Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Nigel Allen

unread,
Oct 11, 1992, 1:59:32 AM10/11/92
to

Here is a press release from the Planned Parenthood.Federation of America:

Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
To: National Desk
Contact: Roberta Synal, 212-261-4660,
or Bebe Bahnsen, 202-628-6260, both for
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

NEW YORK, Oct. 8 -- The following is a statement by
David J. Andrews, acting president of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America:

"The study in today's New England Journal of Medicine reporting
RU 486 as a safe and effective 'morning after' birth control pill is
an immensely important development. The study establishes RU 486 as
a new and effective means of preventing pregnancy in cases where a
woman's usual birth control method fails or in cases of unprotected
sexual intercourse.
"Women in the United States already have access to safe, 'morning
after' contraception -- available in most Planned Parenthood clinics
throughout the country. Doctors prescribe a high dose of birth
control pills, which acts on a fertilized egg before it implants in
the wall of the uterus.
"RU 486 offers not only a second effective method of post-coital
contraception, but one that virtually eliminates side-effects, such
as nausea and vomiting, commonly associated with the current 'morning
after' method.
"It is a national scandal that such an important scientific
breakthrough remains unavailable in the United States. RU 486 has
been accepted in Britain, France, Sweden, and China as a safe
alternative to surgical abortion and has demonstrated promise as a
treatment for a number of diseases, including breast cancer.
"Vocal anti-abortion zealots and their White House allies
represent a minority of Americans who oppose RU 486 -- a drug we now
know can reduce the need for abortion. The American people recognize
the absurdity of better health care for American families being held
hostage by political extremists. We call on the administration to
heed the national will and reverse its discredited opposition to U.S.
testing of RU 486."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
choose when or whether to have a child.
Planned Parenthood's 169 not-for-profit affiliates operate 922
clinics in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Planned
Parenthood centers provide medical and educational services for
nearly 5 million Americans each year, regardless of race, age,
gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
Through its international program, Family Planning International
Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
of women and men in the developing world.
-30-

--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Warren Lavallee

unread,
Oct 12, 1992, 8:50:20 AM10/12/92
to
In <1992Oct11.0...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel...@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
>largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
>to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
>choose when or whether to have a child.
[...]

>nearly 5 million Americans each year, regardless of race, age,
>gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
>Through its international program, Family Planning International
>Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
>of women and men in the developing world.

Sounds good huh? Look for a post tomorrow with some facts about the
accuracy of the above.

After reading something like that one would have to feel foolish to be in
disagreement with such a pristine organiztrion as this.

Let's see if it's accurate.
--
Root out the cause, not the effects. Be | true
Do not distort the truth. --+--
Pay attention. | Unbeliever
Work: war...@beloved.unidesk.com Compu$erve: 76450,3463 answer | the call.

Don Beaver

unread,
Oct 12, 1992, 2:04:51 PM10/12/92
to
In article <warren.718894220@beloved> war...@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>In <1992Oct11.0...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel...@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>> Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
>>largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
>>to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
>>choose when or whether to have a child.
>[...]
>>nearly 5 million Americans each year, regardless of race, age,
>>gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
>>Through its international program, Family Planning International
>>Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
>>of women and men in the developing world.

>After reading something like that one would have to feel foolish to be in


>disagreement with such a pristine organiztrion as this.

The word most suspect to me is, "individual:"

"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose


when or whether to have a child."

or,

"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."

Don
--
bea...@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged

Kevin C. Welch

unread,
Oct 12, 1992, 2:35:12 PM10/12/92
to
In article <Bw0sw...@cs.psu.edu> bea...@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>The word most suspect to me is, "individual:"

>"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
>when or whether to have a child."

>or,
>
>"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
>to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."

I have a similar sentiment. It makes no sense that when delivered
in Griswold v. Connecticut the judge said that the decision to have child
lies in the heart of the marital relation. The Justice went further to say
that this was protected by every interpretation of the Constitution.

So, it's ironic that it in Roe, it was held that the woman, whether in
marriage or not, has a fundamental right to determine the fate of her
z/e/f or "whether or not to have children".

Hmm. So let me figure this out. Before conception: decision and
rights up to both parents (marraige). During pregnancy, decision left
up to mother, as if it becomes more "fundamental" or more "private". And
after birth, both parents have equal rights.

I'm sorry; this is purely illogical and inconsistent with the court's
findings.

former fetus,

--
I need something to fly over my grave again . . . I need something to breathe.
r.e.m.
Kevin C. Welch
kwe...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

C.J. Silverio

unread,
Oct 12, 1992, 2:38:08 PM10/12/92
to

In article <Bw0sw...@cs.psu.edu>, bea...@castor.cs.psu.edu writes:
|"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
|when or whether to have a child."

How Pythonesque. Don't worry, Don. I fully support your
right to get pregnant. Too bad you don't have a uterus.

|or,
|"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
|to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."

So what? Some individuals-- women-- face more risk while
reproducing than others. Men take no risk, bear none of the
physical burden, and suffer no consequences to their health. Of
course women have an extra option that men don't.

Come back when men can get pregnant. Then you might have a
point.

---
c...@eno.wpd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Don Beaver

unread,
Oct 12, 1992, 3:53:29 PM10/12/92
to
In article <1bcgmg...@fido.asd.sgi.com> c...@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <Bw0sw...@cs.psu.edu>, bea...@castor.cs.psu.edu writes:
>|"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
>|when or whether to have a child."
>
>How Pythonesque. Don't worry, Don. I fully support your
>right to get pregnant. Too bad you don't have a uterus.

Actually, the opposite is the problem.

How did you transform "choose when or whether to have a child" into
"right to get pregnant"? Let's refer back to what the original poster
quoted from Planned Parenthood:

"...regardless of race, age,


gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.

^^^^^^


Through its international program, Family Planning International
Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
of women and men in the developing world."

^^^^^^^


>|or,
>|"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
>|to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."
>
>So what? Some individuals-- women-- face more risk while
>reproducing than others. Men take no risk, bear none of the
>physical burden, and suffer no consequences to their health. Of
>course women have an extra option that men don't.

Once again, we see the attitude that men are irrelevant. Perhaps
it would be less hypocritical if men weren't also automatically
responsible for a 18-year bill, regardless of their choice, or the
circumstances of fertilization, or their desire to raise children.


>Come back when men can get pregnant. Then you might have a
>point.

Come back when a mother has to work to support her child
if a successful father didn't want to have children.
Come back when fathers get 50% of child custody awards.
Come back when men are not tied to a maximal-earning-potential
job for 18 years due to birth control that is at best 90% effective.
Come back when no woman able to escape a lifelong "burden" through
legal abortion can make a lifelong reproductive choice that unilaterally
binds a man.

Come back when the ability to get pregnant is the determining factor
for the ability to raise children and the right to plan one's life.

Then we can speak of equity in reproductive decisions.

Warren Lavallee

unread,
Oct 13, 1992, 7:57:27 AM10/13/92
to
Nigel...@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>Here is a press release from the Planned Parenthood.Federation of America:

> Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and


>largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
>to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
>choose when or whether to have a child.

...


> regardless of race, age,
>gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
>Through its international program, Family Planning International
>Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
>of women and men in the developing world.

Some of you may know that Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned
Parenthood) was interested in Malthusian Eugenics. She believe that
"social regeneration" would only be possible as the "sinister forces
of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility" were repulsed.[1]
She had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and
the poor as a "symptom of a malignant social disease" because it
encouraged the prolificacy of "defectives, deliquents, and dependents."[2]
She yearned for the end of the Christian "reign of benevolence" that
the Eugenic Socialists promised, when the "choking human undergrowth"
of "morons and imbeciles" would be "segregated" and "sterilized."[3]
Her goal was "to create a race of thoroughbreds" by encouraging
"more children from the fit, and less from the unfit."[4] And the only
way to achieve that goal she realized, was through Malthusian Eugenics.

Birth Control Review- Margaret's magazine and the immediate predecessor to the
Planned Parenthood Review- regularly published racist articles on Malthusian
Eugenicists.[5] In 1933, the Review published "Eugenic Sterilization:
An Urgent Need" by Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler's director of genetic
sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.[6]
And later that same year, it published and article by Leon Whitney entitled,
"Selective Sterilization," which adamantly praised and defended the
Third Reich's racial programs.[7]

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized,
in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. Like the Ku Klux Klan,
the Nazi Party, and the Mensheviks, it has been from its inception implicitly
and explicitly racist. And this racist orientation is all too evident in its
various programs and initiatives: birth control clinics, the abortion
crusade, and sterilization initiatives.

During the 1988 Presidential primary season, Republican contender
Pat Robertson caused a nationwide stir when he charged that the long
range goal of Planned Parenthood is the creation of a "master race."
He also asserted that Margaret Sanger was an advocate of Eugenics
and various coercive sterilization programs.[8]

Planned Parenthood's response was immediate. And vehement. Fay Wattleton, the stunningly attractive black president of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America said that "All the charges are unfounded, and frankly, ridiculous."[9]
She said that Robertson's contentions were "without basis, and substance,
or even any remnants of facts."[10] Margaret Sanger's "philosophies were
not based on Eugenics," she argued. "Her philosophy was based on people
being allowed to choose for themselves."[11] She then dismissed the
charges of racism as "the same rhetoric we've all heard from televengelists
for ten years."[12]

Interestingly, just four years earlier in an interview with Washington Times
journalist John Lofton, Wattleton admitted that Sanger did indeed advocate
"Eugenics and the advancement of the perfect race."[13] And though she
tried to distance herself and her organization from those views, she was
forced to confess that Planned Parenthood has never officially repudiated them.

It appears that Robertson was right after all. The cloud of rhetoric
from Planned Parenthood notwithstanding.

[1] Margaret Sanger, "The Pivot of Civilization" (New York: Bretano's, 1922)
pg. 23, 176
[2] Ibid, pg. 108
[3] Ibid, pg. 110, 181, 264, 265
[4] Birth Control Review, 3:5, (May 1919), and 5:11, (November, 1921)
[5] See for example Warren Thompson's monthly BCR Series: "Race Suicide in
the U.S.," extending from August 1920 to March 1921.
[6] Birth Control Review, April, 1933 p. 102
[7] Birth Control Review, 17:4, 1933, p. 85
[8] The Tennessean, February 3, 1988
[9] Ibid.
[10] The Washington Times, February 3, 1988
[11] Ibid.
[12] USA Today, February 3, 1988
[13] The Washington Times, August 10, 1984

Susan Garvin

unread,
Oct 13, 1992, 12:20:30 PM10/13/92
to
One of the pro-forcers at Pitt wrote an editorial about PP
a few weeks ago. A response was published a few weeks later.

I'm reproducing the response.

"The Truth About Planned Parenthood

I love the way that people who generally don't give a damn
about African Americans get so concerned about us whenever it
suits their needs. In the 9/24 edition of _The Pitt News_.
Mr. Q [I'm deleting the guy's name] wrote a column about
Planned Parenthood entitled 'Welcome to Banned Parenthood.'
The first line in the column begins, 'As the leading
profiteer from abortion...' Well, I've spoken to friends,
activists and even the people at Planned Parenthood's New
York headquarters. Planned Parenthood is, in fact, non-
profit. From their, he goes on to quote Lise Fortier, who
he claims is the medical director of Planned Parenthood of
Los Angeles. Well, I called Planned Parenthood, L.A., and
Lise Fortier doesn't work there anymore.
From there, Mr. Garret gets into what really bugs me
about his column. His column is engineered to create
friction between African Americans and feminists. He
brings up Margaret Sanger and tosses around a few quotes
from the '30's and '40's. Apparently Ms. Sanger had
said some things that were racially uncool. This, I would
guess, means that the entire organization is inherently
racist and is in fact the enemy of all people of color.
Didn't George Washington own slaves? I guess that means
that the United States is inherently racist.
Even though I figured that his argument itself didn't
hold water, I called the Pittsburgh division of Planned
Parenthood and asked them a few questions about Margaret
Sanger. According to them, Margaret Sanger proposed the
'Negro Project' in response to a sugggestion of W.E.B.
DuBois. Goals for the project were:
*Reduction of the maternal mortality rate of African
American women - which at the time was twice that of white
women.
*Reduction of the African American infant mortality
rate - then 60 percent higher than that of whites.
*Enabling women with tuberuclosis, heart disease,
kidney disease, and other serious diseases to avoid
pregnancy.
*Enabling mothers to space their children at intervals
of two or three years.
Planned Parenthood also commented on the quote 'We
do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population.' According to Planned Parenthood, the
quote was taken from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, a
birth control activist, wherein she stressed the importance
of explaining the project to the African American ministers
who were to spread the word. They did this because there
were people who were suspicious of any white moves, and they
'did not want the word to get out' that 'they wanted to
exterminate the Negro population.' As opposed to Mr. Q's
painting of a eugeniscist conspiracy, the quote here seems
sensible.
Mr. Q tries to paint a eugenicist picture of Faye
Wattleton as well. He followed his earlier misquotes
of Sanger with Ms. Wattleton's quote 'I am proud to be
walking in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger.' Is this
to mean that former Planned Parenthood President Faye
Wattleton wants to exterminate African Americans? That's
interesting, considering that Faye Wattleton is an African
American - a fact that was carefully deleted from Q's
article.
I got a copy of an April 1992 article from _Family
Planning Perspectives_. According to 1988 data, only
36 percent of all abortions were performed upon non-
white women. This is a bit different from the 53 percent
reported by Mr. Q. These questionable numbers came from
a journal called _Diversity_. The column was written
by Andrew Zappia, who is the assoicate editor of the
_Common Sense Guide to American Colleges_. The article
doesn't mention where the data came from.
After this, Mr. Q begins the false concern segment
of his column. He goes into discussing the class
ramifications of abortion. Me mixes a statement about
class and race giving the impression that being a
minority and being poor are synonymous. I know Mr. Q
personally. Knowing that he is and has for years been an
ardent Bush supporter, I am forced to question Mr. Q's
level of concern for the poor. He follows this up with
his concern for how abortion 'physically damages the
woman's body and psyche...' If Mr. Q had concern about
these women after they were born, this wouldn't be
an issue. In fact, if he thought that women were
valuable to think for themselves, this again wouldn't
be an issue.
Mr. Q's column says to me that he thinks that women,
and particularly minority women, aren't capable of
making important decisions for themselves. I
received 11 pages of information on abortion from
Planned Prenthood, so the information is available
on abortion. If a woman choosed to talk to someone about
abortion, Planned Parenthood's ads point them in
the right direction. [Mr. Q had called for the
paper to quit running PP ads.] Oh, yeah, by the way,
Planned Parenthood doesn't currently perform
abortions."
-John Day

A disproportionate number of women of color died when
abortion was illegal.

Susan


Susan Garvin

unread,
Oct 13, 1992, 12:29:23 PM10/13/92
to

From "The Sacredness of Life," the Knights of Columbus:

"The science of Eugenics in itself and in so far as it
is a true science is quite in accord with Catholic principles.
The Catholic Church has always been in favor of healthy
offspring, healthy living, decent housing, working conditions,
or anything else that contributes to a healthy life. As a
matter of fact she has been a leading force in fostering
such objectives. Her opposition to the eugenics movement
is directed only against certain measures and methods. The
basic position of Catholic teaching in such matters is that
moral principles, rather than mere efficiency and 'social
progress', come first. Whereas, negative eugenics proposes
to decrease the number of inferior persons, positive
eugenics aims to increase the number of the superior.
(Raymond W. Murray, _Introductory Sociology, p.101)"


I guess that's why Jack Willke goes on about immigration
as a reason to oppose abortion.

Susan

Warren Lavallee

unread,
Oct 14, 1992, 9:28:38 AM10/14/92
to

In his magnum opus, "An Essay on the Principle of Population," Thomas
Malthus wrote:

"All children born, beyond what would be required to keep
population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless
room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons...
Therefore... we should facilitate, instead of foolishly
and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations nature in
producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent
visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously
encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel
nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the
poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our own
towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people
into the houses, and court the return of the plague.
In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant
pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy
and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate
specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those
benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were
doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total
extirpation of particular disorders."[1]

Malthusian Eugenics.

Sounds a bit different from your textbook definition. This is the
guy who created the idea. Are you actually agreeing with this?

Scientific Racism

Fact: Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities are well
represented in the upper echelons of the Planned Parenthood
organization.
Fact: Even the president of the national association was black (Fay).
Fact: Aggressive minority hiring practices have been standard and
operating procedure for Planned Parenthood at every level
for more than two decades.
Fact: The vast majority of our nation's ethnic leadership solidly and
actively supports the work of Planned Parenthood.
Therefore: The charge of racism in the organization is anecdotal at best,
entirely ludicrous at worst.

Right?

Wrong.

Because Planned Parenthood's peculiar brand of prejudices is
rooted in Scientific Racism, the issue is not "color of skin" or
"dialect of tongue" but "quality of genes."[2] As long as Blacks, Jews,
and Hispanics demonstrate "a good quality gene pool"[3]-- as long as they
"act white and think white"[4]-- then they are esteemed equally with
Aryans. AS long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, "the best of
their race,"[5] then they can be accounted as valuable citizens. If,
on the other hand, individual Whites demonstrate "dysgenic traits,"
then their fertility must be curbed right along with the other
"inferiors and undesirables."[6]

Scientific Racism is an equal opportunity discriminator. In
other words, anyone with a "defective gene pool" is suspect.
And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the
elite.

[1] Cited in Allan Chase, "The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the
New Scientific Racism" (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1977), p. 6
[2] John L. Keller, "Scientific Racism: Malthusianism, Eugenics, and
Recapitulation Beyond Nazi Germany" (New York: Capitol Research
Associates, 1967), p. xii
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid., p. xiii.
[5] Elasah Drogin, "Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society" (New Hope, KY:
CUL Publications, 1986) p. 23
[6] Keller, p. xiii.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages