Monday, April 30, 2007
Morning After Pill
More evidence that pharmacists in the US are routinely restricting access to the morning after pill from Ginger Miss, who asked her boyfriend to pick some up for her. Although the law guarantees both men and women the right to buy emergency contraceptives, he ran into problems when he tried to exercise that right.
BLUEY SUCKS!!!
Bluey the Body Rights Thingamabob teaches Dawn Eden about choice
Published by punkass marc April 24th, 2006 in Reproductive Rights, Bodily Autonomy, EdumakashunJill from Feministe has tackled the gargantuan task of remaining measured and polite while arguing for freedom of choice over at Dawn Eden’s soundstage. I can’t imagine how she keeps her cool as the oh-so-enlightened wingnuttery labels her a Nazi and such; she’s got real Christian patience, that one.
Like Jill and many of our friendly scientists, I don’t believe a fetus is a human being. But for some reason, maybe you do. Jill responds to the implications for choice:
But that said, even if we could demonstrate that a fetus was the full equivalent of a human being, I would still be in favor of abortion rights, because I don’t think that any human being has the right to use another’s organs and body for its own survival without that person’s consent.
Dawn counters:
If one believes that the humanity of the unborn child does not matter because a mother is not responsible for the human life growing inside her, then no one is responsible for another in any way. Parents are not responsible for their children and children are not responsible for their elderly or disabled parents. Husbands are not responsible for their elderly or disabled wives, and vice versa. No one has any responsibility to the poor, unfortunate, or suffering.
I’m too angry at Dawn’s ignorance to respond as politely as Jill might, so I’ve asked an associate to guest-blog a response for me. Punkassfriends, please meet my pal, Bluey, the Body Rights Thingamabob:
Bluey wants to transmit a message of body rights and tolerance that the young and Dawn Eden should be able to grasp…
—————————————————————–
Bluey:
Hi kids!
Kids:
Hi Bluey!!
Bluey:
Do you know where I escaped from?
Kids:
The Land of Forced Body Mutilation!!
Bluey:
That’s right! The Land of Forced Body Mutilation, where Grumpus Tuskamorts lurk around every corner waiting to steal parts of your body, whether you like it or not. Do you kids like Grumpus Tuskamorts?
Kids:
Noooooo!!
Bluey:
That’s good! Because Grumpus Tuskamorts don’t like you, either. They just like themselves. Why, look at me! I used to have a heart this big until one took it from me so he could use it. Now I can barely love anything at all.
Kids:
Awwwww!
Bluey:
Lucky for me, I was able to get away so I could warn you kids about the dangers of other people controlling your body. Now, I want to ask you kids a question. If your brother or sister was sick and needed one of your kidneys to live, would you choose give it to him or her?
Kids:
Yes, Bluey!!
Bluey:
That’s great! You would choose to give up your kidney to help out someone you love. You kids have big hearts… hey, can I have one?
[audience giggles]
Now, instead of your brother or sister, let’s say that a man from Nicaragua is sick and wanted your kidney so he could live. Would you choose to give him your kidney?
[audience murmurs, a few children raise their hands]
It’s okay, kids, there’s no right answer. Some of you would, and some of you wouldn’t. That’s the beauty of choice! Now, let’s say that same man flew here, cloroformed you, cut out your kidney, and left you in a pool of ice with a note to call 911 without asking permission first. Would that be okay?
Kids:
Noooooo!!
Bluey:
Good! He coerced you into giving up part of your body so he could live. And even though he was going to die if he didn’t, he had no right to take your body from you against your will. Only you can choose what to do with your body, kids. It’s the one thing to which you have an inalienable right. Can you say inalienable?
Kids:
[silence]
Bluey:
….anyway, it’s all yours. If a baby or a fetus or a fireman or Saddam Hussein wanted to use your body so it could live, you have the right to say “no.” Now, does that give you a right to kill them if they don’t need to use your body to live?
Kids:
Noooooo!!
Bluey:
That’s fantastic! Now you kids understand why Dawn Eden’s “natural law argument” is a complete fallacy. There’s a big difference between killing someone and being required to give up part of your body against your will so they can live. I think you kids are ready to do battle with the evil Grumpus Tuskamorts now, don’t you?
Kids:
Yeah!!
Bluey:
Great! Let’s celebrate! Anyone got some blow?
—————————————————————–
Err, I think I’ll cut Bluey off there, but I hope he made the argument for body rights as clearly and simply as possible. Even if a fetus is somehow a human being, which it isn’t, no woman has to give up any part of her body for it against her will, the same way she shouldn’t be forced to give up or rent any part of herself to save Saddam Hussein. She can’t just up and _kill_ anyone, either, but I hope everyone can see the difference now.
Everyone but those pesky Grumpus Tuskamorts, anyway.
Poem about MY RIGHTS
Poem about My Rights
June Jordan, “Poem About My Rights” from Directed By Desire: The Collected Poems of June Jordan (Port Townsend, WA: Copper Canyon Press, 2005). Copyright © 2005 by The June M. Jordan Literary Trust. Used by permission of The June M. Jordan Literary Trust, www.junejordan.com.
Source: The Collected Poems of June Jordan (Copper Canyon Press, 2005)
A Voice for the Children
Below is an article about human rights. There are several links to different articles related to the same issues.
STOP STATE SEIZURE OF NEWBORNS - PRESERVE HUMAN FAMILY BODY RIGHTS
By Pamela Gaston,
A voice for children
| NCHR's Comments. The taking of newborns from their mothers at birth is a particularly inhuman practice. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the following: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." In its verdict in the Case of K & T v. Finland, "§ 144. (...) the mother's psychotic behaviour only hours after having found out that she had been deprived of her new-born baby cannot serve as a reason supporting a decision already made. Nor can a possible threat of such behaviour, in the case of a forthcoming care order, justify such a decision. The Court finds it likely that any mother - with or without mental history - would, in such circumstances, face a risk of behavioural disturbances." Family, the cornerstone of every society, must be protected from unnecessary attacks and interferences from the State. Pamela Gaston has produced a form "NOTIFICATION / PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS" which follows this article. |
There is nothing we deal with that is harder than the terrified women who call for help who are pregnant and know that the STATE VULTURES are soon going to TAKE THEIR INFANTS AT BIRTH.
Being a mother, the grief of this is beyond comprehension, yet we deal with many of these cases - four right now that are going to have babies soon and are facing complete destruction of their Family Body. The STATE is making so much money and their goal is the children, especially the infants, that more families every day are being hit and shredded in this rendering machine.
Recently, judge Guimond in Salem, chair of the Multidisciplinary Task Force, the bridge between the federal money and the greedy little vipers at the state level, stated at a meeting "since the young single mothers are the most likely to put their children at risk it would be a great idea to write an initiative to take ALL children from ALL young single mothers, that being a major risk factor".
Also remember, POVERTY is a risk factor, so if you don't make a certain standard of money you are "failing to provide" for the child and it is removed for the state to provide for it. People never realized that where the Benchmarks Goals 2000 states "by the year 2010 there will be no more children living in poverty in Oregon" that it meant because all those children will be removed from their families. Last year, as the criminal Dr Kitzhaber promoted this whole family abuse plan, he stated that 60% of
Recently we were asked to speak at a school who were studying the Family Protection Amendment initiative we wrote. The realization hit that I would be speaking to a whole class of young women and I would have to tell them that EVERY ONE OF THEIR BABIES IS AT RISK IN OREGON !!! EVERY ONE OF THEIR FAMILIES IS AT RISK TO BE DESTROYED. It was overwhelming to realize how dangerously our freedoms have been stripped and how aggressively this government is moving to saturate their agenda.
The following NOTIFICATION/PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS is for any woman who faces having her newborn removed from her breast after ten minutes at the hospital, without crime, without law, by the STATE snatch 'n sell agency. This woman, like so many others, lost a child to the state years ago, and automatically every child she has borne every since has been removed from her at birth. No matter what changes go on in her life, no matter how long has passed, no matter a different father, whole new family relationships, the baby is taken.
This is the Family Police main goal and main money maker. The Adoption Safe Families Act runs the courts with their federal funding streams that finance the courts but require compliance rules and enforcements. The new Oregon Children Plan in
The hospital and the state assess the mothers and families with an insane risk factor list and decide whether or not you will take your child home. In the zoos, the zookeepers do not touch the primate newborns knowing it will break the bond between mother and child, and the child will less likely thrive. The abuse of the human infants by the state for profit is kidnapping, as the baby is stolen - seized usually without charging anyone with a crime. It is also genocide against a CLASS of People, "low income", who are targeted for these compelled contracts and federal money spent to pay companies like Arthur Andersen to find all "welfare qualifying" families, to "offer" them "help".
They are violating their own rules, in order to get the federal money it says the child has to have suffered abuse in a recent event by the one alleged to have abused it. Most of the cases of the infants taken are automatic and no alleged abuse at all.
They make upwards of $90,000.00 in services contracts and up to $10,000 "bounty" for adoptions on fast track, calling our babies "commodities" in the "federal funding streams". The black market in infants and children is widely known, so much so that
THIS AGENCY REFUSES TO DISCLOSE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN WHO ARE REMOVED AND THE PARENTS ARE PREVENTED FROM KNOWING.
RIGHT NOW IN
We, along with others, sued the
The mothers at the hospital are given deceptive paperwork when they enter to have their baby. They are offered coupons and services, and their signature is used as a "voluntary" waiver of their rights, although they do not know this. The corporate STATE proceeds as the parent of the child, and assesses the child and mother for services and programs, parenting classes, etc. If the parents refuse these services the STATE reports them as being "uncooperative" and the children are removed for that alone, to refuse services told to take you are found to place your children at risk.
All you can do is learn to protect yourself, and this is one way to do that. This is the Sui Juris process, and everything you do must be done in writing to protect yourself. This family will take friends to the hospital with them. A Video camera is excellent too. (Now you see why they are making new rules against video cameras in hospitals now !)
Make sure at least one friend is competent, has paper and pencil and GETS NAMES of everyone !! And everyone gets a copy of this notification. That is how it works. Should you file a lawsuit later on, you want to be able to say who the caseworker was and the sheriff was and be able to name them. And make sure your friend keeps a list of all who he serves the notification on.
I hope anyone who needs this benefits from it. Add to it as you like, but for best effectiveness it should stay one page.
This will have to be reformatted from the e-mail but this is what it should say.....
Leave the top line blank to fill out who you give it to and where. You can go ahead and sign the bottom part and have two friends witness it..... or leave that off and just get it notarized ..... ( don't sign it until you are in front of the notary )
Then you give this to anyone you need to and keep track of who you serve it on (remember the friend at the hospital needs to write down stuff like that for you)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFICATION / PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS
To: ______________________________________________________
Address/Served: __________________________________________
I, ________________________________________________________
hereby notify the above named officer/party that my Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally protected sovereignty of my Family Body are preserved inviolate.
I DO NOT VOLUNTEER to give up my Rights, my Children, my Property. I DO NOT AGREE to intervention by any person or office acting unlawfully, and who violates my Constitutionally protected Rights. I am Human with Inherent Rights Given by God, and expressly not a corporation.
The state shall not encroach upon my Rights or Family Body. The state shall not seize my Children or Property or Freedom, nor restrict me in any way, nor compel any contract upon me without lawful warrant or evidence of a crime. I DO NOT AGREE to any compelled services contracts.
This NOTIFICATION is for all persons and officers, mandatory reporters and interveners, medical employees or subcontracted agents for the state, all who are bound to exercise lawful process before any intervention into my personal rights or those of my children or Family Body.
This NOTIFICATION serves as a TORT CLAIM should it be necessary to bring forth redress of grievances for abuse in a court of Law, due to said Party violating me or my children or my Family Body.
Dated ______________________________
Signed __________________________________________________
Witness _________________________________________________
Witness _________________________________________________
A warning to poor parents
Destruction of the Natural Family
Enfuriated Mother attacked social worker
Foster care vs Family preservation
Suppression of Family Rights
The State of Utah is buying federal dollars with the blood of our children
The State replacing parents in Sweden and North Carolina
Hostel 2 Movie Poster
This movie poster was banned from most theaters, but I think this is the perfect image to post to show how bodies are so objectified society cannot respect them or believe that we should have rights to our own.  Bijou Phillips Nude on Hostel 2 Movie Poster |
Sexual Orientation Laws
The National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law
Thanks for your interest in the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, the first on-line law journal in the country and the second devoted exclusively to legal issues affecting lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.
The Journal's primary purpose is to disseminate information and ideas about law and sexual orientation in an efficient and timely manner, but without duplicating the recent inclusion of articles on sexual orientation in traditional law reviews. The Journal specializes in four distinct types of works:
- reports and studies germane to gay and lesbian legal issues
- transcriptions of proceedings, panels and programs
- briefs filed by litigators around the country in key cases
- essays, student work and other forms of traditional law review scholarship which, due to space limitations, may not be published in traditional reviews and journals
The Issues
- Vol. 4.1 Finally and at last! (1998)
- Vol. 3.1 (1997) - Transgender Issues and Sexual Orientation
- Vol. 2.2 (1996) - Romer v. Evans: The Decision and Its Impact
- Vol. 2.1 (1996) - A Collection
- Vol. 1.2 (1995) - Becoming Visible: Sexual Minorities in American Legal Education
- Vol. 1.1 (1995) - The First One
- Please cite
- Vol 1.1-2 (Issues 1 and 2) as: 1 Nat'l J. Sex. Orient. L. _____ (1995)
- Vol 2.1-2 (Issues 3 and 4) as: 2 Nat'l J. Sex. Orient. L. _____ (1996)
- Vol 3.1 (Issue 5) as: 3 Nat'l J. Sex. Orient. L. _____ (1997)
- Vol 4.1 (Issue 6) as: 4 Nat'l J. Sex. Orient. L. _____ (1998)
Margaret Sanger
This article is about Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. I thought her story was relevant to body rights.
In 1960, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vowed that she would leave the United States forever if that well-known defender of reactionary conservatism, John F. Kennedy, were ever elected to the presidency. Margaret was a fervent Marxist, a radical feminist, and, despite comical denials posted on Planned Parenthood’s website, a rabid eugenicist. According to her New York Times obituary, dated September 7, 1966, Sanger specifically recommended the practice of birth control to prevent procreation among those of the poor prone to producing heritably ‘subnormal’ children, and, in the early years of the 20th Century, the masthead of her Feminist-Socialist magazine, The Woman Rebel, defiantly proclaimed “No Gods! No Masters!” to its readership.At first glance, one could hardly disapprove of Sanger’s attempts to promote better health practices among poor women, or seriously find fault with her call for legalized contraception as a means of reducing dangerous self-inflicted abortions. Fewer than 100 years ago, urban women still regularly succumbed to disease and died young, especially if they were poor and had repeatedly endured the physical hardships of pregnancy. In fact, Margaret’s own mother had died of tuberculosis, at 48, after bearing eleven children in rapid succession. Legend has it that it was her mother’s death, coupled with her experience as a maternity nurse among the indigent, which finally convinced Sanger to crusade for legalization of birth control in America. But Sanger was no mere social worker, and that particular legend omits quite a bit.
It was Sanger who actually coined the phrase “birth control”, and it was she who opened the first birth control clinic in the nation, circa 1916. Sanger also deliberately politicized her push for legalized contraception by founding the National Birth Control League in 1921, and, later, she presided over the founding of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Of course, her activism put her directly at odds with law-enforcement officials and the Catholic Church, but little discussed is the actual extent to which her early Marxism guided much of what she managed to achieve. In short, Sanger is, indeed, a hero to the women’s movement, but she was certainly no humanitarian.
Simply consider Sanger’s horrific contradictions. For Sanger and her generation of radicals, the success of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia largely validated Marx’s promise of a pending new world order. As a proponent of birth control, Sanger certainly sought to remedy specific health threats impacting the lives of poor women, but as a Marxist member of the Women’s Committee for the New York Socialist Party, she certainly anticipated the day when, as predicted, poor workers would rise up, kill off significant numbers of men, women, and children within the American middle class, and then fully seize the nation’s political and productive powers in efforts to establish a communist workers’ utopia. It is indisputable that such was the manifest plan for achieving the expected Marxist future.
Sanger’s own hybrid agenda actually led her to sharply criticize Marx for his monomaniacal focus on economic factors alone. Despite her party affiliation, she did not seriously believe that the coming revolution could subsequently live up to its promise of completely remaking mankind. “In pointing out the limitations and fallacies of the orthodox Marxian opinion,” Sanger penned in The Pivot of Civilization, “my purpose is not to depreciate the efforts of the Socialists aiming to create a new society, but rather to emphasize what seems to me to be the greatest and most neglected truth of our day: unless sexual science is incorporated …and the pivotal importance of birth control is recognized in any program of reconstruction, all efforts to create a new world and a new civilization are foredoomed to failure.”
Painfully aware that the miserable poor surrounding her were hardly the makings of a future political vanguard, Sanger sought to improve their revolutionary fitness by encouraging smaller families, and, of course, by seeking to reduce births among those deemed to be lowly intelligent. Because Marxists fundamentally believed that children were the property of society (and not that of their parents), Sanger and her followers apparently felt fully justified in demanding not only that poor families immediately begin controlling their own procreation, but also that governments step in, as well. In keeping with Sanger’s teachings, American communists eventually accreted the belief that it was selfish and counterrevolutionary to sire too many kids: children, especially ‘defective’ ones, interfered with the family’s ability to adequately respond to the needs of the party.
Sanger’s belief that the poor would someday soldier the future proletarian revolution in America is likely what led her to work almost exclusively on their behalf. Like all political agitators of the Marxist stripe, she also likely exploited the bourgeoisie for the benefit of the cause: wealthy women who supported Sanger’s efforts regularly organized their own social circles to provide funding and political influence, but, as Sanger and her colleagues well knew, such generous, heartfelt support would not ultimately spare them the tumbrel’s ride directly to the revolution’s gallows. In general, all non-Marxists were viewed as expendable non-persons to be cynically milked for whatever they could provide.
It could not, then, have been solely out of compassion for women that Sanger did what she did: her work was aimed at benefiting only a particular class of women, and, what is worse, it assisted a political ideology that, at last worldwide count, was shown to have deliberately murdered nearly 100 million innocent people. Sanger admitted that her activities were part-and-parcel of radical efforts calculated to upset the political, religious, and social orders of the day, and, collectively, all were intended to hasten the expected collapse of bourgeois America. As was typical of such radical agitation, most of what Sanger sought to accomplish was disingenuously cloaked beneath the mantle of humanitarianism and social justice. Clever lies, rationalized by dialectic sophistry, were always ingeniously employed to obscure the whole of the sordid truth.
Pol Pot, to take but one example, eventually achieved in Cambodia what Sanger and her Marxist friends apparently longed for in America, i.e., the deliberate extermination of millions within the middle class. Public awareness of these psychopathic hopes should alone suffice to bar Ms. Sanger from receiving any further posthumous accolades…that is, except from those in our midst who still believe as she once did.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcontrol; sanger
Sanger was a racist of the first water, a fact carefully swept under the rug by feminists and Libs.
ping
... Laughing at Margaret Sanger becomes impossible when one gets into Sanger’s ideas about uprooting “human weeds” and establishing work camps for the “unfit.” In 1937, Sanger gave a speech on behalf of those “too inarticulate to speak for themselves.”
In her speech, she said the following about blocking the procreation of so-called undesirables:
“(It) makes possible the spread of scientific knowledge of the elements of sound breeding. It makes possible the creation of a new race; a new generation brought into this world consciously conceived. It makes possible the breeding out of human weeds-the defective and criminal classes-(and) the breeding in of the clean, strong and fit instruments to carry the torch of human destiny.”
Margaret Sanger’s following two-step plan (which she proposed to the U.S. Congress) to establish a “Parliament of Population” is also well-documented...:
1. To “control the intake and output of morons (apparently excluding Sanger), mental defectives, epileptics.”
2. To “take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms…”
Sanger then went on to summarize her plea to Congress by saying that “fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense-defending the unborn against their own disabilities.”
Sanger also had a pretty negative view of Australian, Jewish, and Italian families. She called aboriginal Australians “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development.” She said the following of the “Jewish people and Italian families”:
“(They) are filling the insane asylums, (they) are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, (they) are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State.”
Is it any wonder that Sanger spoke at a KKK rally in 1926?
Is it any wonder that she said that “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”?
Truth about Nazi-sympathizer racist Margaret Sanger: Intellectual Moron
Check out this information about the real Margaret Sanger:
We give Sanger appropriate "due" in our "Patriot's History of the United States." In fact, I think we are the ONLY U.S. survey to ever mention her looney ideas.
Good post!! People need to know what this hateful wench was about.
This sick, hateful woman was indeed a first-rate racist and babykiller. Philosophically, she was practically Darwin's eldest daughter.
Sanger, Baldwin,and now Ted Kennedy --funny how Marxism has
been the enemy of America --yet has support of the elite,
and pampered-that we blindly cede power to.
Planned Parenthood on Adoption:
Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988)
Planned Parenthood's on Homosexuality & Marital Rights:
PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970)
______________
Planned Parenthood's Goal:
Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood's purpose and planned course of action: "... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy." (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) ." ("Psycho-Sexual Development," quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10)
________
Planned Parenthood on Pregnancy:
PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)
"We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity." --Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986
_______
"If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood." --Planned Parenthood advertisement, Dallas Observer, Jan. 30, 1986
_______
"There are only 2 basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is ALWAYS right." --You've Changed The Combination, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo.
_______
"The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men is a false one: The real question is how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive to ourselves and our sisters. Prostitutes don't need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs." --The New Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Women's Health Collective, p 113
_______
"Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heaven's sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed." --The Perils of Puberty, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo.
______
"At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won't tell your parents you've been there. We swear we won't tell your parents." --Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986
Who was responsible for more deaths in the 20th century?:
A) Adolph Hitler
B) Joseph Stalin
C) Pol Pot
D) Margret Sanger
Sanger's career illustrates that Marxism/Leninism/Communism/Socialism are just the other side of the totalitarian coin from Fascism/Nazism. I believe she was a major fan of Hitler's policies directed at eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool and she was very clear in her writings that Planned Parenthood was intended to slow the reproduction of non-white Northern European (Can you say Aryan? Sure you can.) American stock
Bump
Voting rights for women might have come sooner had the issue been restricted to the franchise alone. But activists such as Margaret Sanger from New York City had associated feminism with such controversial practices as birth control and eugenics. Sanger, one of 11 children, was deeply affected by the death of her tuberculoid mother. Instead of blaming the disease, Sanger concluded that the rigors of childbirth had taken her mother. The difficult delivery of her own baby convinced Sanger of the dangers of the birth process and the problems of poverty she associated with large families.
Sanger quickly fell in with New York radicals soon had met all the important socialists, including Debs, "Big Bill" Haywood, John Reed, Clarence Darrow, Will Durant, and Upton Sinclair. She seemed "supremely unimpressed" by her fellow travelers: in addition to her disparaging remarks about Haywood and her "silk hat radical" reference to Debs, she called Alexander Beckman, a labor organizer, "a hack, armchair socialist---full of hot air but likely little else." Like Marx, whose jealous anger burned against any intellectual who might dare to compete with him, Sanger characterized fellow members of the Socialist Party as "losers, complainers, and perpetual victims---unwilling or unable to do for themselves, much less society at large." What kept her in the good graces of the radical community was Sanger's libertine attitudes and her willingness to link socialism to sexual liberation.
After a failed attempt to open an abortion clinic, Sanger published a paper called The Woman Rebel that denounced marriage as "a degenerate institution," openly advocated abortion, and endorsed political assassinations. Her writings openly violated the Comstock Laws, enacted in 1873 to prohibit the transmission of pornography or other obscene materials through the mail, and she was indicted. Rather than submit to jail, Sanger fled to England, where she absorbed the already-discredited overpopulation ideas of Thomas Malthus. Suddenly she found a way to package sexual hedonism and birth control in a less offensive wrapping of "concern" for population pressures. While packaging her program as "family planning," in reality Sanger associated birth control with population control, particularly among the "unfit." The most merciful thing a large family could do to a new baby, she suggested, was to kill it. In Sumner-esque fashion, she attacked charity as enabling the dregs of society to escape natural selection: "My criticism . . . is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. The dangers inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism . . . have today produced their full harvest of human waste." Modern benevolence, she charged, "encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." Birth control and sterilization could be used to weed out the poor (and, she noted, blacks and Chinese, whom she likened to a "plague"). She viewed birth control as a means of "weeding out the unfit" aimed at "the creation of a superman."
Founding the Birth Control Review in 1917, Sanger published a number of pro-eugenics articles: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The Purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), and "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928). One of her regular contributors, Norman Hines, repeatedly claimed that Catholic "stocks" (i.e., people from predominantly Catholic nations) were inferior to Protestant stocks. Perhaps the most outrageous article published in Birth Control Review was a favorable book review of Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy (1923)---a book that became a model for fascist eugenics in Europe.
In 1939, in her "Birth Control and the Negro," she and Clarence Gamble, of the Procter and Gamble soap company, warned that "the poorer areas, particularly in the South . . . are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations," and prophesied that black children were destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation." To defuse claims that the plan was a black "extermination plot," Sanger and Gamble proposed to employ black leaders as "front men," making it appear as though they were in charge. The Sanger/Gamble plan obtained funding from advertising mogul Albert Lasker, who had come up with the famed "Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet" slogan that sold Lucky Strike cigarettes to women.
However, recognizing that the eugenics orientation of Sanger's publications endangered their political movement, mainstream feminists distanced themselves from her views sufficiently enough to ensure passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. Only later would the re-packaged Sanger positions again emerge under the benign sounding name, "Planned Parenthood."
"Because Marxists fundamentally believed that children were the property of society (and not that of their parents), Sanger and her followers apparently felt fully justified in demanding not only that poor families immediately begin controlling their own procreation, but also that governments step in, as well."
So, this is where Hildebeast gets her ideas!!
<<>>
Or, when a baby, anyway, Rosemary's.
[And/or: "Was?" -- I hadn't heard Hitlery Cli'ton / Ruth Bader-Ginsberg / ______________ [Fill in the gap] had died]
You might want to add to the links where she was into profoundly deviant sex practices. This part of her life is not as well known of course either.
(Sort of like how the 'great' poet, Robert Frost, and his life is treated. He had 4 of his female relatives committed to insane asylums, his son committed suicide, and he traveled to Moscow to meet w/ Kruschev .... Frost was a big, big, RED.)
Concerning Sanger, it's amazing how perverts are on the hero pedestal these days. The Kinsey movie is a prime example.
check out her adulteries w/ a fellow named Ellis...
![[IMAGE]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tsPBs76T1qPrQ1D-FJaafM3kOT0GcqmnN_TiQeGxkXKl2YLKiTAePlCVdRgo-bO4G1AWvF5bSvjSuVNk26f9mpLjbcwww=s0-d)
Margaret Louise Sanger
1879 - 1966
"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
--Margaret Sanger
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
