In our national conversations about the history of racism in the United States, I have rarely heard the Eugenics movement mentioned, much less properly condemned.
The machinations of eugenicists have affected real people in real ways, not just in far away places, but here in our own country. The frightening part is the extent to which the eugenics movement has influenced both our national conscience and public policy.
Maybe the following story will get us thinking and talking a bit more.
From BBC News:
Sterilisation: North Carolina grapples with legacy By Daniel NasawBBC News, Washington
More than 60,000 Americans were sterilised, many against their will, as part of a eugenics movement that finished in 1979, aimed at keeping the poor and mentally ill from having children. Now, decades on, one state is considering compensation.
In 1968, Elaine Riddick was raped by a neighbour who threatened to kill her if she told what happened.
She was 13, the daughter of violent and abusive parents in the desperately poor country town of Winfall, in the US state of North Carolina.
While she was in hospital giving birth, the state violated her a second time, she says.
A social worker who had deemed her "feeble-minded" petitioned the state Eugenics Board to have her sterilised.
Officials coerced her illiterate grandmother into signing an "x" on an authorisation form. After performing a Caesarean section, doctors sterilised her "just like cutting a hog", she says.
Interestingly, sterilization of the "feeble minded", minorities, and other populations was one of the central goals of the American Birth Control League founded by Margaret Sanger. Over the years that organization has remade its image to keep up with changing times. Since the early 1940's, when eugenics began to lose its political popularity, that organization that began as the American Birth Control League has gone by the slightly friendlier name of Planned Parenthood.
Remember the processed swill that passed for food in your school cafeteria?
Imagine if someone told you that was all you could have for lunch?
According to the Chicago Tribune, that's exactly what is happening under a new policy at Chicago's Little Village Academy.
I took bag lunches most of the time in elementary school for two reasons: One, my school cafeteria only made two dishes that were actually palatable: pizza and hamburgers. Two, it was actually more affordable for my mom to send a healthy bag lunch from home. I switched to bag lunches entirely in junior high.
I suppose my mom might have been a little ahead of her time, really. Feeding healthy food to kids is all the rage now, but my mom was already doing it before it was cool. My lunch usually consisted of a sandwich on whole wheat bread, and some unsulphured dried fruit, and maybe some yogurt. Occasionally, there would be some blue corn chips and a do-it-yourself alternative to a Lunchable consisting of meats and cheeses my mom sliced herself, and some organic crackers or blue corn chips.
Yes, occasionally my friends would make remarks about my food. They had never seen blue corn chips before, much less an unsulfured dried apricot. I told them the apricots were really leather boot heels, and the blue corn chips were made of granite. I have to say that I got kind of a kick out of their horrified reactions, espeically since I knew my food tasted better theirs. My mother encouraged this. Frankly, I think this little lesson in the joys of being a little different was highly beneficial to me later on.
To this day, I detest the taste of fruit preserved with sulfur dioxide (a food preservative and an industrial pollutant, by the way), and I prefer to avoid processed cheese.
If someone had told me I was now required to eat the revolting mess that passed for a "sloppy joe" at my school, I think I would have reacted exactly the same way as these kids in Chicago:
Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"
Call the detention supervisor! We have a food rebellion!
Really, after looking at what passes for "enchiladas" in the Chicago Tribune picture, I completely understand. It looks like it's been used already. Yuck.
The school's principal states that this policy was implemented after she saw a lot of junk food brought along on field trips. What does she call that stuff in the photo?
Even if the kids' everyday lunches aren't any better than cafeteria food, the school is still imposing a financial burden on parents by requiring them to purchase a school lunch everyday for their kids. Many families who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches still have to watch their budgets closely, and bag lunches are usually cheaper.
And then there is the question of whether cafeteria food is actually healthy. The nutritional value of the food is open to doubt, as is the safety and cleanliness of many cafeterias. Just serving under-ripened fruit and a carton of milk with that greasy pile of slop that they call "enchiladas" doesn't make it a healthy meal.
Interestingly, the Tribune follows the money:
Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.
First they tell parents the school lunches are the healthiest option, even though their contents barely resemble actual food, and then they force people to buy them? I'm surprised more parents aren't questioning this rather convenient collusion between big government and big business. Smells like yesterday's mystery fish tacos to me.
If the school sincerely wants to improve students' health, its officials should consider treating the parents like intelligent human beings instead of assuming they're too ignorant or apathetic to feed their own children.
Some people don't know how to eat well, but sincerely wish to learn! Most parents do actually want healthy children, many are receptive to useful information about how to achieve this. In most urban communities, there are local organizations dedicated to promoting healthy eating. The school could offer information on such organizations, or even invite them into the school to talk to interested parents. (What a concept! A school promoting education!)
Real parenting and real food sound like the healthiest combination to me.
Many of us are already aware that there are medications, such as antibiotics and many acid-reducers that can adversely affect the beneficial flora in our intestines. I did not know until recently that oral contraceptives also do this.
Many women also know that imbalanced gut flora from antibiotics makes us more likely to end up with a yeast infection. This study suggests contraceptives have a similar effect.
According to natural health experts, imbalanced gut flora or "gut dysbiosis" is also associated with difficulties absorbing nutrients from food, something that is vitally important to both the pregnant woman and her child, as she must maintain her own body, and nurture the developing human life in her womb during a very crucial period. (See here for an article on how gut dysbiosis may affect babies and children, and here for another)
It seems like there is a legitimate question here that deserves answers through widespread research, so that women can be more fully informed before using synthetic hormones or taking any other medication that changes the environment inside one's gut. But, I won't hold my breath.
One more item for my list of reasons not to take The Pill. And, one more reason to be fully informed when taking any medication, for that matter.
Would you let Dr. Kevorkian take care of your grandmother?
Neither would I.
It's just a little creepy to think that the person looking after one's loved one would be equally comfortable killing her as caring for her.
For the same reason, it is important to many of us pro-life women that our OB/GYNs not perform abortions. Someone I know recently changed doctors mid-pregnancy because she discovered that her Obstetrician was doing so. She had been seeing this doctor for some time before she became aware of this.
How was it possible that she didn't know?
Many of us don't ask. Sometimes, it is because we don't want to know. It may be because we assume that the wonderful person cheerfully taking care of us and our babies couldn't possibly be one of "those doctors".
It is also true that some doctors don't exactly advertise that end of their practices to patients who do not ask.
Take, for example, Houston based OB/GYN Dr. Bernard Rosenfeld, who is the abortion provider for a National Abortion Federation (NAF) Clinic. He also has a private practice, with a website to which the NAF clinic links. The main site for his private practice makes absolutely no mention of the fact that this doctor also specializes in performing abortions, and the only link back to the NAF facility from this site is buried deep in his "Other Resources" menu, out of the way of the eyes of those who aren't looking for it.
Well, as long as he's doing the abortions somewhere else, and not in his private office, some say...
Interestingly, if you want an abortion from Dr. Rosenfeld at his private office, it will cost you twice as much as the exact same services at the NAF facility a short distance away. Quite a price to pay just to avoid having other patients in the waiting room know why you are really there.
According to a video on the NAF website (watch it in Windows or Quicktime format), he has been doing abortions since 1980, and both abortion-related websites indicate that he prides himself on the quality of his work, even to the extent of performing abortions on patients other abortionists will not take! Why does he not advertise this on his main website, along with tubal ligation reversals and obstetric care? After all, are we not constantly being told that abortion is just another legitimate part of women's health care? And are we not also told that abortion providers are heroes?
I think we can figure out the answer to that little puzzle.
At least Rosenfeld's association with abortion can be readily found on the internet by those patients who are determined to examine his background. Not so for many other doctors, including the one my friend is now no longer seeing.
Many of us avoid patronizing businesses that support Planned Parenthood, and refuse to vote for political candidates who support public funding for abortion. The same policy should apply to our choice in doctors.
According to Web MD and the US Department of Health Services, taking medications containing estrogen and progesterone can contribute to the development or worsening of spider veins.
Of course, there are plenty of other factors that contribute to spider veins, including heredity, pregnancy, aging, menopause, and lack of exercise.
But, considering that the Pill is also associated with increased risk of cancer, stroke, heart attack, decreased libido, bone loss and many other unpleasant side effects, why give your body one more reason to develop spider veins?
The Breast Cancer Fund is an advocacy group that draws attention to environmental toxins that are linked to breast cancer, including those in food storage containers, cosmetics, and even oral contraceptives.
One more group that recognizes the link between the Pill and cancer.
According to Bloomberg and other sources, President Obama plans to reverse a concience protection rule issued by the Bush administration last December:
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama plans to revoke a last minute rule from the Bush administration to shield health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical activities that go against their beliefs.
The new proposal appeared as a notice on the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Web site. The original rule was issued in late December, in the final weeks of the Bush administration, and took effect on Jan. 20, the day Obama became president.
The rule issued by Bush health chief Michael Leavitt prohibited groups that take U.S. money from firing, denying professional certification to or otherwise discriminating against medical providers who refused to perform or assist in abortions or give referral information.
During my last year as an undergraduate, I briefly considered a career in law. As I investigated this possibility, I became so uncomfortable with the possibility that my faith and my job might come into conflict, that I opted for teaching. (It didn't help that many legal documents make extremely dull reading).
If we think there is a shortage of health care workers now, it will be interesting to see what what happens when people begin to leave or avoid medical professions altogether as a result of this.
I have posted on this issue before. I duplicate my comments below:
So, the logic of Planned Parenthood and other opponents of such regulation is that there will not be enough people providing abortions, euthanasia, in-vitro fertilizations, embryonic stem cell research, and other ethically dubious "services".
Hold on a second, though...
I thought people were so excited about these things that they were eager to provide them!
The subtext of the opposition's argument is that there will not be enough people to perptetuate the Culture of Death unless Planned Parenthood, the AMA, and other left-leaning "powers that be" in the medical, scientific, and political world are free to force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and researchers to participate in unethical practices against their will.
The other underlying message is that the practices mentioned above are absolutely necessary and vital health services. There seems to be little faith in what human ingenuity can do, even within the bounds of divine law. There are natural alternatives to artificial birth control. Abortion is not the only option for pregnant women. In-Vitro fertilization is not the only fertility treatment out there. Adult stem cells have proven much more useful so far than the embryonic variety, and we can care for the elderly and the terminally ill without hastening their deaths.
To expect any professional to violate his or her conscience in order to remain employed is ludicrous and irresponsible. What good is a conscience if one is not permitted to follow it? What kinds of doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, and other professionals would we have in our society if we only hire those who are willing to compromise their most closely held beliefs for a paycheck? What kind of society will we have if we teach our children to listen to their bosses before their hearts?
Furthermore, in a nation where freedom of speech, religion, and association are held to be sacred values, it is inappropriate for employers to penalize their workers for exercising their rights in every part of their lives.
I can tell you this: there are many people in many professions who will choose their consciences over everything else, even if it means changing careers. Many people have already risked their jobs in order to provide what they believe to be the best, most ethical care for their patients. If people are worried about a health care shortage, they should wait and see how many doctors and other health care providers will elect to leave their profession rather than lose their souls.
I suggest that if such procedures as abortion and embyronic stem-cell research are as widely accepted as we are led to believe, proponents of such things should have nothing to fear!
"If you have gallstones and are taking birth control pills, you may want to ask your health care provider if you should use another method of birth control. "
"Women are twice as likely as men to develop gallstones. Excess estrogen from pregnancy, hormone replacement therapy, and birth control pills appears to increase cholesterol levels in bile and decrease gallbladder movement, which can lead to gallstones."
Interestingly enough, even in the Pill's earliest days, it was known to have poisonous effects on the female body. But, during the initial trials in the 1950s, researchers John Rock and Gregory Pincus were so excited about its effectiveness they didn't stop to think about whether or not they were harming women (emphasis mine):
Dr. Edris Rice-Wray, a faculty member of the Puerto Rico Medical School and medical director of the Puerto Rico Family Planning Association, was in charge of the trials. After a year of tests, Dr. Rice-Wray reported good news to Pincus. The Pill was 100% effective when taken properly. She also informed him that 17% of the women in the study complained of nausea, dizziness, headaches, stomach pain and vomiting. So serious and sustained were the reactions that Rice-Wray told Pincus that a 10-milligram dose of Enovid caused "too many side reactions to be generally acceptable."
Rock and Pincus quickly dismissed Rice-Wray's conclusions. Their patients in Boston had experienced far fewer negative reactions, and they believed many of the complaints were psychosomatic. The men also felt that problems such as bloating and nausea were minor compared to the contraceptive benefits of the drug. Although three women died while participating in the trials, no investigation was conducted to see if the Pill had caused the young women's deaths. Confident in the safety of the Pill, Pincus and Rock took no action to assess the root cause of the side effects.
...
In later years, Pincus's team would be accused of deceit, colonialism and the exploitation of poor women of color. The women had only been told that they were taking a drug that prevented pregnancy, not that this was a clinical trial, that the Pill was experimental or that there was a chance of potentially dangerous side effects. Pincus and Rock, however, believed they were following the appropriate ethical standards of the time. In the 1950s, research involving human subjects was much less regulated than it is today. Informed consent standards were minimal and only the most basic toxicity tests were required for human trials.
In other words, they decided the pill was safe and the women were just hysterical little things and the side effects were all in their heads.
There are few things more frustrating than having a doctor dismiss symptoms that you know are real by conveniently filing you away as hysterical woman. This has only happened to me personally on one occasion, but that does not make it any less infuriating.
Also interesting here is that a female researcher raised concern about the harmful side-effects, only to be dismissed herself by these two men who apparently believed that not being pregnant is much more important than being healthy.
All good feminists should be outraged by this. So should anyone concerned about racial equality and imperialism, for that matter. We are told that the pill is supposed to be liberating for women, but it was (no pun intended) conceived through the exploitation of women. Women who were not even fully informed about the fact that they were test subjects! So much for choices.
Eighty five year old Carl Djerassi the Austrian chemist who helped invent the contraceptive pill now says that his co-creation has led to a "demographic catastrophe."
In an article published by the Vatican this week, the head of the world's Catholic doctors broadened the attack on the pill, claiming it had also brought "devastating ecological effects" by releasing into the environment "tonnes of hormones" that had impaired male fertility, The Taiwan Times says.
The assault began with a personal commentary in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard by Carl Djerassi. The Austrian chemist was one of three whose formulation of the synthetic progestogen Norethisterone marked a key step toward the earliest oral contraceptive pill.
Djerassi outlined the "horror scenario" that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that in most of Europe there was now "no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction." He said: "This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete."
...
The fall in the birth rate, he said, was an "epidemic" far worse, but given less attention, than obesity. Young Austrians, he said, were committing national suicide if they failed to procreate. And if it were not possible to reverse the population decline they would have to understand the necessity of an "intelligent immigration policy."
Of course the secular world is doing its usual scoffing. The Taipei Times headlines this story with "Catholic Church renews its attack on contraceptive pill". (Sorry, folks. You can't renew something that never let up in the first place.). Of course, there is a token quotation from a representative of an environmentalist group:
Angelo Bonelli, of the Italian Green party, said it was the first he had heard of a link between the pill and environmental pollution. The worst of poisons were to be found in the water supply.
“It strikes me as idiosyncratic to be worried about this,” he said.
I'm astonished that this is the "first he had heard" about this when secular researchers in Canada and the United States have recognized the negative environmental effects of hormonal contraceptive use on aquatic life and on human populations, which include poisoning fish, and causing increased rates of cancer in the people who eat them. The reasearch in Canada goes as far back as 2004.
So lets take stock here. So far the pill has managed to poison: Fish Men who eat fish Women Society The Planet.
... There are alternatives to abortion as well as support on the web.
Perinatal Hospice As prenatal testing becomes increasingly routine, more parents are learning devastating news before their babies are born. In too many places, the ability to diagnose has raced ahead of the ability to care for these families and their babies. But in a beautiful and practical response, some pioneering hospitals and hospices are starting perinatal hospice or perinatal palliative care programs for families who wish to continue their pregnancies with babies who likely will die before or shortly after birth.
A new national study among 1,736 physicians conducted by HCD Research reveals 50 percent of physicians support the new rules. Just 33 percent oppose the rules and the rest had no opinion.
A majority of those who responded also said they believed the "government should be involved in protecting health workers who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable."
A majority of physicians who responded also agreed with the statement that "doctors and hospitals have the right to refuse to perform any procedure that is inconsistent with their personal beliefs.
However, while doctors supported the conscience rights on abortion, they didn't think the rule should include revoking the funding of government entities or medical centers that violate those rights. Some 43 percent said no while 22 percent said funding should be revoked and the rest did not answer.
However, nearly three-quarters (73%) did not agree that health care professionals have the right to withhold information about where a patient can obtain the care they need.
The Washington Post does its best to spin this as a bad thing with the telling headline "Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs". They could have easily titled it "Rule Protects Rights of Conscience for Health Care Workers".
Here is an excerpt:
The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.
But women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists and some members of Congress condemned the regulation, saying it will be a major obstacle to providing many health services, including abortion, family planning, infertility treatment, and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.
So, the logic of Planned Parenthood and other opponents of such regulation is that there will not be enough people providing abortions, euthanasia, in-vitro fertilizations, embryonic stem cell research, and other ethically dubious "services".
Hold on a second, though...
I thought people were so excited about these things that they were eager to provide them!
The subtext of the opposition's argument is that there will not be enough people to perptetuate the Culture of Death unless Planned Parenthood, the AMA, and other left-leaning "powers that be" in the medical, scientific, and political world are free to force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and researchers to participate in unethical practices against their will.
The other underlying message is that the practices mentioned above are absolutely necessary and vital health services. There seems to be little faith in what human ingenuity can do, even within the bounds of divine law. There are natural alternatives to artificial birth control. Abortion is not the only option for pregnant women. In-Vitro fertilization is not the only fertility treatment out there. Adult stem cells have proven much more useful so far than the embryonic variety, and we can care for the elderly and the terminally ill without hastening their deaths.
To expect any professional to violate his or her conscience in order to remain employed is ludicrous and irresponsible. What good is a conscience if one is not permitted to follow it? What kinds of doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, and other professionals would we have in our society if we only hire those who are willing to compromise their most closely held beliefs for a paycheck? What kind of society will we have if we teach our children to listen to their bosses before their hearts?
Furthermore, in a nation where freedom of speech, religion, and association are held to be sacred values, it is inappropriate for employers to penalize their workers for exercising their rights in every part of their lives.
I can tell you this: there are many people in many professions who will choose their consciences over everything else, even if it means changing careers. Many people have already risked their jobs in order to provide what they believe to be the best, most ethical care for their patients. If people are worried about a health care shortage, they should wait and see how many doctors and other health care providers will elect to leave their profession rather than lose their souls.
I suggest that if such procedures as abortion and embyronic stem-cell research are as widely accepted as we are led to believe, proponents of such things should have nothing to fear!
Abortion groups have submitted their 50 page proposal to the Obama-Biden transition team. At the top of the list? More taxpayer dollars for abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood. How much more? Over 1.5 billion dollars more!
The Abortion Bailout Package:
* $1 BILLION dollars in taxpayer funding for International Abortion Groups * $700 million in taxpayer funding for "Title X" Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate) * $65 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China's coercive one-child policy * Repeal the Hyde Amendment – Vastly expanding federal taxpayer funding for abortions * Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions on military bases * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions through the Peace Corps program * Expand taxpayer-funded abortions for federal prisoners
Send a letter to your Senators today demanding that they keep your tax dollars out of the pockets of abortion providers.
Click on the link above to take action and automatically send a letter to your US senators.
This service calls itself "Elite" donors is looking for a tall, attractive, college educated (At a top 100 school, no less), athletic, caucasian egg donor with no genetic health problems. I saw a link to their advertisement on Facebook and flagged it as offensive.
The couple using this service should be ashamed of themselves, especially when there are so many imperfect yet perfecly loveable children out there who need to be adopted by loving parents, even if said children do not look like they do.
Funny that these two events would coincide, though you'll probably only see one of them on NBC.
This would be a good time to mention (again) that, according to the Mayo clinic and others, there is a link between use of the birth control pill and breast cancer. See this earlier post for more details on that.
Interestingly enough, there is also a link between abortion and breast cancer, in addition to other negative effects abortion can have on the physical and mental health of women, even when it is "safe and legal".
As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer.
The relationship is so plausible, in fact, that:
General counsel for [the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease.
Someone googled "sedation for abortion in los angeles california Planned parenthood".
For the sake of her own safety, this person might be interested in the stories of some of the LA area Planned Parenthood's other patients: Erica Goode Holly Patterson Diana Lopez
The California Legislature has been at it again. Since last May, politicians in my home state have been considering AB 2747, a bill that nearly opened the door for legalizing assisted suicide. Even without this, it still has a little crack through which euthanasia may still slip.
Fortunately, according to the California Catholic Conference, at least the allowances for "Pallative Sedation" have been removed from the bill.
Here is an example of one of those changes. The original paragraph read as follows:
(e) "Palliative sedation" means the administration of sedative medication to the point of unconsciousness in a terminally ill patient. It is an intervention of last resort to reduce severe, refractory pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom specific palliation. Palliative sedation is not intended to cause death or shorten life.
This still leaves the possibility that a feeding tube or other treatment would be withdrawn once the patient is sedated, leaving the patient vulnerable to the same kind of starvation/dehydration death Terri Schiavo endured.
The language was changed to keep euthanasia more clearly out of the picture.
(e) "Palliative care" means medical treatment, interdisciplinary care, or consultation provided to a patient or family members, or both, that has as its primary purpose the prevention of, or relief from, suffering and the enhancement of the quality of life, rather than treatment aimed at investigation and intervention for the purpose of cure or prolongation of life as described in subdivision (b) of Section 1339.31.
Also removed is the paragraph defining refusal of food and water (as opposed to nutrition provided through a feeding tube) as an "option" for a patient who wishes to "alleviate his or her suffering".
According to the California Catholic Conference, The bill, as currently amended, is more limited to requiring doctors to provide information on currently legal options in end-of life care.
One aspect of this that concerns me still is the fact that it still leaves room for the patient to hasten his or her death by refusing artificial nutrition.
Public outcry from organizations such as the California Catholic Conference and Californians Against Asisted suicide led to the acceptance of the amendments.
The original bill, including the pernicious sections that have been excised and amended, was co-authored by Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine, both Democrats.
Looks like pro-life California residents--especially those in the health care professions--still need to keep a close eye on their legislators.
I am amazed that this actually worked, given Vallejo's proximity to the infamous Bay Area of California.
From the American Life League:
VICTORY! PLANNED PARENTHOOD TOLD TO STAY AWAY AFTER HUNDREDS OF CALLS FROM ALL SUPPORTERS
Vallejo, CA (31 July 2008) – Planned Parenthood was forced to stay away from a children's health and wellness event after American Life League supporters and local pro-life activists barraged event coordinators with phone calls and e-mails.
"We're committed to fighting Planned Parenthood wherever they are," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "We want to send a clear signal – there will be zero tolerance when it comes to Planned Parenthood's campaign to sexualize children."
The nation's largest abortion chain was scheduled to have a booth at the 'Vallejo Celebrates Youth' event geared toward grammar school children on Aug. 2. Children will learn about oral hygiene, literacy, and childhood obesity. They will no longer be learning about birth control, STDs and abortion.
Planned Parenthood has made a concerted effort to reach children recently through pornographic publications and web sites. The abortion giant targets children at events like the one sponsored by the Greater Vallejo Recreational District, with sex-related materials and birth control.
When American Life League heard of the events, the group contacted local activists and notified supporters. Within hours, hundreds of calls were placed to the GVRD who then decided to disinvite Planned Parenthood.
"The California pro-lifers, especially Ana Jaime are to be commended for their courageous work," Sedlak said. "The Greater Vallejo Recreational District has done the right thing by keeping Planned Parenthood as far away from children as possible."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
