Planned Parenthood is in the business of abortion. Big business abortion is the name of their game.
Here is something I saw on the site of The Christian Post:
Planned Parenthood Clinic Offers ‘Black Friday’ Discount for Birth Control, Abortions
The traditional first-day of Christmas shopping known as “Black Friday” has taken on an entirely different meaning for a South Florida Planned Parenthood clinic that offered special pricing on birth control and emergency contraception to women if they visited the clinic between certain hours.
In what appears to be an email offer to a supporter, the message read: “Dear Anne, We are truly thankful for all our patients and supporters, so this Thanksgiving we are offering a day after Thanksgiving special! Visit the Kendall or West Palm Beach health center for this one-day deal.”
The Coupon by Planned Parenthood of South Florida offered $10.00 off for a visit on Friday, November 23, between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. The coupon was also good for $5.00 off of an “emergency contraception.”[…]
Read the rest there.
Planned Parenthood, originally started for the purpose of eugenics and genocide, is not really about women.
It’s about money.
Loading ...
Translation: Kill your child on Black Friday and get $10 off. In business terms, contraception is the loss-leader, abortion is where the money is. Black Friday sales are usually loosing deals for the store. They hope that once you ar ein the store you will spend money on other items. Same thing goes for Planned Parenthood. Draw people in with cheap contraception and rake in the dough on abortions.
I guess Christmas really isn’t for kids anymore …
solemnchange, to add to what you said, contraception over a period of time eventually fails so leads to abortion, so essentially they are creating future customers. Sort of like giving away the razor so you can sell blades.
Sorry, that should be solemncharge, fat finger syndrome strikes again.
This is disgusting!
“Planned Parenthood, originally started for the purpose of eugenics and genocide, is not really about women.”
Planned parenthood wasn’t started for eugenics, even though that’s the direction that Sanger eventual went (on her own). Sanger originally started it because she saw her mother become debilitated from her 17 pregnancies/miscarriages, then she died in her early 50’s from cervical cancer. Sanger also saw imigrant women trying to deal with housing/feeding all of their children. I think we have to be honest and not exagerate things because it hurts our cause. Yes, I’m prolife. Yes, I know the racist quotes attributed to Sanger. The need she saw was real, she was just very midguided in how to help.
My wife is the president of the pro-life committee at our FSSP parish. This morning I helped her deliver diapers, clothes, etc…, that our parish had collected to a local pregnancy counseling center that has the approbation of our bishop.
The staff was very gracious, and gave the two of us a complete tour of the place, which is in an old Victorian home. They’ve created a very warm, welcoming facility. One of the rooms we visited was the ultra-sound room, where the expectant mothers are shown their unborn children on a large monitor and can hear its heartbeat. The lady giving us the tour stopped there and told us a story she said she’d “never forget.”
As tears welled in her eyes and her voice broke, she told us of one young lady who came in, trying to make a final decision after she’d been urged to abort. When the young lady saw her baby on the screen, and heard the thump of its heart, she began to cry. She said, “they told me when I went to see them there wasn’t a baby there.”
I asked the lady telling the story, “who did she mean by ‘they?’ ”
She answered, “Planned Parenthood.”
“Sanger originally started it because she saw her mother become debilitated from her 17 pregnancies/miscarriages, then she died in her early 50?s from cervical cancer.”
The sad thing is that if she had waited until we had a better understanding of cancer, she might have realized that those 17 pregnancies probably delayed the onset of cancer by years. Nun studies are showing an increased risk of certain types of cancers (can’t remember if it is cervical or uterine) for women who have not had a child by the age of 35(?).
The Chicken
Gross, man.
I mean, just gross. Gross.
Ah, Margaret Sanger.
My favorite Sanger quips come from her private correspondence (which is housed at Smith College, if I’m not mistaken). There are letters between her and Clarence Gamble, I’m not mistaken, where she talks about the need for useful idiots among the African American community, preferably clergy, to further the eugenics program there. Fun stuff!
Chicken: Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV viruses. You are infected by someone who has “been with” someone else before, and so on. Some strains give you genital warts. Pregnancies do not prevent this cancer from developing.
I don’t know for sure about uterine cancer, but that kind has other causes (hormones, genetics, bad luck).
Ovarian cancer is another thing. The cancer starts in the scars left from the bursting follicles (one per month), and the more children you have had, the less ovulations – less scarring – lower risk for ovarian cancer.
VexillaRegis,
Thanks for refreshing my memory about HPV. So, then, what does her 17 pregnancies have to do with the cancer? I don’t see Sanger’s point. If HPV is transmitted by infected people, then what does this imply? Anything? Bach’s wife had 23 children and died peacefully. I do not accept Sanger’s argument.
“Sanger also saw imigrant women trying to deal with housing/feeding all of their children.”
That is a problem in immigration reform (as in help for the immigrant), not an argument for not having children.
Again, she taught nothing of real substance not already known to the Church. Hers was not a crusade that was should have been waged, since she abandoned Catholic principles from the start (she was Catholic and did not inform herself according to the mind of the Church), else we would be having lovely adoption practices instead of abortions. Sex would be reserved to marriage instead of being made into society-accepted fornication. No, she was not the person for the job.
Can you help me pinpoint the exact moment it became impossible to parady the unintentionally absurd Left? Surely it happened long before this story.
Chicken: I think MS tried to say that her mother, after having had 17 pregnancies, didn’t live to have any rest from her womanly work – she died of a cancer that only women get. That said, I don’t completely get her reasoning either. It’s possible, that Sanger wrote this before the scientists knew about the connection between HPV and cervical cancer, which was rather recently. MS’s mother wouldn’t have died from cerv. canc. if she hadn’t been infected by her husband or an other man. If you have your pap smear ( at the PP, Sanger thought?) regularily, you will likely be able to nip the cancer in the bud.
I’m NOT defending MS at all! We women have the right to have good health care, but not at the expense of children’s lives. Maybe her father should have been told not to burden his wife with so many pregnancies?
Anyway, Bach had two wives, with Maria Barbara he had seven children and with Anna Magdalena thirteen.
“Anyway, Bach had two wives, with Maria Barbara he had seven children and with Anna Magdalena thirteen.”
Shame on me for not knowing that (!) – when I was in graduate school in musicology, we learned that Bach had twenty-odd children, but not being a Bach specialist, I had forgotten about his two marriages. Still, 13 children is not nothing.
Contrast Sanger’s response of her mother’s life to that of St.Therese of Liseaux. Her mother, Bl. Zelie Martin had 9 children (5 survived) and died at 45 from breast cancer while Therese was almost 5 years old. Did Therese go on a crusade to prevent pregnancies? of course not. She knew that children are gifts.
I say, again, this was not a proper crusade.
The Chicken
Why do my comments keep getting put into the moderation queue? I had a nice post contrasting Sanger to St. Therese of Liseaux and it got sent to moderation :(
The Chicken
I have to second what drea916 said. I am NOT, and have never been, any fan or defender of Margaret Sanger, and I agree that PP has done a great deal of evil. That said, I think pro-lifers try to read too much into some of Sanger’s statements and take them out of context. I think it is important for pro-lifers to stick to proven facts at all times and not give the other side any reason to impugn our credibility.
For example, the often cited “we don’t want word to get out that we are trying to exterminate the Negro race” quote. In all probability, it did NOT mean Sanger really wanted to wipe out African-Americans — it meant she wanted to avoid giving any PERCEPTION or appearance of trying to “exterminate” the black race. There are other quotes often attributed to her by pro-lifers that are misquotes or lack documentation, e.g. “the most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its members is to kill it.”
Also, her statements in support of eugenics mainly date from the 1920s, when eugenics was considered by many to be a legitimate, promising new field of science that would improve the quality of people’s lives, and long before the Nazis gave it a bad name. She was very much opposed to the Nazi eugenics program. I agree with drea, “the need she saw was real, but she was very misguided in how to help.”
@bookworm
No offense, but your statement gives me the impression that you are indeed defending Sanger. Now, you say that pro-lifers lack documentation on what Sanger meant, but where is your documentation to back your claims?
, when eugenics was considered by many to be a legitimate, promising new field of science that would improve the quality of people’s lives, and long before the Nazis gave it a bad name
So you imply that there is a good and a bad eugenics?
No, I did NOT say there is a “good” eugenics. I merely said that eugenics in the 1920s was ASSUMED by many people to be a promising field of science — much the same way that phrenology or astrology were at various times thought to be legitimate sciences. To borrow a phrase from Mark Shea, you could say that eugenics in the 1920s was still in the “what could it hurt?” phase; only after the Nazis did it reach the “how were we supposed to know?” phase. There were, of course, some people like G.K. Chesterton who saw eugenics right from the start as the evil it was, but a lot of people did not.
As for the provenance of some of Sanger’s famous quotes, perhaps that is a more complex issue than I made it out to be at first. Try googling “quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger” and read what different sites — BOTH pro-life and pro-abortion — have to say, and then check out this article from the Get Religion blog:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2011/11/fact-checkers-agree-lay-off-sangers-eugenics/
The story at this link notes that none other than Martin Luther King praised Sanger later in her career (she died in 1966). Not sure what to make of that, except that people who are very right on some issues (like MLK on segregation) can be very wrong and misguided about others.
In any event, my main concern is not to “defend” Sanger but to caution pro-lifers against making exaggerated claims that will damage their credibility on other issues. You can be staunchly opposed to the modern Planned Parenthood and believe that its aims are evil, without turning Sanger into a caricature of what she actually was.