Inside Planned Parenthood INSIDE PLANNED PARENTHOOD From Action Line February 28, 1989 Planned Parenthood (PP) is the best known “family planning” agency
in the world. Headquartered at London, England, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is involved in more than 100 countries. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the American affiliate of the IPPF.
The PPFA has about 200 affiliates and operates about 700 clinics in the United States. Affiliation allows the local organization to use the Planned Parenthood name and logo and participate in PPFA financial programs. The local affiliates pay dues to the PPFA. The PPFA pays dues to the IPPF. All parts of PP are connected by a common mission.
Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger was the founder of PP. Active in the Eugenics Movement (the “science” that seeks to improve races through controlled breeding), Sanger sought to protect the freedom and power of “superior” human beings who, she believed, should rule over the impure masses.
Sanger sought to control the reproduction of poor people and immigrants, especially non-white immigrants. She called them “reckless breeders”, who knew how to do nothing but produce children, and claimed they were “unceasingly spawning (a) class of human beings who never should have been born…”
Sanger believed that providing charity to the poor only served to perpetuate poverty. If the poor were not given any assistance, she reasoned, they would die out, and the problem would be solved.
But allowed to breed unchecked, she warned, the poor would eventually produce enough of their own kind to rise up and topple proper society. As a result, the world would face “biological destruction”, caused by “the gradual but certain attack upon the stocks of intelligence and racial health by the sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsible and imbeciles.”
An opponent of marriage, Sanger supported a casual and voluntary connection between sexual partners. In her words; “the marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order.”
Sanger believed that married couples should be required to get a permit before having a child, and that each permit would be valid for only one birth. Individuals who were declared to be of an inferior genetic code would be sterilized.
“The purpose,” she wrote, “…shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit…”
Sanger also opposed the American form of government, calling it “rule by mere number”, and favored the establishment of an aristocracy.
Sanger’s Memory Honored
In this age of broad social concern for minorities and the disadvantaged, one might expect that Planned Parenthood would back away from Margaret Sanger’s radical positions. Not so.
Actress Katharine Hepburn, an avid supporter of abortion rights and PP, wrote a letter for the federation noting that, “Planned Parenthood is not losing sight of Margaret Sanger’s original goal…”
Another letter signed by Faye Wattleton, PPFA’s president, hailed Sanger as “an American pioneer in the truest and noblest selfsacrificing sense…Sanger’s memory is honored throughout the world by men and women who understand her monumental achievements for humanity.”
Rather than running from Sanger’s memory, PP is clinging strongly to it.
Early Efforts
Sanger founded PP as the American Birth Control League in the early 1900’s. The racial policies of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s soured the American public on eugenics and the name was changed to Planned Parenthood in 1942.
Through the 1950’s, PP was generally known as a private organization that supported birth control and sterilization. They largely avoided the subject of abortion, although the organization’s president, Alan Guttmacher, supported the liberalization of abortion laws.
As the federation’s budget grew with federal support for their birth control programs, PP’s political agenda resurfaced and the repeal of abortion laws became a priority. Realizing they would be unable to get support from lawmakers and the public, PP officials began to see the judicial system as their best chance for change. Incredibly, PP has been involved in almost every case involving the liberalization of abortion laws.
PP opened its first abortion clinic in New York the same month that abortion was legalized in that state. Today, PP operates at least 60 abortion clinics, the largest chain in the world, and terminates almost 100,000 unborn children every year.
Teaching Your Children
Attempting to quiet criticism that their programs promote teen sexual activity, PP has moved to represent itself as a voice for abstinence and self-control. One pamphlet called, Teen Sex? It’s Okay to Say: No Way!, says it is not true that “everybody’s doing it”, and continues, “It may be true that nearly half of today’s young people have had intercourse. It’s just as true that more than half have not.”
Such statements can serve PP in two ways. Though their own surveys show that only 20-28% of teens have had intercourse (many only once), exaggerated estimations of teen sexual activity provide arguments for continued federal support, and give the impression that PP really opposes extra-marital sex.
Even here, however, PP’s real philosophy comes through in statements like “What’s right for you?”, and “make up your own mind.”
As ever, PP is committed to offering minors birth control and abortion services without the knowledge or guidance of their parents.
Is Teen Sex Okay?
Does PP really mean what they say when they tell children it’s okay to say “no” to sex? In a publication entitled, Is It Okay for PPFA to Say ‘No Way’?, Susan Newcomer, the Director of Education for PPFA, argues it may not be in the best interest of teens or PP to tell teens that it’s okay to say “no”.
Newcomer argues that chastity training “seems to set up moral conflicts” in children. However, she says it may be necessary to include some discussion of chastity if there is no other way to get PP into the schools.
Newcomer is concerned that if PP tells children to say “no” to sex, the young people might be inclined to stay away from PP when they want to get involved sexually. Newcomer writes: “Planned Parenthood has always presented abstaining from sex as one contraceptive option. We must remember, though, that it is only one of the many, and informed choice is critical…”
In a radio debate with Doug Scott, Christian Action Council Director of Public Policy, Newcomer defended her beliefs: “Sometimes the decision (to include chastity training) is more an implicit assumption…about the value of abstinence for young people. The age at which intercourse is thought to be acceptable varies widely, though I have met few people who wholeheartedly think 12- or 13-year-olds are ready…”
Scott argued the statement was ridiculous and young people should be taught abstinence. Newcomer’s response: “That is your value judgment.”
Scott: “No, it’s not my value judgment. That’s what’s best for teens. There are certain basics that are not a question of values but a question of what is good for teens. It is not good for teens to be involved with drugs. It is not good for teens to be involved with alcohol. It is not good for teens to be involved in sexual activity.
It is just not good for them — psychologically, physically, emotionally, — there is no positive aspect.”
Newcomer: “…I can’t say I can be as categorical about sexual behavior as I am about the use of (cigarettes and) illicit substances.”
PP and Parents
The Perils of Puberty, a PP ad for teens advises, “There are certain things you do not want to talk about to your parents. There are certain things they don’t want to talk about to you… The only thing you owe anyone is courtesy… You don’t owe anyone ‘love’…”
Another PP ad is entitled, Since Your Parents Are Afraid to Talk to You and Your School’s Hands Are Probably Tied, Here’s Some Hard Facts… One part of the ad reads, “Myth: I can’t get birth control, I’m under 18. Fact: Wrong. If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control and you are under 18, you can get it on your own without parental consent. Call Planned Parenthood right now.”
The Abortion Connection
PP is by far the single most vocal proponent of abortion rights and birth control for teens. They have published countless ads, brochures, and documents that make their position clear. Wattleton says, “We committed ourselves to restoring access to abortion to the poor and to preserving it as a matter of choice to individuals throughout the economic spectrum…” Wattleton writes “when you support Planned Parenthood you support a…campaign to…work against the enactment of laws that restrict the availability of abortions.”
Planned Parenthood has placed full-page ads in many major newspapers and magazines including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time and Newsweek. Designed to convince the public that abortion should remain legal, the ads have proved very successful in getting PP’s message heard and in mobilizing support and dollars for lobbying efforts.
A full page ad that appeared in The New York Times was headlined, Nine Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal. Another full page ad, running in the same newspaper one day later, described Five Ways to Prevent Abortion (And One Way That Won’t).
Attacking the Dr. Bernard Nathanson film, The Silent Scream, PP writes, “The abolition of legal abortion would have a serious negative impact on the health of women and children…”
PP clinics performed 98,638 abortions in 1986 (8% more than in 1985) and referred 92,849 women for abortions elsewhere. At an average cost of $215 for a first trimester abortion, it is estimated that PP made $21.2 million on abortions in 1986 alone.
“What Women Don’t Know…”
Many women report having had bad experiences at PP clinics. Tina went to a PP clinic in Washington state. After receiving a positive pregnancy test, all the counselor did was provide her with a list of abortionists. “They never asked me if I wanted to keep the baby. They just gave me the names. They must have just assumed that I wanted an abortion because I was a teenager and not married.” The “pro-choice” establishment offered Tina no choice at all.
In 1983, PP of Seattle-King County (where abortions were referred out after “counseling”) did 4,893 pregnancy tests. Of the positive tests, 22.6% were referred for prenatal care, 0.4% were referred for adoption and 77% were referred for abortion. At this PP clinic, more than three-fourths of the women chose abortion while nationally, only one-third do so.
Despite these statistics, the Seattle PP claims it provides comprehensive services to women in need, including women who do not want to abort. Yet, you can find no support from PP for the unselfish work of volunteers at Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
In January of 1987, Lee Minto, Executive Director of the SeattleKing County PP, appeared on public television and criticized the local Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC), accusing the CPC of deceiving women. When questioned as to why PP does not refer women who don’t want to abort to the CPC, Minto attacked the CPC, saying it misleads women and improperly proselytizes them about Christianity.
Doug Scott, who defended the CPC’s, told Minto she ought to “be ashamed” of herself for attacking volunteers whose only desire is to help women, while PP has a financial stake in what they are doing. If a woman wants to abort, PP helps her, but if she chooses not to abort, PP refers her to another organization.
Minto’s irritation with the King County CPC is understandable when one realizes that the CPC has proven to be an effective competitor. So much so that PP of Seattle-King County announced they would begin providing abortion services this year.
In response, a campaign was organized by the King County chapter of the CAC and Human Life, a Washington state pro-life group, to convince United Way of King County (UWKC) to stop funding PP. When UKWC told PP it would have to meet certain guidelines in order to continue receiving monies, PP refused and withdrew as a UWKC agency.
A Right to Your Money
PP’s court activity leads one to think PP officials believe they have a constitutional right to taxpayers’ money. PP’s actions have been designed to overturn congressional and Reagan Administration efforts to limit funds going to PP.
While taxpayers are the largest revenue source for PP, corporate support (usually through foundations) has also been extremely lucrative. Foundations such as those funded by Scott Paper, Heinz, American Express, Xerox, Pillsbury, Bristol-Meyers, Kodak, General Mills, Citicorp, and Chase Manhattan have had a large impact on PP coffers.
International Activity
The PP Standards of Affiliation state, “Each affiliate shall publicly support the purposes and policies of the PPFA and shall develop a program to further those purposes and policies.” Likewise, the IPPF adopted a policy which reads, “Membership in IPPF imposes a responsibility on family planning agencies to perform in the best interest of the Federation, both in their activities at home and their contribution to the international movement.”
The IPPF pressures governments to comply with its wishes. In the IPPF publication, Human Right to Family Planning, it states, “IPPF should press upon governments the realization that only after they have…provided universal access to fertility regulation information, will they be entitled to ask their citizens to adhere to specific population policies.
IPPF and other non-governmental organizations should give high priority to building up community support for social change, including responsible fertility behavior. If abortion is denied by national law, then you would have to adopt a gradual approach to promoting full choice of fertility regulation methods.”
The Chinese program of one child per couple appears to be in line with PP approach. While PP claims there is “no element of coercion” in the Chinese program, the case of Quan and Ping Hong Li proved otherwise. As noted in the September 15, 1988 edition of Action Line, Ping Hong Li became pregnant with her second child while studying in Arizona. Chinese officials ordered her to get an abortion. She refused and received political asylum.
Defunding Planned Parenthood
Local efforts to end funding of PP can pay off if pursued with diligence. After years of effort, the CAC chapter in North Carolina was successful last year in stopping county taxpayer funds from going to PP.
Mecklenburg County in North Carolina had been funding PP for many years. Led by local CAC leader, Barret Mosbacker, a group calling itself “The Ad Hoc Committee to Oppose Public Funding of Planned Parenthood” lobbied aggressively behind the scenes and rallied support for their cause.
Mosbacker received criticism from the media, led by The Charlotte Observer. This is not surprising considering that the newspaper’s publisher received the “Margaret Sanger Award” from PP in 1985. The publisher even vowed to “personally make up the difference in the budget” if the county Commission refused to fund PP.
When the vote was taken, two County Commissioners who had supported PP in the past changed sides, giving the pro-life side a 4-3 victory. In response, PP took out a full-page advertisement in the Observer attacking, by name, the four commissioners who had opposed funding.
Barrett Mosbacker believes that this success can be duplicated in other areas of the country. He does warn, however, not to expect immediate success. It is a long-term battle.
Information contained herein is from Planned Parenthood: Behind The Scenes by Douglas R. Scott