Senate GOP Fast-Tracks Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimisticCynic

Thanks for proving my point buddy. No links or anything. Heck you didn't even quote bomb her. You just TALKED about her quotes. You aren't interested in learning anything. Your confirmation bias already tells you what you want to hear, and that's good enough for you.

I'm on an iPhone or I would. Some of us actually get out from behind the computer. A Google search will turn up everything.

Oh cool, a basement dweller insult. Classy bud. I love you guys who tell me to google YOUR argument for you. What happens then, when I Google it and then read a bunch of sources that disagree with what you are saying? Because that is literally BEYOND easy to do for literally any argument on the internet. But hey, you're just doing what any other lazy arguer does when confronted with an argument they can't back up, try to push the responsibility of proving your point to the person you are debating against.

Here you go, I did your job for you:
“Dear Madam, I Abhor You”: Hating on Margaret Sanger, Then and Now

Margaret Sanger has always been a controversial figure. Her radical feminism, associations with eugenicists, and passionate support of birth control riled many both in her lifetime and today. Currently women’s rights are under attack from segments of the American right who are attempting to discredit Margaret Sanger in order to attack the reproductive freedoms she helped establish. The most common approach is to recycle well-worn myths about Sanger, like Michael Steele’s recent claims that Sanger advocated black genocide, or supported the Nazis. (You can find the Sanger Papers’ analysis to these faulty claims here and here). Many haters also insist incorrectly that Sanger was an advocate of abortion. Here are some particularly juicy tweets we encountered while trying to encourage a more historically sound interpretation of Sanger’s legacy:

Bzzz, sorry @SangerPapers, Planned Parenthood was setup by an elitist bitch as a eugenics operation to murder Black & Jew babies@trutherbot

— Broken Sidewalk Farm (@BrknSdwlkFrm) June 8, 2012

Margaret Sanger’s eugenics beliefs intertwined her with Nazis who were influenced by her. She is truly Hitler’s Valkyrie

— ANNA RAND (@OBAMA_CZAR) June 6, 2012

Much of this vitriol stems from hatred and misunderstanding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion services. As the founder of Planned Parenthood, Sanger is an easy target for these partisans because she is no longer able to speak for herself. Yet Planned Parenthood did not offer abortions until Roe v. Wade in 1973, seven years after Sanger’s death. Although Sanger founded the organization, she had little to do with the practices that they so vehemently contest. They are manipulating the legacy of Sanger to fight contemporary battles and disregarding context and historical accuracy in the process. They need to reimagine Sanger as a racist abortion advocate in order to have her fit into today’s ideological schisms, schisms that hardly existed in her era.

But hatred towards Sanger is nothing new. In her lifetime, she received quite a bit of hate mail, some of which has been preserved in the archive. In the mid-twentieth century, the most outspoken critics of Sanger were Catholics who objected to her public criticism of the Pope and support of family planning. Others were worried about the future of population growth -particularly of white Americans and Europeans- and worried that family planning would weaken these groups. Here is a favorite that we found in the Margaret Sanger Papers:

“Dear Madam: You have been a shameless “murderess on parade” for a long while. However, you never looked more hellishly ludicrous than at present when the government is about to launch a campaign to encourage as many births as possible as has been done for sometime in Europe. Perhaps this will see and end to your shameless debasing of Parenthood. You, if you ever had any real Christian upbringing, must have developed a cast iron conscience to be able to carry on your soul the innumerable times you are guilty of having the Commandment–Thou shalt not kill–broken by poor innocent people who listened to your advice. The average schoolboy or girl knows more about contraceptives than you do and that is well-known; which makes your birth-controllers hopelessly out-dated. If you were a sincere person you would devote your time to something clean worthwhile.” (Aug. 28, 1941, Brooklyn, N.Y. [LCM 50:135].)

Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Was Motivated by Racism-Reported to be Fiction!

Many quotations about black people and birth control have been falsely attributed to Margaret Sanger over the years, so we are reporting this one to be fiction.

Most of them stem from “the Negro Project,” which Margaret Sanger launched in 1938 to educate black people about birth control. Claims that Sanger was motivated by racism first surfaced in the 1970s when author Linda Gordon made that argument in her book, “Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right.” In the book, Gordon quoted Sanger as stating that:

“The mass of significant Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is (in) that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.”

But that statement actually came from the civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois. It was included in an article that he wrote for the Birth Control Review in 1932 titled “Negroes and Birth Control.” Margaret Sanger later quoted Du Bois, but the statement wasn’t her own.

Another common claim is that Margaret Sanger called black people “human weeds” and reckless breeders who never should have been born in her book, “Pivot of Civilization.” That claim appears to have started with a post published by the website Life News:

“In ‘Pivot of Civilization,’ Sanger penned her thoughts regarding immigrants, the poor, and the error of philanthropy. Sanger’s ideology of racial and social hygiene bleeds through her writings on breeding an ideal human race: They are…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

But the phrases “human weeds” and “never should have been born” don’t appear in Margaret Sanger’s “Pivot of Civilization.” Sanger does quote Karl Marx on “reckless breeding” at one point:

“…This is nowhere more evident than in Marx’s ‘Capital’ itself. In that monumental effort, it is impossible to discover any adequate refutation or even calm discussion of the dangers of irresponsible parenthood and reckless breeding, any suspicion that this recklessness and irresponsibility is even remotely related to the miseries of the proletariat.”

So, again, it appears that these quotes have been taken out of context or incorrectly attributed to Margaret Sanger.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why do you expect a civil debate when within 3 posts on this thread you'd labelled the opposition crazy?

I'm not going to debate your fallacy I'll just say that YouTube didn't create this video, nor endorse it, so unless you can prove that, YouTube isn't the source.

If you want my "dishonest pro life" opinion on defunding PP you can read this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You'll find we are in agreement, slightly.


The investigation being the one a large amount of people from all sides are calling for and will get.

Getting Closer.....and Closer

Shiver Me Timbers


Rand Paul: Two Votes From Defunding Planned Parenthood: "We May Well Get Some Democrats"

a reply to: Krazysh0t
personally I wouldn't bother,
you went through it on the last two threads on these videos, and well they probably ran across it on those two and either read what you posted and discounted it because it didn't jive with what they want to believe or they just didn't bother reading it.
either way alot of typing for really no results.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why do you expect a civil debate when within 3 posts on this thread you'd labelled the opposition crazy?

Actually I labeled anyone who thinks Youtube is a valid source as crazy. If that doesn't characterize you, then I wasn't talking to you. Though if you want to insist that ALL of the pro-life crowd isn't capable of properly vetting internet sources, that is on you. -I- never made that insinuation.

I'm not going to debate your fallacy I'll just say that YouTube didn't create this video not endorse it so unless you can prove that YouTube isn't he source.

It doesn't matter if Youtube created it or not. It's STILL a video on the internet that could have come from anywhere and is EASILY susceptible to having been edited by anyone before being put there. THAT seems to be something you insist on ignoring.

If you want my "dishonest pro life" opinion on defunding PP you can read this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You'll find we are in agreement, slightly.

Look, I'M not the one making assumptions about people here. YOU are. All I said was that people who believe Youtube is a valid source are crazy and or delusional. That could be anyone from any side of ANY debate. I wasn't specifically talking about pro-lifers there. I have also not made any assumptions about your stance on the matter.

The investigation being he one a large amount of people from Al sides are calling for and will get.

I hope so, because the OP sure looks like the Republicans are skipping the whole idea of having an investigation.

originally posted by: xuenchen

Getting Closer.....and Closer

Shiver Me Timbers


Rand Paul: Two Votes From Defunding Planned Parenthood: "We May Well Get Some Democrats"

Yea, if Rand Paul says it, it MUST be true. Right? Though it matters little how CLOSE it gets, it would never pass the House and Obama would veto it immediately.

a reply to: dawnstar

Yea I know, I said as much to the poster earlier in the thread, just thought I'd throw some of his rhetoric back in his face. People telling me to Google THEIR claims irritates me to no end.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I know many organizations that have terrible origins that I am ok with now. As far as their behavior, everything they are doing in those videos is legal. They are just edited to appear illegal and shocking.

The majority of the quotes from Margaret Sanger routinely utilized by the anti-choice crowd are either fraudulent or completely out of context. Again, for anyone interested in actual facts, Sanger's speeches and writings can be found The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University.

Tissue donation is not illegal. Charging processing fees to get the donated tissue to research facilities is not illegal.

(As you well know, Krazysh0t,

)

Sanger was a known eugenecist. There is no hiding her feelings on the subject. The old progressives were very much tied to eugenics and there are plenty of autobiographies from the time period about it. Rockefellor tells a lot in his writing.

I wouldnt defend sanger and a cause group is a bad as a prolife group to get your info. All you have to do is read the writings of progressives in their own words from the time period from roosevelt to roosevelt to find associations and views.

Tbis isnt the same organization today nor are the progressives the same today. I still am not onboard with progressive thinking in terms of how they make policy and what the outcome is but, they are not the same group of wealthy racists and in many cases sexists that they were. Just like pp is not out there to abort only immigrant children. I happen to have a more conservative viewpoint when it comes to what a government should be doing but, its just my view. The history though cant be changed.

PP or an organization like it is a necesary function today. I dont like abortions and cant comment on the reality of those videos (which seem like scare tacticts) but, the reality is what it is. If conservatives want to do something about the abortion issue they should make better runs at education, higber education and job training accesss foe the poor and desperate. I dont like the currwnt welfare system but, that doeant mean something better cant be put in place rewarding people clawing there way out instead of taking those benifits away when they do.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The investigation being the one a large amount of people from Al sides are calling for and will get

Perhaps I have missed something, but an investigation was conducted many years ago and PP was never to have been found doing anything illegal. Seems to me this is just political posturing and baiting.

Why would they move to de-fund PP when they have never been found guilty of anything?

Question:

How can they vote on bill without an investigation? What about the justice system?

Maybe there's just not enough money left over after the Benghazi and Hilary email investigations?

ETA:

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Monday that Congress should immediately defund Planned Parenthood until the group can clear its name of any wrongdoing in the controversy following two viral videos.

I guess it's different in this case...when it comes to this funding. Wonder if someone will attach some pork to it and slow it down....

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would you support PP knowing what we know about its origins and behavior?

Besides, why should the taxpayer fund a special interest organization that uses a chunk of it's funds to lobby for more tax dollars?

A very good point, I was shocked when I learned that most government agencies and departments have full time lobbyists of their own.

Full time lobbyists being paid with tax dollars to make every conceivable effort to expand their bureaucracy and consume more tax dollars.

a reply to: luthier

Sanger was a known eugenecist.

So was Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt. Sanger died more than 50 years ago. Well before Roe V Wade. I really fail to see your point, as PP has evolved leaps and bounds since then, and fulfills the government mandate provided by Title X.

a reply to: luthier

I appreciate your position, reasoned and well-thought out.

The only bone I'd pick is that Eugenics was well accepted "science" in the late 1800s/early 1900s (which roughly corresponds to The Progrssive Eta). Universities had Departments of Eugenics.

Eugenics was eventually proven to be more pseudo than science ... That was why it fell out of favor in the U.S.

Well that and the fact that the Nazis took the concepts to horrific extremes.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The investigation being the one a large amount of people from Al sides are calling for and will get

Perhaps I have missed something, but an investigation was conducted many years ago and PP was never to have been found doing anything illegal. Seems to me this is just political posturing and baiting.

Why would they move to de-fund PP when they have never been found guilty of anything?

15 years is a hell of a long time...
I was still in secondary school and hadn't reached second base...
Osama Bin Laden wasn't a household name...
Etcetera...


As for defunding PP, I don't agree with it, I said as much in the original thread.
But none of this means they shouldn't be investigated again.

a reply to: greencmp

An inaccurate "good point" that fits the agenda ... But if the Congress is going to act on belief in lieu of facts, why not?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I can agree, but these politicians are not calling for an investigation to find truth. They, and many of the people that are against PP are just moving to shut them down in any way they can.

a reply to: introvert

The ends justifies the means is the common argument for PP and the research...

So it'd be hypocritical to suggest that most of it is religious outrage, because if the allegations are proven these ends also justify the means.

In my opinion.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And what if it is false?

a reply to: introvert

Then you can all have your cake and eat it.

Respectfully, how would I know?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

I appreciate your position, reasoned and well-thought out.

The only bone I'd pick is that Eugenics was well accepted "science" in the late 1800s/early 1900s (which roughly corresponds to The Progrssive Eta). Universities had Departments of Eugenics.

Eugenics was eventually proven to be more pseudo than science ... That was why it fell out of favor in the U.S.

Well that and the fact that the Nazis took the concepts to horrific extremes.

I understand but its always good to make a concession when there was a situation that was be littleing people in such a way. The same reason I can compromise and concede as a libertarian/some what conservative the dixie flag doesnt need to be on main street in a city with a Huge black population.

There were still people in that era who knew better by their own innate empathy. Magret Meade is a hero of mine for instance.

The point is dont defend that thinking no matter the history. John Locke was writing about liberty (even how to treat animals humanely) and anti slavery in his formation of classical liberalism in the late 1600's. I dont give people a pass for following the bandwagon.

I cant stomach calling myself a Republican for the same reasons. They started out as classical liberals in a sense and ended up religious progressives.

Anyhow I am just saying the argument is Stanger wasnt perfect by any means but the organization is necesarry. Population control is necesarry to think about and plan in a natural way nobody should be hampering a persons decision to do that (as long as we are talking r v wade standards no late term without complications) and we certainly can afford to help people make their own decision to control our population.

If we ever have a fairytale life full of eternal sunshine then we are in a better place to bring children. Right now we arent even taking care of the children already born. Lets see the conservatives dump some money into city projects for the poor and have some motivated leaders to make sure it gets done before having this debate every damn election.