Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Planned Parenthood’

Of the many incongruities arising from last week’s savaging of the Susan G. Komen Foundation by Planned Parenthood and its minions, the greatest single seeming incongruity is the disproportionate attack on Komen in light of the paltry sum of money involved.

Planned Parenthood is a $1 Billion per year organization who stood to lose $600,000 in Komen grant money. Organizations routinely loose that much money, and more when grants are not renewed, and they are organizations for whom $600,000 is the difference between life and death for the organization.

For Planned Parenthood, the loss of Komen funding represented 6/10 of 1/1000 of their budget. So what’s going on here?

It wasn’t the money at issue, it’s what Komen’s support means for the organization. Planned Parenthood makes their money performing abortions, mostly on young people. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director, Abby Johnson, tells of how the corporate model at PP was built around abortions.

The charade of concern for women’s breast health is the only socially acceptable vestige left for the organization’s bruised and tatttered reputation. Planned Parenthood performed manual breast exams and referred women to mammogram centers. In some instances, it appears that they paid for the mammograms.

However, Planned Parenthood lied about performing mammograms, and Lila Rose caught them in that lie.

Subsequently, Komen decided that their money would be better spent on paying directly for mammograms, and that’s when all hell broke loose.

Planned Parenthood has an odd way of demonstrating its concern for women’s breast health. They target teenagers with low-dose birth control pills which will fail in their contraceptive effect if not taken precisely on schedule, setting up a lucrative abortion. What the oral contraceptives will not fail in doing is increasing the risk of the deadliest and most aggressive form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.

How much risk?

According to Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute in a 2009 paper, women whose age of first use is below 18 years old have a 540% increased risk. Is that statistic in any of Planned Parenthood’s literature?

The link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer has been known for decades, yet Planned Parenthood dispenses these dangerous drugs to children with reckless abandon.

PP are the lepers of the medical community. They have been caught:

Lying about performing mammograms.

Aiding in child sex trafficking.

Repeatedly showing willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape.

Violating informed consent by giving women medically inaccurate and fabricated information to coerce them into having an abortion.

Enthusiastically accepting money earmarked for aborting Black babies.

This is an organization that makes no distinction between a ten year-old and a twenty-four year-old regarding sex, contraception, and education. In their own words from page 10 of their booklet, Stand and Deliver:

The World Health Organization defines young people as those from 10 to 24 years of age, including adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years). IPPF uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years.

This is an organization that tells children in their booklet, Healthy, Happy, and Hot, that disclosure of their HIV status to a sex partner is not mandatory and just another ‘choice’:

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.


There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometimes fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.

Were all of that not enough, Planned Parenthood has outdone themselves in their latest document, Exclaim!, calling for the abolition of parental consent laws and calling for the sexual rights of ALL persons under the age of 18.

This is the face of a social parasite, of the destroyer of children, of the enormous parasitic organism who preys upon our sons and daughters. All they have left is women’s breast health as the last vestige of credibility, and without Komen, they are sunk.

It wasn’t the 6/10 of 1/1000 of their annual budget that was the threat, it was the loss of the borrowed credibility from Komen that threatened them.

As symbiotic relationships go, this one between PP and Komen is a textbook definition of parasitism. Not only does Komen not need the relationship with PP, but the association is an occasion for PP to engage in a blood meal, feeding off of Komen’s enormous reserves of credibility and good will in the community.

Brinker needs to point out the ugly reality of PP and cut the ties. It would also help if she gave the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the link between the pill and breast cancer their proper recognition.

As the head of the world’s premeir breast cancer foundation, she has an obligation to report the whole truth. If she doesn’t, she isn’t acting in women’s best interests. Unlike PP and the abortion industry, Brinker should tell women the whole truth, and then trust them to make their choices.

Choices that are fully informed.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t trust women, or children. That’s why they savaged Brinker for attempting to withdraw the protective cover of Komen’s good name.

Read Full Post »

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

~Luke 19:1-10

Earlier this week, the pro-life community had high hopes as Planned Parenthood announced that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had withdrawn their funding…

…sort of.

Komen would not give money beyond funds committed for this fiscal year to an organization that was under government investigation and who didn’t do mammograms. Komen would no longer issue “pass-through” grants, which payed PP to be the middle-man. Jubilation erupted amongst pro-lifers and the word went out to start funding Komen.

Then came yesterday’s clarification by Komen. They will not fund organizations under criminal investigation (but exempted “political” investigations). Further, they reaffirmed their commitment to funding the existing grants, and preserved PP’s eligibility to apply for future grants.

That doesn’t mean PP will actually get the grants. Theoretically, any women’s health agency is eligible to apply.

Then the word went out in many pro-life quarters to stop funding Komen until we see how this clarification plays itself out. As institutional and political policy goes, that’s pretty sound advice. There is, however, a very human dimension that such policy overlooks, and we need to examine that dimension in light of the Gospel story shared above.

Jesus didn’t wait for sinners to convert before He called to them, ate and drank with them. That peeved the religious leadership of His day. He didn’t demand conversion as a precondition for His love. Conversion was the consequence of being encountered by the love of Jesus.

Zacchaeus was the Cecile Richards of his day. He defrauded his people as he collected taxes for the Roman occupiers. Like Richards, he was a social leper, a pariah. Brinker’s support of PP and her association with Richards has made her little better in the eyes of pro-lifers, a status not altogether undeserved.

I have written about this unholy alliance, as have many, many others. In December, Komen began to change course. Planned Parenthood has had six weeks to organize and gin up their attack machine, making it appear as though there was a groundswell of support for PP and disgust for Komen. Something is being missed here, regarding Brinker.

She has been in bed with PP for years. We ardently desire to see that relationship end, however it should be noted that Satan doesn’t let go easily when we try to climb out of bed with him. Such was the case this week when Komen was savagely attacked, and for what?

Not funding Planned Parenthood for not doing mammograms.

Facing an existential threat, Komen backpedaled.

The response from the pro-life community ought to be the full embrace of Brinker, to let her know that it will be alright in the end. We should gin up our own attack machine against any corporation that breaks faith with Komen because they dare to fund actual mammograms over PP’s cheap squeeze. We should savage any group that dares to castigate Komen for wanting the best for our women, instead of second-best.

No, Brinker is unlikely to come up to the communion rail and profess Jesus as her personal Lord and Savior.

No, there won’t be a made-for-TV moment of conversion.

If that’s what people were expecting, forget it.

Brinker has a tiger by the tail and got a good lesson in how badly mauled she can get for letting go. Now she’s reeling from the mauling, and this is no time for us to sit on our hands. This is when she needs our support the most. Her conversion will be gradual, and painful. The magnitude of her past sin in bedding down with PP determines the magnitude of the consequences for breaking those ties, and the magnitude of support she will need in going forward.

We need to meet with Brinker, in private and in strictest confidence to ascertain her needs and how we can help Komen be all that it can be ethically and morally in its vital mission in saving women’s lives. We need to offer her more than a kind word for attempting doing the right thing.

We need to offer her our Christian love, a love that calls to her in her own self-imposed social exile as Jesus called to Zacchaeus in his, a love that is unconditional. Then we need to embrace each change, no matter how small.

Nancy Brinker is a woman who has tried to chart a new course and was savaged with a hellish fury this week. The question for us this week is who we wish to emulate:

Jesus, or the crowd who muttered, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

Until Brinker shoves us away definitively, I’m with Jesus. I’ll gladly dine with Nancy Brinker and support her in any way that I can. She is a woman of great influence for good or ill, and that is why Hell unleashed its minions on her this week.

Pray for her.

Read Full Post »

For those women who go to Planned Parenthood, this is a sight that you have not seen to date. It’s a mammogram machine. It’s what Planned Parenthood led people to believe they had and used.

They lied.

Foundations don’t like it when they give an organization millions of dollars for services that are not rendered. They’re just funny about stuff like that, and Susan G. Komen is to be applauded for finally putting their foot down and pulling Planned Parenthood’s funding.

SGK Chairwoman Nancy Brinker is Susan Komen’s sister and has been making good on a deathbed promise to Susan to find a cure for this disease. Brinker could simply put all of her eggs in the research basket and go full throttle on research.

She doesn’t. She has taken a humane and balanced approach by also funding breast cancer screenings for middle-aged women, and preventive education for younger women.

The problem is that she gave millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, who said they performed mammograms, but only performed manual breast exams (feeling for lumps). That’s a problem. In the spectrum of clinical services, a manual exam is orders of magnitude less effective at detection than a mammogram.

The narrative against Komen is that needy women will now suffer because Komen is going to…

…wait for it…

…Fund organizations that will do actual mammograms for needy women.

So vexed is the Planned Parenthood crowd that New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has offered Planned Parenthood a $250,000 matching grant for fundraising. This means that PP will have $500,000 within a week to continue their manual breast exams on women.

Too bad New York’s billionaire mayor didn’t seize on the opportunity to purchase an actual mammogram machine for New York’s hundreds of thousands of low-income women. Instead, he continues to fund the building of PP’s Potemkin villages.

Though it seems longer, it was only last year that Lila Rose released undercover videos of PP nurses advising a “pimp” and his bottom girl to take their teenage prostitutes to the county health department for free services if they lacked health insurance or cash.

Is that not the reason why city, state, federal, and foundation money (such as Komen’s) was given to PP in the first place?

Hear the lie directly from Cecile Richards’ own mouth, and the truth from PP employees regarding the mammograms:

The response of PP is to claim that they provide referrals for mammograms, which is pretty weak, at best. PP may also have reimbursed some centers for mammograms, but why the middle-man?

Not detecting a lump by manual exam does not mean that there are no lumps. If palpation were as good as a mammogram, we wouldn’t perform the mammograms at all. That’s pretty basic stuff. So why does PP need Komen’s money? Because PP needs money. Period.

For the best chance at catching cancer in its earliest stages, women will need a mammogram referral anyway, regardless of lump detection. So why can’t PP just give the referral over the phone when women call, or hand it to them when they walk in off the street?

Because mediocrity never concerns itself with excellence in patient care. Mediocrity is all about the money. Komen has made a wise and ethical business decision by cutting out the middle-man and funding actual mammograms. Mediocrity’s reply?

Women are going to suffer and die because Komen prefers to fund actual mammograms over squeezing breasts.

What PP has not said is that they are so committed to women’s health that their staff are all donating five hours per week to perform their manual breast screenings and give referrals for mammograms.

They haven’t said it because that’s not part of the business model.

This is PP’s most dire hour. If Komen is allowed to pull up stakes without being savaged, plenty of big corporations will pull up stakes as well. Plan to see corporations abandoning Komen, not out of anger at Komen, but for fear of Planned Parenthood. There is a simple strategy to blunt PP’s attack.

Komen, TODAY, needs to announce a new inner-city initiative where they will purchase mammogram machines for the neediest urban centers, where local governments will provide low-cost, and medicaid-subsidized mammograms as the answer to PP’s cheap squeeze. They should then issue a call to all major corporations to join in this effort.

And what better month to do it in than Black History Month where we turn our attention to racism’s residue, which has left us with enduring inequities? Given the frightful incidence of breast cancer in the Black community, it’s an initiative whose time has come.

Komen can seize this opportunity and lead the way with excellence as the antidote to Planned Parenthood’s mediocrity.

Read Full Post »

Dear Ms. Brinker,

As one who has been at odds with SGK over your organization’s funding of Planned Parenthood, I write today to offer you my heartfelt gratitude and congratulations for the principled and prudential position that you have taken in defunding Planned Parenthood.

Having lost many family members to cancer, and having several close friends experience the ravages of breast cancer, I’ve experienced this issue intimately and laud you for making good on your deathbed promise to your sister, Susan. You have done what so many researchers could only dream of.

You have rallied an entire nation around women and the disease that strikes fear not only into their hearts, but into the hearts of the men who love them passionately. You have raised hundreds of millions of research dollars and in so doing have advanced the understanding of molecular medicine in the field of oncology far beyond where it would be today, but for your foundation’s single-mindedness of purpose.

In all of that focus on research, you have not forgotten the women of today who lack the means for appropriate breast screening utilizing state of the art mammography, and the need for younger women to be educated in prevention. Toward that end, it is my understanding that you and Planned Parenthood saw a shared mission and purpose in the field of women’s health where breast cancer screening and prevention were concerned.

Many of us heard of your largesse in funding breast screenings at Planned Parenthood, screenings which we were told included mammograms. Tragically, we have come to know that Planned Parenthood lied about performing mammograms, and in so doing took money from SGK that might have otherwise benefited women through mammography elsewhere, or through additional research.

Over the past few years, repeated sting operations have time and again caught Planned Parenthood acting with treachery:

Lying about performing mammograms.
Aiding in what they perceived to be the sex trafficking of minors.
Suborning lies from perceived minors to skirt reporting of statutory rape.
Lying about the developmental status of the baby they were about to abort.

And on, and on…

SGK’s February 1, 2012 statement of clarification speaks very clearly as to why the defunding took place:

We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight.

Starting in 2010, Komen began an initiative to help us do a better job of measuring the impact of community grants. This is important because we invest significant dollars in our local community programs–$93 million in 2011, which provided for 700,000 breast health screenings and diagnostic procedures.

Following this review, we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women. To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars. Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.

Some might argue that our standards are too exacting, but over the past three decades people have given us more than just their money. They have given us their trust and we take that responsibility very seriously.

We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics. Throughout our 30 year history, our priority has always been and will continue to be the women we serve. As we move forward, we are working to ensure that there is no interruption or gaps in services for the women who need our support most in the fight against breast cancer.

Indeed your stringent criteria leave little room for organizations that are repeatedly caught in sting operations either lying to, or suborning lies from young people. Such criteria also no doubt would require an organization such as Planned Parenthood to actually perform the mammograms they claim to perform, or at the very least, set the record straight when others make such false claims on their behalf.

So now you are being assailed by Planned Parenthood and their devotees for being…

…what?

Anti-women’s health?

That’s a tough narrative to sell where SGK is concerned.

If the word circulating on the internet is true, Planned Parenthood has raised over $400,000 in response to your withdrawal of funding. This is indeed good news all around. Planned Parenthood has demonstrated repeatedly that when monies are withdrawn they have the capability of stepping up and doing the necessary fundraising to offset and replace the lost income. That is a cardinal sign of a strong and financially healthy organization. It means that SGK can give their support elsewhere, confident in knowing that Planned Parenthood can thrive without your support.

You have acted here with the highest integrity and moral courage. Your manifest integrity should serve as a beacon to corporations that currently fund Planned Parenthood, and who might fear the backlash and vilifying you have been receiving should they similarly redirect their money. I would encourage those corporations to fund real women’s health initiatives by funding Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Such a move would indemnify themselves against Planned Parenthood’s predictable allegation of hating women and not supporting women’s health. It would also increase your efficacy in accelerating the arrival of that day when this terrible scourge becomes a thing of the past. Perhaps corporations switching their support might in conjunction with SGK establish a program of purchasing and donating mammogram machines to areas of need, especially for low-income women.

For now, Ms. Brinker, my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude once again for your principled leadership in upholding your exacting standards with equally rigorous equanimity, regardless of the consequences. Through your principled leadership, many more women’s lives will be saved, and many more women made whole once again.

God Bless You,

Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

Read Full Post »

The first paper I ever wrote in graduate school was a review of the literature on Leprosy. It is a disease transmitted by contact that we now know to be caused by a close first cousin of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis, and can be cured using the same antibiotics that we use against TB. This miracle of 20th Century medicine has emptied the leper colonies, arresting and eliminating the disease in its earliest stages before it maims and disfigures its victims.

Sunlight seems to be having the same salutary effect on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and they have elected to leave the leper colony, as Planned Parenthood languishes with the increasing ravages of their disfigurement, unwilling to take the medicine that would end the insideous effects of their disease. It’s actually too late for Planned Parenthood, but for Komen, there is yet hope.

The sunlight began to pierce the darkness back in 2007, when Dorinda Bordlee, Vice President and Senior Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund met Eve Sanchez Silver who told her about her about the Komen-Planned Parenthood funding link. Silver, a breast cancer survivor and charter member of Komen’s Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council, resigned from Komen, stating,

As a Christian and life affirming citizen I can not reconcile the Foundation’s decision to affirm life with one hand and support its destruction with the other.

Bordlee began to research Komen’s grant database to confirm Silver’s claims. The most recent data available to her back then were the 2005 numbers which showed over $700,000 in grants made by certain Komen state affiliates to their local Planned Parenthood clinics. Subsequent grant totals can be read here at BDF’s site. BDF’s initial findings were picked up and pursued by a great many who then launched their own investigations.

It was discovered that Komen Founder, Nancy Brinker (Susan Komen’s sister), sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in North Texas. Jill Stanek wrote two great articles about the links between Komen and PP.

At the heart of the matter lies three essential issues regarding the deplorable decision by Komen to fund PP:

1. The causal link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC link).
2. The causal link between breast cancer and oral contraceptives.
3. The fact that Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms.

Yes the ABC link is hotly disputed, and only because radical proabort researchers have lied through their teeth about the literature. I’ve written 56 articles dealing with this link, which can be read here. Placing that contentious issue to the side, along with PP’s complicity in placing women at risk for breast cancer through their abortion services, we need to look at the role of PP in dispensing oral contraceptives, which have been well established causes of breast cancer.

In 2009, the same Dr. Louise Brinton who is Branch Chief in Epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, and who chaired the sham 2003 workshop denying the ABC link, coauthored a 2009 paper in which she listed abortion and oral contraceptives under known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The reference for the paper follows at the end of the article.

In their paper, the authors list in Table 4. Multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios for all breast cancer cases, triple-negative
and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to oral contraceptive risk factors, stratified by age at diagnosis under age 40 and
41-45 y
, the following devastating information.

The risks for acquiring the deadliest, most aggressive and difficult to treat form of breast cancer, Triple Negative Breast Cancer based on age of first use of oral contraceptives is:

Age 22+: 250%
Age 18-22: 270%
Age Under 18: 540%

These numbers, from some of the finest minds in science, beg the question:

What would possess an organization such as Komen to ever fund an organization that dispenses birth control pills like candy? Could it be the claim that PP does life-saving breast screenings?

Certainly, Senator Barbara Boxer has been quite vocal about PP’s “mammograms”, as reported here.

In truth, PP does NOT perform mammograms. When one hears the term, “breast screening” or “breast cancer screening”, one tends to envision a mammogram. Instead, PP’s screening is a palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps. So, yes, if a lump is detected, and if the lump is cancerous, that could be lifesaving. But if no lump is detected? Is the woman given a referral for a mammogram?

It is the mammogram that is essential.

A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density make it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms.

In an era where less than 10% of research grants are receiving federal money, there is no dearth of scientists in desperate need of funding for legitimate research purposes. One can barely walk the corridors of a university without bumping into them, so Komen should have no difficulty at all in finding and funding worthy Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who simply cannot access the ever-dwindling supply of federal research dollars.

As far as funding prevention efforts, the neglect of the Dolle and Brinton study, or the many other papers showing oral contraception’s role in breast cancer is tantamount to a crime.

Komen is to be applauded for getting out of the leper colony and breaking its funding ties with one of the largest purveyors of death on the planet. The great work of antisepsis begun by Eve Silver and Dorinda Bordlee that was picked up and furthered by thousands will help Komen more fully achieve Nancy Brinker’s deathbed promise to her sister to do all she could to find a cure. Now that Komen is out of funding causality and lies, they may see a more robust financial future, which we all pray may help speed the end of this scourge which afflicts so many of our wives, mothers, sisters, friends, and other loved ones.

As for Planned Parenthood the mask has been ripped away, in no small measure by Lila Rose and her associates, revealing the true face of the leprosy lurking under the guise of women’s healthcare.

Reference:

Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women
Under the Age of 45 Years

Jessica M. Dolle,1 Janet R. Daling,1 Emily White,1,3 Louise A. Brinton,4 David R. Doody,1
Peggy L. Porter,2 and Kathleen E. Malone1,3

Divisions of 1Public Health Sciences and 2Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; 3Department of Epidemiology, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington; and 4Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4). April 2009

Read Full Post »

Here is a video of the Girl Scouts’ CEO Cathy Cloninger on The Today Show admitting to Girl Scouts partnering with Planned Parenthood. H/T Cathy Cleaver Ruse who has done outstanding work on outing these liars who deny the relationship.

Read Full Post »

Planned Parenthood Condoms Packaged as Lolipops for Teen Campaign, with Their Teen-Line number Printed on Back

In anticipation of the UN Conference on Children later this month, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has released a new document, Exclaim!

In this document, Planned Parenthood leads an all-out assault against parental rights over their children by calling for laws to empower children and leave parents out in the cold.

Some key excerpts from the document:

Inalienable: Everyone is entitled to human rights simply for being human. Human rights cannot be taken away or given up from anyone, irrespective of their age, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, disability, HIV status or health status. reproduction, reproductive health and
parenthood.

This from the people aborting over 330,000 humans per year in the US, including those with disabilities. This from the people doing gender-specific abortions. Do they hear themselves speak?

Another reason why young people’s sexual rights are particularly complex is because of the need to both protect and empower young people. There is a common assumption that young people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, so parents or other adults should have full authority over decisions related to their
sexuality. Resistance to recognize young people’s sexuality and their decision- making abilities makes the realization of young people’s sexual rights all the more challenging.

The concept of the evolving capacity of young people stems from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It draws attention to the rights of children and adolescents, as well as calls on leaders and societies to value young people’s opinions and decisions in light of their evolving capacities.

As a father of three young children, I have not noted in them any evolved capacity for making sound and reliable judgements regarding sex. I’m still trying to get them to make good hygiene a habit. They need strong parental authority to guide them in their development.

All people under 18 years should enjoy the full range of human rights, including sexual rights. The importance and relevance of some rights change as a person transitions from infancy to childhood to adolescence. Therefore, the rights of children and youth must be approached in a progressive and dynamic way.

The rights and protection of young people under the age of 18 differ from those of adults. Particular attention must be given to these differences in relation to sexual rights. The evolving capacity of young people to make decisions about their health and well- being must be recognized, while also ensuring appropriate protection of their best interests.

Were all of that not enough, here’s the killer, one of PP’s stated goals:

REMOVAL OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT OR SPOUSAL CONSENT LAWS THAT PREVENT YOUNG PEOPLE FROM SEEKING SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

Lest anyone doubt how young Planned Parenthood’s target audience is, try TEN YEARS OLD!!

From another one of several PP documents aimed at children:

Stand and Deliver: Sex, Health and Young People in the 21st Century (click here to read the document).

Defining Adolescence

As most societies define adolescence and youth in terms of both age and life circumstances, there is no universal agreement on what is a ‘young person’. The national legal age for political participation and the availability of data on different age groups can also determine how societies define youth. The World Health Organization defines young people as those from 10 to 24 years of age, including adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years). IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years. Defining all people under 18 years of age as a child is often not useful because it ignores the circumstances of youth who are faced with pressures and responsibilities that are usually reserved for adults. Policies and programmes for young people should focus not so much on age, but on the specific developmental needs and rights of individuals as they transition from childhood to adulthood.

This new document, Exclaim! does not specify a bottom age limit, though Stand and Deliver does. Perhaps Exclaim! is going all the way with no age restrictions at all.

Exclaim! is as diabolical a piece of evil as can be crafted. Planned Parenthood has declared an all-out World War on parental rights. If there were doubts before, there can be no doubt now as to their malevolent intent regarding our children. This is war!

I’ll be writing more about Exclaim! this week. In the interim, here are a few other articles I’ve written that serve as backdrop for what is to come. They contain Centers for Disease Control Data that show the extent of this holocaust on our children.

Planned Parenthood to Girl Scouts: Masturbate, and You Don’t Have to Tell Sex Partners if You Have HIV

Planned Parenthood: The Next Joe Camel

Planned Parenthood and the STD’s of “Waist Up”

H/T Leticia Velasquez

Read Full Post »

Senator Boxer

It seems that Senator Barbara Boxer is insisting that Planned Parenthood really, REALLY, performs mammograms, despite Live Action’s latest sting. Read about it here.

It’s an odd set of circumstances. On the one hand, we have Abby Johnson, former PP clinic director, who claims that no PP does mammograms. On the same hand we have the same story from PP clinics taped in the latest Live Action sting. All claim PP merely gives referrals for mammograms performed at real health centers.

On the other hand we have Susan G. Komen giving millions of dollars to PP for mammograms they insist PP performs. We also have PP president Cecile Richards and Senator Boxer insisting that PP performs mammograms.

At the least, Richards ought to inform her employees that the mammogram machines exist at Planned Parenthood so they know enough to schedule appointments. While she is at it, perhaps she could get together with Senator Boxer and furnish the American people with a list of PP centers that perform mammograms.

Perhaps Richards and Boxer are correct, and the people who actually staff the centers can’t see the elephant in the exam room. Perhaps Live Action managed to beat all odds and call every PP center without a machine. If so, that’s a statistical feat that will never be duplicated anytime soon.

Read Full Post »

by Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

Last year at a United Nations meeting on Women, Planned Parenthood held a session for Girl Scouts where the adult leaders were not allowed in the room. (click here for the whole story) In that meeting, they made available to the girls their eighteen page booklet, Healthy, Happy, and Hot (click here to read it)

In this booklet, Planned Parenthood actually advises girls that they don’t have to tell their sex partners if they have HIV!! From the booklet:

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.

“There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometimes fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

So Planned Parenthood teaches children that they can cheat on their partner, secretly use IV drugs, and if they get HIV, their partner does not have the right to know.

Then, more sterling advice from Planned Parenthood:

“Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Don’t stop there: Find out how your partner’s body works, what makes them feel good and what gives them pleasure. Talking with your partner about what you each like and what feels good is the best way to have great sex.

“Your skin is the largest erogenous zone on your body, and your mind plays a big role in your desire for sex and sexual pleasure. Caress and lick your partner’s skin. Explore your partner’s body with your hands and mouth. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them. Tickle, tease and make them feel good.”

“Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice.”

And how young is Planned Parenthood’s target audience? TEN YEARS OLD!!

From another one of several PP documents aimed at children:

Stand and Deliver: Sex, Health and Young People in the 21st Century (click here to read the document).

Defining Adolescence

As most societies define adolescence and youth in terms of both age and life circumstances, there is no universal agreement on what is a ‘young person’. The national legal age for political participation and the availability of data on different age groups can also determine how societies define youth. The World Health Organization defines young people as those from 10 to 24 years of age, including adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years). IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years. Defining all people under 18 years of age as a child is often not useful because it ignores the circumstances of youth who are faced with pressures and responsibilities that are usually reserved for adults. Policies and programmes for young people should focus not so much on age, but on the specific developmental needs and rights of individuals as they transition from childhood to adulthood.

Faith Religion and Sexuality

Involving young people from all regions of the world, IPPF convened a meeting to give young people the opportunity to voice their experiences of their own sexual and reproductive health in religious contexts, and to learn about how to meet young people’s needs. Culture, religion and traditions are some of the biggest obstacles in implementing sexual and reproductive health programmes for young people.

That’s the enemy in their own words, words directed at children as young as ten.

Please read the other articles below to get the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s criminal and reckless conduct, and how our children are being corrupted and their health destroyed in what should be the happiest and most care-free years of their lives.

P.S. Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts have a long history with each other. (click here to read the details)

Read Full Post »

Planned Parenthood recently opened a clinic in my community, and parents are organizing to starve them of their prey–our children. Thus has Proud Parents of Staten Island been born. Being the pro-life blogger and scientist in the group, putting together a tight, manageable website for parents who know nothing of this has been the order of the day.

So……

drum roll……

Here’s Proud Parents.

It’s meant not only for our community, but also for all other parents, PTA’s, and families. There’s lots of good stuff on there, and I hope it helps. Please let me know of any suggestions for improvement.

Read Full Post »

The Catholic Church has certainly taken its lumps for speaking out consistently against contraception and where it naturally leads. Today we contrast two quotes. They speak to very different visions of the same human reality, and point to a validation of Rome’s visionaries.. The first is from the Church’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The second is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s statistician. Both excerpts speak for themselves.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION

15. The movement for the emancipation of women, insofar as it seeks essentially to free them from all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly sound ground.[22] In the different forms of cultural background there is a great deal to be done in this regard. But one cannot change nature. Nor can one exempt women, any more than men, from what nature demands of them. Furthermore, all publicly recognized freedom is always limited by the certain rights of others.

16. The same must be said of the claim to sexual freedom. If by this expression one is to understand the mastery progressively acquired by reason and by authentic love over instinctive impulse, without diminishing pleasure but keeping it in its proper place – and in this sphere this is the only authentic freedom – then there is nothing to object to. But this kind of freedom will always be careful not to violate justice. If; on the contrary, one is to understand that men and women are “free” to seek sexual pleasure to the point of satiety, without taking into account any law or the essential orientation of sexual life to its fruits of fertility,[23] then this idea has nothing Christian in it. It is even unworthy of man. In any case it does not confer any right to dispose of human life – even if embryonic- or to suppress it on the pretext that it is burdensome.

18. We know what seriousness the problem of birth control can assume for some families and for some countries. That is why the last Council and subsequently the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” of July 25, 1968, spoke of “responsible parenthood.”[24] What we wish to say again with emphasis, as was pointed out in the conciliar constitution “Gaudium et Spes,” in the encyclical “Populorum Progressio” and in other papal documents, is that never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating births.[25] The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order.

{The Bishops warned us that contraception took us one long walk down the road to abortion. They were ridiculed as clueless old celibates.}

Then, there is this from Guttmacher:

Contraceptive use is a key predictor of women’s recourse to abortion. The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives account for almost half of all abortions. Many of these women did not think they would get pregnant or had concerns about contraceptive methods. The remainder of abortions occur among the much larger group of women who were using contraceptives in the month they became pregnant. Many of these women report difficulty using contraceptives consistently.

This is quite an admission by Guttmacher. The people who hand out the birth control pills like candy indicate elsewhere that 54% of all women presenting for abortion were using contraception in the month in which they became pregnant. In the face of their colossal failure, they claim that what is needed is more contraception.

I love my Bishops.

Read Full Post »

Planned Parenthood receives a third of its BILLION dollar a year budget from the Federal Government. Aside from the fact that it’s illegal for Congress to fund 501(c)(3) organizations, it’s also illegal for Congress to fund abortion.

American Life League hits one out of the park with this most recent ad. Please share this.

Read Full Post »

Remember Joe Camel? Remember the furor over Camel brand cigarettes and their cartoon icon being used to market something dangerous and deadly to children? We were concerned that something children were doing in the present moment might well come back to bite them three or four decades later in the form of cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Rightfully so.

How would the debate have played out if children suffered these diseases within days or weeks of their first cigarette? How might we have responded under those circumstances? More vociferously, for certain. And if these diseases struck our children in their prime, maiming them for life, or even killing them, what sort of legislation would we demand regarding those who sell to minors?

Now let’s consider Planned Parenthood and how they have managed to strong arm our legislatures into doing their bidding, in being able to dispense contraceptives to children twelve and older without parental knowledge or consent, how they have fought against parental notification and consent laws regarding surgical and medical abortions on children, and how they circumvent these laws where they do exist with judicial bypasses.

Let’s consider how Planned Parenthood has their own cartoon character, Superhero for Choice, who kills Christian protesters in a promotional video targeting children. See the sick video here.

Planned Parenthood Superhero for Choice

We need to consider some Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data that shows the plight of our children, the staggering rates of their affliction with STD’s, how CDC says condoms don’t work very well at all in preventing disease transmission, and then we need to discuss the timing for some class action suits.

Consider:

Here are the CDC data that show what a horrifically effective job Planned Parenthood and their fellow travelers have done in destroying the lives of our young people, corrupting them in their innocence and fertility.

The data are from the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance, 2008. These data are presented as a follow-up to an earlier post on Planned Parenthood In New Initiative Targets 10 Year-Old Children With Condoms That Don’t Work. This is the new initiative by PP to finish off our children, pushing all-out for comprehensive sex education down to age ten.

A glance at the data tells the story. Children 10-14 have the lowest rates of STD’s as well as pregnancies. Recall how former PP center Director Abby Johnson t reported how PP is pushing hard for abortions, as they are the principle source of income.

Now link to the post linked above, and look at the data on STD’s and condom efficacy. Condoms don’t work. Even CDC and Planned Parenthood’s own contraceptive bible state as much.

Now consider how much higher condom failure rates and early teen pregnancies would rise after PP gets done completing the corruption of our youth.

As we say in the lab, the data don’t lie. The age groups are in the center of the graphs with the incidence per 100,000 for men and women going to the left and right respectively. The disease being reported is at the bottom of each graph.

Chlamydia — Age- and sex-specific rates: United States, 2008


.
.

Gonorrhea — Age- and sex-specific rates: United States, 2008


.
.

Primary and secondary syphilis — Age- and sex-specific rates: United States, 2008


.
.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) — Prevalence of high-risk and low-risk types among females 14 to 59 years of age from a national survey, 2003–2004


.
.

Genital herpes — Herpes simplex virus, type 2, seroprevalence in non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks by age group from national surveys, 1976–1980, 1988–1994, 1999–2004


.
.

Ectopic pregnancy — Hospitalizations of women 15 to 44 years of age: United States, 1997–2006


.
.
.
Finally, the abortion data. These data are from Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2006, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, November 27, 2009 / 58(SS08);1-35

White Bars=Number of abortions per 1,000 live births.
Blue Bars=Number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years.
Black Bars=percentage of total abortions, by age group of women who obtained an abortion — selected states, United States, 2006§

§Data from 48 reporting areas; excludes California, Florida, Louisiana, and New Hampshire.

The age groups may not be so visible along the bottom of the graph. They are, from left to right:

Under 15
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Over 40

These numbers fail to describe the numbers of cases of cervical cancer that will result from HPV, the numbers of ectopic pregnancies from PID, the numbers of future miscarriages from damaged cervixes in abortion, the horror of children contracting lifetime herpes infections.

Why do we not demand warning labels on condoms? Why do we not demand more stringent laws to protect our children when it comes to sex, especially when the consequences are so much more dire, so much more immediate, so much more life-altering at such earlier ages, than cigarette smoking?

The time has come for the adults to get serious about the savagery of our children by Planned Parenthood. It’s time to defund and dismantle this criminal enterprise once and for all.

We did it to Joe Camel.

We can do it again.

Read Full Post »

For as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by volcanos and volcanic eruptions. The science of Volcanology tells us a great deal about predicting an eruption, and the different types of eruptions.

Some are like Mount St. Helen where the buildup of pressure is so severe that it blows the side off of the mountain in one cataclysmic bang. Other volcanos simply ooze molten lava from their fissures and caldera in rivers that travel far and wide, spreading out and creating an entirely new landscape by burning away all in its path and becoming the foundational rock for an entirely new ecosystem.

The eruptions are preceded by increasing tremors, small earthquakes that herald the arrival of the searing newness from within the earth. Those tremors are a warning to all in the vicinity that impending newness cannot be stopped, and will clear away the most recalcitrant inhabitants who do not respect the power below their feet that is rising up to meet them.

So it has been in New York City these past months with the Pastors from a broad spectrum of Christian churches, most especially those in communities of color. The government’s data on abortion have gone out and shocked the consciences of even ardent proaborts. 89% of all abortions in New York City are had by minority community members. Only 11% are had by whites. And now the slumbering giant of the inner city has been awakened.

It began in early January with a rally in northern Manhattan, near Harlem. At that rally, I gave the numbers to a heartsick packed church. 4.3 million abortions in NYC since 1970, with close to 3.3 million being black and hispanics. In 2008, there were 512 abortions per 1000 live births for whites, while there were 1,260 abortions per 1000 live births for blacks.

One year later, the numbers for whites remain essentially the same, but the percentage of black pregnancies ending in abortion rose to 60%, or 1,500 abortions per 1,000 live births. And so the tremors began.

Since then, pastors have been meeting and discussing the impending NYC Council Bill 371, which will silence pregnancy centers. They have been discussing it in terms of the numbers in NYC. The tremors have gotten a liitle bit stronger.

Then Lila Rose released her explosive videos last week of their latest sting, and the pastors began to question why this organization, Planned Parenthood, operates 78% of their business in their neighborhoods. They have begun to question that 78% in light of the fact that 79% of all abortions in NYC are black hispanic. And they were disgusted at the aiding and abetting of child sex trafficking. And so the rumbles grew louder.

Then, the other sponsor of Bill 371, NARAL NY president Kelli Conlin has been targeted for a probe into massive financial misdeeds. God is moving in a mighty way, and now the earth trembles further.

The House voted decisively to cut Planned Parenthood’s funding in the wake of the latest in a long train of scandals, and fissures opened in the landscape.

Today, an ecumenical gathering of five priests, approximately 30 pastors, chaplains, and two protestant bishops took place. Again, I provided the numbers and discussed the science. The age-old divisions between Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Catholic have crumbled as we are uniting in our common humanity, as sons and daughters of God. Thanks to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the proabort politicians, we see the ancient divisions as luxuries we can no longer afford. Praise God. Next week, there will be dozens more pastors gathering to unite in a new pro-life coalition of clergy from across the spectrum of Christianity, as well as Judaism.

Today the lava started flowing, and the magma chamber of righteous indignation at the decimation of communities of color, at the wholesale slaughter of the unborn cannot be stopped. It has begun to flow, not with a cataclysmic bang, but with a steady, consuming, incremental creep across the landscape. It will consume this abortion industry as the purifying and sanctifying fire of the Holy Spirit of God continues to renew the face of our land. And this righteous indignation at the slaughter of innocents will harden, as all lava hardens. When it does, it will become the new bedrock, as all lava flows do, upon which an entirely new ecosystem will form. A just and righteous people forming a Culture of Life and a Civilization of Love.

Those politicians and parties who refuse to change will simply be voted into political oblivion, such is the power that has risen up to meet them.

When Evangelical, Pentecostal, Baptist, and Catholic clergy all unite in love and fellowship, in solidarity and mutual admiration, it’s a sign as sure as the plume of smoke rising above the mountain:

It’s all over for the proabort left. Change or make alternative career plans. The Father has united His children in opposition to you, and the mountainous divisions that have been overcome should be a sign to you of the magnitude of both opposition and unity you now face.

Read Full Post »

It’s been an interesting week in the Catholic blogosphere, to say the least.

The most damning evidence about Planned Parenthood has emerged in their 95 year history of eugenic genocide, complete with the evidence that they:

*May well have tainted the Virginia blood supply.
*Do not use the $350 million per year in federal funding for its intended purpose of providing health care for those without insurance or cash.
*Coached a pimp in how to lie about the age of minors in order to procure abortions.
*Showed a consistent willingness to aid and abet child sex-trafficking.

This coupled with the most pro-life Congress since Roe v Wade who were ramping up to defund Planned Parenthood, and the Catholic blogosphere erupts in spasms of indignation at…

Not Planned Parenthood…

But Lila Rose.

It is perfectly understandable that methodology is important. How we arrive at the end matters, and it is altogether proper to address methodology. But there is a proportionalism in the outrage that is frighteningly lopsided, to the the point of having handed Planned Parenthood Lila’s head on a stake. Of course, the question is, why?

The next question, in light of Lila’s past four years is, why now?

The last question is, why the magnitude?

To answer the more generic, “Why?”, and to return to matters of methodology, every discipline needs a method, and certainly this is true in science as well as morality and ethics. In biology, a poorly designed study yields data that are uncertain, especially if proper positive and negative controls are not employed. Data mean nothing if they are not held to an objective standard. The data are regarded as so much unintelligible gibberish in such cases.

In the Live Action sting, it is the contention of several (though not all) ethicists that Lila’s method failed the standard of the sacred sciences. It is contended that she used unjust means (lying) toward achieving a noble and just end (revealing the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors at PP). But in this case, the data are not unintelligible. They are not gibberish, as they are evaluated against the known standards in morality, law, medicine, and ethics. The behaviors are atrocious. So, in a worst case scenario, imperfect means were employed to yield a bumper crop of highly valuable, highly intelligible, and highly useful data.

The crux of the issue is whether Lila’s actions rise to the level of lying as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and which I treated in another post which can be viewed here.

In several critiques of my critique, many have held to philosophical traditions, many very Catholic, but do not address the core of my argument. That core is whether or not the method has become its own standard, and does not address the issue that permeates the Gospels, namely that Jesus used the spirit of the law as the external standard for guiding observance of the letter of the law. In the passages I cite, he drives this point home by citing how David broke the law, defended His Apostles’ breaking of the law, and then went so far as to rub the pharisees noses in it by healing a man on the Sabbath in their synagogue. In all of this, the spirit of the law was cited as the rationale for determining whether the precept of the law as observed violated the higher spirit of the law.

Despite my repeated attempts to engage the clear teaching of Jesus on this, the matter has been consistently side-stepped.

Growing up in the 70′s I suffered through situational morality and ethics which basically left one rudderless. Everything was relative. Catholic intellectuals who came of age in that time and saw the awesome destructiveness of that are right to be wary of anything that smacks of situational ethics or morality today. But we can perhaps be too wary and err in the other direction. The disproportionate ink spilled over Lila would seem to suggest that perhaps a bit of that is in play.

Mark Shea, whom I read regularly and respect immensely, has written that he is concerned that the Live Action sting will set the pro-life movement off on a trajectory of dishonesty for the sake of short-term gain, becoming liars for Jesus. While this may anger some pro-lifers, I would caution that Mark’s concern is a valid concern, but I would also suggest that it has little soil in which to grow into reality.

Apart from the Live Action sting, there is precious little need in the pro-life movement for such undercover investigative techniques. In fact, the great strength of the pro-life movement today is that we have scientific evidence in great abundance to support us at every turn, whether it’s the sonogram technology revealing the intricacy and beauty of embryonic and fetal development, or the vast bodies of literature showing the psychological, oncological, gynecological, obstetrical, and infectious post-abortive sequelae. The truth is on our side. The proaborts have nothing but hackneyed bumper stickers.

So while Mark’s warning needs to be taken to heart, I just don’t see where pro-lifers would ever need to lie, and that brings us back to the central question which will not be resolved anytime soon:

Did Live Action lie?

Beyond that, the magnitude of the criticism of Lila Rose seems greatly misplaced, and more than a little ill-timed.

Finally, there has emerged a great deal of tension between the scholars and the troops on the front lines at the “clinics”, and not a little anger. Pure academia has its dangers, to be certain, as does pure activism. The former may seem cold and aloof, while the latter are left feeling as though they are being expected to bring a feather to a gunfight, and are tempted at times to use the most expedient means. I’ve worked on both sides, and see this from both perspectives. Not surprisingly, I see a need for a meeting in the middle. Such a meeting is not to suggest a compromise with morality, but rather to discuss whether indeed immorality was committed. Again, it is my contention that it was not. I also am waiting to see a comparable level of critique of Planned Parenthood from those who have taken exception with Lila.

Somehow, I surmise many will claim that their work is about critiquing moral methodology, hence the focus on Lila. To such a response I would say that a critique of Planned Parenthood’s moral and ethical methodology, based upon the sum total of Live Action’s four years of data, should keep these authors busy for months to come.

Update 2/20: The Last Word Here

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 738 other followers

%d bloggers like this: