Birth control is a conspiracy to eradicate the poor

Ahh you edited your post after I replied. I see where you are going

Non profit * big grin*

SPECIAL REPORT

The Profitable Nonprofit
By David N. Bass on 4.27.09 @ 6:06AM

Left-wing activists are indignant at obscene oil company profits, hefty CEO bonuses, and sweet golden parachutes -- but what about expansion of the No. 1 violator of human rights in the United States?
No, it's not Dick Cheney and the CIA. It's Planned Parenthood. The abortion giant took home $85 million in "excess of revenue over expenses" (a nifty way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. Included in that budget was $350 million in "government grants and contracts" (an equally nifty way of saying your tax dollars). An increase in the number of abortions performed helped fuel the profits.
The new numbers come on the heels of a spat of stories suggesting that recessionary times are contributing to a spike in abortions. Reuters gives anecdotal evidence that, because of the economy, more women are getting abortions and more men vasectomies. An Associated Press story reports that Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics conducted "an all-time high number of abortions in January."
Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report in March showing that the United States birthrate in 2007 reached its highest level ever, surpassing the peak of the baby boom in 1957. But those numbers were before the stock market tanked, unemployment numbers spiked, and a president compared the crisis to the Great Depression -- leading many families to believe that starting a family, or adding another child, would break the bank.
That leads to a critical truth. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the abortion on demand ethic, it's obvious that hard economic times translate into more customers for abortion and family planning providers. Planned Parenthood admits as much in its annual reporting, saying that when "men and women face increasing economic uncertainty and decreasing access to affordable health care, Planned Parenthood matters even more."
Now, with a White House that has promised to funnel unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars into the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood has even more reason to rejoice. Despite its political and economic gains, however, the group is still attempting to walk the public relations tightrope by making ample use of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Adoption is one example. Planned Parenthood's report boasts that, in 2007, "the number of adoption referrals at Planned Parenthood health centers increased by more than 100 percent. The number of abortions provided rose by a little more than five percent."
The percentages appear significant until one examines the hard numbers. In 2007, Planned Parenthood increased its number of adoption referrals by 2,502 for a total of 4,912 referrals. But it conducted 15,560 more abortions during the same period, totaling 305,310 abortions in all. For every adoption referral, therefore, Planned Parenthood conducted 62 abortions. Whoopty doo dang.
The reason for the wide disparity is not hard to guess. The financial incentive lies with abortion, not adoption. It's a PR boon to throw in the referrals, since it helps the group keep its pro-choice misnomer, but abortion and contraception services bring home the real bacon.
Uncle Sam helps, too. The federal government has morphed into Planned Parenthood's sugar daddy, and the co-dependency is only going to get worse in the age of Obama. Fully one-third of the organization's revenue last year came from the government, compared with less than one-fourth from private contributions. If Planned Parenthood can't get your money voluntarily, its advocates in Congress will coercively.
That's why limited government advocates have a stake in the pro-life cause. On April 15, over one million Americans flocked to state capitals, public parks, and town halls to protest runaway government spending -- and rightly so. Although most of the movement's furor was directed at bailouts and stimulus packages, government's love tryst with the abortion lobby should be exhibit A in the tea partiers' future arsenal.
The first target should be Obama's executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, which had ensured that American taxpayer funds would never be used for overseas abortions. The move didn't get much ink because of the media's preoccupation with the economic crisis, but it stands as an example of both Obama's abortion radicalism and intention, even in a troubled economy, to throw public money at groups that helped him get elected.
Maybe Obama views the abortion industry similarly to AGI -- too big to fail.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/27/the-profitable-nonprofit#
 
Werbung:
And I think you are entirely wrong.

You can believe as much as you want that abortion is a "business" venture, or a game. But that is wrong.

I do not know one person, one doctor, who wouldn't recommend taking birth control measures (whether it be the pill or other devices) rather than risking an unwanted pregnancy.

Your ideology is blinding you.

To think Planned Parenthood is NOT a business is to not know anything. They exist to kill the unborn. They give millions to the D party in campaign contributions. The D Party's top priority is ABORTION on demand just as the evils of slavery and segregation were decades ago.
 
To think Planned Parenthood is NOT a business is to not know anything. They exist to kill the unborn. They give millions to the D party in campaign contributions. The D Party's top priority is ABORTION on demand just as the evils of slavery and segregation were decades ago.

PP can't spend tax money on abortion.

We just went from the most pro life president to the most pro choice imaginable, and nothing changed. Why do you think that is?

The Congress and POTUS can't outlaw abortion. The candidates' stance on this issue is not relevant.
 
PP can't spend tax money on abortion.

This is meaningless to our debate.

We just went from the most pro life president to the most pro choice imaginable, and nothing changed. Why do you think that is?

If W was the 'most pro choice imaginable' he would have worked to stopped the holocaust in my imagination. So, W was NOT the most pro choice imaginable. I can imagine a president who would outlaw the holocaust, which logically means your point is BS.

The Congress and POTUS can't outlaw abortion. The candidates' stance on this issue is not relevant.

What??? Of course they can and will outlaw it just as they outlawed slavery and segregation. You think just as many Dems did during slavery and segregation.
 
This is meaningless to our debate.



If W was the 'most pro choice imaginable' he would have worked to stopped the holocaust in my imagination. So, W was NOT the most pro choice imaginable. I can imagine a president who would outlaw the holocaust, which logically means your point is BS.



What??? Of course they can and will outlaw it just as they outlawed slavery and segregation. You think just as many Dems did during slavery and segregation.

Listen carefully....

W was pro life, very adamantly pro life, not pro choice at all. His successor is just as adamantly pro choice.

Yet, nothing changed in the area of abortion on demand with the new administration.

Legalized abortion was a decision of the Supreme Court, not the Congress, not the president. If it is ever to be outlawed, it will be the Supreme court that does it.
 
How does Fox News do it?

They seem to come up with one more sicko a week!

Oh well! I bet there are quite a few people in Angola right now who wish they had free access to birth control, instead of watching their children die of starvation!

Agreed.
 
PP was indeed founded as a means of "eradicating" the poor. It did not take very long at all for people to realize that the plan was doing nothing to reduce the population of poor people. Today I doubt there exists any conspiracy to use birth control to eradicate the poor - it just simply does not work. No liberal programs work why should this one be any different?

The left still embraces the objectives (free birth control) of the original conspiracy but for different reasons.
 
Birth control is way to reduce poverty but it is not a way to eradicate poor.
Research Margaret Sanger, you will find she started abortion clinics targeted in poor black neighborhoods to eradicate the poor blacks. The woman was a racist who believed in eugenics and did not care for blacks, especially poor ones.





The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. Margaret Sanger


Now if you want the “argument” of how this quote is taken out of context here you go





http://greathistory.com/margaret-sanger-in-context.htm



apparently the quote is fine as long as you realize she only meant large poor families :/



for fun you start your search with “the negro project”



I tried to find this article from a few years ago written by a democrat praising abortion as the answer to reduced crime in inner cities due to the abortion rate from black women being at its highest. The article went without scrutiny until Rush Limbaugh read the story on his show, then of course he was attacked for being a racist who thought it was a good idea for black women to have abortions to reduce crime. None that attacked him noticed or cared he was only reading an article written by a pro-abortion democrat and not in agreement with it, actually he was disgusted with the whole concept.



More black babies are aborted than any other group, that is not by accident…It was the original intent by Margaret Sanger then as it is today with the democrat party USA.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top