American women, and African-American women in particular, have become the victims of one of the cruellest and most cynical deceptions ever practised on the human race.
In the name of greed, and at the behest of a perverted ideology, Planned Parenthood Federation of America has peddled the monstrous lie that induced abortion is ‘safer?than childbirth, thereby subjecting a whole generation of American women to a host of reproductive dangers and diseases, and - even worse - to the enormously increased risk of contracting breast cancer, a painful disease, treated by bodily mutilation, and frequently resulting in death.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America has repeatedly and consistently lied about these risks, and has knowingly and deceitfully withheld information about them from the mothers it so cynically pretends to serve with its ‘reproductive health?services and its malicious program of eugenics.
In 1934 Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, produced the following:
The American Baby Code (headlines taken directly from a large featured article, written by Margaret Sanger in the American Weekly Magazine) which outlines Planned Parenthood's plan to rid the world of “inferior?human groups:
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code should be to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as nonprofit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman's part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State.... The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control....
Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.
Planned Parenthood’s most recent President, Gloria Feldt, had this to say about Margaret Sanger:
“I can't think of anyone who has made a greater contribution to the lives of women, children and families -- of all races -- than Margaret Sanger. You have to look at her life to see she had a desire to help the poor and the downtrodden of any race.?(quoted in the Phoenix Gazette, September 12, 1991, and The Ryan Report, June/July 1996, page 2.)
Quite what the word “contribution?in this context means, can be seen from the work of Dr. Janet Daling published almost seven years ago.
On November 2, 1994, the Journal of the American Cancer Institute (a journal one presumes to be not unknown to the officers of PPFA) published an article by Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Dr. Daling is not anti-abortion, but she has had three sisters die of breast cancer, so she is not inclined to play politics with her results, although an accompanying editorial in the journal, by Dr. Lynn Rosenberg, went out of its way - and the way of truth - in attempting to minimize and explain the evidence away.
Dr. Daling’s article “Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion?which was broadly based (1,806 women -- 845 women who had breast cancer were compared with a "control" group of 961 women who did not), and thorough (women were interviewed one-on-one in their homes for two hours), demonstrated that the risk of developing breast cancer increased after an induced abortion, whatever the age of the mother at the time of the abortion, whatever the age of the unborn baby was, and whether or not the woman had given birth before.
If a woman had obtained her first abortion after age 30, her risk jumped by 110 percent (that’s more than double the risk). And if she had her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent (two and a half times more likely). Worse yet, if she had a family history (mother, sister, aunt) of breast cancer and had a first abortion after age 30, her risk went up by 270 percent (getting on for four times more likely - almost a one in two chance overall).
Most frightening of all were the results for women who had had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fell into that category. By the age of 45 all 12 of them had contracted the disease. Although not statistically significant (except to the women themselves) because of the small number in this particular group, the results are plain. These girls, with a family history of breast cancer, who procured an abortion while still teenagers, were 100% certain to develop breast cancer.
One may forgiven if one questions the motives of an organization which deliberately suppresses such information from teenagers who come knocking at their doors seeking an abortion.
Of course even the briefest glance at Margaret Sanger’s works shows she was a racist. Indeed the whole underlying thesis of eugenics is racist.
It is not surprising then to find that her organization performs a high proportion (in relation to population distribution) of its ‘services?on African-American women.
Nor is it surprising that they neglect to tell their clients of the facts ascertained in a study published one year earlier than Dr. Daling’s. Its title is “Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience?and it was published in the December 1993 issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association.
Whereas Dr. Daling’s study followed women into their forties, this study traced them to a greater age. The study traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 African-American women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older. The study confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women whose babies had been killed, than for those to whom this had not happened.
This study found the same overall 50 percent increased risk factor for women under 40 whose babies had been killed. But the women, now in their 40s, who had suffered this loss, experienced a 180 per cent (2.8 times the risk) increased risk. The risk jumped to an enormous 370 percent (4.7 times the risk) for those over 50 who had been the victims of reproductive ‘health services?fatal to their babies.
As if the evidence of these and many other scientific studies is not enough, it is instructive to consider briefly another piece of interesting evidence.
Almost every early study of breast cancer noted that rich women have a higher preponderance of the disease than do poor women. Washington State legalized abortion in 1970, some three years before Roe v. Wade was decided. Hence rich women in Washington State had little difficulty in obtaining abortions.
However, in the early 1970s Washington began to fund abortions for poor mothers through the public purse.
The results?
From 1974-1984 (a very short time-scale for the disease we are considering) the breast cancer rate among poor women rose by 53% - while it remained stable among wealthy women.
The spectre of an ever-increasing number of law-suits over the failure of PPFA to permit informed consent to what is an elective surgical procedure, and its deliberate attempts to mislead and misdirect its clients by withholding literally vital information, must now haunt this monstrous organization.
The very real question, as to why the US government, supposedly devoted to the protection of its citizens, should continue to require those citizens to fund an organization devoted to the systematic destruction of the nation’s women and children, demands an answer.
Even as the law-suits pile up, and the tax-payers?dollars go to support PPFA’s lawyers, rather than to exterminating their fellow-Americans, such questions will demand answers.
Only a people utterly craven, and sunken in debauchery will refuse to get the answers they require.
Only so-called 'racists' and people who enjoy the slaughter of babies will continue to support this bunch of Nazi-holocaust-look-alike eugenicists.
And finally, only a people morally and spiritually bankrupt will fail to outlaw this evil federation and allow its abortionist heroes to go unpunished.
Wake up, mothers and fathers of America!
Confront and annihilate this destroying monster in your midst, before it utterly consumes both you and your children.
Copyright © David Lawrie AD 2001
This article may be freely copied and distributed, provided that this Copyright notice and permission is included, and that there is no alteration either to this notice or to the text itself.
