Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
SAN DIEGO, May 31, 2012 — Hold on to your seats: Planned Parenthood has decided to support Barack Obama for President in November. What a surprise! The nation is absolutely stunned. Who could have seen this one coming?
According to the Los Angeles Times, “the Planned Parenthood Action Fund launched a $1.4 million ad campaign Wednesday attacking Mitt Romney as ‘just wrong for women,’ injecting the abortion rights issue into a presidential campaign that has been heavily focused on the economy” (Los Angeles Times, 5-30-12).
While the Obama surrogates produce ads which question Romney’s wisdom in associating himself with a lightning rod like Donald Trump, an endorsement from Planned Parenthood is supposedly less controversial, even in the wake of a planted “customer” at a New York City clinic who produced a video where the Planned Parenthood employee vocally supports a decision to abort a fetus later on if its sex is determined to be female.
Planned Parenthood calls the video a hoax, but it is unlikely this incident will concern the Obama campaign even if it proves to be true. After all, candidate Obama had a tainted record of his own regarding abortion back in 2008. It should have ended his campaign. It didn’t.
At issue was The Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2001, introduced to save viable fetuses who had survived late term abortions from death. Before this bill passed, many such fetuses were refused medical treatment or care to honor the intentions of mothers who had chosen an abortion. When the 2001 law surfaced in 2008, Obama took on his critics by calling them liars and claiming that this proposed law was merely a device for the eventual overturning of Roe Vs. Wade.
“Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade” (CBN, August, 16, 2008).
Actually, SB 1082, the bill in question, only lacked Obama’s desired qualification in an early version. It was later amended with the same exception clause as the federal law.
“Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section” (Amendment 001).
Obama also explained that an earlier Illinois law (720ILCS 510/6) already protected the unborn fetus. The NRLC said the previous law had loopholes. In any event, one must wonder why Obama would not support a second law if he truly agreed with the first. Without question, Obama continues to interpret his decision as one who was merely protecting abortion rights.
It is unlikely that he thinks of this as infanticide or takes any delight in a born baby not receiving medical attention, but try to imagine other presidential candidates surviving a news story like this. Perhaps Obama himself would not have survived had the mainstream media given this more play instead of turning themselves into a journalism-challenged cheer leading squad.
And so, while some marvel that Obama can associate himself with Planned Parenthood, others are stunned at the reverse: How does it help Planned Parenthood’s reputation to associate with Obama? The answer is simpler than you might think, and it can be found in the organization’s history. Compared to their founder, Margaret Sanger, Obama seems tame.
In Sanger’s own words, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race p.33, Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
The “mercy” had to do partly with the hazards siblings face in large, unhealthy families. Sanger may have meant well, but it’s still chilling to see a person play God. Unfortunately, there are other Sanger quotes even more harrowing:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” (From a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939 as quoted in Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon).
In context, her idea was the sterilization of blacks, even though the word “exterminate” is used, although such a distinction should make no difference to anybody with a sense of decency. Sanger did claim that the Negro Project was an attempt to help African-Americans obtain safe contraception, but then she also spoke to a women’s branch of the KKK.
Sanger believed in superior breeding, approved of Hitler’s early sterilization program, and advocated forced sterilization for those whom she considered unworthy to produce. Sanger even published an article by Dr. Ernst Ruldin, director of the Nazi medical experimentation program, in her journal, Birth Control Review!
How often do today’s Politically Correct compare The Right To Life Movement and other “right wing” ideas to the Nazis? Perhaps it’s time to take a second look to see whose ideas truly resemble the Nazis.
Yes, it would be wise for Mitt Romney to distance himself from some of Trump’s controversy, especially all that birth certificate nonsense. But isn’t it interesting how Obama tends to get a free pass for his associations? The associations themselves also coast through. The history of Planned Parenthood has been known for years and Obama’s voting record in Illinois did not stifle his 2008 election bid. The simple fact is, the left need not be as careful as the right. We live in a time when rumors about birth certificates effect elections more than the fatality of new birth itself.
Share this on
