In a disturbing YouTube documentary, a pro-life student at UCLA did an undercover project on Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. An actor working with her contacted several Planned Parenthood clinics, saying he wanted to make a donation to fund abortions of black babies. He said if there were fewer black babies around his son would have a better chance of getting into college, and he wanted to lower the number of black people in America. The response of the Planned Parenthood representatives? Sure. No problem.
Here's one of the dialogues taken from the YouTube documentary: Caller: ...I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Caller: And we don't, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable... This is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.
While shocking this is nothing new for Planned Parenthood. According to Blessed are the Barren: "At a March 1925 international birth control gathering held in new york City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the 'black' and 'yellow' peril. The man was not a national Socialist (Nazi) or leader of the Ku Klux Klan. The speaker was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control league (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood."
In fact, PP founder Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and supported eliminating the "unfit" in the population. Of her birth control efforts, she once wrote: "Birth Control is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator...the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization..." She wrote this in 1921 for the Birth Control Review which had on its masthead, "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds." (Taken from Blessed are the Barren.)
Not only does Planned Parenthood love getting money to kill unborn children but they're also seemingly fine with getting money from racist people who want to kill specifically black babies. Once the moral firewall of killing unborn babies is breached, I suppose there's no problem with being racist about it.
Social or religious conservatives are usually accused of being obsessed with sex because of their concern about pornography, sex saturated messages in the media, and so forth. I think the ones obsessed with sex are those who have elevated sex to religion in our culture. Those who view sexual expression, nearly any sexual expression at any time, as a form of personal liberation and even salvation.
A case in point is another Star Tribune editorial last week castigating what they refer to as "abstinence only" sex education. The first two lines of their editorial reveals their obsession.
Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective, unrealistic and can actually do more harm than good. Studies show that the "just say no'' approach to informing teens about sex just doesn't work.
Imagine that, encouraging children to wait until they are married to have sex "can actually do more harm than good."
The historical champion of birth control and laissez faire sex, Margaret Sanger, who is an icon of the contraceptive and birth control movement, voiced similar angry objections to abstinence and its advocates. As Chuck Colson noted in his book How Now Shall We Live:
[Sanger] adamantly opposed "the 'moralists' who preached abstinence, self-denial, and suppression," and described Christian ethics as "the cruel morality of self-denial and 'sin'". She hoped to replace it with her own morality of sexual liberation, promising that the release of sexual energies was "the only method" by which a person could find "inner peace and security and beauty."...
And she resorts again to religious language: "Through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise."
The Strib editorial goes on to compare US kids to European kids to make the point that with contraceptives US kids can have their cake - have sex - and eat it too- not give birth.
The problem with this approach to sex is sex isn't just about having a good time and avoiding giving birth. There are of course other health issues like STDs which spread regardless of what form of birth control one uses. And there's the debasing of sex by making it a leisure sport which does untold emotional and moral damage to people who treat it as such. What sex is ultimately about is uniting a man and a woman in a marriage relationship which bears the fruit of children.
Finally, the hypocrisy of the Star Tribune's position is revealed in the last paragraph of the editorial:
The president has based this aspect of his health care policy on ideology and theology rather than what is best for teens. Congress can do better by devoting federal dollars to inclusive, comprehensive sex education.
They accuse their opponents of being driven by ideology and theology when in fact that's exactly what they are driven by.
The question is which side is right? Which position is true? In this case I say look at the fruit of the two views. ("Wisdom is proved right by her actions.") Free love and free sex have never been free as we see from the sexual revolution, e.g. death, disease, despair and emotional damage. As opposed to the fruit of chastity and fidelity to marriage, e.g. faithfulness, children, hope, health, commitment and a future. That's ultimately the choice we face.
