Christina Martin

What Cecile Richards left out in her history lesson for Republicans

Christina Martin
By Christina Martin

November 16, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Do you remember learning about Thanksgiving in elementary school? The happy pictures of Native Americans and Pilgrims sharing a fall feast warmed my little heart. But as I grew older, my teachers gave me a very different history lesson than the one I learned as a child.

While I was shocked and saddened to hear about the injustices committed against the Native people, I was grateful to finally know the truth. Even though the truth isn’t always pretty, I’d take it over a lie any day.

Perhaps it’s my love of honest history which made it hard for me to swallow the lesson given by Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

Richards gave some advice tied in with a history lesson in a post-Election Day interview with the Huffington Post. It’s obvious that Cecile was excited that her choice for president won the election. Planned Parenthood invested lots of money in celebrity-endorsed videos and marketing campaigns to support Obama. After the Democrats won, Cecile thought she’d dispense some words for the Republican Party.

In essence, she urged Republicans to get back to our “roots” by supporting family planning. She told the Huffington Post:

Back in the olden days, the Republican Party was the party that supported people’s individual rights and keeping government out of personal health care decisions, so I think there’s a history they can go back to. A lot of Republicans used to support family planning, and Richard Nixon signed that first federal planning program into law. There’s a clear pathway to [win back women’s support], and it’s to listen to the middle of their party instead of the extreme fringe.

Since I like history, I thought I’d do some reading on the life of former Republican President Richard Nixon. I found out that Cecile was right about his strong stand for family planning.

The Huffington Post reports:

Indeed, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Republicans supported family planning initiatives and took a softer stance on abortion rights. Nixon was so enthusiastic about a federal family planning initiative for low-income women that he declared it a ‘national goal’ in 1969 before signing Title X into law.

Nixon was so enthusiastic about a federal family planning initiative that he declared it a national goal. Reading that could make some assume that Nixon was genuinely concerned about the plight of poor. Richards considers Nixon such an “inspiration” that she also mentioned him in a Feb 10, 2011 Huffington Post article titled, “Don’t Let Them Kill Family Planning!” In it Cecile shared these thoughts:

Richard Nixon may not be the first name most people associate with women’s health and reproductive rights. But as House Republicans ramp up their unprecedented assault on women this week, I’m starting to think of the Nixon era as an age of enlightenment. The Title X Family Planning program, which Nixon signed into law in 1970, is one of this country’s great achievements in public health and social justice. Clinics funded through Title X now prevent nearly a million unintended pregnancies every year. They save women’s lives through cancer screening, immunization and blood-pressure testing. Publicly supported family planning even saves the government money — $3.74 for every dollar invested.

While I don’t agree with her statement about Nixon’s era as an age of enlightenment, I will say my eyes were opened in a new way after reading about our former president.

In 1970, Nixon signed into law the Title X Family Planning Program. In 1973, Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Also in 1973, Nixon recorded audio tapes of conversations between him and members of his staff. The tapes, along with 140,000 pages of domestic records, 45 video oral histories, and 2,500 pages of once-classified national security materials, were later released.

As the Washington Post reports, the tapes revealed Nixon’s private feelings towards blacks, Jews, and other ethnic groups. In an excerpt from the article:

During another conversation with his personal secretary, Rose Mary Woods, Nixon expresses doubt about the opinion of William P. Rogers, his secretary of state, about blacks.

‘Bill Rogers has got somewhat – and to his credit it’s a decent feeling – but somewhat, sort of, a sort of blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York,’ Nixon said. ‘He says, well, “They are coming along, and that after all, they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.”

‘My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,’ Nixon said. ‘I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that’s the only thing that’s going to do it, Rose.’

Nixon’s racist viewpoints heard through his audio recordings have now become public knowledge. The documentary Maafa 21 shares a series of conversations Nixon had in 1972-73 dealing with low-income minorities and their children. You can watch the clip on YouTube or read the words I transcribed.

White House tape 697/29 March 30, 1972

Nixon: A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what’s going to be aborted are the little black bastards.

White House tape 700/10- April 3, 1972

Nixon: As I told you, we talked about it earlier – that a hell of a lot of people want to control the negro bastards.

White House tape 700/10- April 3, 1972

Nixon: And you know what we’re talking about – population control.

Unidentifed Staff: Sure.

Nixon: We’re talking really – and what John Rockefeller really realizes, look the people in what we call our class controls – their populations. Sometimes they’ll have a family of six, or seven, or eight or nine, but it’s the exception.

Unidentifed Staff: Sure.

Nixon: People who don’t control their families are people in – the people that shouldn’t have kids. Now that’s…

Unidentified Staff: The black population in the city of San Francisco has gone from 3,000 – right after World War II – to where they represent 30 percent of the population of San Francisco.

Nixon: What?

Unidentified Staff: Yes, sir.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Nixon, like Rockefeller, was part of a wealthy elitist group that bought into the lies of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It seems that Nixon’s enthusiasm towards “family planning” was just a guise to further support the eugenics-driven agenda of Planned Parenthood. Nixon, like Supreme Court justice Ruth Badger Ginsberg, admitted that he saw abortion as a means to controlling a population whose growth he feared.

Ryan Bomberger, founder of Too Many Aborted, wrote about the Cecile/Nixon connection:

Richards was a history major at Brown University. Certainly she’s aware of the easily discoverable and irrefutable historical facts surrounding Nixon and his racist advocacy of Population Control. But like Sanger and hundreds of other eugenists, she willfully divorces herself from the truth in order to press forward in her crusade to exalt the culture of birth control. These public audio recordings (revealed in Maafa21 and online for all to hear) show the vile racism with which this disgraced former President viewed black people. His solution to the problem of the ‘negro black bastards’ was to systematically eliminate them through birth control/abortion. By signing the Population Research and Family Planning Act of 1970 into law, Nixon solidified the government’s embrace of the eugenics movement backed by billions of tax dollars since the Title-X funding legislation passed.

Is this the history Cecile believes Republicans should get back to? Is Nixon someone we should seek to emulate? I for one won’t be following in his footsteps. The truth is that this tragic history of eugenics-motivated family planning has continued to repeat itself for forty years. Nixon’s agenda and Richards’ are one and the same. Cover it with pink paint or spin it with celebrity endorsements if you will, but the agenda of Planned Parenthood hasn’t changed.

If I want to get back to the “roots” of the Republican Party, I’d much rather follow the example of leaders in the mid-1800s who championed the anti-slavery movement. The Republican Party was once known for its commitment to abolishing slavery and fighting for the dignity and rights of black Americans. If I’m looking to taking advice from someone, I’d rather it be leaders who fought to save the lives of my people rather than destroy them. If I’m looking for an accurate history lesson, it won’t be from Cecile Richards.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook