10. A recent report reveals that Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s (PPFA) audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth’s own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.
9. PP’s repeated and consistent willingness to turn a blind eye to reports of statutory rape.
8. Consumer Reports ranked their condoms the worst, failing tests that measured strength and reliability (they burst when filled with air).
7. Several years ago, PPNYC put a public plea on their Web site—“Harry Potter: Prisoner of Hormones?”—lobbying J.K. Rowling to write sex education into the next novel in the bestselling series.
6. As the video below shows, PP provides medically inaccurate abortion counseling at a tax-funded clinics.
5. 
4. PP’s defense of #5.
3. On their site aimed at teenagers, they include an article (“All About the Anus”) which teaches kids that, “Some straight couples use anal sex as a way to preserve the woman’s virginity.”
2. PP was founded by the notorious eugenicist Margaret Sanger.
1. PP’s complicity in the deaths of millions of human beings.
June 22nd, 2010 | 11:28 am
This country, one of the most religious countries in the world, religiously defends PP’s right to exist, to kill, to lie, and to take federal handouts.
The majority of “religious” Americans sees no particular problem with these 10 points.
I rest my case that the high percentage religiousity of Americans is due to their worship of the self, rather than the God Who Is.
June 22nd, 2010 | 12:37 pm
Don’t forget Planned Parenthood’s targeting of Blacks for abortion and the fact that many on their Board , when founded by the KLAN Speaker, Margaret Sanger were racist or eugenics members. Get all the proof you need in the film: MAAFA21 – a MUST SEE – Expose the rats ! http://www.maafa21.com
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Regarding #8 and the failed condoms, if I were of a conspiracist bent, I’d almost think that they didn’t mind the low grade condoms. They’ll just provide future business!
June 22nd, 2010 | 3:13 pm
#8 can simply be viewed as a product failure which – in any other context – would be reason to doubt the integrity of the company’s internal proceedures and methods, seriously question it’s long-term viability, and open it to class-action lawsuit.
Pardon the unintentional crudeness of this analogy – but if this had been a failsafe device on an undersea oil line, this Administration would have been demanding $20 Billion in damages.
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:45 pm
Steve you’re not a conspiracy theorist at all. The weak condoms are intentional. In fact, an ex-PP employee is on record as stating that the contraceptive pills they hand out are intentionally low dose so that they will result in pregnancy.
This is an evil enterprise. Evil doesn’t self-regulate. Nobody at PP said, “Well, perhaps we shouldn’t distribute weak contraceptive devices because that would be WRONG.” There is no limit to what they will do.
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:59 pm
How deeply sad it is to have so few speak out about the horrendous damage that Planned Parenthood has done to humanity it its fraudulent attempt to aid her.
June 22nd, 2010 | 11:02 pm
Regarding #2, for accurate information regarding Margaret Sanger, the Margaret Sanger Papers Project is an invaluable resource. Among other things, Sanger was against abortion.
It’s true Sanger associated with many eugenicists but repeatedly rejected the tenets of eugenics in her writings. Like almost everyone today, she did not think it was any of the government’s business to tell women who they may or may not have sex with and how many children they may or may not have.
She considered eugenics as much of a violation of individual rights as the laws then in place that allowed police to arrest and jail people for possessing or selling contraceptives or even for discussing contraception in public.
It’s true she advocated mandatory sterilization for women who were mentally retarded or mentally ill. Then again, I believe in some jurisdictions it is considered rape to have sexual contact with such a woman as she is considered legally unable to render consent. The method has changed but the outcome — that certain women should not be having children — remains the same.
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:26 am
Yes there is a big conspiracy, they have bought a condom company and have changed the recipie just to be able to get people pregnant! Would you be ok if the condoms worked? Or would you just be posting about how they give out condoms?
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:31 am
Condoms that work because that’s birth control! The church doesn’t like that bc it won’t have new members
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:52 am
Ok, I’m posting my last post. Everyone here doesn’t like PP because they are stopping life, yet there are posts about them giving out bad condoms and weak birth control pills. What do you want? Wouldn’t both of those be good for you?
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:53 am
The brave Anonymous tells us that Planned Parenthook was “… founded by the KLAN Speaker, Margaret Sanger …” Wow! The Ku Klux Klan! She must have been a sympathizer if not actually a member.
Of course, Wikipedia puts a slightly different slant on it: “In 1926 Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She described it as ‘one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing,’ and added that she had to use only ‘the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.’ ”
Hmmm… Wait, we can salvage this. The elitist Margaret Sanger was TALKING DOWN to a bunch of ordinary American women! Shame!
Anonymous missed some good ones, though. Like Number 9, PPA doesn’t report statutory rape. Which is curious, because after all, every pregnant teenaged girl wants her boyfriend arrested and put in jail. They’re losing a lot of customers that way, because if the the girls only knew their true love was going to go to jail for ten years and be a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives, they would descend on PPA in droves.
And number 7! PPA wants sex education (which prevents abortions) for young women and in Harry Potter books to boot! Oh, the shame, the shame! Any True Christian can tell you that Harry Potter books are for educating children to be satanists and nothing else!
June 23rd, 2010 | 10:30 am
Dave M,
I’m not quite following your logic. Not reporting statutory rape is a crime. Are you seriously saying that it’s a reasonable decision on behalf of PP because of the scenario you’ve listed?
If only it were “just an honest mistake” on behalf of PP. But the videos here and elsewhere – easy to find – and the testimonies of women who’ve been there relate that in the cases where the young woman _does_ tell the PP worker her age, and that of her boyfriend, it is the staff worker who with full knowledge criminally advises her to keep it quiet.
The idea that sex education – any old sex education – decreases the number of abortions is a wonder of a theory. It would only be true if such sex education actually spoke about the natural effect of sex, (new human beings are brought in to the world,) its natural purpose, including the holistic effects of intimacy on binding the participants together emotionally as well as physically, and the ability of human beings to choose or not choose to participate based on their free will and intellect. All of these things are present in Catholic and Christian teaching.
Planned Parenthood “sex education” _begins with the premise_ that young people will likely have sex, so here’s how to ‘safely’ do it. Leaving aside how much PP actually wants ‘safe’ sex based on #8 above, and leaving aside the fact that even a ‘working’ #8 prevents only one aspect of sex from occurring – the emotional and physiological bonding happens regardless – it’s difficult to see where PP assumes or even advocates a little bit for a young person’s ability to decide to not engage in sex.
I’ve never found the line in PP’s marketing and ‘sex education’ where a young person is told, “You can do it. Aside from any of the ‘tools’ we give you, the ultimate freeing truth is that you can simply control yourself if you want to.” It’s amazing how little personal dignity PP’s mission and philosophy actually assumes on the part of the women they claim to advocate for.
June 23rd, 2010 | 10:50 am
Darren,
The consistency of opposing both abortion and birth control is the same consistency of opposing both gluttony and purging of food afterwards.
What Catholicism is saying (and I think Pro-Life philosophy is general is in agreement here) is that both abortion and birth control are bad for you because both are taking a natural good and separating or denying a natural outcome of that good.
When you eat – that’s good. God created us to eat, and to enjoy it. When you eat too much, and out of control, or eat lousy food, you are taking a good gift and using it in what is actually a destructive way. Destructive to yourself. Then purging that food so you can keep eating is just compounding the damage.
When you share intimacy – that’s good. God created us to have this gift of sexual expression, except that it’s much more than just a way of ‘expression.’ It’s a way of bonding with another human being and ultimately the way of bringing a new human life into the world. That’s the natural path of the gift if it’s not interfered with. Abortion interferes after intimacy achieves one of its natural purposes, and it ends that purpose. Birth control – aside from the lousy effects on the woman’s body (which is another conversation thread) – prevents intimacy from being full intimacy. It’s like saying I want full union with you – except for the part about you which can bring new life into the world – that part I don’t want. The problem is that you end up not getting the true intimacy either. That disconnect between the act and the purpose is damaging to the people involved.
June 23rd, 2010 | 11:07 am
But the videos here and elsewhere – easy to find – and the testimonies of women who’ve been there relate that in the cases where the young woman _does_ tell the PP worker her age, and that of her boyfriend, it is the staff worker who with full knowledge criminally advises her to keep it quiet.
For sure, people ought to be fired over this sort of thing if they failed in their legal duties. Note that the legal requirement is to inform the police, though, not to intervene in the person’s life or offer unsolicited advice.
The people who take calls at PP centers probably are not trained counselors or personal crisis management types. Maybe they should be, but that’s a separate discussion. Without any training, they would only be legally and morally obligated to hand the information from the call over to the police and have them investigate and arrest the boyfriend.
So I find the tactic employed by these people to be pretty irresponsible. It is possible that someone called the police after one of these calls and the police would have wasted valuable time trying to track the phony “child” down.
June 23rd, 2010 | 11:14 am
Was more than #1 actually needed to show the depravity of the organization’s mission?
June 23rd, 2010 | 11:17 am
Birth control – aside from the lousy effects on the woman’s body (which is another conversation thread) – prevents intimacy from being full intimacy. It’s like saying I want full union with you – except for the part about you which can bring new life into the world – that part I don’t want.
I live in the Philippines and have a friend who is a devout Catholic who has been married for 12 years. After two children and 10 years of using the rhythm method, his wife finds herself pregnant again.
Now, these people do OK for themselves but they are certainly not rich and bringing a child up in a country with so few opportunities requires lots of resources in terms of private education. Good medical care can also be expensive and insurance is much less common than in the U.S. So his wife is getting a tubal ligation after the third child arrives contrary to the teachings of his church.
What is wrong with that decision? They’ve done everything right and have decided that three children is enough for them and their financial position. They presumably do not want to remain celibate until the woman reaches menopause. People who criticize birth control in all cases don’t seem to grasp the difficulties married people in the real world face.
June 23rd, 2010 | 1:52 pm
Great piece Mr. Carter as always! I am not sure if you are familiar with the Internet but it would be great to have a feature that would allow people to automatically tweet and send your pieces around. I’d be happy to show you how!
Tom
June 23rd, 2010 | 2:13 pm
People who criticize “people who criticize birth control in all cases” don’t seem to have had much exposure to very many people who criticize birth control. PWCBC are often quite experienced themselves in the difficulties married people in the real world face, as even a casual perusal of literature from organizations like the Couple to Couple League would demonstrate. PWCBC usually know firsthand that doing something that is right will, in this fallen and real world, lead quite directly to difficulties. PWCBC nevertheless choose (sometimes heartwrenchingly) to take the difficulties along with what is good, knowing that this was also the way of their Lord.
June 23rd, 2010 | 2:44 pm
You left out their encouragement of 1) earlier sexualization of children in school 2) refusal to notify parents when children seek their services 3) promotion of the perfection culture that implies only perfect children should be wanted, and that the only solution to an imperfect (handicapped child) or to an unsought child (unplanned or unanticipated) is abortion; resulting in 90% of all children diagnosed with Down Syndrome whether they have it or not, being aborted. But there are so many reasons. All 50 million.
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:19 pm
Mark,
I am a married person, also not rich, and I do grasp the difficulties. May I comment on two of the difficulties your friends face:
“They presumably do not want to remain celibate until the woman reaches menopause.”
And they don’t have to. But subtly in the decision to literally destroy one’s procreative ability – think about that for a bit – is an element of fear of the unknown…and a desire to not have to think about it any more. Perfect love cast out all fear.
Does God “open and close the womb?” If so, can he take care of us when he does?
“They’ve done everything right and have decided that three children is enough for them and their financial position.”
They will never know if God might bless them with greater financial resources – should they desire to have more children and if – this only tends to work with the “if” – they keep God at the center of their marriage and their life. But again here is the legitimate difficulties of the world sowing fear into a very profound decision.
And God might not immediately – or ever – bless them with greater finances. Maybe God will ask them to give up more in order to bring another soul into the cosmos. And perhaps they will be happy anyway with the riches of their fourth child.
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:20 pm
Mark – The only reason Sanger claimed to be against abortion at the beginning was that she and her cronies had already implemented FORCED STERILIZATION laws of the people she would have eliminated ! She was financed by Clarence Gamble who also financed the North Carolina Eugenics Society, which was later exposed for sterilizing MANY black women. Do you know how to google? Sanger herself said that the “Unfit” should be sterilized and sent to “Farms and Open Spaces” until their “immoral” behavior could be corrected. Abortion was not legalized when Sanger first began her push to get rid of the so-called “unfit” but her alliances with the Eugenics movement brought the legalization of abortion in. YES- Sanger was a card carrying member of the American Eugenics Society. She met with them, published them in her Birth Control Review, was financed by them, received referrals from them, and even re-named their Arkansas Office (Formerly the Arkansas Eugenics Association) as Planned Parenthood ! Sanger and Planned Parenthood had many sitting Eugenics Board Members on THEIR Boards. One of Planned Parenthood’s former Presidents was the VP of the American Eugenics Society, you may have heard his name before: Alan Guttmacher (Again Google a little). Sanger gave a speech before the (RACIST/VIOLENT) KLAN So inspiring to their racist bent, that she bragged in her autobiography that she received 12 more invited from the KLAN after that rousing speech ! Don’t you dare try and distance Margaret Sanger from eugenics , racism, or abortion – she is locked arms with ALL three and Planned Parenthood continues to praise her. Watch the film- Maafa21 for MUCH documentation on this: http://www.maafa21.com
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:13 pm
I would disagree with the statement that Sanger was not a eugenicist. After reading so much about her, I finally decided to read one of her books. I read as much of “The Pivot of Civilization” as I could stand, and it was obvious that she was not opposed only to breeding by “mental defectives” (sorry, I can’t recall her preferred terminology) but “the poor” as well.
The introduction to the book was written by H.G. Wells, who was an unashamed eugenicist (presumably she asked him to write the introduction? Perhaps it was the publisher, I don’t know). Apparently she actually was opposed to abortion, but that may be a slight point when you consider that ‘the pill’ is often an abortifacient.
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:14 pm
Heard During Cookies and Milk at Millstone Elementary
When I grow up, I want to be
A kindly abortionist.
When I grow up, I want to administer
A clean euthanasia clinic.
When I grow up, I only want to be
In charge of the duct tape we surely will need
For the mouths of those who would name
The Enemy.
Robert Bové 6-23-10
June 23rd, 2010 | 10:04 pm
But subtly in the decision to literally destroy one’s procreative ability – think about that for a bit – is an element of fear of the unknown…and a desire to not have to think about it any more. Perfect love cast out all fear.
As you know, the procreative ability is naturally destroyed when a woman reaches menopause, on average around age 50. A tubal ligation simply pushes the date forward. Oppose this if you want, but every woman already knows she will reach a point in her life when she will be physically unable to have more children.
Maybe God will ask them to give up more in order to bring another soul into the cosmos. And perhaps they will be happy anyway with the riches of their fourth child.
This is what makes me think you don’t really grasp the real world difficulties. Simply put, an extra child means they have to pull their older children out of private school or not send them to the best universities they can get into. Again, I remind you I am talking about a country with very limited opportunities for people who do not attend the best schools and universities.
June 23rd, 2010 | 10:14 pm
I read as much of “The Pivot of Civilization” as I could stand, and it was obvious that she was not opposed only to breeding by “mental defectives” (sorry, I can’t recall her preferred terminology) but “the poor” as well.
Read chapter 8 of that book. It is simply not true that she was opposed to poor people having children — she criticizes the “middle class bias” of eugenicists who did in fact think that poor people should not have children.
Sanger was a radical socialist and a radical feminist. One doesn’t need to defend her entire worldview or all the bizarre causes she embraced during her life to appreciate the one positive contribution she made — to make contraception a respectable and viable choice for women who find it necessary in their own life circumstances.
June 23rd, 2010 | 10:47 pm
People who criticize “people who criticize birth control in all cases” don’t seem to have had much exposure to very many people who criticize birth control.
I’m not sure what you are talking about here. I’ve met many people who criticize birth control. Most of them are celibate priests.
Perhaps I have a biased sample. In that case, please point me to a list of public critics of birth control who have at least six children and live on household incomes of less than $30,000.
June 24th, 2010 | 5:20 am
JDD,
I’m from the proverbial small town in Wisconsin. I was visiting my mother last spring when she mentioned that she was going to a town half way across the state to see a cousin graduate. This cousin is the granddaughter of a first cousin of mine. I don’t know if she’s a third cousin, first cousin twice removed or what.
I don’t really know her very well, but I know she’s from my home town and I asked my mother why she was graduating half way across the state. Well, it turned out that a couple of years ago, when she was a freshman or sophomore in high school, she went out on a date and had sex. Unfortunately, I’ve got some major blue noses in my family (they’re Protestant blue noses, so they’re probably not reading this) and one of them found out about it. I hate to think of how they got the information out of my young cousin.
Anyway, she and he were both way underage and my family blue nose went to the police and reported the boyfriend for statutory rape. “Hooray,” you say, “put the evil bugger in jail?” Not so fast. The “rapist” turned out to be a pretty nice guy, a couple of years older than she was, smart, hard working, doing well in school, probably got a scholarship coming and hoping for college, well liked by just about everybody, on the football team – a nice kid with a good future ahead of him and he’d of probably made a good husband too – but he was arrested for statutory rape.
So he’s about seventeen and suddenly his life has turned into a nightmare. He’s looking at a probable jail sentence and a lifetime as a registered sex offender. Forget the scholarship, so forget college. Forget even about going into the military, forget all of his dreams. His parents took out a second mortgage to pay his lawyer. He got convicted anyway. He committed suicide.
So the whole school turned on my young cousin. She didn’t report him, she didn’t want anything bad to happen to him, all that was done by the blue noses. But it still got so bad she had to leave town and move in with a relative on the other side of the state, lost a year of school in the process and is just now graduating. I hate to think of what this episode did to her.
Final score, one nice kid dead, another nice kid with a suicide on her conscience and her life more or less ruined. Assuming you and your fellow blue noses manage to force PP to start turning in boyfriends, what kind of score do you think you’ll rack up?
June 24th, 2010 | 10:33 am
Mark,
You write “I’ve met many people who criticize birth control. Most of them are celibate priests.”
Have you considered that those celibate priests have often met with and spoken with literally thousands of married couples – across the entire financial spectrum and in all life circumstances. Are you sure their insights can be so easily dismissed?
“Perhaps I have a biased sample. In that case, please point me to a list of public critics of birth control who have at least six children and live on household incomes of less than $30,000.”
I know many families personally with that many children. I have not surveyed them for their annual income. I do know that they tend to not drive the newest model car and have not always paid their kids through college. Ironically, often their kids grow up in lively, happy families and end up winning scholarships of some sort to offset the expenses of higher education. And sometimes they don’t. Aren’t you a little concerned that you’re making such a strict tie between whether to procreate and how much money you make?
June 24th, 2010 | 10:46 am
Mark, others,
Reflecting on the conversation thread, it’s interesting to note how much money is tied to the defense of birth control. (And let it not be ignored that money – in the form of revenue – also drives the question for Planned Parenthood.)
It strikes me how much the two are tied together and influence each other. In questions of ethics and morality – as this surely is – it should raise a yellow flag when one drives the other.
Let me ask, if money were not part of the equation, why would you support birth control?
June 24th, 2010 | 5:28 pm
Dave M,
That’s a difficult situation for that girl and the entire family. My prayers and condolences for the young man.
I would agree with you here that the situation you’ve described should not carry the penalty the boy received. Your beef is with the judicial system which adhered to the letter of the law when perhaps a lesser sentence was called for.
What you’ve proposed instead is that – since a few young men who pursue sex with underage young women are innocent of real crime – Planned Parenthood should not be required to report any of them.
(In contrast, as I Catholic I can’t help but reflect on the recent push to force the publication of every single accused priest’s mug shot in the local paper – for the childrens’ safety – because just one of them might be guilty.)
But you’re fighting the wrong fight. Planned Parenthood is required to report the incident of sex with a minor precisely so that the law enforcement agency can see if a crime was committed – or not. Or to decide not to press charges. But the point is that Planned Parenthood is making that decision itself – and consistently protecting the man involved – and every time against the law meant to protect, in particular, young women.
June 25th, 2010 | 7:01 am
JDD,
I don’t think you realize the enormity of the situation. “… since a few young men who pursue sex with underage young women are innocent of real crime …”.
A few young men? I’m talking about your son! Do you have an adolescent son? Then unless he’s sick and dying, he is most assuredly pursuing sex with an underage woman unless he prefers to date older women. Remember that most young men date women a year or two younger than themselves.
How old is your son? Here’s a list of the ages of consent by states: http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
Here in Wisconsin, it’s 18. What state do you live in? Assuming your son’s girl is a year younger than him, what are the odds that your son can have a fun night out with his girlfriend and not risk assault charges?
Do you think he and his girlfriend ever do a bit of necking? Think he gets to first base? He might get away with that.
Second base? Second degree sexual assault! YOUR child. ANY MALE CHILD WHO HAS A GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT!! Jail. Trial as an adult and adult prison because you moralists have scared politicians into “cracking down”. And lifetime registration as a sex offender if he gets out alive!
You say that Planned Parenthood must report your son “so that the law enforcement agency can see if a crime was committed.” Man, what planet are you living on? If he gets to second base, a crime HAS been committed. Are you hoping that the cops will ignore the law and not arrest him? Do you have some kind of power over the District Attorney?
Oh wait, I know. First Things is a conservative magazine and you’re probably a conservative person. So you’re expecting the government to show wisdom and mercy and let your kid go, right? After all, he didn’t do anything you didn’t do when you were his age. Good luck with that.
Hey, what if you check your adolescent son’s cell phone and find some sexy pictures sent by his girlfriends. If one of them shows a bit of nipple, are you ready to turn him in? You’d better be because the law says that if you don’t, you’re a criminal, just like Planned Parenthood.
You moralists don’t even realize the damage you do. You hate Planned Parenthood and you will ruin innocent lives to get them.
June 25th, 2010 | 4:30 pm
Dave M,
I honestly can’t figure out what position you support.
Boy have you dot-dot-dotted the middle of a sentence. And attacked the wrong tree. Go back and read again the line right before the part you’ve quoted – where I say “What YOU’VE proposed instead is…” And then I argue against that proposal.
In your first post, you lamented that a young boy got more than he deserved. Taking your story at face value, I agree with you. The problem here – and I would argue your problem – is with the judicial system which lumps everything into categories and doesn’t know how to judge minors. Yes, I am a conservative, and no, I don’t rely on the government to be merciful and wise…
What I disagree with is the next jump in logic you’ve taken – saying that since in your case the revelation of this boy’s actions started this chain of events, for some reason you think that means that Planned Parenthood should not be required to report _any incident of sex with a minor_.
That’s an odd position to take for someone who just vented about the sex drive of adolescent boys.
I think you just want Planned Parenthood to survive at any cost. Let’s find out. In an earlier post, you ask: “Assuming you and your fellow blue noses manage to force PP to start turning in boyfriends, what kind of score do you think you’ll rack up?” Let me propose a different one and see how you respond: Assuming PP continues to not report incidents of sex with a minor, (as has been documented and is actually the case as we debate,) making internal decisions in favor of allowing the incidents to continue and quietly carrying out an abortion to destroy the evidence, how many rapes do you think are going to pass through?
How many young men with not-so-good intentions are going to see Planned Parenthood’s policy as ‘friendly’ to their needs? What would be the number of unreported actual sexual abuses of minor women by older men that would cause you to say, well, that’s enough – looks like Planned Parenthood needs to be reeled in?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact