Some Remarks on Planned Parenthood

A Macabre Argument
Last year I jumped on a mention of Planned Parenthood on a friend’s Facebook site. The point I made was that Planned Parenthood is racist because it kills a disproportionate number of minorities. Looking back, I see this was a somewhat macabre line of reasoning for a Christian to take, dealing with a secondary issue, not the primary question. It was equivalent to arguing with Fiji Islanders in cannibal days whether they were racist because they ate more brown people than white.

Abortion as Murder
For a Christian, the real question is whether abortion is murder or not. Christians have long viewed abortion as taking human life and from the earliest days Christians banned the practice among their members.[1] A typical comment was this by Tertullian: “Indeed for us murder is forbidden once and for all, so it is not permitted even to destroy what is conceived in the womb. To prohibit the birth of a child is only a faster way to murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or prevents it from coming to birth. It is a human being, who is to be a human being, for the whole fruit is already present in the seed.” Christ elevated the treatment of infants and children in many of his teachings (see for example Matthew 18:6 and 19:14).

Jews, from whom Christians derived their faith and the Old Testament, also rejected abortion. A child in the womb was described as “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14) and children as a “heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Miscarriage was a curse (Numbers 5:22). The one passage of the Old Testament which deals with an accidentally induced premature birth required a penalty, saying, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide” (Exodus 21:22). This indicates how seriously a forced miscarriage was treated, that even if no harm resulted from the premature birth, a penalty was assessed for jeopardizing the life of mother and child.

This, then, is the position from which many Christians view the issue of abortion. My own position is that to deliberately take the lives of innocent children is almost always murder and debases those who do it, with the understanding that there are special circumstances and exceptions, such as life of the mother, collateral damage in war, and rare direct overrides on the authority of life’s giver, the Creator.

Racism or a Fallacy?
Therefore when we find that a disproportionate number of minorities are killed by abortion, that fact is troubling given the racist history of our nation. Blacks make up about 22% of the US population but account for 37% of the abortions.

Is this because of racism, or is this an example of the false cause fallacy as I was informed during the exchange on Facebook? I think it was racism.

Let me set up an analogy. Say I visit a park in a country of pedestrians and see that it has a long narrow lake around which people are forced to walk. I interview several and find that many walk around the lake for exercise, but others come this way because, despite the impediment of the lake, the paths around it are the shortest route to wherever they are going. I notice that many have breathing ailments and a number are overweight. They don’t enjoy walking although it may benefit their health. I decide that these people are potential customers. With some difficulty I obtain a permit to build a footbridge over the lake and charge a small toll for each user. The health-conscious walkers continue to make the long circuit, avoiding my bridge. However, hundreds of people pay a small toll to shave a mile off their walking distance.

A certain result is achieved because of my decision to build a bridge. As I anticipated, it is mostly those who dislike exercise and those in ill health who pay toll to use it. Is it a fallacy to say my action, which targeted a certain population, and changed the behavior of that population, was at least partly responsible for the outcome?

In the same way, Sanger and her associates developed a plan to prevent pregnancies, created the American Birth Control League (ABCL), planted offices in ethnic neighborhoods because those areas were/are most vulnerable, and promoted the services. This group became Planned Parenthood. When abortion became legal (in part through Planned Parenthood’s advocacy) the organization became a huge killer of black babies who might otherwise have lived.

Was Sanger a Racist?
Sanger’s champions say she was not racist. However, there were several racists on the board of the ABCL and among her closest allies. These included the notorious racists Lothrop Stoddard and Dr. Harry Laughlin, [2] whose views Sanger helped propagate, and the British eugenicist, Havelock Ellis, with whom she had a long-lasting affair. It defies reason to say that racist-leaning people who founded an organization dedicated to reducing the number of “unfit,” was not in some measure responsible for accomplishing racist goals, especially when the figures demonstrate that outcome.

On the other hand, I do not think it fair to accuse Sanger of racism simply because she spoke to KKK meetings. If she were promoting racism before the KKK, that would be so, but she was promoting contraception to reduce excessive births. I would have no problem with Billy Graham speaking at a KKK rally about Christ. However, the flip side of this coin is that the likelihood that the KKK would invite a speaker like Billy Graham is low, whereas Sanger with her racist associations and flirtation with eugenics was a more likely recipient of an invitation to address the racist organization.

Why the Coziness with Eugenics?
Defenders of Sanger’s cozy relationship with eugenicists and frequent inclusion of their views in her magazine excuse her on two grounds. The first is that everybody was doing it. “University presidents, physicians, scientists and public officials all embraced eugenics…” [3] Of course not everyone was. Most famously, G. K. Chesterton raised Christian objections against this dangerous fantasy in Eugenics and Other Evils. The second defense of Sanger is that she needed to include eugenicist articles to endow respectability on her enterprise. I will let that argument speak for itself.

The Hypocrisy of Sanger
Was Sanger a hypocrite? To me it seems so. At the same time that she was using birth control and having many affairs outside marriage, she was assuring her audiences that birth control would not break down morals.

Equally troubling were her efforts to win eugenicists to her cause, for which she made statements which, according to her biographers, she didn’t really mean. They then complain when opponents turn those words against her. “Sanger’s dance with the eugenicists, her futile attempts to gain their support and her qualified support of sterilization left a legacy of sentences that are separated from their context by her detractors.” [4] Thus those who quote Sanger’s own supposedly unmeant words are put in the wrong, while the woman herself is exonerated although she said things she supposedly did not believe in order to win allies. If she didn’t mean them, she should not have said them, and those who take her words at face value are hardly villains for not having the finesse to be able to distinguish between the words she really meant and those which were just propaganda.

The Hypocrisy of Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood proponents often say, “Let’s make every child a wanted child.” What makes this so ironic is that the babies who are executed without due process in the womb are wanted. Large numbers of Americans wish to adopt newborn babies, but the process has been made so difficult and expensive, most cannot and many have to find children overseas. I am not alleging that Planned Parenthood had anything to do with creating this mess. What I am saying is that Planned Parenthood assists with a much smaller percentage of adoptions per abortion now than it used to. [5] A former Planned Parenthood director reported the pressure put on her to generate more abortions because they produced more revenue than alternative forms of family planning. [6] Although I have no doubt that individual workers within Planned Parenthood sometimes act against a clinic’s monetary interests in the interest of clients, on the whole, across the organization, abortion is more likely to be offered as the preferred choice when monetary returns make it more congenial to the owners and managers who reap the most profit from the practice.

Even if the motivation and evidence are denied, Planned Parenthood’s behavior in many areas raises questions. Almost always its behavior seems motivated by the course of action which will be most profitable for the abortion industry.

If Planned Parenthood really cares about women, why does it resist proposed standards and inspections of abortion facilities on a par with other medical facilities?

If Planned Parenthood really cares about women, why does it make so little noise about feticide when it is used by preference to destroy girls around the world?

If Planned Parenthood really cares about choice, why does it resist mandates to show women ultrasounds of their unborn babies? It would seem someone who really cares about choice would want a woman to be as informed as possible in making a life and death decision.

If Planned Parenthood really cares about women, why does it advocate medical procedures on minor girls without the consent of parents?

If Planned Parenthood really cares about women, why does it gloss over the enormous psychological and physical damge done to women by abortion proceedures? [7] (My own contact with aborted women inclines me to accept psychological damages as accurately reported and very real.) Physical damages include a 37% higher incidence of subsequent premature birth, [8] and a probable but hotly-debated correlation with breast cancer reignited by a Chinese study late in 2012. [9]

Planned Parenthood advocates say abortion is needed because this is a messy world. However, Planned Parenthood does a lot to keep it messy. Much of its literature encourages promiscuity, which, of course produces unwanted pregnancies, which are lucrative for the abortion business. [10] As one political humorist put it, the right of women to have abortions “is the right to have sex with men they don’t want to have children with.” [11]

Abortion advocates use euphemisms to soften the image of murdering babies, euphemisms such as “choice,” and “family planning.” If you have to lie to yourself and others about what you are doing, chances are it is something that would seem obviously wrong if addressed truthfully. In fact, Planned Parenthood will lie to promote abortion. In Europe it has brought cases to the very liberal European court which were thrown out as deceptive. [12]

The Hypocrisy of the Politicians
The pro-abortion position is rife with inconsistencies. Here are just two: If one destroys the eggs of a bald eagle, one can go to prison. No one has any trouble seeing that the egg becomes the bird, whereas some of the same people who would protect the egg will argue that a human embryo is just tissue. A second inconsistency appears when children are killed. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, President Obama, a cold-blooded advocate of abortion and infanticide—he even voted as an Illinois state senator to allow the killing of babies who survive an abortion—lamented that the massacred children’s lives would not be fulfilled. Well, neither will the far larger number of lives of the babies he is comfortable seeeing aborted or even killed after they’ve drawn breath.

The Money Cycle
This raises another question. Why are politicians so ardent for Planned Parenthood? An enormous, corrupt system has grown up in Washington (and to a lesser extent in state capitals) which I call the “money cycle.” A famous example was the railroads in the 19th century which received government grants and in return kept politicians in office. Beginning in the 1930s Democrats directed huge contracts to Root and Brown who in turn contributed heavily to Democrat politicians—the source of Lyndon Johnson’s original political leverage [13] Today Fannie and Freddie operate a similar cycle, showering money on politicians of both parties and receiving hefty endowments in return. Planned Parenthood is in the same league. It receives five hundred million dollars a year in federal funding and lavishes fifty million a year on lobbying and campaign contributions in return. I have no doubt Planned Parenthood does everything legally. Nonetheless, the money cycle is at work and Planned Parenthood is a key beneficiary and perpetuator of this corrupt system.

The Condom Fiasco
In its February 2005 edition, Consumer Reports announced the results of their tests of condoms (pp. 34,35). Of the four Planned Parenthood condoms tested, all ranked in the bottom half, two dead last. Consumer Reports specifically urged consumers to avoid those two. The results were embarrassing to Planned Parenthood. If they had tested the condoms they must have known they were poor quality and were guilty of jeopardizing their clients. If they did not test the condoms, they were guilty of negligence and again of jeopardizing their clients.

Planned Parenthood’s immediate response to the condom rating was to accuse Consumer Reports of bias. However, even before the February issue hit the stands, Planned Parenthood announced it would redesign the condoms. One does not have to be a cynic to have serious questions about the motives and tactics of Planned Parenthood. Certainly this evidence lends credibility to the claim of former abortionist Carol Everett that abortionists deliberately distributed faulty condoms to increase the likelihood of unwanted pregancies and increase business. [14] Although she was as independent operator, not a Planned Parenthood director (as I mistakenly reported in the Facebook conversation), the evidence did not look good for Planned Parenthood. However, many supporters of Planned Parenthood spun the results as insignificant. Since Everett made her claims, her opponents have pointed out that her testimony in matters relating to her abortion business is of little worth because it has changed over the years.

Concluding Thoughts
The womb was designed by God (evolutionists would say “by nature”) to be the safest place in the world. We’ve made it the deadliest place. Whenever one goes against God’s design (or nature’s) in a wholescale manner, the outcomes are predictably unhealthy. One can work with nature to achieve greater good, such as heavier than air flight; but working against nature spells trouble. Even on the face of it, abortion is a form of national suicide. Abortion rates have been so high in Europe that Europeans are well on their way to losing their civilization because of having to import Islamic peoples to fill the void left by insufficient reproduction. The same is happening on a lesser scale in the US where Hispanics are imported. The cultures which are filling the population void are by and large those which reject abortion as a solution to “life’s messes.”


1. Rodney Stark: The Rise of Christianity Chapter 5.

2. Robert Michael: A Concise History of American Antisemitism.


4. Reed, Miriam. Margaret Sanger: Her Life in Her Words.

5. Comparison of 1997 and 2011 Planned Parenthood reports.

6. Abby Johnson: UnPlanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line.

7. Doumented by Reardon in Silent no More.



10. Thoroughly documented in Douglas R. Scott’s Bad Choices.

11. Ann Coulter: Godless, p84.

12. The Huckabee Show 12-21-12

13. Robert A. Caro: The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power.

14. Stated for the documentary Blood Money.

Books Authored or Co-authored by Dan

The Archbishop Who Killed a Man.
Anecdotes from Christian history.
Doctors Who Followed Christ.
36 notable Christian doctors.
Scientists of Faith.
48 notable scientists who were Christians.
The Earth Will Reel.
A study of the Bible’s Geological prophecies. Revised 2017.
Great Women in Christian History.
37 women who changed their world.
This Day in Christian History.
366 days in Christian history.