January 19, 2017

USA: The Nation's Largest Pro-Life Youth Organization To Attend The So-Called "Women’s March" In D.C. That Excluded Them. This March Is To Defend Planned Parenthood Abortion Practices.

for those of you who don't know... Planned Parenthood is a private NOT GOVERNMENT RUN non-profit charitable organization. IF YOU LOVE THEM SO MUCH, by all means donate your own money to them to help keep them in BUSINESS. Because that's what it is folks, A BUSINESS. More like a racket. The more abortions they give, the more PROFIT THEY MAKE. It has been revealed that PP gives out weak condoms to ensure the burden of an unexpected pregnancy and greater chance of being a future abortion customer.

This is how much those aborted baby body part traffickers make per year look below. This does not even include the extra perks they get from the corporations they sell the baby body parts too. LOOK CAREFULLY, the CEO/president of PP earns more per year in salary than the President of the United States of America. Look, I am pro-life, AND for the record, I am gay. However, if abortion is going to be offered, I draw the line at 3 months. Unlike the left who is pushing for abortions up to 12 months. The Left even wants to give the so-called "mother" the choice to abort after birthing the human child they say has no rights. [emphasis mine]
Breitbart News
written by Dr. Susan Berry
Thursday January 19, 2017

The nation’s largest pro-life youth organization says though it has been excluded from the so-called “Women’s March” in Washington, D.C. because of its pro-life views, it will attend anyway.

Students for Life of America (SFLA) says it has been trying to become a sponsor of Saturday’s Women’s March since December, but has been excluded because the organization has pro-life views. SLFA president Kristan Hawkins says:
Even though the Women’s March claims inclusivity – as least they did in the beginning – they are excluding the majority of American women who find abortion to be morally wrong and believe in protecting families, defending the marginalized, and achieving social justice. Instead of a march to promote those worthy values and truly be inclusive, the event has turned into a rallying cry for the radical abortion industry to save their own baby: taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.
A New York Times article explains that women who consider themselves to be both “feminists” and “pro-life” are being excluded from the Women’s March, which has its roots in a call by the abortion industry to defy incoming president Donald Trump and his administration’s plan to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding and redirect it to other federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that do not perform abortions.

According to the Times:
Across the country, women who oppose abortion — including one in six women who supported Hillary Clinton, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center — are demanding to be officially included in Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington. But those requests have been spurned, creating a bitter rift among women’s organizations, and raising thorny questions about what it means to be a feminist in 2017.
“If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose,” Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim racial justice and civil-rights activist, and a chairwoman of the event, told the Times.
๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚ that's fresh coming from a Muslim woman who lives under oppressive Islam where women have NO RIGHTS such as women are forced to wear the hijab, niqab etc. , women and girls are murdered in Islam if they offend their family honor, women and girls are forbidden to leave Islam or they are killed by family, they don't have a choice. Women are subjugated under Islamic laws. She should be fighting for Muslim women's rights in Islam. AND on top of that this Muslim Arab woman is supporting Planned Parenthood whose founder was disgusted by her race procreating. PLUS, Palestinian mothers raise their children to become Islamist suicide bombers AND their surviving family get paid by the Palestinian Authority for obediently sacrificing their children for Islam. That is the ugly demonic spirit of Moloch. [emphasis mine]
Hawkins, however, states she will be at the march anyway to represent women who have been betrayed by the abortion industry.

“We are looking forward to being a witness to the march attendees to the millions of women betrayed by Planned Parenthood who sell them out every single day – along with their preborn babies – for profit,” she asserts.

SFLA says it plans to be equipped with Go-Pros in case of any violence against them or their students.

The so-called “Women’s March,” which reportedly has registered several hundred thousand participants, has been beset by divisiveness since its beginnings.

Radical feminist Gloria Steinem and Planned Parenthood have partnered for the event, providing it with its decidedly anti-Trump tone.

On her website, Steinem says to her fans:
We have all the powers we had [before Trump was elected] of lobbying and pressuring and making clear that the political consequences are great. We may look up and feel powerless and think there’s nothing we can do, but it’s not true. There are things we can do at each level. And there’s always civil disobedience. Trump is not my president.
Steinem also recently said she would refuse to pay the full amount of her federal income tax if Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funds were eliminated.

While it is the left that generally identifies people according to various classifications and then turns them into political activist groups, Slate reports that Steinem said in a statement, “I am proud to be one of thousands who will come to Washington to make clear that we will keep working for a democracy in which we are linked as human beings, not ranked by race or gender or class or any other label.”

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said about the march:
We will send a strong message to the incoming administration that millions of people across this country are prepared to fight attacks on reproductive health care, abortion services, and access to Planned Parenthood, as they intersect with the rights of young people, people of color, immigrants, and people of all faiths, backgrounds, and incomes.
According to the march’s website, its mission is to “send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights.”

Despite its message of unity among all the left’s political identity groups, the Times previously reported the “Women’s March” has been anything but unified from its inception:
On the march group’s Facebook page, it is easy to see how complicated the idea of the “women’s vote,” an already mythological concept, has become, and how difficult it might be for organizers to fulfill their aim of gathering women who remain fiercely divided on reproductive rights, gun control, same-sex marriage and immigration, among other issues.

Not everyone on the page believes, for instance, that Hillary Clinton would have made a good president, or that Stephen K. Bannon, a chief strategist under Mr. Trump, holds divisive views about minorities. Debates over both have sprung up in recent days. Bob Bland, one of the march organizers, said in an email that organizers in Maryland had to change a Facebook page from public to private to protect the safety of women who want to attend.
Writing at The Week, abortion rights supporter Shikha Dalmia asserts the demonstration has already failed in its mission.

“Demonstrations serve a useful function in a democracy — but only when they have clarity of purpose,” she writes, adding that the march is “shaping up to be a feel-good exercise in search of a cause.”

Dalmia writes some of the “absurdity” related to the event stems from “the fact that they are billing this event as the voice of women when 42 percent of women (and 62 percent of non-college educated white women) actually voted for Trump.”

She also observes “the almost-comical progressive hysteria over the event’s name.” The initial plan by the “three white women” organizers, she says, was to call the event the “Million Women March,” but the women were criticized for “cultural appropriation” for “allegedly poaching the heritage of the 1997 Million Woman March for black women.”

“Feminists are confusing the issue by making Trump’s threat about themselves,” Dalmia concludes. “If they really wanted to help, they would have kept their powder dry for now, rather than embark on this confused and pointless march.”

[source: Patheos.com]

“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks–those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” (From this 1923 NYT story: http://goo.gl/z0ZdV, quoted in this study: http://goo.gl/7n4I9)

“The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” (From her biography: http://goo.gl/XRUC0)

“Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” (From this essay: http://goo.gl/dDyTW)

“The unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation… On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” (October 1921: http://goo.gl/XRUC0)

“Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.” (From the NYU archive of her papers, in 1918: http://goo.gl/KaFVv)

[source: PBS.org]

In 1883 a British biologist named Francis Galton combined the roots of the Greek words for "good" and "origin" to create the term "eugenics" for an applied science based on genetics and breeding. The "science" of eugenics proposed that human perfection could be developed through selective breeding. In the late nineteenth century researchers developed the idea, a blend of genetic research and social theory. Eugenics soon crossed the Atlantic and by the 1920s and 1930s was adopted by mainstream scientists, doctors and the general public.

Positive and Negative Approaches

The eugenics movement had two basic strands. Advocates of "positive" eugenics believed in promoting childbearing by the "fit" classes. Those who supported "negative" eugenics stood for the discouragement and suppression of reproduction among people of "inferior stock." Within these two camps, the definitions of who would be classified as "fit" and "unfit" varied greatly.

A Vehicle for Racism and Nativism

Some eugenicists separated the "fit" and "unfit" classes along racist and nativist lines. Under this eugenics model, those considered most worthy of rearing children were couples who were middle class or upper class Nordic-Teutonic whites. Racial minorities and ethnic immigrant groups were typically classified as unfit. The poor and physically handicapped, whose problems were classified as hereditary, were also in this negative category. Eugenics supporters pushed middle and upper-class "native" whites to have large families. In some circles eugenicists went as far as declaring birth control selfish and a form of "racial suicide." The same people believed that blacks and other minorities should not reproduce. Although eugenicists did not promote contraceptive use, fearing that the "unfit" would not use the methods properly, sterilization was often promoted as the best option to limit their numbers.

Eugenics and Birth Control

Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives."

What Did Sanger Believe?

Sanger's relationship with the eugenics movement was complex -- part strategy and part ideology. Many historians now believe that Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines. Furthermore, Sanger opposed the belief of many eugenicists that poverty was hereditary, asserting instead that poverty, criminal behavior and other social problems were due to environmental factors and were not predetermined.

Suspect Intentions

Following World War II and the Holocaust, the science of eugenics was discredited. It was soon forgotten by many. But when Margaret Sanger was being lauded for her role in the creation of the Pill in the 1960s, many in the African American community recalled her association with eugenics. Suspicious of her intentions to begin with, some were appalled by her ongoing support of the population control movement.

Legacy of Distrust

Some African Americans believed that Sanger's motive was not to aid black women but to eliminate future black generations. In promoting the development of the birth control pill in the 1950s, Sanger had heralded it as the panacea to world overpopulation, starvation and hunger. Sanger wrote: "I consider that the world, and almost our civilization for the next 25 years, is going to depend on a simple, cheap, safe, contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles and among the most ignorant people." Although African American women appreciated the effectiveness and reliability of oral contraceptives, and used the method in large numbers, they resented the way white-dominated organizations seemed to push the Pill in black communities.

No comments: