From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:27:13 GMT

In article <warren.7188767@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>Nigel.Allen@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.
>
[Well, this is pretty much what I expected...]
>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]
	And so on and so forth.  Various unflattering facts about
Margaret Sanger, along with the usual handwaving about socialism, commnism,
and the usual Nazi associations deleted.


>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]
>
	The stir is hardly surprising, since this charge comes from a man
who has actively opposed all forms of civil rights legislation *and*
publicly supported the white racist government in South Africa.  The term
"hypocrite" is almost too mild.

>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]
	I'd say that pretty much describes it, yes.
>
>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.
>
	Nothing compared to the cloud of bulldada in your post.  I should
think that it would be obvious, even to you, that nothing in what you wrote
in any way contradicts the current stated goals of the organization in
question.  Claiming that it's founder believed in eugenics is completely
irrelevant to wht Planned Parenthood now does, which is provide a wide range
of health and contraceptive services at little or no cost, to anyone who
wants them.  I notice you didn't attempt to claim that they don't do this,
preferring irrelevant attacks on statements made 70+ years ago by the
organization's founder.

>[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
>--
	Does anyone know anything about "Birth Control Review", by the
way?  Is this a legitimate scholarly journal or just another "New
Dimensions"

>Root out the cause, not the effects.                           Be | true
>Do not distort the truth.                                       --+--
>Pay attention.                                                    | Unbeliever
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Speaking of hypocrites...

Chuck


--
   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