso, arms and shoulders. The baby's head 'usually' remains inside the uterus. Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the baby's skull is pierced where a suction catheter is inserted to extract the 'skull contents.' Fetal brains and organs are used for fetal 'tissue' experimentation.
No Safe Abortions

There is no such thing as "a safe legal abortion." Abortion is a decriminalized crime against humanity.

Many women often experience debilitating physical and psychological complications. As Christians, we know Jesus Christ will forgive us of all confessed and repented sin. Unfortunately, some women and men have a hard time
forgiving themselves and are thus hindered in their growth.

It's the ECONOMY Sweetheart!!!!! or has it got so bad we don't want our children?

2004-10-04T14:30:00.000-04:00

Ever see that sign that says "PLAN AHEAD"? The one where the sign maker didn't, and the letters run out of space and are all scrunched in at the end?
This is about the forward thinking Social Engineers, you know, the ones who want to rule the world by population control, eugenics, euthenasia and the like. Nobody knew but God what their schemes would create. A REAL MESS, that's what it did.
Think about it. Every year since 1973, more than 1,000,000 persons didn't show up for life. Down the road they didn't show up for pre-K, K, elementary, secondary, or "higher" education. And they didn't show up for work either. Now some people think this a stretch, but guess who DID show up? So far about 16,000,000 illegal aliens from Latin and South America, and a few from other places i'm sure.
In 1994 the first years aborted children would have turned 18, old enough to work and vote. So for 10 years, 1994 to 2004 each years lost "crop" of 1 to 1 and 1/2 million 18 yr. olds were not there : to fill the jobs or college classes that are now open by necessity to legal and illegal aliens from all around the globe (including the Muslim nations).
I call this INSOURCING. What ever it is, it rolls right along with the problems experienced in Europe today, where the white europeans are going into negative population growth, notably in Italy. This is not likely the result of decreasing copulation, but highly likely related to abortions there also. They are really being overrun by the muslims, France is said to be nearly 20% muslim!!!! That's one person of five, think about that cowboys and girls!!!!
Outsourcing is due to pressures created by abortion as well. The numbers are large numbers. Ten to fifteen million out of forty million aborted babys are ADTA : ABSENT DUE TO ABORTION; and each year another 1 to 1.5 million will join their ranks. Each would have not only added their wealth creating labor, but more importantly their own unique gifts and talents. A SHAME !!!!!
As is my custom, I give you this link to find more on the economic impacts of abortion : http//www.nrlc.org/ Go to their search and enter "economic impact" and click Find! This will keep you busy if your so inclined. lambsev 10/4/04

COMPARED TO WHAT?!

2004-10-03T19:40:00.000-04:00

This is a shocker every time I consider it:

The TOTAL war dead in all U.S. wars, that is correct- all! --
--- is under 1 million. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs reports
battle deaths plus all other deaths in and out of theater at
894,468. See http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm for
the report. These are they that gave their lives that the
abortion doctor could be free????? FREE to take away the lives of
40,000,000 american citizens? In a society that is now starting to sell PET insurance!!! Can the end be far off? Does the phrase "skewed prioroties" apply? if you are not close to apoplexy as I am check your conscience, or look in the mirror. Maybe you did morph into a cockroach when you weren't looking.

We need a law, or a constitutional ammendment or an executive order that says ANY HUMAN LIFE CONCEIVED ON U.S. SOIL IS A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. of A.

www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

AS DEADLY AS A B C

2004-10-02T15:35:00.000-04:00

This is another "story", a nightmare really that's at least 20 yrs. old, but who has heard about this one out in tv land? Very few I fear. Not even talk radio seems overly concerned, especially Les Kinsolving on WCBM 680 AM: Baltimore, Md. 8-10PM-Monday to Friday: Telephone: local 410-922-6680 or free at 1-800-922-6680 {big hint to call him and read him the baby's riot act on the air} Dr. Joel Brind has been in medicine a long time. Back around 1980 he put 2 and 2 together and got fired! When he published his findings that one induced abortion increased a woman's chance of DEADLY BREAST CANCER by 30 - 90 % the medical community ganged up on him, and the media has carried their water for them.
Seems what happens is that estrogen naturally builds up in a pregnant woman's breasts. It is released by some marvelous process after birth through nursing the fetus ooops I mean BABY. But an induced abortion traps the estrogen in the breasts. It is not released naturally and so remains in the breasts overtime. Well, the fact is that estrogen levels are pretty important in female physiology. We might all get it some day: it's not nice to fool with mother nature or MOTHER EITHER!!!
The best links are found through www.abortionbreastcancer.com and www.abortionfacts.com .

DEFENDING THE "INDEFENSIBLE"?

2004-10-01T17:20:00.000-04:00

No one I've met has a good answer for the question "What about the 12 yr. old girl raped and pregnant?" or "... raped and pregnant by her father/uncle/brother?" Well, click on this one cowboys and girls! --------> www.gargaro.com/guestbook/response20.html
It's good!!! Then click the 3rd link listed at the end: Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths. It's even better!!! Have a happy Sabbath ev'bdy Dave

LINKsLINKS LINKS LINKsLINKS

2004-09-30T13:32:00.000-04:00

THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITE LINKS.

www.nrlc.org
www.abortionfacts.com
www.abortionbreastcancer.com
www.gargaro.com
www.family.org
www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a2004070.cfm

PURPOSE

2004-09-25T15:50:00.000-04:00

My purpose in setting up the blog is to revive interest in advancing the pro- life cause. It seems to be that a mandate for change can only come thru a grass roots movement to change minds, to become a majority view capable of voting in a majority of pro lifers to the Congress (U.S.). Well, if this is so, lets get rolling.

http://abortionfacts.com/

I have found this site to be one of the best sources if info on the horrors of abortion. It also has some wonderful stories of children who survived attempted abortions, and some who are the children of rape. There are also some very graphic photos. Although they are difficult to view, they are very effective and persuasive tools with which to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn child. They have lots of links.

I hope you will comment. Please share new ideas, tactics and stategies for persuading the pro "choice" peeps. Also, lets remember to educate our own children. The schools and universities will have them educated otherwise, and in a heartbeat if they can. Sincerely, Dave