OpinionWed Sep 5, 2012 - 4:34 am EST
Planned Parenthood’s war on the family
September 5, 2012 (Stopp.org) - Behind Planned Parenthood’s favorite slogan, “Every child a wanted child,” is a sinister agenda that strikes with deadly force at the child—the very heart of the family.
The late 1960s was a time when our brothers and best friends were disappearing from our ranks as they headed to Vietnam. Many never came back; others were forever horribly wounded—physically, spiritually, and emotionally. The war was front and center in the news every day, and we watched the horrors of war live and in color on our televisions.
At the same time, another war was coming to a head—a war that was hidden behind smoke and mirrors. It was a war that had been brewing like a deadly potion in a witch’s cauldron for decades; it was a war that would disfigure and seek to kill our families and our nation from within—and most of us never saw it coming.
It was a war that would backfire in the face of the women who championed it and who were supposed to benefit from it. In reality, it was a war on the smallest and the weakest in society, a war on morality and a war on the very backbone of society—the family.
It eventually became known as the sexual revolution.
And its most successful weapon looked so small, so innocent, so helpful. The sexual revolution was indeed catapulted into its heyday by a tiny pill.
One woman was front and center in developing and promoting that pill, setting the sexual revolution in motion. That woman was eugenicist and immorality expert extraordinaire, Margaret Sanger—the foundress of Planned Parenthood. Sanger practiced what she preached. She kept a husband and assorted lovers on the line simultaneously, and left her children with “anybody handy,” according to her son, Grant, while she gallivanted around the world promoting her sinister agenda.
Her war on morality and the family would eventually claim among its victories a supposed right for women’s autonomy over their “own” bodies, to the exclusion of the welfare of the new lives they were entrusted with by God. It was a war that pitted mothers against their own children in a battle to the death.
As Mary Eberstadt writes in her book Adam and Eve After the Pill:
A series of popes, some of the world’s leading scientists, and many other unlikely allies all agree: No single event since Eve took the apple has been as consequential for relations between the sexes as the arrival of modern contraception.
Modern contraception is not only a fact of our time; it may even be the central fact—in that it is hard to think of any other whose demographic, social behavior, and personal fallout has been as profound.
Today, the rotten fruit of the pill and the “sexual revolution” it propelled is all around us, as predicted by the Vicar of Christ himself.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI warned in his encyclical Humanae Vitae that widespread acceptance of contraception would result in dire consequences.
Dr. Janet Smith sums up Paul VI’s predictions about the consequences of contraception:
1. Infidelity and moral decline.
2. Lost respect for women. ”[T]he man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”
3. Abuse of power: “Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a ‘dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.’
4. Unlimited dominion: The idea of unlimited control over one’s body.
We find ourselves 44 years later in the midst of a society that has lost its moral bearings. Many young women today find that men, in general, are no longer interested in marriage, but are looking for a one-time sexual hookup, a “friend with [sexual] benefits” or, at the very most, a live-in lover. Birth control is expected, and is left up to the woman. When the birth control fails—as it does in the case of half of unintended pregnancies—the woman finds herself being shoved into a Planned Parenthood abortion facility, or often goes there herself to allay desertion by the one who should be protecting both her and their child. When she refuses to do so, she is often left to raise the child alone.
Sexual immorality, spurred on by the pill, is very bad news indeed for families. In 1960, when the pill came on the market, 5.3 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2010, more than 41 percent of children were born to unmarried women. Among black, non-Hispanic women, that rate soared to 73 percent.
Meanwhile, the number of divorced people increased by 345 percent between 1960 and 1992.
The number of unmarried women of childbearing age who are cohabiting skyrocketed from 439,000 in 1960 to 5.5 million in 2000—an astounding 1,150 percent increase in 40 years. In 2008, there were 6.8 million cohabiting opposite-sex adult couples.
The children of single mothers, overall, fare poorly compared to their peers who have both mother and father intricately involved in their lives. They are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to have problems with the law, and more likely as young adults to be unemployed and less likely to attain higher education.
Planned Parenthood lies when it says it represents the best interests of women and children. In reality, it is a social engineering machine that is intent on destroying the traditional family. Planned Parenthood is the orchestrator of a massive war on families—a war in which we all come out on the losing end.
Now it joins hands with the government to hold hostage Catholics and others who object to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortive drugs, playing the bully that will force us to violate our consciences or to pay huge fines and lose our businesses for daring to object to its mandate.
To paraphrase St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio), contraception is not just homicide; it is also suicide. It is time we heed the words of the popes, saints, and scientists who forewarned us of the monstrosity that is the pill, and join with one mind and heart to overcome the stranglehold of contraception on our nation while working to stop its advance worldwide. St. Pio, please pray for us.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Pro-life group asks: Pray for abortionists who sell baby body parts
February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - This Lent, a pro-life group would like you to pray for an abortionist - specifically, an abortionist who facilitates the sale of unborn babies' body parts.
The Pro-Life Action League is asking for people to pray for three people in particular throughout the 40 days of Lent. All three were caught on video by the Center for Medical Progress.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola appeared in the first video released last July, sipping red wine and stabbing her salad as she discussed the dismemberment of aborted children, including where to “crush” their bodies for a "less crunchy" technique.
The second is Dr. Mary Gatter, who appeared in the second undercover video, haggling over the prices Planned Parenthood expected to receive for the aborted children's organs and tissue. At one point, she joked that she wants the revenue to pay for “a Lamborghini.”
And the third is Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was also caught in the first video praising Dr. Nucatola.
Despite the shocking evidence uncovered by CMP, Richards has insisted her organization did not receive any profit for what she dubs its "fetal tissue donation program." She apologized only for Dr. Nucatola's "tone." She has since said that Planned Parenthood will not receive any remuneration for babies' body parts.
"These three architects of Planned Parenthood’s baby parts scheme have devoted their lives to the destruction and exploitation of human life in the name of ‘choice,’" said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "If we won’t pray for them, who will?”
He asked Christians to pray for these three abortion industry profiteers - and for Richards, who is a post-abortive woman - in order to fulfill Jesus Christ's commandment in the Bible, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (St. Matthew 5:44).
“In God’s eyes, what abortion has done to these three women may be worse than what they’ve done to unborn children, who now rest in our Lord’s loving arms," Scheidler said.
For most Catholics, Lent began yesterday on Ash Wednesday, and lasts 40 days.
Texas AG faces ethics probe for saying clerks can refuse to issue gay ‘marriage’ licenses
AUSTIN, Texas, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The attorney general of the state of Texas is facing an ethics investigation for having affirmed the constitutional religious freedom of state workers to decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Attorney General Ken Paxton took steps to address the issue of conscience protection in his state before and after last June's Supreme Court's Obergefell decision imposing same-sex "marriage" on all 50 states, first issuing a statement the day prior clarifying that Texas law recognizes the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and recommending that state officials wait for direction from his office should the High Court move to redefine marriage.
Paxton then issued a statement two days after the ruling, his office allowing county clerks and their employees to retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and said as well that justices of the peace and judges would similarly retain religious freedoms.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
A month later, a group of some 200 attorneys filed a complaint asserting that Paxton's position encouraged officials to violate the U.S. Constitution and break their oaths of office, according to ABC News.
The complaint was dismissed at first by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, but it was reinstated February 2 by a state Supreme Court-appointed appeals board, which contended that the complaint alleges a "possible violation" of professional conduct rules.
The appeals board decision to reinstate the case does not mean Paxton violated professional ethics, according to the ABC report, but does require him to respond to the complaint in conjunction with the investigation.
"The complaint has always lacked merit," said Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer, "and we are confident the legal process for resolving these complaints will bear that out."
Paxton was among several state officials across the U.S. who moved to ensure conscience protection in the immediate aftermath the Obergefell ruling, at times garnering the ire of homosexual activists.
Last July, South Dakota's attorney general granted permission to county clerks with conscientious objections to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as another clerk in the office would issue the license.
In a highly contentious case, Davis had asked for a religious accommodation allowing her office to issue altered licenses to homosexuals without her name on them, which was eventually granted by Kentucky's Governor Matt Bevin. However, the ACLU sued, seeking to force Davis to issue the old forms with her full name on them. A federal judge rejected the suit earlier this week.
Last year, homosexual activists sent harassing messages, including threats of violence, to Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk and his family after the Republican legislator sponsored a bill that would have given the state's business owners the freedom to follow their religious convictions in regard to homosexual "marriage."
Paxton faces penalties varying between a reprimand and disbarment resulting from the ethics complaint. The Texas attorney general is also facing securities fraud charges.
This pro-abortion billionaire may run for president
NEW YORK, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - He's an upwardly mobile, socially liberal billionaire whose political affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He's teased numerous presidential campaigns in the past, but this time he's talking like he's serious. And no, he's not who you think he is.
Michael Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor of New York City, has confirmed to media sources that he is considering running for president as an independent in 2016.
Bloomberg told told the Financial Times this week that he finds American political "discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," and that he's “looking at all the options."
The 73-year-old tycoon was a registered Democrat before switching parties to run in the less contested Republican primary in 2001. He became a registered independent in 2007.
As mayor, Bloomberg governed as a social liberal who strongly supported abortion and the LGBT political agenda.
In 2011, Bloomberg signed a controversial gag order directed at crisis pregnancy centers. A year later, he endorsed Barack Obama's re-election, saying that abortion-on-demand is part of "the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there."
That's the same year Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $50 million undertaking to expand "reproductive health," including a major partnership with Planned Parenthood-Global to overturn pro-life laws in four nations: Nicaragua, Sengal, Uganda, and Burkina Faso.
Mayor Bloomberg played a pivotal role redefining marriage in New York state, giving the four Republican state senators who voted for New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law. One retired and a second lost his primary fight.
His strong emphasis on health regulations, such as attempting to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, did little to enhance his popularity and were deftly parodied by Sarah Palin. (A state court struck down the proposed regulation.)
The financial heft he could bring into the race, as well as his quirky politics, has tempted Bloomberg to enter presidential politics in the past. He considered a presidential run in 2008 and thought more strongly about a third party bid in 2012, after hosting the inaugural convention of the “No Labels” movement in New York City in 2010, but he backed off each time after not seeing a viable path to victory.
With an estimated fortune of $39 billion, he has said he would be willing to spend more than $1 billion on his campaign in 2016 - but he would only enter the race if the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders.
He called Jeb and Hillary Clinton "two quality” candidates and "the only two who know how to make the trains run." Jeb reciprocated last month, telling CNN that Bloomberg is "a good person, and he’s a patriot and wants the best for the country.”
At least one of his competitors is eager to see Mike run. "I hope he gets into the race," Donald Trump told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Wednesday night. "I'd love to compete against him...I would love to see Michael in the race."
That is likely because polling shows Bloomberg would draw most of his support from the Democratic candidate. "Although he is characterized as the New York counterpunch to Trump, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is more the nemesis of Bernie than he is of Donald," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Bernie Sanders would defeat both Trump and Cruz in a head-to-head match, according to Quinnipiac. But if Bloomberg entered the race, he would win 15 percent of the vote largely from Sanders, giving Trump a one-point victory in the popular vote (and narrowing Cruz's loss to one point).
However, he could throw a major wrench in the Democrats' electoral college total, according to columnist Pat Buchanan.
"Not only would Bloomberg lose the Big Apple, his statewide vote would come mostly from the Democratic nominee, giving Republicans the best opportunity to carry the Empire State since Ronald Reagan coasted to re-election in 1984," wrote Buchanan, who served as White House communications director during Reagan's second term.
“It’s not beyond imagining that he could get in and have an effect on the race,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, told The Hill.
Perhaps sensing this, numerous Democrats - including Senators Claire McCaskill and Jeanne Shaheen - have thrown cold water on a Bloomberg presidential run.
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, said this week that an independent Bloomberg candidacy "won't be necessary" - because the Democrats already represent social liberals.
"I really think when he takes a good hard look, he will conclude that the issues that are important to him...[have] a natural home among our Democratic candidates," she said. "And so, I think Michael Bloomberg's agenda is well cared-for and advanced among our Democratic candidates, and his candidacy, I think he will find, won't be necessary.""
His entrance into the race would be a true injection of "New York values" - making him the third or fourth New Yorker in the race - alongside fellow billionaire Trump from Queens, the Brooklyn-born Sanders, and onetime New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Annie Linskey, a reporter for the Boston Globe who once worked for Bloomberg, told Fox News on Monday that there is "about a four" percent chance that Bloomberg will run.