Report: Birth Control

American Pro-Life Encyclopedia

CHAPTER 31. THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL: ENABLER OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

CHAPTER 34. THE ABORTION PILL: CHEMICAL COATHANGER

CHAPTER 101. CURRENT RESEARCH ON FUTURE CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS

CHAPTER 131. THE PERSISTENT MYTH OF OVERPOPULATION

==============================

CHAPTER 31. THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL: ENABLER OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

“A high correlation between abortion experience and contraceptive experience can be expected in populations to which both contraception and abortion are available ... Women who have practiced contraception are more likely to have had abortions than those who have not practiced contraception, and women who have had abortions are more likely to have been contraceptors than women without a history of abortion.”-- Abortion statistician Dr. Christopher Tietze.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The invention of the birth control pill was the greatest boon of all time for women. This safe and effective contraceptive enabled them to finally escape the shackles of their own fertility, and gave them a degree of sexual freedom that they had never before experienced.

Additionally, the birth control pill prevents hundreds of thousands of abortions annually, many of them illegal back-alley butcher jobs that cost thousands of women their very lives every year.

Anyone who opposes the use of the birth control pill and other fertility control measures is a religious fanatic and a misogynist who wants to control the bodies of women and confine them to the home.

Introduction.

The Objective: An Abortifacient.

The idea of a “safe and handy” abortifacient is certainly nothing new. As far back as 1966, Garrett Hardin and other population theorists were dreaming and hoping that the major “contraceptive” of the future would be an abortifacient pill.[2]

The reason for this was obvious: If the Pill initially failed to prevent pregnancy, it would then work to end it. In other words, the woman herself would be the abortionist who would deal with ‘contraceptive failures’ --and, the best part (from the anti-lifer’s view) is that she would never actually know whether or not she had aborted, and so her conscience could remain clear.

The Searle Company developed the first oral contraceptive (OC), Enovid, in the late 1950s. In keeping with defensive anti-litigation strategy, the company extensively tested the Pill on Puerto Rican women before concluding that it was safe for American women to use in 1961.[3]

Eventually, the older, “high-dose” birth control pills gave way to the new abortifacient “low-dose” pills. Ortho/Johnson & Johnson, G.D. Searle/ Monsanto, and Syntex, the three largest manufacturers of OCs in the United States, voluntarily withdrew their products from the American market in 1988 on the advice of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These were the last commercially-available pills containing more than 50 micrograms of estrogen.[3]

Foreign Product Testing.

Initial experimentation on foreign women is an entirely typical tactic of the major pharmaceutical companies. They often test their birth control devices on poor women from developing countries so that any mistakes or serious health problems are easier to cover up. One advantage to this tactic is that poor women from foreign countries have little recourse when their health is destroyed or damaged by this kind of testing, because the companies bring lots of American dollars to their homelands, and any agitation against the programs could be easily suppressed by local governments.

In the opinion of the ‘new abortionists,’ it is just too bad if their ‘guinea pigs’ are damaged. However, if the birth control product is judged safe for American women to use, the product is marketed in the United States.

If the product is used by American women but later turns out to be unhealthy despite the initial program of foreign testing, the pharmaceutical companies flood developing countries with their abortifacient devices and drugs in the name of “foreign aid” and “population control.” This course of action has been taken with several IUDs, the injectable abortifacient Depo-Provera, and many brands of high-dose birth control pills.

For more information on various forms of United States “contraceptive imperialism,” see Chapter 129 of Volume III, “Overpopulation.”

The ‘Sexual Revolution.’

The vast majority of women who want to inhibit their natural fertility now turn to the birth control pill. “The Pill” became widely used in the late 1960s and was hailed as a panacea -- and it also helped fuel the ‘Sexual Revolution.’ About eight million American women now use this method of artificial birth control.[4]

Most women in general either do not know or no longer care that all birth control pills on the market today are abortifacients. In fact, the introduction of such admitted abortifacients as NORPLANT and RU-486 may cause the percentage of women using the birth control pill to decline substantially in the near future in favor of methods that are advertised as abortifacient in character. It seems that the only thing that matters to these women is being free of children.

The historically sharp dividing line between birth control and abortion has well and truly been obliterated by the New Abortionists: The pharmaceutical companies.

The Pill’s General Mode of Action.

“Progestin-only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestinal effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.”-- United States Food and Drug Administration.[5]

When the female reproductive system is functioning naturally, the hypothalamus (the part of the brain containing the vital autonomic regulatory centers) controls the release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which signals the pituitary gland to secrete luteinizing hormone (LH), which in turn assists ovulation and coordinates the release of estrogen and progestin from the ovaries.

When a woman ingests birth control pills, they literally take over her reproductive system by brute force. The pills cause the ovaries to maintain a steady high level of estrogen and/or progestin production, depending upon the brand of pill being used. The hypothalamus adjusts to this high level of hormone secretion and essentially shuts off GnRH production. Therefore, the production of luteinizing hormone by the pituitary gland is also inhibited, and ovulation ceases or is drastically curtailed.

The original class of birth control pills contained a high dosage of both estrogen and progestin, which led to a variety of side effects, including blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, and possibly breast cancer.

Beginning in about 1975, the manufacturers of the Pill, in reaction to adverse publicity generated about the severe side effects caused by the high-dosage pills, steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products.

The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation now boast that the average dosage of estrogen in the Pill has declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988.[6]

The Primary Problem With Pill ‘Improvement.’

Woman’s Health and Baby’s Death.

Users of the “old” high-dosage birth control pills experienced relatively severe side effects. However, many of these pills were generally considered non-abortifacient in their two-fold (“biphasic”) modes of action. The pills would thicken cervical mucus and inhibit ovulation, but they would generally not inhibit implantation of the blastocyst (the five-day old, 256-cell developing human being) in the uterine lining.

However, the new low-dosage pills are “triphasic.” They have three modes of action; they thicken cervical mucus, inhibit ovulation, and block implantation. Therefore, the “new” Pills are all abortifacient in nature.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in its 1984 pamphlet entitled “Facts About Oral Contraceptives,” said that “Though rare, it is possible for women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical mucus thick and ‘inhospitable’ to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining. These actions explain why the minipill works, as it generally does not suppress ovulation.”

This chapter describes the four basic types of birth-control pills and their modes of action. Figure 31-1 describes the hormonal contents of the pills, and Figure 31-2 lists the various manufacturers of the pills in the United States.

FIGURE 31-1 CURRENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CONCEPTION CONTROL/BIRTH CONTROL PILLS

Type of Pill	Milligrams of Progestin	Micrograms of Estrogen
(1) High-dose pill	1 to 12 mg	60 to 120 mcg
(2) Low-dose pill	1 to 2.5 mg	50 to 80 mcg
(3) Mini-combination	0.5 to 1.5 mg	20 to 35 mcg
(4) Mini-pill	0.075 to 0.35 mg	NONE

FIGURE 31-2 MANUFACTURERS OF CONCEPTION CONTROL/BIRTH CONTROL PILLS SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES

High-Dose Pills

Low-Dose Pills

Mini-Combination Pills

Mini-Pill

Ortho Ortho Novum 1/80-21 day

Ortho Novum 1/80-28 day

Ortho Novum 2mg-21 day

Searle Enovid 5mg

Enovid 10mg

Enovid E21

Ovulen-21

Ovulen-28

Syntex Norinyl 2mg

Norinyl 1/80-28 day

Berlex Levlen-21 day

Levlen-28 day

Mead Johnson Ovcon-50

Ortho Ortho Novum 1/50-21 day

Ortho Novum 1/50-28 day

Parke-Davis Norlestrin 1/50-21 day

Norlestrin 1/50-28 day

Norlestrin 1/50-Fe

Norlestrin 2.5/50-Fe

Norlestrin 2.5/50-21 day

Searle Demulen 1/50-21 day

Demulen 1/50-28 day

Syntex Genora 1/50-21 day

Genora 1/50-28 day

Norinyl 1/50-21 day

Norinyl 1/50-28 day

Wyeth Ovral-21 day

Ovral-28 day

Berlex Tri-Levlen-21 day

Tri-Levlen-28 day

Mead-Johnson Ovcon-35

Ortho Modicon-21 day

Modicon-28 day

Ortho Novum 1/35-21 day

Ortho Novum 1/35-28 day

Ortho Novum 10/11-21 day

Ortho Novum 10/11-28 day

Ortho Novum 7/7/7-21 day

Ortho Novum 7/7/7-28 day

Parke-Davis Loestrin 1/20-21 day

Loestrin 1.5/30-21 day

Loestrin 1/20-Fe

Loestrin 1.5/30-Fe

Searle Demulen 1/35-21 day

Demulen 1/35-28 day

Syntex Brevicon-21 day

Brevicon-28 day

Genora 1/35-21 day

Genora 1/35-28 day

Norinyl 1/35-21 day

Norinyl 1/35-28 day

Tri-Norinyl-21 day

Tri-Norinyl-28 day

Wyeth Lo/Ovral-21 day

Lo/Ovral-28 day

Nordette-21 day

Nordette-28 day

Ortho Micronor

Syntex Nor-Q.D.

Wyeth Ovrette

Religious Aspects of Birth Control.

The evolution of the birth control pill from pure contraceptive to frequent abortifacient poses important questions to pro-life activists.

Many women (including pro-lifers) who would never even consider a surgical abortion now use low-dose birth control pills that cause them to abort on an average of once or twice every year. A large number of pro-life women use these pills, and these are usually the women who cannot seem to make the connection between contraception and abortion in their minds.

These women and their husbands are employing a self-defense mechanism known as denial, and this eventually causes their entire pro-life philosophy to unravel. Ironically, the average pro-abortion woman has at most two or three surgical abortions during her childbearing years, while the average ‘pro-life’ woman on the Pill for ten years aborts at least ten times.

Some researchers (using very conservative figures) have calculated that the birth control pill directly causes between 1.53 and 4.15 million chemical abortions per year -- between one and two and a half times the total number of surgical abortions committed in this country every year! [7]

‘Catholics’ for a Free Choice plays upon this theme constantly. It conducts well-publicized ‘surveys’ that purport to show that 75% to 80% of all Catholic women are on the Pill. Knowing how little CFFC regards the truth, it is not surprising that this number is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the actual figures are still distressingly high.

The 1988 National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the National center for Health Statistics, surveyed thousands of married Catholic couples of childbearing age and found that;

· 40 percent of Catholic women use the pill;

· 16 percent of the women had been neutered;

· 9 percent of the men had been neutered;

· 8 percent use some other artificial method of conception regulation;

· 2 percent use some form of natural family planning; and

· the remaining 25 percent use no form of fertility control, because they are either naturally infertile or are attempting to get pregnant.[8]

The Catholic Church has recently expanded its definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical procedures. This expansion has not been necessary until this time because such abortifacient drugs and procedures simply have not existed until recently, and their invention has created a new ‘grey area’ that needed to be clarified.

The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, on November 24, 1988, stated that abortion is not only “the expulsion of the immature fetus,” but is also “the killing of the same fetus in any way and at any time from the moment of conception.”

This definition of abortion includes the use of any of the following;

all birth control pills, because every birth control pill manufactured today causes early abortions part of the time ;

mini-pills, morning-after pills, and true abortion pills such as RU-486;

injectable or insertable abortifacients such as NORPLANT and Depo-Provera; and

the use of all intrauterine devices (IUDs), which are all abortifacients and act by preventing the implantation of the already-fertilized zygote.

The Four Types of Pill.

Overview.

There are currently four types of birth control pill manufactured in the United States. These are the high-dose pill, the low-dose pill, the mini-combination pill, and the ‘mini-pill.’

These pills and their modes of action are described in the following paragraphs.

The High-Dose Pill.

The high-dose pills, which have generally fallen out of favor in this country, contained from 1 to 15 milligrams of progestin and/or 50 to 120 micrograms of estrogen, a natural female hormone. Essentially, they functioned by making the woman’s body ‘think’ that it was continuously pregnant.

The high-dose pills were primarily biphasic. Their primary mechanism involved the suppression of gonadotropin production and therefore ovulation. They also caused changes in the consistency and acidity of cervical mucus, making it more difficult for sperm to penetrate and live in the cervix. Finally, they occasionally caused certain changes in the environment of the endometrium, making implantation more difficult.

When the high-dose Pill functioned via this last mechanism, it was an abortifacient if the woman experienced a ‘breakthrough’ ovulation. Although this occurred only during about 1 to 12 percent of all cycles, it was not the primary intent of the manufacturers.

These pills have, for the most part, been pulled from the United States market due to their dangerous side effects. Naturally, they are still dumped relentlessly on poor women in developing countries. The fact that these same side effects are being inflicted upon women outside our country means little to the manufacturers -- or to so-called “women’s rights” groups.

The Low-Dose Pill.

The low-dose biphasic and triphasic pills function in essentially the same manner as the high-dose pill. However, a much higher percentage of ovulation occurs in women who use the low-dose pills. This means that women who use these pills frequently conceive, and the low-dose pills prevent implantation of the new human individual, thereby acting more often as true abortifacients. Some pro-abortionists will try to deny this abortifacient action. In such cases, we must ask them why they so fanatically oppose a Human Life Amendment partially on the grounds that it would allegedly outlaw the Pill as being abortifacient.

The Mini-Combination Pill.

These pills also function by inhibiting ovulation and causing changes in cervical mucus. However, their primary mode of operation is abortifacient, because they prevent implantation by causing changes in the endometrium (the uterine lining).

The Mini-Pill.

The primary mechanism of these pills has not been pinpointed, although women who use them almost always ovulate. Therefore, these pills function primarily as abortifacients.

It is known that pills which contain only progestin alter the cervical mucus. They also interfere with implantation by affecting the endometrium and suppressing ovulation in some patients by reducing the presence of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH).

This mechanism is confirmed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which stated that “Progestin-only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestinal effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.”[5]

The manufacturers of the minipills also acknowledge this mode of action. For example, Syntex Laboratory spokesman Russ Wilks announced that its progestin-only Pill “... did not interfere with ovulation ... It seems to affect the endometrium so that a fertilized egg cannot be implanted.”[9]

In other words, the Pill is now truly “birth control” -- not conception control, as was originally intended.

Direct Effects of the Pill.

Pregnancy.

Most people would intuitively expect that the massive distribution and use of the birth control pill would drastically cut down on the number of “unwanted pregnancies” in this country.

However, research by leading population experts has proven just the opposite.

The manufacturers of the Pill and the medical community have touted the drug as virtually invincible for more than a quarter of a century. It is therefore quite natural for women to believe that they are immune from pregnancy when they ingest it.

This attitude of ‘invincibility’ naturally leads to carelessness in the use of the Pill.

Only about 11 percent of all women who use the Pill do so correctly, according to researcher Deborah Oakley of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor in a 1989 study.[10]

This sloppiness is the major contributor to an incredible number of unintended pregnancies, especially among younger women. There are about 630,000 pregnancies annually among women who are on the Pill, and more than 80 percent of these pregnancies occur among women who are 15 to 24 years old.

Among women 15 to 24 years, old, the method effectiveness of the birth control pill is 96.2 percent per year. This sounds very good indeed; but the method effectiveness refers to the efficiency of the Pill when a woman is in very good health and uses the Pill without error . When user error is factored in, the result is the actual user effectiveness rate, also referred to as the overall effectiveness rate.[10]

Dr. Christopher Tietze has defined the user effectiveness rate as “Performance under real life conditions, including any accidental pregnancies during regular or irregular use of the method under study by excluding pregnancies following discontinuation of contraception or adoption of another method.”[11]

The overall effectiveness rate for the low-dose Pill is 89 percent per year. This still sounds good until a person calculates the probability of a woman of 15 to 24 years of age becoming pregnant over an extended period of time when using the Pill, as shown below.

PROBABILITY OF PREGNANCY AMONG WOMEN USING THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL

Period of Pill Use	Probability of Pregnancy
6 months	5%
1 year	11%
2 years	21%
3 years	30%
5 years	44%
7 years	56%
10 years	69%

In summary, if a girl of 15 who is fornicating begins to use the pill, and uses it without cease, there is a better than 50 percent chance that she will become pregnant by the time she is 22!

This statistic is even backed up by the pro-abortionists. Planned Parenthood biostatistician Dr. Christopher Tietze said that “Within 10 years, 20 to 50 percent of pill users and a substantial majority of users of other methods may be expected to experience at least one repeat abortion.”[12]

Note that Tietze is speaking about repeat (second or greater) abortions here.

These are the young women that sidewalk counselors see in droves, trooping into the abortion mills with bemused expressions on their faces and saying “It’s okay because my birth control failed!”

These rates are in line with Alan Guttmacher Institute figures that show that half of all abortion patients in 1987 were practicing contraception during the month in which they conceived, and a substantial proportion of those who were not doing so had stopped using a method only a few months before becoming pregnant.[13] The majority of abortion patients who had stopped using a method prior to becoming pregnant said they had most recently used the pill.[13]

Naturally, these and other statistics are never divulged by those who operate school-based clinics or who push comprehensive sex education programs in our public schools.

For further statistical information on the failure rate of the Pill and other contraceptive methods, see Chapter 99 of Volume III, “Contraceptive Effectiveness.”

Unsafe At Any Speed.

According to United States Federal courts, the birth control pill has been classified as “unavoidably unsafe.”[14] This means that, implicit in a woman’s consent to use the pill, even if she is not entirely informed of its dangers, is an acknowledgement of physical risk.

This legal classification means that women damaged by the Pill have a much harder time recovering damages. Dr. John Hildebrand, an expert in the field, estimates that more than 500 women die every year because of pill-induced effects. This startling number is confirmed by figures provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the world’s foremost abortions statistics analyzer) and one of the foremost abortionists in the United States, Warren Hern, as shown below.

It is ironic indeed that the same pill that the Neofeminists pushed so hard as part of their solution to ‘excessive illegal abortion deaths’ now kills five times as many women per year as illegal abortions themselves did before Roe v. Wade .

CALCULATION OF ANNUAL DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL

	Annual Deaths Per 100,000 Users
Age Group	Nonsmoker	Smoker	Users (1000s)	Deaths In Age Group
15-24	0.7	2.8	4,735	99
25-34	1.7	10.2	3,359	247
35-44	18.2	80.0	345	205
Total Annual Deaths				551

Backup Calculations: See footnote.[15]

Cardiovascular Impacts.

The most dangerous and well-documented side effects commonly associated with the Pill are heart attacks and strokes. The eight-year Nurse’s Health Study at Harvard Medical School found that Pill users are 250 percent as likely to have heart attacks and strokes than those who don’t use the Pill, probably because the Pill excessively increases blood clotting ability.[16]

However, one of the major findings of the study was that women who get off the Pill have rates of cardiovascular disease equal to that of the general population after a period of one year.

Breast Cancer.

The Fertility and Maternal Health Drugs Advisory Committee is a panel of medical experts that meets to advise the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on matters regarding drugs that disable the female reproductive function. Its advice is non-binding, but does influence the FDA to a certain extent.

The committee evaluated a study by Dr. Clifford R. Kay of the Royal

College of General Practitioners of Manchester, England. Kay studied 46,000 women, half of which were Pill users and half of which were non-users. He found that Pill users were more than three times more likely to develop breast cancer than non-users between the ages of 30 and 34. Kay stated that the Pill may not have been a contributing factor to the increases in cancer because of its long latent period, but that the Pill may “accelerate” the process if it had already begun.

He also said that it was “absolutely critical” that these studies continue, and if they showed a clear connection between the Pill and cancer, that it would be a “devastating condemnation” of the drug.

A second study by researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, completed in 1988, showed that the longer women took the pill, the greater their chances of contracting breast cancer. The risk of developing breast cancer was found to be twice as great by age 45 for women who had used the Pill for less than ten years and four times as great for women who had used the Pill for greater than ten years.

Another 1988 study by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, found that women who had never had children and who began menstruating before the age of 13 had an increased risk of breast cancer depending on how long they had used the pill.

FDA Reactions.

Despite being presented with the results of these and many other studies, a special Food and Drug Administration panel said in early 1989 that the data was “not conclusive,” and refused to place new warning labels on oral contraceptives.[17]

We must remember that the Pill manufacturers have a huge stake in obscuring the results of studies that show that the Pill is harmful -- and this stake is not only monetary but philosophical, in that it supports their population control agenda.

Indirect Impacts of the Pill.

Introduction.

The direct results of the Pill, as described above, include many thousands of dead or injured women over the last quarter century. The indirect impacts of the Pill are much more diffuse but even more damaging to society in general. The Pill indirectly impacts not only women, but men and children as well.

The Pill cannot be assigned all of the blame for these damaging effects. However, since it is a more popular birth control method than any of the other artificial means, it must bear a large portion of the responsibility for sexual promiscuity, the increase of illegitimate births, the explosion of venereal diseases, and the degradation of marriage, as described in the following paragraphs.

Indirect Effect: Increased Promiscuity.

It goes without saying that the wide availability a drug like the birth control pill would appeal strongly to those persons with no particular sense of sexual ethics.

After the Pill was introduced in the mid-1960s, fornication and ‘shacking up’ both almost doubled in a period of only five years. This behavior also increased steeply when abortion was legalized in 1973.

People of all ages (but especially teenagers) are fornicating more than ever before. Wife-swapping clubs, sex addiction treatment organizations, hard-core pornography, and ‘fantasy [sex] tours’ to Far East nations have increased tremendously.

Even the original developers of the birth control pill now acknowledge that their invention has led to widespread promiscuity. Dr. Robert Kirstner of Harvard Medical School said that “For years I thought the pill would not lead to promiscuity, but I’ve changed my mind. I think it probably has.”[18]

And Dr. Min-Chueh Chang, one of the co-developers of the birth control pill, has acknowledged that “[Young people] indulge in too much sexual activity ... I personally feel the pill has rather spoiled young people. It’s made them more permissive.”[19]

Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, also drew a clear picture of the connection between abortion and contraception within the context of increased promiscuity; “When an abortion is easily obtainable, contraception is neither actively nor diligently used. If we had abortion on demand, there would be no reward for the woman who practiced effective contraception. Abortion on demand relieves the husband of all possible responsibility; he simply becomes a coital animal.”[20]

Finally, psychologists Eugene Sandburg and Ralph Jacobs noted the obvious connection between contraception and abortion as birth control; “As legal abortion has become increasingly available, it has become evident that some women are now intentionally using abortion as a substitute for contraception.”[21]

Dr. Min-Chueh’s quote, above, showed that he was certainly correct in his assessment of the situation. In 1970, only 4.6 percent of all girls aged 15 had fornicated before marriage. In 1990, this rate had increased more than sevenfold to 33.1 percent. Of all unmarried girls in the 15 to 19 age bracket, 28.6 percent had fornicated in 1970. This rate had more than doubled to 61.4 percent by 1990.[22]

Indirect Effect: Illegitimate Births.

The inevitable result of the combination of increases in fornication and of ‘unwanted pregnancy’ is obviously an increase in illegitimate births.

Professor Kingsley Davis of the United States Commission on Population Growth and the American Future states that “The current belief that illegitimacy will be reduced if teenage girls are given an effective contraceptive is an extension of the same reasoning that created the problem in the first place. It reflects an unwillingness to face problems of social control and social discipline, while trusting some technological device to extricate society from its difficulties. The irony is that the illegitimacy rise occurred precisely while contraceptive use was becoming more, rather than less, widespread and respectable.”[23]

The illegitimacy rate for births among teenaged girls hovered around five to seven percent for decades, until about 1960. Between 1960 and 1970, it doubled as the birth control pill helped usher in the ‘Sexual Revolution.’ After 1970, the teenage illegitimacy rate literally exploded as comprehensive sex education programs and school-based clinics were introduced.

The overall illegitimacy rate for all children born in the United States was 5 percent in 1960. This rate has more than quintupled to more than 28%.[4]

This phenomenon is not just an ethical or religious concern: It is a profoundly practical one. It is common knowledge that children born into one-parent families are more likely to be abused and abusive, are much more likely to be undereducated and underemployed, are much more likely to have illegitimate children themselves, and are much more prone to criminal activity.

Indirect Effect: Increased Venereal Diseases.

Because it is not a ‘barrier method,’ the birth control pill does absolutely nothing to halt the spread of venereal diseases. Quite the contrary: it has contributed greatly to promiscuity, and venereal diseases have exploded as a result.

In 1920, VD was concentrated in a very small segment of the population: Prostitutes, a few promiscuous sodomites, and a small percentage of men (and sometimes women) who had the financial means to seduce a succession of sexual partners.

Only twelve sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) were catalogued in 1920, and seven of them were rare indeed. Today, there are over 50 recognized strains of STD, and more are being created and discovered every year.

AIDS was nonexistent in 1920, and now it has killed more than 125,000 people in the United States alone.

Dr. V. Livingstone, in her mid-1940s public health work in New York and New Jersey, noted that virtually all long-time prostitutes had contracted cervical cancer from almost continuous sexual activity. Now, fifty years later, there is an incredible rise in the nationwide incidence of cervical cancer among promiscuous young women who are not prostitutes.[24]

Herpes used to be rare in this country, but now more than three million Americans are infected, with 300,000 more joining the ranks of the ‘elect’ every year. Symptoms include flue-like indications after about a week. The virus usually resides near the spinal cord, and returns to the site(s) of infection at fairly regular intervals, causing successive rounds of symptoms to occur. Genital herpes is very easily transmitted, is incurable, and changes a person’s entire lifestyle until the day he or she dies.

The incidence of genital warts (Condyloma), which are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), has increased by a factor of 800% since the birth control pill came into wide use. The latent period ranges from a month to a year, so a newly-infected person may transmit the virus very easily before realizing he is diseased. The infected person must usually undergo repeated treatments involving cauterization, laser burning, or use of powerful drugs such as podophyllin or trichloroacetic acid.[24]

Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is not an STD, but is commonly caused by gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, and other STDs. It is a broad term referring to a group of infections that lodge in the uterus, ovaries, and Fallopian tubes. About 15 percent of all women will suffer from PID at some point in their lives, and 1 million new cases are reported each year.

PID is a serious matter. About one-fourth of all outbreaks are severe enough to warrant hospitalization, and about 150 women die of PID each year. PID causes half of the 60,000 annual cases of ectopic (tubal) pregnancies in the United States. Tubal pregnancies account for about ten percent of all pregnancy-related deaths, and its incidence has tripled since 1965. The primary cause of this increase in PID has been the increase of gonorrhea and chlamydia.[24]

In conclusion, the rate of infection with various venereal diseases is greater today than it ever has been in the United States. A large percentage of the blame for this explosion of diseases must be laid squarely on the doorstep of the inventors and peddlers of the birth control pill.

Rolling Stone Magazine had it right for once when it declared in a March 4, 1982 editorial that “Some wrathful deity is extracting revenge for our decade-long orgy.”

Indirect Effect: Degradation of Marriage.

Anyone who alleges that the Pill has ‘damaged the institution of marriage’ is liable to be met with hoots of derision from knee-jerking Neoliberals.

But we should look at the facts supporting this conclusion before dismissing it out of hand.

In 1965, before the Pill became widely available, about 15 percent of all couples lived together before marriage. The major reason for the relatively low incidence of this arrangement was simple: Living together meant more sex, and more sex meant a greater chance of a pregnancy in a nation where abortion was still illegal.

Today, many young unmarried women are on the Pill. They therefore have no reason not to fornicate freely and cohabit before marriage if they feel like it.

As a result, more than 40 percent of all couples in the United States now live together (‘shack up’) before marriage. Their reason: They want to make sure that they’re “compatible.” They don’t want to rush into something that might not work and cause pain for everyone involved. They say that it’s best to have a trial run first. Just to make sure, you see.

Sound sensible? Of course it does! Is it sensible? Of course not!

In 1989, James Bumpass, James Sweet, and Andrew Cherlin of the University of Wisconsin completed a long-term study to determine the effect of prenuptial cohabitation on marriage. Their findings showed that more than 75 percent of all couples who lived together before marriage eventually divorced. This is a rate of more than 50 percent greater than the general population![25]

Why is this?

There are two primary reasons;

(1) Those people who ‘shack up’ are less traditional in their values. True commitment and a willingness to ‘work at it’ are far more important to the success of a marriage than a self-serving “fling.” Obviously, many of those who ‘shack up’ initially do not intend to get married.

(2) Those who have ‘shacked up’ are naturally far more likely to commit adultery in marriage than those who haven’t. This makes sense -- adultery is, like fornication, a tangible result of lack of discipline and self-control. Those who get used to “serial monogamy” before marriage see no reason why they can’t continue to practice it after marriage.

So it is obvious that the Pill has contributed greatly to our country’s exploding divorce rate, which was about 18 percent in 1965 and now stands at about 50 percent.

Unfortunately, the innocent children of divorced couples are always those who suffer the most. But the Neofeminists and sexologists simply write them off as sort of “casualties of friendly fire,” inevitable victims of the Sexual Revolution and the war against one’s own sexuality. According to the ‘sexperts,’ there can be no impediment to the rush for self-gratification, self-indulgence, self-actualization, or self-destruction -- not even children, regardless of whether they are born or preborn.

==========================================

[1] Dr. Christopher Tietze. “Abortion and Contraception.” Abortion: Readings and Research . Butterworth & Company, Toronto, Canada. 1981, pages 54 to 60.

[2] Garrett Hardin. “The History and Future of Birth Control.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine , Autumn 1966.

[3] Bogamir M. Kuhar, Ph.D. “Pharmaceutical Companies: The New Abortionists.” Reprint 16 from Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879.

[4] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition), 991 pages. Table 56, “Unmarried Couples Living Together,” Table 96, “Births By Status of Mother), Table 99, “Contraceptive Use By Women, 15-44 Years Old, By Age, Race, Marital Status, and Method of Contraception: 1982,” and Table 127, “Marriages and Divorces.”

[5] Federal Register , 41:236, December 7, 1976, page 53,634.

[6] Advertisement by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in Hippocrates Magazine, May/June 1988, page 35.

[7] Fertility and Sterility , 48:3, 1987, pages 409 to 413. Also see Van der Vange, Contemporary Obstetrics , ed. Chamberlain, 1988. Also see Population Studies , 23, 1959, pages 455 to 461.

[8] Catholic News Service. “Most Catholic Women Ignore Church-Accepted Form of Birth Control.” The [Portland, Oregon] Catholic Sentinel , January 24, 1992, page 7.

[9] United Press International release in the Cincinnati Post , January 11, 1973.

[10] Kim Painter. “Most Users of the Pill Don’t Follow Directions.” USA Today , February 21, 1990, page D1.

[11] Christopher Tietze and Stanley Lewit. “Statistical Evaluation of Contraceptive Methods.” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology , 17:121-138 (1974).

[12] Christopher Tietze, quoted in the National Abortion Rights Action League’s A Speaker’s and Debater’s Guidebook . June 1978, page 24.

[13] “The Characteristics Of, and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients.” Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives , July/August 1988, page 158. As described in “Pro-Abortion Forces Confirm Contraceptive Failure.” Life in Oregon (newsletter of Oregon Right to Life), May 1989, page 6.

[14] Thomas P. Monaghan, Co-Chairman, Free Speech Advocates. “Unavoidably Unsafe.” Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 14 and 15.

[15] These calculations assume that one-fourth of all women in each age group are smokers. Death rates are obtained from Warren Hern. Abortion Practice . Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1990, 340 pages, $35.00. Page 45. From H. Ory. “Mortality Associated with Fertility and Fertility Control: 1983.” Family Planning Perspectives , 15:57, 1983. The number of pill users by age group is from Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States , 1990 (110th Edition). Table 99, “Contraceptive Use By Women, 15-44 Years Old, By Age, Race, Marital Status, and Method of Contraception: 1982.”

[16] Dr. Meir J. Stampfer. New England Journal of Medicine , November 24, 1988. This study was based on an eight-year followup of 119,061 female nurses, ranging in age from 30 to 55 in 1980. 7,074 were current pill users and 49,269 were previous users. Overall, there were 380 heart attacks, 205 strokes, and 230 cardiovascular deaths among pill users.

[17] Marlene Cimons, LA Times-Washington Post Service. “New Warning Labels Ruled Out for Oral Contraceptive Pills.” The Oregonian , January 6, 1988, page A14.

[18] Dr. Robert Kirstner, Harvard Medical School, one of the original developers of the birth control pill. Quoted in ALL About Issues , June 1981, page 5.

[19] Dr. Min-Chueh Chang, one of the inventors of the birth control pill. Quoted by Charles E. Rice. “Nature’s Intolerance of Abuse.” ALL About Issues , August 1981, page 6.

[20] Dr. Alan Guttmacher in a discussion at the Law, Morality and Abortion Symposium, held at Rutgers University Law School, March 27, 1968. Rutgers Law Review , 1968(22):415-443.

[21] Eugene C. Sandburg, M.D. and Ralph I. Jacobs, M.D. “Psychology of the Misuse and Rejection of Contraception.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , May 15, 1971, pages 227 to 237.

[22] “The US Family Staggers Into the Sexy Secular Future.” Family Research Newsletter , January-March 1991, page 1, Table 1 entitled “Percentage of Women Aged 15-19 Who Reported Having Had Premarital Sexual Intercourse, By Race and Age -- United States, 1970-1988.” Numbers from 1988 to 1992 linearly extrapolated using 1985-1988 rates.

[23] Professor Kingsley Davis. “The American Family, Relation to Demographic Change.” Research Reports , United States Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Volume I, Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth , edited by Robert Parke, Jr., and Charles F. Westoff. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1972, page 253.

[24] Julia Kagan. “Sexual Freedom: The Medical Price Women are Paying.” McCall’s Magazine, May 1980, page 104. Also see American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Patient Education. Patient Education Pamphlets Nos. P-009 (“Sexually Transmitted Diseases”), P-054 (“Genital Herpes”), P-073 (“Genital Warts”), and P-077 (“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease”). Also see Marsha F. Goldsmith. “Sexually Transmitted Diseases May Reverse the ‘Revolution.’” Journal of the American Medical Association , April 4, 1986, pages 1,665 to 1,672.

[25] Dale Vree. “Hey, it Sounds Plausible.” National Catholic Register , May 7, 1989, page 5.

==========================================

CHAPTER 34. THE ABORTION PILL: CHEMICAL COATHANGER

“I resent it when people present the very early interruption of pregnancy as killing a baby, morally or physically. I think it’s a crime to say that.”-- Etienne-Emile Baulieu, inventor of the RU-486 abortion pill.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“RU-486 is properly called an ‘abortifacient.’ Because it is a drug that can induce a menstrual period after the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, it can terminate a woman’s pregnancy in its earliest stages.”-- National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

An early abortion pill will be a boon to poor women in developing countries. More than 250,000 women die every year all over the world from botched illegal abortions, and most of these deaths will be averted by the advent of a safe and legal abortion pill. In addition, the abortion pill could simply end the need for surgical abortion in developed countries like the United States.

The History of RU-486.

Dreams of an ‘Ultimate Pill.’

The lives of unborn children used to mean something to our society and to the producers of the old “high-dose” birth control pill. The pharmaceutical companies actually went out of their way to avoid killing preborn babies as they concocted their chemical mixtures.

However, as national morals loosened, especially after abortion was legalized in the United States, there was simply no need to consider the effects of various “birth control” methods on the life of the developing human being. The only criterion that mattered was the health of the mother.

And so, the ideal “contraceptive” gradually evolved into a device or drug that would not only prevent ovulation and fertilization, but eliminate early pregnancies as well. A quarter-century ago, Garrett Hardin and other population theorists were dreaming of such a major “contraceptive” of the future, which would most likely take the form of an abortifacient pill.[3]

The Origin of the Pill.

The manufacturer of the abortion pill Mifepristone (originally labeled ZK 95.890, but now classified as Roussel- Uclaf 38486, or RU-486 for short) is the French company Groupe Roussel- Uclaf, a subsidiary of the West German pharmaceutical company Hoechst. The inventor of the death pill is Etienne-Emile Baulieu of France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research.

An affiliate of Roussel-Uclaf, Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals of Somerville, New Jersey, holds the option rights for the drug in the United States, but has declined so far to introduce RU-486 to this country. Hoechst-Roussel is a part of Hoechst Celanese, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hoechst AG. Celanese has average annual sales of $1.7 billion.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently conducting detailed tests with RU-486 and a similar drug, ZK 98.734, produced by Schering AG.[4] It is obvious that WHO would have no particular interest in RU-486 unless the pill would aid its population control programs. Dr. Baulieu has cited his own concern about the “complications of overpopulation” as one of the reasons he developed the abortion pill.[5]

First the Jews, Now the Unborn.

It is a little-known but heavily ironic fact that Hoechst changed its name after World War II from its previous title of “I.G. Farben.” It took this extraordinary action primarily in an attempt to shake its loathsome reputation. I.G. Farben made a tidy profit during the war from the manufacture of the cyanide gas Zyklon-B, used to exterminate the Jews in the ‘showers’ of the Nazi concentration camps! Now Farben’s descendant will make millions by exterminating preborn babies.

Ironically, the pill’s inventor, Etienne-Emile Baulieu, is Jewish. He was born in 1926 to a doctor named Leon Blum, and changed his name in 1942, presumably to avoid being killed by the Zyklon-B gas manufactured by the same company he works for today.

Just as I.G. Farben said that Zyklon-B would make it easier and less painful to exterminate Jews, Roussel-Uclaf now insists that RU-486 will make it easier to kill the preborn.

When will we ever learn our lessons from history?

Initial Distribution.

On September 23, 1988, the French government, which just happens to own 36.25 percent of Roussel’s stock, approved distribution of the abortion pill on the condition that it be administered only in approved medical centers and only until the seventh week of pregnancy. The manufacturer was immediately swamped with tens of thousands of pro-life protest letters, and more than 20,000 French pro-life activists marched in Paris streets in opposition to the pill.[6]

Distribution is Temporarily Suspended.

For months, Dr. Edouard Sakiz, Roussel-Uclaf chairman, watched pickets outside his window at work. Pro-lifers publicly condemned his new product as “a chemical weapon that would poison the still-tiny children of a billion Third World mothers.” Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, condemned the pill as being “extremely dangerous,” both physically and morally.

On October 26, 1988, about one month after government approval of the pill, Roussel-Uclaf suspended distribution in China and France because of the “outcry of public opinion at home and abroad.” Andre Ullman of Roussel-Uclaf, who helped develop the pill, said that a boycott figured heavily in the company’s decision to stop making the drug.

The predictable backlash from the left wing was incredibly vehement, even by its low standards. Faye Wattleton, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, squawked that the suspension was “... a tragic display of cowardice and a shocking blow to women around the world.”[7]

Liberation, France’s largest left-wing daily newspaper, sneered at the Catholic Church in its front-page article entitled “The Diktat of the Bigots.” The political weekly L’Evenement du Jeudi sniveled about “... the brutal return of the Inquisition.” The French Family Planning Movement (including, of course, Planned Parenthood) trotted out their usual mix of tired slogans and twisted grammar to condemn “... this new assault by conservative religious forces. After having set the fires of intolerance with the Scorcese film [“The Last Temptation of Christ”], the traditionalists and Catholic reactionaries now want to impose their reactionary laws on women.”[8]

Meanwhile, Baulieu was whipping up support for his death pill at the World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Rio de Janeiro before 9,500 doctors and researchers. He denounced Roussel-Uclaf and called the decision to stop making the pill “morally scandalous,” a description that amused many French pro-lifers. Apparently, Baulieu has no problem at all engineering the deaths of millions. According to him, this genocide is perfectly legal and moral.

In a later article in the New York Times Magazine , Baulieu, making expert use of pro-abortion Newspeak, whined that “I resent it when people present the very early interruption of pregnancy as killing a baby, morally or physically. I think it’s a crime to say that.”[1]

And, in best pro-abortion “personally opposed” rhetoric, the man who might become responsible for more deaths than any other person in history said that “I don’t like abortion and I don’t like talking about it. I am a physician and would rather talk about saving life. I am not really for abortion, I am for women.”[9]

The Government Steps In.

Then, on October 29, 1988, the French press reported that the government ordered the company to resume distribution of the death pill. Health Minister Claude Evin, quoting France’s 1975 law legalizing abortion, stated that the pill was “the moral property of the women of France.” Evin had invoked, for the very first time, a 1968 French law that allows the government to directly intervene when the “interests of public health” are endangered. Evin simpered that “I was doing what I could to make sure France did not surrender to pressure groups animated by archaic ideologies” [such as Christianity]?

The press lied about this incident, saying that the French government demanded that Roussel resume distribution of the pill. In reality, the government merely requested the company to resume distribution. In the interest of fairness, however, it must be noted that the ‘request’ was coercive -- Roussel-Uclaf would lose its license to manufacture the pill to another company if it did not comply with the government’s wishes.

Baulieu, the killer pill’s inventor, was now in the spotlight and mindlessly vomited the usual pro-death lies. “One hundred and fifty thousand women die annually from botched abortions. RU-486 could save the lives of thousands of women,” he parroted. When asked for documentation, Baulieu simply ignored the questions in the pro-abort manner easily recognized all over the world.

Incredibly, pro-abortion groups even began to promote Baulieu for a Nobel Prize nomination! It would be interesting indeed to see how the Nobel Committee would justify elevating Baulieu to the same stature as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who labors to save life rather than destroy it, and who condemned abortion during her Nobel Prize acceptance lecture.

This dramatic move by the French government relieved Roussel-Uclaf of any responsibility for its actions, and company spokesmen merely shrugged their shoulders and said, in effect, “What can we do? The government has ordered us to continue.” This total lack of resistance to government intrusion into its affairs made it quite plain that Roussel-Uclaf welcomed the diversion of attention and the shifting of moral responsibility to the French government so that it could get on with mass production of its astronomically profitable killing pill.

The Usual Slogans from the United States.

The invention of the abortion pill caused great excitement among pro-abortion groups in the United States. Several groups whose sole or primary purpose was to propagandize the public soon sprang up, including Every Child a Wanted Child (California) and the Reproductive Health Technologies Project (Washington, D.C.).

When the French government ordered the continued production of the pill, Kate Michelman of the United States National Abortion Rights Action League, attempting to cram as many trite slogans as possible into a single sentence, enthused that “The French government has taken a strong stand against intolerance and in favor of the health of women. We support this action and the message it sends to those who seek to impose their will on all of us.”

Roussel-Uclaf spokesmen have insisted that the product was not intended to be a morning-after pill. Those familiar with the pro-abortion mentality know for certain that it indeed will become a morning-after pill, a convenient birth control method for women who don’t want to be subject to the side effects of the regular birth control pill. After all, more than one-third of all women who get surgical abortions now use no method of contraception whatever!

The Situation in 1990.

A total of 793 French clinics were initially authorized to use the abortion pill. The cost for an RU-486 abortion was about $256, eighty percent of which was borne by the Socialist government.[9]

However, Roussel-Uclaf initially distributed the pill only in France and the People’s Republic of China, because the company leadership was not eager to start a worldwide debate. In reality, they were particularly concerned about the financial muscle of American pro-life groups.

The Archbishop of Lyon, Cardinal Albert Decourtray, summed up the feelings of Christians everywhere neatly as he said that “The pill now produces a process which allows abortion to seem like a contraceptive. In other words, it tends purely and simply to numb the conscience about both the act itself and its moral gravity. A follower of Christ cannot accept it.”

In November of 1988, the Vatican clarified its definition of abortion to include the use of drugs like RU-486, which are used specifically to kill the unborn child. Such use, they said, is an excommunicable offense for Catholics, the same as procuring a surgical ‘elective’ abortion. For further information on this position, read Chapter 43, “Catholic Church Position on Abortion.”

How the Abortion Pill Works.

“As an antiprogestin agent, RU-486 has properties that might offer theoretical value in Cushing’s Disease (an adrenal disorder), meningioma (a largely benign brain tumor), and breast cancer, but despite some of the recent hype, studies to date have failed to show any benefit whatsoever in any of these conditions.”-- Canadian neurologist Paul Ranalli.[10]

The Mechanism.

All abortion pills that have been investigated to date employ or imitate progesterone, the hormone that signals the uterus to become receptive to the fertilized egg.

For example, the best-known abortion pill -- RU-486 -- contains a progesterone analogue (imposter) that ‘plugs in’ to the uterine progesterone receptors, but does not deliver the message that progesterone is supposed to transfer naturally. These hormone impostors are commonly labeled ‘anti-hormones.’

Once the anti-hormone has occupied the progesterone receptors, the fertilized ovum is denied attachment and simply starves for want of nutrients and oxygen. The ovum is expelled after several days.

Most abortion pills, including RU-486, are about 80 percent ‘effective’ when used by themselves, and about 95 percent effective when accompanied by one or two subsequent injections of synthetic prostaglandin E or Sulprotone. The abortion pills are primarily intended for use on babies of less than five weeks gestation, and their killing efficiency decreases dramatically past seven weeks’ gestation.

Naturally, pro-abortionists know that the RU-486 pill is a true abortifacient and, in fact, that it was designed to be a true abortifacient. However, they recognize the value in lying to the public about the intended effects of the pill, because they know that the public is much more comfortable with contraception than it is with abortion.

Lying to the public has always been a favorite strategy of the pro-abortionists, as revealed by the National Abortion Federation in an article entitled “Successful Strategies: Managing the Media;” “When polls have been conducted on RU-486, the new French Pill, the results very depending on how the question is asked. If RU-486 is referred to as an “abortion pill,” it has significantly less support than if it is called a new form of birth control. In many polls, the description can change support by as much as 15-20 points and determine if a majority of those polled are in favor of the pill.”[11]

The Propaganda.

The pro-abortion forces who would like to bring the anti-baby pill to this country are employing the old “bait and switch” tactic as one of their methods. They insist that the pill will cure a wide range of ills, and that is why they really want to bring it to the United States, and, of course, that is why no reasonable person would want to oppose it.

For example, Dr. Louise Tyrer, Vice-President of Medical Affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, asserted that “We must fight to ensure that scientific progress and the right to practice medicine in the best interest of our patients is not stifled by the ideological perspectives of a few who would force their moral views on the rest of the world.”[12]

At a House subcommittee hearing on November 19, 1990, pro-abortion researchers cited a long list of ailments that could supposedly be cured or ameliorated by the drug: AIDS, cancers of the breast and ovaries, Cushing’s Syndrome, brain and prostate cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension, and even obesity. Naturally, they made no mention of the abortifacient character of the pill.

The RU-486 pushers never state categorically that the pill is useful in treating other illnesses, because no researcher has ever provided a bit of evidence or written any paper showing that RU-486 is any good for anything other than destroying unborn babies.[13] So the pushers take advantage of emotion and hint around, loading their sentences with enough disclaimers as to make them scientifically worthless, such as “... which suggests that RU-486 may have potential value in AIDS.”[14]

These claims are so spurious, and the propaganda so transparent, that even committed pro-abortionists are voicing their opposition to RU-486. For example, three women professors have extensively documented the dangers of RU-486 and the claims of efficacy against various diseases, and conclude that “These claims have an all-too-wondrous ring of promise subsequently turned peril.” Their book, entitled RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths, and Morals , also describe how the abortion pill increases instead of decreases physician control and how it is dumped on Third World women.[15]

Pro-lifers must not be fooled by the typical anti-life lies about the abortion pill. The pro-aborts obviously could not care less about other alleged uses of the pill. Otherwise, they would have been involved in fighting other diseases long ago. Their sole purpose in bringing RU-486 to the United States is to promote abortion by making baby-killing even more private and difficult to oppose than it is now.

The Abortion Pill Manufacturers.

Upjohn.

Upjohn, the king of the New Abortionists, originally marketed three Prostin products which had only one use: to abort women in their second trimester. Prostin F2 Alpha was injected directly into the bag of waters to induce miscarriage. Prostin E2 was a suppository. Prostin 15M was an intramuscular injection.

All three Prostins induced miscarriage, and Upjohn was seriously considering research into an abortion pill. However, the Prostins had severe side effects, including uterine rupture, and so their use was limited in favor of the saline (“salting out”) abortion technique, which is itself rapidly falling out of favor.

The National Right to Life Committee has maintained a rigorous boycott of Upjohn since the company introduced these products in the early 1970s. Partially as a result of this boycott and the accompanying adverse publicity, Upjohn has suspended research and development of an “improved” prostaglandin, and Prostin F2 Alpha has been removed from the market. Prostin E2 and Prostin 15M, however, are still in use.

Winthrop Sterling.

Winthrop Sterling of New York City, owned by Eastman Kodak, was in the preliminary stages of abortion pill development, but after evaluating the effects of boycotts and national publicity upon the Upjohn Company, decided to place research on its product on permanent hold.

Searle.

Cytotec is the newest abortion pill on the market. It is a prostaglandin drug used for ulcers, but it also causes miscarriage in about ten percent of all pregnant women who use it.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in December of 1988 for the prevention of stomach ulcers caused by other drugs. If Searle determines with further study that Cytotec is an effective abortifacient, it may decide to pursue research and development of a single-purpose abortion-causing pill.

Roussel-Uclaf.

This company manufactures the abortion pill RU-486. This pill represents the greatest threat of all to the unborn, because it has been extensively tested on French and Chinese women, and physicians and Neofeminist groups are pushing vigorously to have it distributed all over the world. Because of the threat it poses, the rest of this chapter is devoted to the RU-486 abortion pill.

Summary.

According to Dr. C. Wayne Bardin of the Population Council, no other companies have expressed a desire to import or manufacture any other abortion pill, probably because of the strength of the U.S. pro-life movement. But it is a safe bet that the pro-aborts will continue to push harder and harder for the pill in this country.

The Side Effects of the Abortion Pill.

Three Weeks or Bust.

There has been much dispute over when the RU-486 abortion pill begins to lose its killing power.

According to a September 29, 1989 New York Times article, “RU-486 starts losing effectiveness after six weeks of pregnancy.” This, of course, is when most women are beginning to wonder if they are pregnant. In his March 1990 American Health interview, Dr. Baulieu confirmed that the drug’s optimum use is “within three weeks of a missed period.”

This means that women will inevitably take the drug as a “morning- after pill” or as a monthly insurance policy, and will therefore suffer enhanced and more severe side effects.

What Are These Side Effects?

It is quite obvious, because of its very nature, that RU-486 will cause serious health problems for women. The “old” high-dosage birth control pills (described in Chapter 31) caused a myriad of serious side effects, and those pills merely suppressed ovulation. It takes little imagination to conjure up visions of what the much more powerful RU-486 may do. All test reports written so far document severe bleeding, cramping, nausea, and vomiting.

Dr. Frank Young, head of the Food and Drug Administration, wrote in a June 9, 1989 letter to Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Cal) that RU-486 “... has potential side effects such as uterine bleeding, severe nausea, vomiting and weakness, which might require prompt medical intervention.”

Just three days earlier, the FDA had issued an “import alert” that instructed its regional officers to seize any imported RU-486 pills not being used strictly for research purposes.[16]

It is also significant that the chemical composition of RU-486 is similar to DES (diethylstilbestrol), which caused reproductive system malformations and sterility in the female children of women who took it (giving rise to the term “DES daughters”).

Of course, none of the reports written about the abortion pill mention the ultimate psychological trauma that they will cause. No longer will the abortionists be able to soothe women with gentle talk of “products of conception” that are ushered quickly and quietly out of their sight before they are even seen.

When a woman now cramps, bleeds, and delivers her tiny baby into her own hands, she will instantly know the truth. And the truth will hit her like a sledgehammer.

Side Effects on Preborn Babies.

The abortion pill’s sole purpose is to kill preborn babies. According to Dr. Baulieu, the RU-486 pill proved 95.5% “effective” at destroying preborn babies during tests administered to 4,000 pregnant French women when given in tandem with prostaglandins.

However, the drug apparently has severe impacts on babies that it does not kill. Andre Ullman of Roussel’s Medical Laboratories reported one instance where a woman had taken RU-486, had not aborted, and then changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby. She went into premature labor and delivered a severely deformed stillborn child at 6 month’s gestation.

This means that surgical abortion will not disappear from the medical scene if RU-486 becomes widely distributed. Analysts on both sides of the issue agree that abortions in this country will nearly double if the ordeal of surgical abortion is largely removed. Assuming that two million RU-486 abortions take place every year, a 5% failure rate means that there will be a hundred thousand poor little deformed preborn babies every year that will still have to be disposed of by the sharp knives of the abortionists.

Precautions With Use.

Pro-lifers consider it very significant that even most pro-abortion experts consider RU-486 much too dangerous for use without proper medical supervision.

In April of 1989, Roussel sent a letter to all French abortionists acknowledging the risks associated with RU-486. This directive instituted stricter controls and procedures regarding its use, and urged all abortionists to install cardiac resuscitation equipment in every one of the clinics where RU-486 is administered. These precautions were due to the fact that at least one woman had died of cardiac arrest immediately after taking the drug.[17]

The letter cited a 9.5% complication rate among the 33,000 women who had been aborted with the pill. These effects included pelvic pain, weakness, nausea, vomiting, headache, and dizziness.[18]

A simultaneous Roussel release stated that the company had decided not to sell RU-486 to the People’s Republic of China because the country’s “medical facilities are too primitive” and were “not equipped to distribute it safely.”[18]

However, Eleanor Smeal, former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), boldly displayed the blithe pro-abortion contempt for scientific evidence by proclaiming “our reading of the scientific data shows that there are essentially no side effects” related to RU-486.[19] As Abraham Lincoln once said, “It’s hard to see the truth through a gold eagle [a $20 coin].”

Dr. Baulieu has said that the abortion pill provides “immense hope” for third-world women. These are the poor women who will inevitably fulfill their ignorant dual role as guinea pigs and profitable dumping grounds for contraceptives and abortifacients (such as the old high-dose birth control pills and many IUDs) that are considered simply too risky for use by women in the United States.

What RU-486 Means to the Abortionists.

Since evil people tend to remain mired in evil due to their almost limitless spiritual inertia, abortionists will remain abortionists, and abortions will still go on. The killers favor the abortion pill for three reasons;

(1) Their fees for an abortion will not decrease. Their charge for two or three office visits will be equal to or greater than the current cost of a surgical abortion. In fact, with the specter of surgical abortion all but eradicated, women will inevitably relax their vigilance in using more traditional methods of contraception. The number of abortions past five weeks gestation could more than double -- to more than three million annually!

(2) Privacy for the abortionist and the aborter will be total. It will be difficult if not impossible for pro-life activists to discover who is prescribing the pill. This means that rescue missions, sidewalk counseling, and picketing will all be rendered useless (or so the pro- aborts think), to be replaced with pro-life intelligence missions and infiltration tactics.

(3) No longer will abortionists have to endure the psychological trauma of seeing the dead babies that result from surgical abortion. The women will endure this trauma entirely by themselves as they deliver their tiny dead babies into their own hands at home.

RU-486 Availability in the United States.

Pro-Abortion Strategy.

The killing pill is not yet available for distribution in the United States, although it is being tested in California. However, if RU-486 is finally approved for consumption by the Food and Drug Administration, it is expected that no large pharmaceutical companies will touch it, because they simply have too many financial assets to lose. For example, the Upjohn Company dropped its Prostin abortion-pill development program in 1983, primarily due to a pro-life boycott.

But this doesn’t mean that the pro-aborts are giving up. They have pressured the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which subsequently urged Congress to pass a national product-liability law which would protect drug companies from liability from injuries caused by drugs like RU-486.

We might ask ourselves: Why is this type of skulduggery needed if the abortion pill is safe -- especially when the NAS identifies one of the prime targets of the abortion pill -- teenaged girls -- as an especially high-risk “subpopulation?”

And so, the pro-aborts will probably market the abortion pill through a very small company with few assets, established specifically so it can collapse with little loss when the inevitable avalanche of damage lawsuits hit (the identical strategy now being used to reintroduce the IUD). And when this first small company folds, another will take its place, and then another ...

Predictably, non-profit pro-death groups from the most morally degenerate developed countries (the United States, England and Sweden) are holding talks with Roussel-Uclaf in an attempt to purchase case lots of the pill at minimum cost so that they can be widely distributed. Such a non- profit group in the United States would attempt to conduct its operations away from the public eye (standard devious pro-abortion practice), so as not to generate too much opposition. This group would have to get the pill approved by the Food and Drug Administration, an unlikely possibility until at least the mid-1990s in view of the current political climate in this country.

The Media Beats the Drum.

Marie Bass, former political director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, and Joanne Howes, former Planned Parenthood chief Washington lobbyist, have assembled a five-fold media strategy to get the media to accept RU-486. They formed an explicitly pro-abortion lobbying and propaganda organization entitled the “Reproductive Health Technology Project,” whose purpose was to collect and distribute only favorable information on the abortion pill. They developed and disseminated a high-powered press kit that included sample charts and graphs and photos. Reporter Charles Durran described these as “Those press kits were impressive. In fact, they were a lazy reporter’s gold mine. Everything you needed for a really fantastic story -- or a series of stories -- was right there at your fingertips. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it.”

FIVE-PART BASS & HOWES STRATEGY FOR MEDIA ACCEPTANCE OF RU-486

(1) “Emphasize the possibility that the drug could very well end the whole public abortion struggle by making clinic protests obsolete.”

(2) “Emphasize the dearth of other contraceptive options available --particularly in comparison with what is available in other parts of the world.”

(3) “Emphasize the issues of privacy, ease, safety, choice, and freedom, rather than of abortion and politics.”

(4) “Emphasize the possibility of other medical benefits of the drug, such as treatment of breast cancer and Cushings Syndrome.”

(5) “Emphasize the threat to the freedom of ongoing medical research that a rejection of the drug might bring.”

Reference. This strategy is described in George Grant. “Media Bias and Abortion.” Legacy , October 1991, page 1. Newsletter of Legacy Communications, Post Office Box 680365, Franklin, Tennessee 37068.

This set of instructions to the media apparently worked very well. A survey of more than two hundred magazine and newspaper articles on RU-486 during the time period 1989-1990 showed that only 9 percent mentioned any of the pill’s numerous and serious complications or side effects; 8 percent quoted any pro-life experts or sources; and a full 96 percent cast the pill in a very favorable lights.

Bass said that “Press coverage really is good, if you think about it --sometimes I worry that it’s almost too good.”[20]

‘Prestigious’ Awards.

Another tactic used by the pro-aborts to advance a cause is to confer upon each other ‘prestigious’ awards. This deception looks good to the public eye until examined closely.

In September of 1989, Baulieu was named one of six recipients of the Albert Lasker Medical Research Award, which the September 28, 1989 New York Times labeled “one of the most prestigious” medical awards in existence.[21]

The real reason this award was made was soon revealed: Deeda Blair, a Lasker Foundation vice president, said in the November 1989 issue of Vanity Fair , “That’s the purpose of giving awards: to call attention to an advance.”

The Devil and his slaves never rest, so pro-lifers must remain eternally and relentlessly vigilant.

Birth Control = Abortion?

Planned Parenthood trotted out yet another of their doctored public opinion polls which ‘showed’ that 59 percent of adults in the United States approve of RU-486. Predictably, in keeping with PP’s standard deceptive tactics, it conveniently ‘forgot’ to mention in their poll how RU-486 works. PP merely described it as a safe, new type of birth control pill.

The final result of all of this pro-abortion deviousness, of course, will be that women will be genuinely damaged by the abortion pill because they think it is merely a safe contraceptive. Then, they will be left out in the cold because they will be unable to recover actual or punitive damages.

This decisively demonstrates just how much these companies (and the pro-aborts) really care about women.

RU-486’s Uses.

There is no question that a market for the pill exists in the United States. In fact, a large quantity of RU-486 could be used in school-based sex clinics. In the December 22, 1986 edition of the Boston Globe , Dr. Allen Rosenfield, chairman of Planned Parenthood’s board of directors, exulted that “RU-486 is a major step forward for teenagers ... If girls who suspect they are pregnant could come to a clinic for a pill when their period is late, they would probably show up a lot earlier than they do now. Most current restrictions, such as parental notification laws, would be unenforceable.”[22]

This quote shows that your school-aged daughters are the most accessible and obvious targets for these killing pills. Teenagers are easily intimidated by medical authority and will be easy prey for the sex clinic strategists, who have already stated that they intend to ignore parental consent or notification laws.

The Black Market.

The FDA Roadblock.

Observers on both sides of the abortion issue agree that it could be years before RU-486 or other abortion pills are commercially available in the United States. This is because any drug manufacturer would have to pass the stringent standards of the United States Food and Drug Administration -- standards that are much stricter than those in France or China. Additionally, most companies don’t want to spend the $50 million to $100 million required to test and market a major new drug, without first knowing that FDA approval is certain.[23]

The drug manufacturers clearly recognize the potential dangers of the RU-486 pill. If the drug does enter the market here, it will probably be sold by a very small company with small assets that could be sacrificed without much harm to the unscrupulous sponsors, much in the same manner as the proposed reintroduction of the IUD. Such an arrangement would guarantee that women damaged by the abortion pill could never recover even their actual damages.

Individual Efforts.

Even now, American women who want to kill their own children are contacting French doctors through their own physicians to get the drug. It is certain that many women will travel from France to the United States with the drug, since only 10 percent of all illegal drugs in small doses are detected by immigration officials. As pro-abortion U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson (R.-Conn.) recently said, “If you can smuggle in cocaine, there is absolutely no way that women in America are not going to get those drugs, legally or illegally.”[24]

However, few women can afford to travel to France just to pick up a killing pill, so it is expected that a thriving black market will spring up. If RU-486 or an analog is produced privately, it would become simply an alternative type of back-alley abortion. Even Dr. Baulieu admits that “A black market would be disastrous.”[9]

Individual Dangers.

Due to its inherent limitations, it hardly matters whether the abortion pill is legal or illegal in this country; unless women individually stockpile the pill ahead of time, they will be hard-pressed to use it in a proper manner. To begin with, most women don’t even know they are pregnant until they are three or four weeks into their pregnancy. Most women would not even know where to look for RU-486 pills unless they were hard-core anti-life activists or had other arcane connections.

Assuming they successfully overcome all obstacles and finally get their hands on the pills, most pregnant women will be long past the recommended usage time of seven weeks. If these women get black market pills, they will ingest them past their effective deadline of seven weeks without the accompanying prostaglandins, and without the proper medical supervision recommended by the pill’s manufacturer. The result will almost certainly be an ‘effectiveness’ rate of less than 50 percent.

Finally, the shelf life of RU-486 and other drugs, because of the active hormones they contain, will be relatively short -- approximately one year. The abortion pill’s effectiveness drops sharply after its shelf life expires.

This means that those women who do not successfully kill their babies will have to make the long and lonely trek to the abortion mill after all. If they have a change of heart and decide to keep their babies, there is no way of telling what damage or deformities will have been wrought upon their babies during the attempted killing.

Play it Yet Again, Sam.

Only one thing is certain in the abortion pill debate: if there is a black market, there are sure to be lurid headlines about women dying from the illegal use of RU-486, and there will just as certainly be the same shrill calls for legalization of the death pill that there were for abortion in the first place.

The drug might be approved for use in the United States for such purposes as relaxing the birth canal for labor, or for the treatment of some forms of breast cancer and endometriosis, which is the third-leading cause of infertility among women in the United States. This means that doctors, if they have the drug, will be able to prescribe it for any reason they desire -- including abortions. This is why the National Right to Life Committee wants to keep the drug out of the country entirely -- they are intimately familiar with the abortionist’s utter lack of ethics.

Is This the End for the Pro-Life Movement?

The abortion pill’s chemical composition is rather simple, and therefore would be relatively easy for a well-equipped private laboratory to reproduce. Free of quality control, these private labs may churn out pills of dubious quality that may have even more profound side effects upon women than RU-486 -- and this is bound to happen whether or not the United States legalizes the abortion pill.

Therefore, within a few years, pro-lifers will be fighting the wide distribution of some form of abortion pill, whether or not the pill is legalized.

Faye Wattleton, former director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, once again publicly flaunted her profound ignorance of the pro-life movement and its philosophy as she said “The right-to-lifers are fighting the last gasp. If these drugs get to the market, it is really all over.”

Wattleton is wrong, of course. Pro-life activists will continue to fight for the lives of the preborn. Every type of death pill is so dangerous that they all require at least four doctor-supervised visits. Our current abortion mills will simply ‘re-tool’ in order to administer the pills. Pro-lifers will continue to rescue, picket, and sidewalk counsel at these death camps, and will probably reach even more women, since twice as many visits are required than for a surgical abortion.

And so, the situation (and the players) will remain exactly the same.

This will be especially true if the pill remains illegal for use in this country. Due to the difficulties that women will have in obtaining and using the drug, many will still resort to surgical abortion.

And, of course, the eternal moral battle will continue until the end of time.

==========================================

[1] Etienne-Emile Baulieu, inventor of the RU-486 abortion pill, quoted in the New York Times Magazine . Described in the American Family Association Journal , May 1989, page 8.

[2] National Abortion Rights Action League “Factsheet” quoted in “From the Horse’s Mouth.” National Right to Life News , February 12, 1990, page 13.

[3] Garrett Hardin. “The History and Future of Birth Control.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine . Autumn 1966.

[4] Joan Batista. “Abortion Pill is No Panacea.” Against the Current , July/August 1990, pages 11 to 14.

[5] “RU-486: Major Topic at Conference.” WomenWise (newsletter of the New Hampshire Feminist Women’s Health Centers), Winter 1986-1987.

[6] Diana Geddes. “French Catholics Take a Beating On Abortion Pill.” National Catholic Register , November 13, 1988, page 1.

[7] New York Woman , May 1990.

[8] As described in Dianne Pomon. “RU-486.” Voices for the Unborn (Feasterville, Pennsylvania), August 1990, pages 7 and 15.

[9] Quoted in National Catholic Register . “France Orders Subsidies for RU-486 Abortion Pill.” April 1, 1990, page 2.

[10] Canadian neurologist Paul Ranalli. “The Appalling Ordeal of Abortion By Pill.” Toronto Globe and Mail , August 28, 1992, page A17.

[11] National Abortion Federation. Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative . “Abortion Practice Advancement, Sixteenth Annual Meeting Workbook, April 13-14, 1992, San Diego, California.” Page 133, “Successful Strategies: Managing the Media.”

[12] Louise B. Tyrer, M.D., Vice-President of Medical Affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York. “Update on RU-486.” The American Journal of Gynecologic Health . January/February 1989.

[13] Bernard Nathanson, M.D. “Beyond ‘Abortion:’ RU-486 and the Needs of the Crisis Constituency.” Bernadell Technical Bulletin , November 1990. Pages 1 to 3.

[14] William Regelson, M.D., Roger Loria, Ph.D., and Mohammed Kalimi, Ph.D. Journal of the American Medical Association , August 22 to 29, 1990. Pages 1,026 to 1,027.

[15] Janice Raymond, professor of Women’s Studies and Medical Ethics and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Renate Klein, lecturer in Women’s Studies at Deakin University, Australia; and Lynette J. Dumble, Senior Research Fellow in the University of Melbourne’s Department of Surgery. RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths, and Morals . Institute of Women and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 115 pages, 1991.

[16] Roberta Ulrich. “Scientists Protest FDA Ban on Drug.” The Oregonian , November 20, 1990, page A10.

[17] Paulette Likoudis. “RU-486 -- Another Level of the Same Barbarism.” The Wanderer , June 7, 1990, pages 4 and 8.

[18] As described in Richard Glasow, Ph.D. “Roussel-Uclaf Seeking U.S. Connection.” National Right to Life News , October 31, 1990, pages 1 and 13.

[19] National Catholic Register , July 10, 1989, page 8.

[20] George Grant. “Media Bias and Abortion.” Legacy , October 1991, page 1. Newsletter of Legacy Communications, Post Office Box 680365, Franklin, Tennessee 37068.

[21] Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. “Pro-Aborts Work Overtime to Break RU-486 ‘Quarantine.’” National Right to Life News , November 30, 1989, pages 6 and 11.

[22] Richard Glasow, Ph.D. “SBCs and Pro-Abortion “Sex Education.”“ National Right to Life News , October 15, 1987, page 4.

[23] Todd Ackerman. “Abortion Pill Banned Here; Black Market Seems Likely.” National Catholic Register , December 18, 1988, page 1. [24] Peggy Simpson. “The Gathering Storm: Politics.” Ms . Magazine, April 1989, page 89.

==========================================

CHAPTER 100. THE CONDOM: FALSE SAVIOR

“Because of Love, there are many things I will not do, but I am ready to die for it.”-- St. Maria Goretti, who died resisting a rapist.

“I’ll do a lot for love,/ But I’m not ready to die for it.”-- Various women in popular condom ads.

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Since our young people are going to be sexually active anyway, let’s make it easier, safer, and more pleasant for them to do so by encouraging them to use condoms.

Condoms will help stem the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases like AIDS and chlamydia, and will also prevent unwanted pregnancies, therefore cutting down on the number of abortions.

Introduction.

“The condom fosters neither abstinence nor monogamy; rather it does the opposite. Those who stress condom usage only put the seal of approval on active genital sex. The message it communicates is that the condom is a good which converts irresponsible sex into responsible sex, giving it the appearance of acceptability and respectability. It is the old refrain of birth controllers which has only resulted in more and more adolescent pregnancies.”-- Herbert Ratner, M.D.[1]

It is common knowledge among health professionals that sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), some of them incurable and/or fatal, have found fertile ground to multiply in our sex-crazed American society.

The response of our government at every level, and the reaction of various social service agencies to this explosion of STDs, was as predictable as it was pitiful: They took the inherently Humanistic position that Americans (not just teenagers) are mere animals. Since they can’t be trusted to control their sexual urges, we might as well make it as safe for them as possible to fornicate with whomever they please.

The government’s weapons of choice were not chastity and monogamy, but ‘education’ and condoms. Even Bill Clinton’s new Surgeon General sported a “rubber tree” on her desk.

And so, with intriguing names like “Arouse,” “Embrace,” “Excita,” and “Pleaser,” condoms crowd pharmacy shelves and restroom walls, leering at potential users and proclaiming the merits of “family planning” and “safe sex” on their vividly-colored packages.

Unfortunately, members of the public uncritically accept the government --and the condom manufacturers -- at their word. And nobody (except a few pro-lifers, who are universally ignored) seems to be asking the most vital question of all.

If condoms are so great at preventing pregnancy and AIDS transmission, why does our nation continue to experience a rapidly-escalating rate of teen pregnancy and an exploding AIDS epidemic as more and more millions of condoms are distributed each year?

But Are They Safe?

The Vital Question.

Even after we get past the government hype and the alluring advertising, we are still left with the central question: In this age of AIDS and other incurable STDs, should we trust our very lives to the family planner’s ‘cure-all,’ the condom?

The Consumer’s Union Study.

The nation’s most trusted consumer’s advocacy group, the Consumer’s Union (CU), interviewed 3,300 of its readers in order to determine the effectiveness of condoms at preventing conception and disease. CU also mechanically tested 16,000 condoms of 37 different varieties and brands. The results of its studies, as reported in the March 1989 issue of Consumer Reports , are revealing indeed.

About one-fourth of the Consumer Union’s readers reported at least one instance of condom breakage in a one-year period, and about one in eight experienced two or more incidents of breakage in one year.[2]

Using these and other data, CU estimated that an average of one condom in 165 broke during heterosexual intercourse, and about one in 105 broke during anal intercourse. This failure rate was much lower than that produced by most other studies.

Resulting Pregnancies.

The resulting 0.6 percent (1/165) condom breakage rate for normal heterosexual intercourse, when extrapolated over an average of 100 acts of intercourse each year, and accounting for the woman’s periods of infertility, results in a method effectiveness rate of about 95.5 percent per year.[3]

“Method effectiveness” is the best rate that can possibly be expected, since it accounts only for failures in the condom -- but not for failures in use.

“Contraceptive failure” is defined as the percentage of women who become pregnant while using one method of contraceptive exclusively for one year. This category includes both failure of the method (such as physical condom breakage as found by CU), and failure of the user to employ the method properly.

If we include mistakes in condom usage, the actual effectiveness rate of the prophylactic is 89.2 percent per year.

This rate is confirmed by the contraceptive industry’s “Bible,” the annual Contraceptive Technology .

With a failure rate of (100.0% - 89.2%) = 10.8 percent, the chances of pregnancy for a woman whose sexual partner(s) faithfully use condoms for 100 average annual instances of intercourse are as follows.

Keep in mind that these are the lowest rates that can generally be expected, since they assume 100% condom usage all the time.

PROBABILITY OF PREGNANCY FOR FOR WOMEN WHOSE ‘PARTNERS’ ALWAYS USE CONDOMS

Time Period	Chances of Pregnancy
1 year	11 percent
2 years	20 percent
3 years	29 percent
4 years	37 percent
5 years	44 percent
10 years	68 percent

According to Census Bureau sources, about 3.6 million couples use condoms regularly for birth control.[4] 10.8 percent of this number means that 390,000 unwanted pregnancies occur every year due to condoms breaking -- a number equivalent to one-fourth of all the abortions performed in the United States annually!

Figure 100-1 includes many quotes from leading experts who have shown in studies that condoms are dismal failures at preventing pregnancies.

FIGURE 100-1 RESULTS OF STUDIES ON THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONDOM AT PREVENTING PREGNANCY

“After reviewing the extensive literature on contraception, some variation in results is found. Reported failure rates for condom use vary from about 2 to 35 unplanned pregnancies per year, but a conservative consensus reveals a rate in the range of 8 failures per 100 users each year in the general population. Simple mathematics would conclude that after five years, the number pregnant with this method would be five times the yearly rate. Thus, after five years of condom use, there would be about forty pregnancies in this group of 100 real people ...”-- Stephen Genuis, M.D. “What About the Condom?” Risky Sex (2nd Edition). Edmonton, Alberta: KEG Publishing, 1991.

“Of 100 women whose partner uses a condom for one year, 3 to 36 will become pregnant.”-- United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. “Contraception: Comparing the Options.”

“In the Oxford/Family Planning Association contraceptive study, 4% of highly motivated couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within one year, while more generally representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth in the United States show that between 6% and 22% of couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within a year, the rate depending on the woman’s age and whether the couples wished to delay pregnancy or to prevent it. Much of the health education material about HIV infection has failed to stress the limitations of the condom.”-- M.P. Vessy and L. Villard Mackintosh. “Condoms and AIDS Prevention.” The Lancet , March 7, 1987, page 568.

“Use of a barrier method backed up by abortion in case of failure confers over a woman’s reproductive life complete protection against unplanned childbearing with a minimal risk of mortality. For some women, however, such a course is morally unacceptable, since it involves a high likelihood of having at least one abortion.”-- K. Ory, et.al . Making Choices: Evaluating the Health Risks and Benefits of Birth Control Methods . Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1983, page 60.

“Only about 1% of women who rely on condoms as their main birth control method always use them effectively, a new survey finds ...”-- Marilyn Elias. “Correct Use of Condoms is Rare.” USA Today , December 13, 1991.

“Dr. Richard Gordon, International AIDS Conference presenter and University of Manitoba professor, concluded after live studies that red dye testing demonstrated that seminal fluid leaks out of even properly-fitted condoms both prior to and after orgasm.”-- Beverly Sottile-Malona. “Condoms and AIDS.” America , November 2, 1991.

One test showed that 14.6 percent of condoms used in a clinical trial either broke or slipped off the penis during intercourse or withdrawal. A survey at a Manchester, England family planning clinic revealed that 52% of the respondents had experienced condom breakage or slippage during the past three months alone .-- Alan Guttmacher Institute. Family Planning Perspectives , January/February 1992, pages 20 to 23. Also see R.J.E. Kirkman, J. Morris, and A.M.C. Webb. “User Experience: Mates v. Nuforms.” British Journal of Family Planning , 1990;15:107-111.

A Federally-funded UCLA study of the effectiveness of 29 major condom brands showed that reliability ranged from a high of 98.9% to an incredible low of 21.3%.-- “Condom Reliability.” Los Angeles Times , June 29, 1988.

Teens and Condoms.

In light of their dismal record, the only thing more illogical than adults using condoms is adults providing condoms to teenagers -- especially in the schools.

An article in the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives quotes an annual condom failure rate of 18.4 percent among teenaged girls under 18 years old. This means that more than half of the users will be pregnant within three years.

The authors also say that “These rates are understated because of the substantial underreporting of abortion among single women; if abortion reporting was complete, failure rates would be 1.4 times as high as they appear high.”[3]

These figures have been borne out in studies of those public schools that have distributed condoms to their students.

One writer describes the dismal results of one of the first free- condom programs to be instituted at a high school in the United States;

“In the three years since this [Adams City, Colorado] high school became one of the first to hand out condoms, the birth rate has soared to 31% above the national average of 58.1 births per 1,000 students [annually].

“Last year, 76 of Adams City students became teen mothers, This year, more than 100 births are expected. That’s left people at this school, recognized throughout Colorado for its cutting-edge educational and social programs, searching for explanations.”[5]

Resulting AIDS Infections.

One outstanding feature of the AIDS panic is the fanatical way that the Planned Parenthood types insist that “safe sex” is still possible in the face of this menace.

Their prescription for “safe sex” is usually condoms. But trusting one’s very life to a thin membrane a few millionths of an inch thick translates into sheer lunacy when the scientific facts are examined.

A recent University of Miami Medical School Study showed that 17 percent of women whose HIV-infected husbands faithfully used condoms contracted AIDS-Related Complex (ARC) in an 18-month period.[6]

The February 6, 1987 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association described another study of AIDS transmission between infected and uninfected partners. The study included 32 heterosexual couples, each of which included one infected male and one noninfected female. After a period of from one to three years, the following rates of AIDS transmission were noted;

PROBABILITY OF MALE-TO-FEMALE AIDS TRANSMISSION OVER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD WITH CONDOM USE

12 of 14 women not using condoms were infected	(86%)
3 of 10 women using condoms consistently	(30%)
0 of 8 women abstaining from sex	(0%)

Reference: “Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children and Household Contacts of Adults With AIDS.” Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), February 6, 1987 (257:640).

Condoms Just Don’t Do the Job.

The most significant result of this study is that consistent condom use does not prevent AIDS transmission. In a period of three years, infected partners transmitted the AIDS virus to their spouses at an annual rate of 11.2 percent. This means that, during a period of six years, more than half of the uninfected partners of AIDS patients will become infected themselves despite 100% use of condoms .

According to virtually every source, the failure rate for condoms during anal sex is approximately three times that for heterosexual intercourse, because of the very heavy stresses placed on the material of the condom. This results in the following rates of AIDS transmission for anal and normal sex;

AIDS TRANSMISSION RATES FOR NORMAL AND ANAL SEX

	Average AIDS Transmission
	When Condoms Are Used for;
Time	Normal Sex	Anal Sex
1 year	11 percent	30 percent
2 years	21 percent	51 percent
3 years	30 percent	66 percent
4 years	38 percent	76 percent
5 years	45 percent	83 percent
10 years	70 percent	97 percent

In view of the extremely long latent period for AIDS (and the many sexual partners that homosexuals have), these statistics should be frightening to all sexually active homosexual men who think they are safe with condoms.

And so-called “Safe(r) Sex” educations seems not to be working. According to those who know the best -- the condom manufacturers -- intensive advertising on radio, television, and some cable networks has led to no increase in the use of condoms over the last five years.[7]

Figure 100-2 includes quotes from experts in the field who have shown that condoms are extremely ineffective at preventing infection by the incredibly tiny AIDS virus.

FIGURE 100-2 RESULTS OF STUDIES ON THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONDOM AT PREVENTING ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS) AND OTHER STDS

“I think these results certainly tell us right off that one condom is not the same as the next. Koop and AIDS groups and others promoting condoms have been very careless about that point ... The Lifestyles Conture, Trojan Ribbed Natural, Trojan Ribbed and Contracept Plus all showed evidence of virus leakage. One in 10 condoms tested leaked in each brand, except for the Contracept Plus, which leaked [HIV] virus 10 of the 25 times it was tested.”-- Dr. Cecil Fox, quoted in Allan Parachini. “Condom Study Finding Wide Differences Among Brands.” Los Angeles Times , June 29, 1988.

“The possible consequences of condom failure when one partner is HIV infected are serious enough and the likelihood of failure sufficiently high that condom use by risk groups should not be described as ‘safe sex’... Condoms have a substantial failure rate: 13-15% of women whose male partners use condoms as the sole method of contraception become pregnant within one year.”-- Jeffrey A. Kelly and Janet S. St. Lawrence. “Cautions About Condoms in Prevention of AIDS.” The Lancet (Journal of the English Medical Society). February 7, 1987, page 323.

“Professionals and the public alike have been misled into believing that sex with a condom is safe ... considering the 10% pregnancy rate with the use of condoms, this creates a dangerous false sense of security. We consider it irresponsible to suggest to anyone that condoms are entirely safe ... advising persons that it is safe to have sex with condoms is false, provides an erroneous sense of security, and can kill partners.”-- Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy , Fall 1986, page 164.

“As has been discussed, condoms do not offer protection for diseases that are transmitted by skin to skin contact such as human papilloma virus and herpes simplex virus, frequently found throughout the genital area in infected individuals. No degree of condom education will curb the transmission of these organisms.”-- Stephen Genuis, M.D. “What About the Condom?” Risky Sex (2nd Edition). Edmonton, Alberta: KEG Publishing, 1991.

“The officials note that condoms have been widely rejected as a method of birth control because they frequently fail, and say the devices may be no better -- in fact, may be worse -- at curtailing AIDS. They warn that sexually active men and women should not assume that they are protected simply because they use prophylactics ... The safe-sex message just isn’t true. You’re still playing a kind of Russian roulette. Instead of having six bullets in the chamber, you have one.”-- Bruce Voeller, M.D., researcher with the Mariposa Research Foundation, quoted in Lindsey Gruson. “Condoms: Experts Fear False Sense of Security.” The New York Times , August 18, 1987.

“Condoms failed to prevent HIV transmission in three of 18 couples, suggesting that the rate of condom failure with HIV may be as high as 17%.”-- James J. Goedert, M.D. “What is Safe Sex?” New England Journal of Medicine , October 21, 1987, page 1,340.

“The condom was useless as a prophylactic against gonorrhea and even under ideal conditions against syphilis.”-- Nicholas J. Fiumara, M.D., Massachusetts Department of Public Health. “Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing V.D.” New England Journal of Medicine , October 21, 1971, page 972.

Of Parachutes and Prophylactics.

If parachutes had the abysmal safety record that condoms do, skydiving would have been outlawed long ago. Add to this the fact that a thousand people die of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases to every person who dies in a parachuting accident, and it is obvious that we have a major case of nationwide myopia. It is also obvious that most people would choose death by parachute failure than a lingering, hideous wasting away at the ‘hands’ of the AIDS virus.

In fact, Good Housekeeping Magazine will not even accept condom advertisements, because they are not reliable enough for its “Seal of Approval.”[8]

Apparently, when it comes to birth control, anything goes. What is apparently important is not whether or not you are safe, but whether or not you think you are safe.

Condom Permeability.

Latex Condoms.

Under the 30,000 power magnification of a scanning electron microscope, a stretched latex condom presents a membrane which is impermeable to sperm and bacteria, but not always to most viruses (which are about one-fiftieth the size of a sperm cell). This is why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that condoms can help prevent the spread of many sexually-transmitted viruses, including AIDS, genital herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis.

Even when latex condoms do not leak or tear, the size of their pores present a grave question regarding AIDS transmissibility, as explained by C.M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology ;

“My only comment is to point out that the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size. Since this is roughly 10 times smaller than sperm, the latter are effectively blocked in ideal circumstances. The 12 percent failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy is attributable to in situ cracking, removal, ozone deterioration from improper sealing, manufactured defects, etc.

“Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millions of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom should it find a passage.

“A reluctance to stake one’s life on the ability of a condom to prevent HIV infection bespeaks wisdom, not discrimination.”[9]

What’s a Micron?

The term “micron” may not mean much to most people, so some comparisons are shown below.

The graphical illustration below represents a single AIDS virus (represented by the letter (X)) against the larger box, which is the comparative size of the average pore in a latex condom.

GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE COMPARATIVE SIZES OF LATEX CONDOM PORES AND THE AIDS VIRUS

Other comparisons that might be useful as demonstrators would be the comparison of a grapefruit (the condom pore) and a pea (the HIV virus). In a comparison at this scale, a sperm cell’s head would be three feet in diameter, and the cell itself would be one hundred feet long.

As stated above, the sperm head is 50 microns in diameter, and the cell itself is about 750 microns long, including tail. The AIDS virus head is about one-tenth of a micron in diameter. When the length of the sperm cell itself is taken into account, the sperm cell is about half a million times more massive than the AIDS virus .

The comparison is equivalent to placing a field mouse weighing one- fifth of an ounce next to a three-ton bull elephant.

“Skin” Condoms.

So-called “skin” condoms, which account for most of the condoms used in the United States today, are much less reliable than latex condoms. They are made from part of a lamb’s large intestine. Instead of the pore-free barrier presented by a latex condom, the “skin” appears as a fiber latticework under 30,000 power magnification, with some pores up to 1.5 microns in diameter. This size is smaller than sperm, but more than ten times larger than an AIDS virus and 25 times larger than the hepatitis-B virus . However, since a “skin” condom is composed of multiple layers, it may be impervious to these viruses.

Studies and Inspections.

Of four major laboratory studies performed so far, three show “skin” condom impermeability to viruses, and one shows permeability.[2]

FDA inspectors have been conducting unannounced tests of domestic condoms at factories and imported condoms at their ports of entry since April of 1987. If more than 4 in 1,000 condoms fail the “pinhole test,” the entire lot is destroyed.

As of July of 1988, more than 15 million condoms had been destroyed because their lots had too many defects. This is about ten percent of all domestic condoms and twenty percent of all imported condom lots tested.

It should be highly significant to those people who value their lives that the FDA only tests about seven percent (one in fourteen) of all condom lots.

==========================================

[1] Herbert Ratner, M.D. Quoted in Human Life International Reprint #26. Also see Child and Family Magazine, 20: 83-86, 1988.

[2] “Can You Rely on Condoms?” Consumer Reports , March 1989, pages 135 to 141.

[3] W.R. Grady, M.D. Hayward, and J. Yagi. “Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates From the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth.” Alan Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives , September/October 1986, page 204.

[4] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1988, Table 99.

[5] Jana Mazanee. “Birth Rate Soars At Colorado School.” USA Today , May 19, 1992, page 3A.

[6] “Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children and Household Contacts of Adults With AIDS.” Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1987 (257:640).

[7] Crain’s Chicago Business , May 25, 1987. As described in “AIDS and Advocate Science.” Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 10 to 12.

[8] Letter entitled “Sound Medical Advice,” by William V. Fitzsimmons, M.D. Fidelity Magazine, April 1987, pages 11 and 12.

[9] C.M. Roland, editor, Rubber Chemistry and Technology . “Do You Want to Stake Your Life on a Condom?” The Washington Times , April 22, 1992.

==========================================

CHAPTER 101. CURRENT RESEARCH ON FUTURE CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”-- Margaret Sanger.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“We must fight to ensure that scientific progress and the right to practice medicine in the best interest of our patients is not stifled by the ideological perspectives of a few who would force their moral views on the rest of the world.”-- Louise Tyrer, Vice-President of Medical Affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[2]

It is criminal that the United States does not support international research into new and improved methods of contraception more than it does. The key to ‘quality of life,’ both on the international and individual level, is fewer people through improved contraception.

Overview.

Nowhere is the mentality of “if we can do it, we must do it” more evident than in the field of so-called reproductive technology.

We have “progressed” from natural conception and family planning to abortion pills, injectable abortifacients such as Depo-Provera, the mixing of human sperm and eggs in glass dishes, and disposable embryos.

However, this technology pales in comparison to the bizarre practices being forecast for the next twenty years.

Sadly, it seems that man’s greatest ingenuity is displayed in war -- war against each other and war against our own fertility.

Future “Hopes.”

Introduction.

Many of the future ‘contraceptives’ described below are true abortifacients, and researchers and manufacturers are very proud of this fact. What could be more effective at stopping births than surgical or chemical abortion?

The moral aspects of fertility control are now simply been disregarded as ‘restrictive’ -- the only thing that counts now is effectiveness .

Cervical Cap (Semi-Permanent) -- A one-inch sphere of rubbery plastic held in place by cervical mucus, equipped with a one-way valve that allows menstrual flow but blocks the passage of sperm.

Diaphragm (Collagen Sponge) -- Literally a spermicide-treated sponge that absorbs and attacks the sperm.

“Herbal Remedies” -- Various true abortifacients may be on the black market soon, based upon those used by women in developing countries for centuries. There are more than twenty known abortifacient “herbal remedies,” all accompanied by side effects of varying scope and severity. Some of these are so-called “emmenogogues,” or menstruation-assisting plants.

Hormone Injections -- Depo-Provera, hailed by Planned Parenthood types as a ‘panacea’ for birth control in undeveloped countries, is or has been banned in the United States, Israel, Egypt, and other developed nations because of the severe side effects it causes, including cervical cancer.

Depo-Provera is a true abortifacient, which primarily functions by preventing implantation. Of course, such trash is perfectly suitable for dumping on poor women in more than 80 other countries.

This vividly demonstrates just how much the pro-aborts really care about the poor women they are always whining about.

Another ‘promising’ line of research is focused on Inhibin F, which inhibits the production of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), which is produced by the pituitary gland, and without which the woman’s eggs do not mature and are not released by the ovary.

Inhaler -- Based upon the natural hormone LRH, this once-a-day nasal inhaler not only inhibits ovulation, but menstruation as well. Possible severe side effects have not yet been investigated.[3]

Intravaginal Ring -- This is a plastic ring inserted into the vagina, which releases progestogen (artificial progesterone) to prevent pregnancy.

Male Birth Control Pill -- A male birth control pill has not yet been safely tested because of the extremely high hormone levels required, and because sperm production is continuous instead of cyclical.

Chinese doctors have produced a preliminary pill based upon gossypol, an oil removed from cotton plants. However, the United State’s Population Council has shown that gossypol is extremely toxic, and a search for a synthetic or derivative of the poison is ongoing.

Danazol, currently used to suppress uterine inflammation, has been shown to suppress the production of the hormones LH and FSH in men, decreasing sperm production (and the sex drive as well, forcing men to dose up on testosterone as well). Large or continued doses of Danazol can cause liver damage.[3]

Morning-After Pill -- The current morning-after pills (euphemistically called “postcoital contraceptives” by the Planned Parenthood people) are true abortifacients which prevent or inhibit implantation.

Future morning-after pills may use a variant of prostaglandin, F2 Alpha, which would cause uterine contractions similar to those experienced during labor. These pills would cause abortions to nine weeks, just like the RU-486 pill now in production in France.

Another future morning-after pill may be based upon LHRBI, which blocks the binding of luteinizing hormone (LH), which is essential for the growth of a fertilized egg. In other words, LHRBI kills the woman’s eggs.

Silastic Implant -- Siliconized elastic rods containing progestogen, implanted under the woman’s skin (tested on poor women in Brazil and Chile, of course), slowly release the hormone into the bloodstream, interfering with ovulation, changing the cervical mucus, and preventing implantation.

Effective for up to a decade after implantation, its side effects include weight gain, skin irritation, ovarian cysts, and irregular menstrual bleeding.

NORPLANT is an abortifacient of this type, and is described in more detail in Chapter 33 of Volume II.

Spermicides (Improved) -- Based upon NPGB, which attacks the enzyme in sperm that allows it to penetrate and fertilize the egg. Could cause severe side effects if absorbed into the bloodstream.

Testicle Warmer -- Sperm must be stored at temperatures lower than normal body heat in order to remain viable, hence the man’s testicles hang away from his body.

The Japanese are testing the contraceptive value of prolonged hot baths and a heating device for the scrotum has been invented, giving a new meaning to the popular phrase, “I’m hot for you, honey.”

Ultrasound -- Some people seriously think that ultrasound could be directed at the man’s testicles shortly before intercourse, thus killing most of his sperm. How such a cumbersome procedure would interrupt foreplay has not yet been addressed by researchers.

Vaccines -- Since the population control cartel views pregnancy as a ‘venereal disease,’ why not develop an injection to control it, just like many other diseases? An ‘anti-baby shot’ would most likely take the form of an antibody found in infertile women that would bind with the outer covering of the woman’s egg, making it impossible for sperm to penetrate and fertilize it.

Another vaccine would immunize against the hormone HCG, which is required for pregnancy preparation. Another injection would be based upon a variant of LDH, an enzyme that causes the woman’s body to treat sperm like invading viruses.

A contraceptive vaccine for men would neutralize the hormone FSH, making the sperm count too low to sustain fertility.[3]

The British medical journal Lancet reported in 1990 that only one of 157 fertile couples became pregnant over one year period when the man was injected weekly with testosterone enanthate (TE), an anabolic steroid that signals the testes to stop sperm production.[4]

Vaginal Suppositories -- These are also based upon prostaglandins, causing uterine contractions which would end pregnancies to nine weeks. In other words, this would be a so-called “quick and easy home abortion kit.”

==========================================

[1] Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control . New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

[2] Louise B. Tyrer, M.D., Vice-President of Medical Affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York. “Update on RU-486.” The American Journal of Gynecologic Health . January/February 1989.

[3] David Wallechinsky and Amy and Irving Wallace. The Book of Predictions . New York: William Morrow and Company, 1980. 513 pages, $12.95.

[4] Judy Berlfein. “Birth-Control Technology Creeps Along.” The Oregonian , November 15, 1990, page B1.

==========================================

CHAPTER 131. THE PERSISTENT MYTH OF OVERPOPULATION

For information at other sites, see: Robert L. Sassone’s Handbook on Population or Tihamer Toth-Fejel’s more speculative Population Control: The Bomb, The Lie, and Life Everlasting

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.-- Luke 23:29.

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“We must cut out the cancer of population growth. Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion in a good cause [population control] ... We must be relentless in pushing for population control.”-- Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968.[1]

The world is critically overburdened with people right now . This crush of humanity is destroying the environment and detracting from everybody’s quality of life.

It is absolutely essential that we slow or halt population growth by making contraception and abortion available to all of the world’s women. If we do not put the brakes on our runaway population, the use of coercion will be necessary in order to save the planet.

Introduction.

“Family Planning has a theme

Two children as each couples dream;

Three years after marriage, one - Before 33 childbearing’s done.

Let a small family be your goal

Just choose a method of birth control

Methods are safe and simple too

A happy future waits for you.”

-- Poem from a Taiwanese population control pamphlet entitled “Paste Your Umbrella Before the Rain.”[2]

The Malthus Manifesto.

There exists, at this very moment, a tremendous battle of minds over the vexing problem of world population vs. world food supply. This struggle, largely unnoticed by the public, has been going on ever since the British economist, the Rev. Thomas Malthus, published his landmark work Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. The heart of Malthus’ philosophy, and the cornerstone of the population controller’s credo, was contained in his book; “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio ... By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal power must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence.”

The title of the second edition of Malthus’ book, published in 1826, betrayed his strong bias towards “quality of life;” An Essay on the Principle of Population: Or a View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; With and Inquiry into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evil Which it Occasions ... Take it to the Limit ... The “New Malthusians” seem to delight in painting pictures of mass horrors that will inevitably befall society if various nations do not get serious about controlling their populations right now . Their predictions are almost always wrong and frequently comical.

25 years ago, Paul Ehrlich, the dean of the population scaremasters, warned us that mass starvation would strike the North American continent by the year 1985. Now, of course, the United States and Canada have tens of thousands of weight-loss clinics, and diet books routinely occupy the New York Times bestseller list.

In the 1970s, the mass media, ever ready to hitch a ride on a politically correct cause, warned us that, by 1990, huge artificial islands would be constructed in the middle of the ocean to handle the earth’s exploding population; that the world’s oil supplies would be completely depleted by 2000; and that the prime motivator of all wars by the year 1990 would be attacks on other nation’s cached food stores.[3] Zero Population Growth (ZPG) leaders took advantage of the media drumbeat and loudly insisted that the United States create a Bureau of Population Control.[3]

Some of the population controllers extrapolated current trends far past the point where they are physically possible in order to frighten people who were not familiar with statistical theory or demographics. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the population is unschooled in these disciplines, and so accept the bogus math of the population controllers without question.

A 1972 article by David Lytle, which was heavily circulated by Planned Parenthood-World Population, was chillingly and verbosely entitled “The Human Race Has Thirty-Five Years Left: After That, People Will Start Eating Plankton. Or People.”

Other population controllers predicted that, if population growth continued at a rate of two percent annually for 650 years, there would be standing room only on the planet, with only one square foot allocated per person.[4]

In other words, the population of the world under such an absurd scenario would be 1,589 trillion persons, or 450,000 times the world population in 1972.

Even this was not the most ridiculous prediction made by the population controllers. Ansley Coale won the prize for the most ludicrous projection when he said that we are experiencing “ ... a growth process which, within 65 centuries and in the absence of environmental limits, could generate a solid sphere of live bodies expanding with a radial velocity that, neglecting relativity, would equal the velocity of light.”[5]

A little fiddling with numbers reveals that this would be equivalent to 23,891 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

(23,891,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) people,

or more than the number of atoms in the known universe!

Such statistical extrapolations obviously have no bearing on reality whatever and are entirely useless for any purpose other than scaring people.

Opposing Viewpoints.

Intellectuals who are interested in the population ‘problem’ have gravitated towards two poles. A minority insists that it is indeed possible for the world population to continue to grow almost without restraint, because we could feed as many as 50 billion people comfortably if we could just remove all of the existing barriers to food production and distribution.

This is an unrealistic viewpoint. Inevitably, the world population will indeed exceed the food supply, even if production and distribution methods operate under ideal conditions. At the rate the world population is growing, we would reach the 50 billion limit in about 150 years. What would we do then? How could we possibly overcome the momentum of such massive population growth? Any measures taken to limit population growth would be much more severe under such a scenario than they would be today. And, of course, any population-limiting or reducing disaster would be much worse indeed than under current conditions.

The other viewpoint of those interested in population problems is much more practical. It is also terrifying. Those who hold this view have the primary or secondary goal of limiting population at any cost, and include members of the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, UNICEF, Zero Population Growth (ZPG), and many others organizations. This extensive, vastly wealthy, and very influential cartel is so bold in its work, and so convinced that it are right, that it doesn’t even bother to conceal or package its activities in a more attractive and appealing format any more.

So the fundamental question remains: Where is the middle ground between a planetwide sewer and the dreaded Uterus Police ( a la the People’s Republic of China)?

The Environmental Agitators.

“[Environmental groups] are missing the boat because picking up the garbage is not the issue, having sewage treatment plants is not the issue -- those are really details of the bigger issue. It’s like trying to talk about a pimple when you really have cancer.”-- Jean-Michel Cousteau.[6]

Introduction.

As described in Chapter 91, “Animal Rights and Environmentalism,” some people believe that Man has no particular status on this earth, and that he is just another animal who must take into consideration all the other animals when making any decisions regarding his own welfare.

This all sounds logical from a Humanistic point of view, but when people begin to see themselves as morally equal to or even lower than animals, a certain inevitable depressive world outlook must result. After all, if we are not the supreme creation of God, then we are a cancer. If we do not occupy a privileged place on this earth, we occupy the lowest rung of existence because of our unparalleled ability to destroy other species. If we desire to escape responsibility in sexual and other matters, we may assuage our consciences by accepting culpability for ‘destroying’ our planet -- a psychological ploy that allows us to take no concrete action other than being politically correct in our speech. Despairing Statements. This attitude is reflected in many statements made by animal rights activists like Ingrid Newkirk, who once said that “We [humans] have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”[7] Although not an activist by any means, even United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that “I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand.”[8] Some environmentalists even wish for death, not only for themselves, but for the entire human race. For them, the world is an unending circus of horrors, to be endured and survived until the blessed release afforded by the end of their lives.

Bill McKibben writes in The End of Nature that “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet ... Somewhere along the line -- at about a billion years ago, maybe half that -- we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth ... Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”[9]

Vehemently Yours.

Perhaps the most extreme statement of this nihilistic philosophy was made by what has to be the world’s ultimate anti- life group -- The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT, pronounced “vehement” for short. Anti-people crusader Les U. Knight, Portland, Oregon substitute teacher and founder of VHEMT, says in his newsletter These Exit Times , that “The hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens -- us ... When every human makes the moral choice to live long and die out, Earth will be allowed to return to its former glory. Each time another one of us decides not to add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom ... No matter what you’re doing to improve life on planet Earth, I think you’ll find that phasing out the human race will increase your chance of success.”[10] Knight seems not to notice that people will have a hard time ‘improving life on planet Earth’ if there are no people left to do the work!

One Expression of the Worldview.

One strange manifestation of the extreme animal rights/ environmental worldview is that such activists are uniformly pro-abortion. They turn pale at the thought of inflicting any discomfort or damage upon animals or even upon inanimate objects, but shrug indifferently when confronted with the specter of a late-term unborn baby writhing in agony as it is torn limb from limb by the steel instruments of the abortionist.

Molly Yard, former president of the National Organization for Women, neatly tied abortion and radical environmentalism together when she said that “The abortion question is not just about women’s rights, but about life on the planet -- environmental catastrophe awaits the world if the population continues to grow at its present rate.”[11] The following environmental and animal-rights organizations have gone on record as favoring repeal of the Mexico City Policy and restoration of Federal funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the chief architect of China’s one-child population control policy. This program includes mass forced sterilization and abortion, as described in Chapter 50 of Volume II, “Forced Abortions.”

PRO-ABORTION ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

Defenders of Wildlife

Environmental Action

Environmental Policy Institute *

Friends of the Earth (FOE) *

Global Tomorrow Coalition

Izaak Walton League

National Audobon Society *

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Council of America

Natural Resources Defense Council

Renew America

Sierra Club *

The Oceanic Society

The Wilderness Society

Trout Unlimited

Union of Concerned Scientists

* Identified as an “Organization Working to Solve Population Problems” on pages 246 and 247 of Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich’s 1990 book entitled The Population Explosion .

These environmental groups claim that they only favor “family planning” and “population control.” However, their leadership is fully aware of the fact that the Mexico City Policy and the cutoff of funds to the UNFPA only affected those “population control” programs that funded coerced abortions.

The Anti-Natalist Bigots Speak.

“Birth control is the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race death; a sin for which there is no atonement.”-- Teddy Roosevelt.[12]

Panic Personified.

The population guru’s books are masterpieces of hysteria. Even their titles hint (scream?) at the philosophy of the authors -- Men or Insects? by Alfred Fabre-Luce; Breeding Ourselves to Death by Larry Lader; Standing Room Only by Karl Sax; Population on the Loose by Elmer Pendell; The Case for Compulsory Birth Control by Edgar R. Chasteen; and, of course, Paul Ehrlich’s shoddy ‘work,’ The Population Bomb .

The outlandish solutions and proposals put forth by these popcon devotees border on the ridiculous; they are certainly nothing that a free society would accept, much less a Christian society.

The Common Anti-Catholic Thread.

These ‘works’ prominently feature a single common thread: A total and irrational hate of the Catholic Church (the Neoliberal term for this attitude is “bigotry”).

Elmer Pendell denounces the “Cardinal’s breeding program,” allegedly promulgated to gain political control in the United States; he also asserts that “The Catholic hierarchy favors war as a method of keeping population and resources in balance,” states as a fact that “One characteristic of Catholic countries is gnawing hunger,” and, like Maggie Sanger, philosophizes that “The Catholics are promulgating a breeding program to gain political control in the United States. In the poorer countries, they favor war as a method of keeping population and resources in balance. In these poor countries, the denser population is denser because the dumber Catholics and dumber others are having so many dumb children -- so the major influence of the Catholic’s campaign against birth control is that they trade away their smart Catholics and get dumb ones.”

Just try substituting the word “Jew” or “Black” for the word “Catholic” in the above quote and see what kind of a reaction you get! The pro-abortionists are certainly not above slandering the Catholic Church in pursuit of their goals. Dr. Bernard Nathanson gives us a rare ‘insider’s’ look at the anti-Catholic bigots as he describes part of a 1969 conversation he had with fellow abortophile Larry Lader, in his book Aborting America ; “Historically, every revolution has to have its villain ... Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that’s what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people ... There’s always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie ... the Catholic hierarchy. That’s a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned ...”

Biophobia and Self-Hate.

“We [humans] have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”-- Ingrid Newkirk, Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).[13]

The Root of All Evils.

When we turn away from God, we lose the hope that He offers us. If we fail to recognize the soul within us, we become just another animal, undeserving of any special respect or consideration. Man’s value or lack of value then depends solely upon his perceived impact upon Gaia, the “Goddess Earth.”

This hopeless worldview is reflected in the statements of antinatalist activists in every field.

Edgar Chasteen asserted in his ominously-named book The Case for Compulsory Birth Control that “Soon the world may well be engulfed by indescribable horrors as these nations of the starving are crushed under the weight of their teeming populations.”

Chasteen’s suggested law mandating sterilization and birth control is shown in Figure 131-1.

FIGURE 131-1 EDGAR CHASTEEN’S PROPOSED COMPULSORY FAMILY PLANNING MEASURES

As of January 1, 1975, it shall be unlawful for any American family to give birth to more than two children. Any family already having two or more natural children on that date shall not be allowed to give birth to another. Toward this end, it is hereby lawfully determined that all Americans above the age of 10 years will, at least one year prior to the aforementioned date, present himself/herself for reversible immunization against fertility at a local county health department or physician’s office. An official “Certificate of Immunization” shall be issued to and in the name of each citizen so treated. Said certification shall be signed by the authorized medical practitioner who administers the immunization, and shall be entered into the official records of the county in which immunization occurred. After marriage, any citizen may present himself/herself at a local county health department or physician’s office and obtain a fertility restorer. At the birth of the second child, immunity against fertility shall be readministered to both parents. If the first birth shall be multiple, no other births shall be permitted to that mother, and both parents shall thereupon be re-immunized.

Reference: Edgar R. Chasteen. The Case for Compulsory Birth Control . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Perpetual population controller Paul Ehrlich asserted in his 1968 pulp scare novel The Population Bomb that “We must cut out the cancer of population growth.”[1] The United States Department of State was even more direct, asserting that “[Mankind is] the cancer of the planet.”[14] This ‘biophobia,’ or fear of human life, is generally an infection suffered by those who approve of or use artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. It is also vividly portrayed in many of their articles and books. Some quotes that reflect this twisted worldview are listed in Figure 131-2.

FIGURE 131-2 THREATS AND PROMISES OF COERCION BY THE POPULATION CONTROLLERS

“(1) Parenthood is not an inherent right but a privilege granted by society which may legitimately limit that privilege.

(2) Every American family has a right to two children and no more. (3) The U.S. Congress must act to limit parenthood to two children and adopt a crash program of birth control (this includes abortion) that will be sufficient to accomplish this objective without using criminal sanctions.”-- Excerpt from a resolution adopted by the National Board of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) in September 1969. Quoted in Randy Engel. “A Pro-Life Report on Population Growth and the American Future.” 54 pages, 1972, page 45.

“Planning to prevent over-population of the earth must include the practice of euthanasia, either negative or positive ... Therefore, since we must restrict the rate of population increase, we should also be giving careful consideration to the quality as well as the quantity of people generated ... We doubtless will not get support from all religious groups and it would be best not to force these and other disagreeing groups to conform unless non-conformity would affect society or significant segments of it too adversely.”-- Robert H. Williams, M.D. “Numbers, Types and Duration of Human Lives.” Northwest Medicine , July 1970, pages 493 to 496.

“Every babe’s birth diminishes me ... [obstetricians should discourage fertility] in order to diminish the amount of adult stupidity, which itself is a form of social pollution, and a most dangerous one ... Some form of community coercion -- gentle or severe, explicit or cryptic -- will have to be employed.”-- Garrett Hardin. “Everybody’s Guilty: The Ecological Dilemma.” California Medicine , November 1970, pages 42 and 45 to 46.

“It has been concluded that mandatory population control laws, even those requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under our existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently compelling to endanger the society. A few consider the situation already serious enough to justify some forms of compulsion ... A massive campaign must be launched to restore a quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.”-- Paul Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (1970). Quoted in Brent Bozell. “Environmental Inaccuracy: Who Cares?” Conservative Chronicle , June 17, 1992, page 18.

“As a first step in this direction [of achieving zero population growth], it would be necessary for the family planning movement to enlarge its objectives ... from enabling couples to achieve the number of children desired to inducing them to have a number of children consistent with a zero-rate of population growth.”-- Philip Hauser. “Non-Family Planning Methods of Population Control.” From the proceedings of the International Conference of Family Planning, Dacca, 1969. Described in Nancy B. Spannaus, Molly Hammett Kronberg, and Linda Everett (Editors). How to Stop the Resurgence of Nazi Euthanasia Today . Transcripts of the International Club of Life Conference, Munich, West Germany, June 11-12, 1988. Executive Intelligence Review Special Report, September 1988. EIR, Post Office Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. $150.00.

“A large family can no longer in itself be viewed as a social contribution. If the parents of three children decide to have a fourth, it should be with the full awareness that they are choosing to indulge their personal desires at the expense of the welfare of their society.” -- Lincoln H. Day and Alice Taylor Day. Too Many Americans . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. Pages 133 to 135 and 233.

“I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests.”-- Ted Turner. This is the third of Turner’s “Ten Voluntary Initiatives,” quoted in Charles Trueheart. “Ted Turner Updates Moses: Cable Mogul Delivers Ten Commandments.” The Washington Post , October 31, 1989, pages C1 nd C6.

Paul Ehrlich, quoted in Figure 131-2, states that we must have abortion on demand, mandatory comprehensive sex education from the earliest possible moment, and “responsibility prizes” for those in childless marriages. We must also pour a “mass sterilizing agent” in all water reservoirs, we must penalize heavily all “irresponsible” married couples with more than one child, and on and on and on ...

These frightening people see man as cancer, plague, and pestilence; how different from the inspiring vision of man set forth by God!

The Situation in the United States.

“Every man’s death diminishes me.”-- John Donne, 1631.[15]

“Every babe’s birth diminishes me.”-- Garrett Hardin, 1970.[16]

Tools for Depopulation.

Nobody in their right mind will seriously argue that the United States is overpopulated. Instead, the emphasis is cleverly shifted to the topic of how much of the world’s resources we selfishly consume, and how overcrowded and hungry other nations are. While we were distracted by horrific scenes from blighted areas of the world, the popcon fanatics emplaced and deployed the tools for government- enforced population control in our country. In 1967, Congress allocated its first $50 million for domestic population control and family planning programs. The Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 allocated $382 million for domestic population control.

The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, packed entirely with pro-abortion and anti-natalist activists, made its stance official in 1972 by stating baldly that “We have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.” And, of course, the Supreme Court presented us with abortion on demand in 1973.

Stamps for Eunuchs.

Even the United States Postal Service has gotten into the act. On March 17, 1972, it unveiled its new eight-cent “Family Planning” stamp at the winter meeting of the Planned Parenthood-World Population Board of Directors in New York City. The Postal Service announced that “The new stamp will serve as a reminder for all members of our society of the current world environmental situation and the need for planning to have a better America and a better world.”[17] This stamp showed a perfectly groomed, White, “gender-balanced” family joyously embarking on the wide and smooth road to the Brave New World, as shown below.

Crude But Effective.

This anti-natalist propaganda has been extremely effective in our country, as shown in the demographic bar charts in Chapter 48 of Volume II, “Demographic Effects of Abortion.” Our country has not attained a replacement birthrate in more than 15 years. Women have been constantly bombarded with the message “STOP HAVING BABIES!!” For more information about how the scourge of abortion has decimated the United States and world populations, see Chapter 57 of Volume II, “International Abortion Situation.”

Abortion is now an act of honor, performed and endured gladly for the greater good of the planet. Catholic women have been conned into giving up their religion and have been given an excuse to turn to artificial contraception. “Christians” everywhere have come to believe that abortion and artificial birth control are the least of several evils. Child-killing has been turned from a mortal sin into a moral and sacred duty. The Propagandists Agitate. Propagandists are in the forefront of any Neoliberal social revolution, regardless of whether it is a drive euthanasia, homosexuality, abortion -- or population control. A propaganda campaign consists of two parts: Presenting one view and censoring opposing opinions.

Antinatalist strategists are already preparing our children for indoctrination in various coercive population control measures, as described in Chapter 114, “Homeschooling.” They are also struggling to insure that our children are not exposed to any kind of influence that would encourage them to have children when they grow up and marry.

One such example of censorship was provided by the National Association for Optional Parenthood (NAOP), which launched its “Pronatalism in Textbooks Project” in the late 1970s. The following excerpts were taken from a letter that NAOP mailed to its members.

“Thank you for your interest in the Pronatalism in Textbooks Project and for volunteering your assistance. With your help and that of others we will be able to further the principle goal of this project; the elimination of pronatalist content in textbooks and children’s books.

“At this point, we need people to examine textbooks and evaluate them for pronatalist content ...”

“Pronatalism refers to social and economic systems and attitudes that exalt the role of parent and assume or encourage parenthood for all ... Pronatalism can lead to sexist stereotyping; limited roles, especially for women; overpopulation; inadequate or abusive parenting; feelings of inadequacy or ostracism for couples who, by choice or fate, have no children and are a “two-person family.”

“Pronatalism is sometimes so subtle that we often are unaware of its existence. The following criteria will be helpful in identifying pronatalism in textbooks;

3. Definition of family to exclude couples without children. 5. Large families favored over one-child or no child families. 6. Failure to discuss family planning when appropriate.

8. Theories of “maternal instinct” or maternity as central to women’s lives.

10. Bias against abortion ...”[18]

NAOP’s Advisory Council reads like a horror buff’s lineup of celebrities: It numbers among its many members Lee Salk, Alvin Toffler, Geraldo Rivera, Paul Ehrlich, and Shirley MacLaine.

NAOP even went so far as to whine about Holiday Inn’s “Kids Eat Free” program, claiming that “The symbolic message in policies of this kind may be interpreted as “approval” for parenthood, there being no comparable benefits for those without children.”[19]

The Plague of ‘Contraceptive Imperialism.’

“It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide ... birth control techniques to the developing portions of the globe.” -- Humanist Manifesto II , Article 15.

“Third World aid without birth control is like trying to pour water uphill.”-- Columnist Hobart Rowen, The Washington Post , September 15, 1988. Introduction. The anti-life philosophy asserts that, in order for a nation to advance economically or socially, every country must control its population. This objective is supposedly paramount, and therefore any means necessary may be used to implement it, even if such means include widespread coercion. The truth of the matter is even more fundamental: If developing nations do not control their populations, then the commercial interests of the United States will be at risk.

Dr. Charles Ravenholt, Director of the Population Office, candidly explained that “Population control is needed to maintain the normal operation of United States commercial interests around the world. Without our trying to help those countries with their economic and social development, the world could rebel against the strong United States commercial presence. The self interest thing is a compelling element. If the population explosion proceeds unchecked, it will cause such terrible economic conditions abroad that revolutions will ensue. And revolutions are scarcely ever beneficial to the interests of the United States.”[20] This condescending attitude is at the heart of the West’s “contraceptive imperialism.” We have been scared into believing in the phenomenon of “differential fertility:” i.e., if we don’t do something fast , we Americans will be inundated with all of those “colored” people from those poor, backward nations (like Mexico). And, even worse, these “colored” people might even revolt against U.S. commercial control of their economies and might even become (gasp!) financially independent! Obviously, contraceptive imperialism is, by its very nature , racist. More than two decades ago, feminist writer Lynn Phillips recognized the strong link between ‘population aid’ and external coercion and control, and the connection obviously made her distinctly uneasy; “[Birth control] is an international strategy in application throughout the world; in Vietnam population control of uncontrollables takes the form of outright genocide, but in Latin America, India, here, and in American colonies, birth control is the favored method ... If there is any truth to the idea of a genocide campaign against black and other minority women, our sisterly concern for [illegal] abortion victims begins to look like a blind.”[21]

Agencies and Their Deadly Work.

In particular, United States official and quasi-official bureaucracies, in the form of Planned Parenthood, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and many others as named in Figure 131-3, believe that our way of life is inherently superior to any other way of life, and the means for converting everyone into a infinitely consuming society can be found in contraception.

FIGURE 131-3 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS SUPPORTING ANTINATALIST INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS

Academy for Educational Development (AED)[1]

Africare, Inc.[1]

Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)[1]

American Medical Association (AMA)[2]

American Academy of Health Administration[2]

American Academy of Pediatrics[2]

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)[2]

American Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS)

American Association of University Women (AAUW)[2]

American Baptist Churches USA[2]

American Civil Liberties Union, Reproductive Freedom Project (ACLU)[1]

American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians[2]

American Ethical Union[2]

American Genetic Association[2]

American Home Economics Association[2]

American Pharmaceutical Association[2]

American Psychiatric Association[2]

American Public Health Association (APHA)[1]

Americans for Democratic Action[2]

The Asia Foundation[1]

Association for Population/Family Planning and Information Centers (APFPIC)[1]

Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC)[1,2]

CARE, Inc.[2]

Carnegie Foundation

‘Catholics’ for Free Choice (CFFC)[1]

Center for Population and Family Health, Columbia University (CPFH)[1]

Center for Population Options (CPO)[1]

Center for War/Peace Studies[2]

Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA)

Church World Service, National Council of Churches[1]

Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (CICRED)[1]

Constitutional Rights Foundation[2]

Contraceptive Research and Development Program, Eastern Virginia Medical School (CONRAD)

Council on Economic Priorities[2]

Council on Environmental Quality[2]

Council of Population and Environment[2]

The D.K. Tyagi Fund[1]

Development Associates[1]

Development Services International of Canada (DSI)[1]

Dual & Associates, Inc.[1]

East-West Population Institute, East-West Center[1]

Family Care International, Inc. (FCI)[1]

Family Health International[1]

Family Planning International Assistance (FPIA)[1]

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)[1]

Ford Foundation

Friends of the Earth (FOE)[2]

The Futures Group[1]

Genetics Society of America[2]

Girls Clubs of America[2]

Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development[1]

Global Tomorrow Coalition, Inc. (GTC)[1]

Health Services International, Inc. (HSI)[1]

Institute for Resource Development, Westinghouse (IRD)[1]

International Council on Management of Population Programmes (ICOMP)[1]

International Federation for Family Life Promotion (IFFLP)[1]

International Health Program, Tulane University[1]

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)[1]

International Labor Organization (ILO)[1]

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)[1,2]

International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS)[1]

International Science and Technology Institute, Inc. (ISTI)[1]

International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP)[1]

International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)[1]

Japanese Organization for International Cooperation in Family Planning, Inc. (JOICFP)[1]

John Short & Associates, Inc. (JS&A)[1]

John Snow, Inc. (JSI)[1]

Johns Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (JHPIEGO)[1]

Johns Hopkins University, Population Communication Services (PCS)[1]

Johns Hopkins University, Population Information Program (PIP)[1]

League of Women Voters[2]

Los Angeles Regional Family Planning Council (LARFPC)[1]

Management Sciences for Health (MSH)[1]

Margaret Sanger Center[1]

Marie Stopes International (MSI)[1]

National Abortion Federation (NAF)[1]

National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)[1]

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Population (NAS)[1]

National Audobon Society[1,2]

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Inc. (NFPRHA)[1]

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)[1]

National Wildlife Federation (NWF)[2]

National Resources Defense Council[2]

Negative Population Growth (NPG)[2]

Office of Population Research, Princeton University (OPR)[1]

Peace Science Society International[2]

Pathfinder Fund[1]

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)[2]

Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada (PPFC)[2]

Population Association of America (PAA)[1]

Population Communication (PC)[1]

Population Communications International (PCI)[1]

Population Concern[1]

Population Council[1]

Population Crisis Committee[1,2]

Population-Environmental Balance[1]

Population Institute

Population Planning and International Health[1]

Population Reference Bureau (PRB)[1]

Population Resource Center (PRC)[1]

Population Services International (PSI)[1,2]

Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)[1]

Program for International Training in Health, University of North Carolina (INTRAH)[1]

Project HOPE[2]

RAND Corporation[1]

‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR)[1]

Research Triangle Institute (RTI)[1]

RONCO Consulting Corporation[1]

Rockefeller Foundation

Sex Information and Educational Council of the United States (SIECUS)[2]

Sierra Club[1]

Social Development Center (SDC)[1]

Transnational Family Research Institute (TFRI)[1]

Triton Corporation[1]

United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs (UNDIESA)[1]

United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development[1]

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)

United Nations World Health Organization (WHO)

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

United States Fund for Population Activities (USFPA)[1]

United States Jaycees[2]

University Research Corporation (URC)[1]

Western Consortium for Public Health[1]

The Wilderness Society[2]

The Wildlife Society[2]

World Bank[1]

World Federalists, U.S.A.[2]

World Federation of Health Agencies for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (WF/SC)[1]

World Health Organization (WHO)[1]

World Medical Association[2]

World Neighbors[1]

World Population Society (WPS)[1]

World Resources Institute (WRI)[1]

Worldwatch Institute[1]

Young Women’s ‘Christian’ Association[2]

Zero Population Growth (ZPG)[1,2]

PROMINENT POPULATION CONTROLLERS IN GOVERNMENT AND ACADEMIA: Congresswoman Shirley Chisolm, Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, Congressman Pierre S. Du Pont, John Kenneth Galbraith, Senator Philip A. Hart, Senator Mark O. Hatfield, Governor Walter J. Hickel, Senator Henry M. Jackson, Senator Edward F. Kennedy, Governor Tom McCall, Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, Senator Walter F. Mondale, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, Governor Milton J. Shapp, Senator Robert Taft, Jr., Ambassador Sol M. Linowitz, Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York City, Mrs. Vincent Astor, Paul R. Ehrlich, Henry Ford II, and Nobel Prize Winners Alva and Gunnar Myrdal.

[1] Groups listed as “Nongovernmental Organizations in International Population and Family Planning” in the Population Briefing Paper , December 1988, issued by the Population Crisis Committee, 1120 19th Street NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20036-3605.

[2] Groups listed as “Sponsoring Organizations” at the antinatalist conference entitled “The International Convocation on the World Population Crisis.” This conference was sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and was held June 19th and 20th, 1974 at the Hotel Americana in New York City. All of the individuals listed above were sponsors of this conference.

Perhaps the most important antinatalist conference took place on June 19th and 20th, 1974 at the Hotel Americana in New York City. It was sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and was entitled “The International Convocation on the World Population Crisis.” It is interesting to note that many of the distinguished population controllers that were present at this conference were also members of activist eugenics groups and were uniformly pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia (see Chapter 105, “Eugenics,” for a listing of these eugenics organizations). Most of the population controllers named in Figure 131-3 are still very active today. A partial list of “Convocation Sponsors” is listed in the same figure, and is very revealing.

More than 100 anti-life groups were listed as “Sponsoring Organizations” at this conference, and this roll call read like a Who’s Who of pro-abortion groups.

Try to imagine the colossal wealth and influence that can be marshalled by these people, who currently have an aggregate personal net worth of more than five billion dollars , and the anti-life organizations, whose aggregate annual budget exceeds a total of ten billion dollars! Notice that the sponsors alone include 15 United States Senators, Congressmen, Governors and Ambassadors, and try to imagine how their belief in abortion and population control affects this country’s legislation. The incredible combined magnitude of the activities of these organizations can be hinted at by examining the programs funded by just one of them over a period of just one year. In 1987, the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), in partnership with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), spent $720,684 to purchase abortifacient contraceptives in Jamaica; contributed $700,000 to a World Bank project that established 18 sterilization facilities in Kenya; contributed $1,800,000 to another World Bank project in Malawi for the development of sterilization services; financed for $795,569 an UNFPA and World Health Organization (WHO) project that expanded mobile sterilization units in Nepal; funded for $37,116 a UNFPA project in Rwanda that supplied abortifacients; funded for $21,657 another UNFPA project in conjunction with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in Tanzania that provided abortifacients; funded a stockpile of contraceptives in Zimbabwe; and sponsored the formation of committees in 15 African nations to expand contraception, abortion and sterilization, and attack indigenous family values.[22] The Fatal Flaw. Mahatma Gandhi, whose country has been a population control battleground since the turn of the century, struck at the heart of the matter when he pointed out that

“If it is contended that birth control is necessary for the nation because of over population, I dispute the proposition. It has never been proved. In my opinion, by a proper land system, better agriculture, and a supplementary industry, this country is capable of supporting twice as many people as there are in it today.

“I am totally opposed to artificial means of controlling the birthrate, and it is not possible for me to congratulate you or your co- workers on having brought into being a league whose activities, if successful, can only do great moral injury to the people. I wish I could convince you and your co-workers to disband the league and devote your energy to a better purpose. You will pardon for giving my opinion in a decisive manner.”[23]

When asked about the possibility of the United States government getting into population control, President Dwight D. Eisenhower replied that “I cannot imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or governmental activity or function or responsibility.”[24] Eisenhower, of course, changed his mind later. Differential fertility certainly will lead to a vastly different world socioeconomic picture before very long. Moslems, among others, recognize very clearly that there is more than one way to conquer the world. As Atifa Dawat, an Iranian delegate to the July 1985 conference entitled “Forum ‘85,” in Nairobi, Kenya, stated, “The more children we have, the better. When there are enough Moslems in the world, then we will have world victory.”[25]

The United States would like to exert control by the opposite means; by convincing Third World women to stop having babies. The Process of Emasculation. The story is the same on every continent and in every country that has been subverted by the West’s “contraceptive imperialism.” The process of corrupting and destroying the morals, traditions, and religious beliefs of “less developed” countries invariably follows the seven-step sequence outlined in Figure 131-4.

FIGURE 131-4 THE SEVEN-STEP STRATEGY FOR FOREIGN POPULATION CONTROL

(1) First of all the national legislature is targeted. They must be forced or persuaded to accept the equation that SMALL FAMILIES = PROGRESS, which is alleged to mean equality with the West, the ultimate goal of all proper nationalistic striving.

(2) Once approval for contraception is gained “for family planning purposes,” the country is literally flooded with pills, IUDs, abortifacients such as the injectable Depo-Provera, and, most deadly of all, the ‘family planning’ experts, who maintain a hawklike vigilance to insure that nothing goes awry.

(3) A massive propaganda campaign, which is now paid for by the State, is launched. Its purpose is to convince the people to abandon their ‘backward’ and ‘unsophisticated’ lifestyles and embrace the idea that unrestricted sex is desirable. The groundwork for abortion on demand, paid for by the State, begins to be laid.

(4) Since the ultimate objective of the “popcon” experts is zero (or even negative) population growth, sterilization is next. Incentives are offered for male and female neutering, and camps are set up to facilitate extensive sterilization programs. Often, women are involuntarily sterilized as they are having their second child.

(5) Since contraception very frequently fails, abortion becomes a necessary backup, naturally only for the “hard cases.” The population planners are careful to leave plenty of restrictions on abortion.

(6) The restrictions on abortion are eliminated, one by one, for “humanitarian” reasons. Once step (5) has been taken, this is a remarkably easy process.

(7) Once respect for unborn life has been sufficiently eroded, the movement to legalize euthanasia only for the “hard cases” begins.

These programs have been devastatingly effective. Figure 131-5 shows the impacts of population control programs on 16 countries that now possess 61 percent of the world’s population. Each has experienced a steep drop in fertility over the past thirty years. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), the world’s most populous country, has had a 56% decline in fertility since 1960, from 5.5 children per family to 2.4 children per family. This is largely a result of the coercive Chinese population program, which is described in detail in Chapter 50 of Volume II, “Forced Abortions.”

FIGURE 131-5 FERTILITY REDUCTION IN POPULOUS COUNTRIES

FERTILITY RATE (CHILDREN PER COMPLETED FAMILY)

	Fertility in 1990	Fertility in 1960	Decline in percent
MEXICO	3.6	7.0	- 48%
MALAYSIA	2.9	6.9	- 58%
TURKEY	3.7	6.8	- 46%
COLOMBIA	2.9	6.8	- 57%
EGYPT	4.7	6.7	- 30%
PERU	3.7	6.6	- 44%
THAILAND	2.2	6.6	- 67%
TAIWAN	1.8	6.5	- 74%
SINGAPORE	1.6	6.3	- 75%
INDIA	3.8	6.2	- 39%
BRAZIL	3.2	6.2	- 48%
SOUTH KOREA	2.2	6.0	- 63%
SRI LANKA	2.4	5.9	- 59%
INDONESIA	3.3	5.6	- 41%
P.R. CHINA	2.4	5.5	- 56%
CUBA	1.7	4.7	- 64%

Notes. “Total fertility rate” is defined as the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years (usually taken to mean age 44) and, at each year of childbearing age, they experience the average birth rates for each country. If a country’s population is to be stable, the total fertility rate must be 2.20.

References. (1) Jodi L. Jacobsen. Planning the Global Family (Worldwatch Paper 80). The sixteen countries shown possess 61 percent of the world’s population. (2) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition). Table 1,440, “Vital Statistics, 1989, and Projections, 2000 -- Selected Countries.”

It seems that economic prosperity, when teamed with a propaganda saturation campaign, is by far the most effective means of population control. Figure 131-5 shows that the fertility rate of Singapore has plunged from 6.3 children per family to 1.6 children per family, a 75 percent decrease in 30 years.

Figure 131-6 shows the current rates of fertility for a number of developed and developing nations. It is interesting to note that Europe is literally dying; every country but one (Ireland) has a below-replacement birth rate. In other words, if a fence was built around the continent of Europe, allowing no immigration or emigration, the continent would be completely unpopulated within twenty generations.

FIGURE 131-6 1990 FERTILITY RATES IN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1990 FERTILITY RATE (CHILDREN PER COMPLETED FAMILY)

HONG KONG	1.42
GERMANY, ITALY	1.50
DENMARK, AUSTRIA	1.54
SWITZERLAND, NETHERLANDS	1.57
BELGIUM	1.60
CANADA, GREECE	1.69
SWEDEN, SPAIN	1.73
JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM	1.76
FRANCE, PORTUGAL	1.80
UNITED STATES	1.87
AUSTRALIA	1.93
---- REPLACEMENT RATE= 2.20
POLAND	2.21
SOVIET UNION	2.40
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC)	2.44
ARGENTINA	2.78
BRAZIL	3.16
MEXICO	3.57
INDIA	3.79

Reference: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition), 991 pages. Table 1,440, “Vital Statistics, 1989, and Projections, 2000 -- Selected Countries.”

Figure 131-7 summarizes the worldwide impact that the population controllers have had. Planetary population growth has declined from 2.1 percent per year for the period 1966-1970 to a projected 1.5 percent per year for the period 1996-2000 -- a 29 percent decrease.

FIGURE 131-7 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WORLD POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
Population in Millions
North America	199	214	226	239	252	264	275	287	297
Central America	71	83	95	108	122	137	154	173	190
South America	146	168	191	216	242	273	297	327	356
Europe	425	444	460	474	484	492	499	506	512
Soviet Union	214	231	243	254	266	278	292	304	315
Africa	293	330	375	427	491	566	645	751	872
Asia	1,685	1,871	2,112	2,364	2,593	2,831	3,058	3,304	3,549
Oceania	16	17	19	21	23	24	26	28	30
WORLD	3,049	3,358	3,721	4,103	4,473	4,865	5,246	5,680	6,121
Population Distribution by Area Development
More Developed	945	1,002	1,049	1,096	1,136	1,173	1,208	1,240	1,268
Less Developed	2,104	2,356	2,672	3,007	3,336	3,692	4,038	4,440	4,853
Population Distribution by Sex
Males	1,526	1,681	1,863	2,056	2,244	2,443	2,634	2,870	3,099
Females	1,523	1,677	1,858	2,047	2,229	2,422	2,612	2,810	3,022

	1961-1965	1966-1970	1971-1975	1976-1980	1981-1985	1986-1990	1991-1995	1996-2000
Growth Rate in Percent
North America	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.1	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.7
Central America	2.8	2.7	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3	2.3	1.9
South America	2.7	2.6	2.4	2.4	2.3	1.9	1.7	1.7
Europe	0.9	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2
Soviet Union	1.5	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.7
Africa	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.8	2.6	3.1	3.0
Asia	2.1	2.4	2.3	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.5	1.4
Oceania	2.1	2.1	1.9	1.5	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.4
WORLD	1.9	2.1	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.5
World Parameters
Crude Birth Rate	35.1	33.9	31.6	28.4	27.1	26.0	25.0	23.8
Crude Death Rate	14.5	13.3	12.2	11.2	10.5	9.9	9.3	8.8
Life Expectancy	54.0	55.9	57.7	59.2	60.9	62.6	64.3	65.8
Median Age	19.9	20.8	21.6	22.4	23.3	24.2	25.3	26.4

Reference: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1990 (110th Edition). Table 1,440, “World Population.”

The population controllers keep very careful track of the trends shown in Figure 131-7, and have proclaimed that their work has just begun. Even when the population of the planet levels off and begins to decline, they will always find more to do.

Many elements of the population control programs that have been implemented in developing countries had to be tested in the United States first, of course, and Figure 131-8 shows that the United States has suffered as much as the rest of the world. The average number of children living at home in American households has declined from 2.3 to 0.9 in the last fifty years.

FIGURE 131-8 CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME IN THE UNITED STATES, 1940 TO 1990

Percentage of Families With;	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1985	1990
No children	32.2	34.9	38.2	44.1	47.9	50.4	51.4
One child	13.5	15.6	17.4	18.2	20.9	20.9	20.8
Two children	12.8	14.5	16.2	17.4	19.3	18.6	18.1
Three children	12.4	12.9	12.6	12.4	7.8	7.2	6.9
Four children	9.7	7.1	5.5	3.8	2.2	1.2	1.0
Five children	7.8	5.9	3.6	1.6	0.9	0.7	0.8
Six children	5.3	4.0	2.8	0.9	0.3	0.3	0.3
Seven children	4.0	3.3	2.2	0.7	0.3	0.4	0.4
Eight or more children	2.3	1.8	1.5	0.9	0.4	0.3	0.3
Average children per family living at home	2.3	2.1	1.9	1.7	1.4	1.3	0.9

Reference: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources. Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition), Tables 65 and 66.

Note: A family is defined as a husband and wife or a man and woman cohabiting for more than one year. Children include adopted children and long-term (longer than one year) foster children. These numbers include only those children living at home who are under 18.

The View from the Left.

The contraception-abortion-euthanasia field of study and action is almost incomprehensively vast in scope, but the Right and Left find little to agree upon. One exception is the United States’ brand of “contraceptive imperialism.”

The general reasoning of the Left is that the United States wants to hold down the population in only developing countries because, as Socialist writer K. Agnes White puts it, “Poverty and starvation are the perfect breeding ground for Communism.”[26]

This is apparently the opposite of the situation in the United States, where Marxism/Socialism/ Communism are mere hobbies for trendies, college students, and bored housewives.

The Real Motives.

In an article she wrote for the Portland [Oregon] Alliance , White makes a disturbingly accurate analysis of the real reason behind our meddling in the affairs of other countries; “The willful distribution of such dangerous forms of birth control [i.e., IUDs banned in the United States for health reasons] in Third World women and the restriction of their use in industrialized countries makes it clear that population control is a racist as well as sexist policy. Along with the fear that the poor and hungry will rebel is the fear that the poor and hungry -- by and large people of Color -- will out-breed Whites.”[26] Case Study: South Africa. South Africa is an obvious example of such racist population policies. The South African government, coached by United States Planned Parenthood experts, is implementing a strong ‘family planning’ program, but the “experts” blundered badly, because only Whites are following the program!

In other words, the target population (Blacks) were smart enough to see the deception, but Whites were not. In the last ten years, the White birthrate has fallen from 2.8 children per family to less than replacement at about 2.05 children per family in South Africa. Meanwhile, the Blacks and ‘Coloreds’ (mixed race) population has about five children per family and state correctly, like the Moslems, that “Our children are our weapons.” The ubiquitous injectable abortifacient Depo-Provera is administered to girls as young as 14 years of age in South Africa, and some girls’ boarding schools, on the advice of Planned Parenthood, inject every girl with the drug before they go on holiday. This is a classic example of how little Planned Parenthood and the population planners think of the rights and intelligence of children -- and of their parents.

Depo-Provera: It’s Good Enough For Them.

Depo-Provera (named Depo- Clinivir in Germany) was banned until very recently in the United States and Israel because of its extremely dangerous side effects. This drug, which was considered much too dangerous for lily-White American women to use until it was refined, was peddled forcefully in more than 80 developing countries, including Indonesia, Kenya, and Mexico.

The Upjohn Company applied to the United States Food and Drug Administration for approval of Depo-Provera in 1976. The FDA turned down the application because Depo-Provera had been found to cause breast cancer in animals, and that some users will suffer “possibly even permanent infertility.” The country’s leading pharmacologists sanction the use of Depo-Provera “only if the possibility of permanent infertility is acceptable to the patient.”

Statistics by Upjohn and the National Cancer Institute show that women who have been injected with Depo-Provera develop cervical cancer (which usually metastasizes) at rates of up to 9.1 times that of the control groups.

Women who are unknowingly pregnant and are injected with Depo-Provera have borne children with congenital heart defects, abnormal development of the sexual organs and the possibility of genital cancer later in life. These effects are similar to those experienced by the daughters of women who had taken diethylstilbestrol (DES).[27] Case Study: Nigeria. In developing countries with large populations, the Population Council, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID, a part of the Department of State) use effective CIA-like tactics to infiltrate government ministries and the press and entertainment industry, recruit “focus groups” of local people upon which to test their theories, and undermine indigenous values and traditions.

According to International Family Planning Associates (IFPA) researcher Elizabeth Sobo, the objective of such intensive programs “... is to literally saturate the media with birth-control themes, and at the same time to make it appear that these ideas represent nothing more than a spontaneous change in local customs.”

These programs feature not just localized spots, but massive nationwide and even continentwide media and propaganda saturation campaigns As an example, a written contract between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Nigerian government outlines the various points of the country’s proposed family planning program as follows;

ELEMENTS OF THE USAID POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR NIGERIA

“At least 3,000 television, radio, film and fold media programs and spots, and newspaper and magazine inserts in at least five languages;

* A music project [to develop] popular songs containing family planning themes [that are] composed and recorded by popular local musicians;

* Integrating family planning messages into existing popular radio and television [entertainment] series;

* Recorded testimonials from traditional and religious leaders;

* Television and radio specials and serials;

* Workshops [and] observation study tours for selected media practitioners;

* Motivational and technical video programs for broadcast, and for transfer onto 16 mm film to be shown through mobile vans;

* Special broadcasts on population issues to enlighten decision-makers;

* Symposia and meetings for traditional and religious leaders [and for] opinion leaders;

* Audience research [and] community analysis;

* A series of workshops in at least 15 states for a minimum of 200 urban secondary and post-secondary school teachers;

* [And] a national population quiz show eliciting competition from at least 300 secondary schools throughout Nigeria.”

Reference: John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe. “Working Against Overseas Population Control.” National Catholic Register , November 18, 1990, page 12

Although the problem is serious and the prognosis grim, some people are beginning to wake up to the existence of the massive programs of covert genocide being practiced in Africa. The Information Project for Africa, Post Office Box 43345, Washington, DC 20010, in particular fights United States contraceptive imperialism, and anyone interested in population control programs in Africa and what to do about them should contact this group.

Domestic Racists.

One has only to be familiar with the philosophies and quotations of Margaret Sanger and current abortionists such as Edward Allred to realize that the above statement on the racism of population control by K. Agnes White is absolutely correct.

As Allred stated in an October 12, 1980 San Diego Union interview; “I would do free abortions in Mexico to stem the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening ... When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it’s time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry the people have.”

It is laughable that the far Left will not condemn such blatant racism.

Why? Because “reproductive rights” are much higher on their priority list than mere racism.

So, of course, they ignore such atrocities happening right here at home. For example, in 1976, the U.S. Government’s General Accounting Office charged that the Indian Health Service had sterilized more than 3,000 Native American women in a four-year period by using elements of coercion -- including using consent forms that did not fully inform women of the hazards, or which carried a thinly-veiled threat that they would lose their jobs unless they consented to the surgery.

Of course, any pro-life activist knows that we have been fighting against this insidious form of “contraceptive imperialism” for decades, so it is most amusing to note that most Socialist groups actually blame Right- wing fanatics (that’s us, gang) for these abuses.

The Unbreakable Link Between Abortion and Population Control.

“The right to abortion, an inalienable right of all women, is an integral part of population control.”-- Lawrence Lader, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).[28]

Introduction.

Pro-abortionists tell us all the time that contraception frequently fails, and that abortion is required as a backup if “women are to control their own lives.”

Indeed, as described in Chapter 99, “Contraception Effectiveness and Use,” there are more than two million contraceptive failures in the United States every year, half of which end in abortions.

Larry Lader, the king of the abortion propagandists, recognized the “value” of abortion in controlling the population in our own country even before Roe v. Wade ; “Above all, the abortion revolution should intensify the trend towards population control. In 1972, about 600 thousand legal abortions were performed nationwide -- a figure that accounted in large measure for the decline in births below the replacement level of 2.110.”[29]

Extending the Principle.

The population controllers have flooded scores of developing countries with IUDs, birth control pills, and condoms. They also correctly recognize that tens of millions of contraceptive failures will occur in these countries.

It is therefore absolutely inevitable that the controllers will vigorously implement abortion programs in these countries as “backstops” for their ineffective contraception programs. As the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) acknowledges, “It has been clear for a long time that family planning campaigns [without abortion] are largely ineffectual in producing a lower rate of population growth.”[30] Population statistician Emily C. Moore confirmed the UNFPA view when she said that “The population explosion compels us to take every means necessary to curb our growth rate. Since contraception alone seems insufficient to reduce fertility to the point of no-growth, and since population experts tell us that eliminating unwanted fertility [is necessary], we should permit all voluntary means of birth control (including abortion) so as to avert the necessity for coercive measures.”[31]

Notice that Moore implies that, if she and her ilk do not get their way (i.e., unlimited free abortion and contraception), then they will try coercion, regardless of whether it is in this country or developing countries.

Going One Step Further.

Just as contraception leads inevitably to abortion, whether it be on a national or an international scale, abortion inevitably leads to euthanasia, as described in Chapter 110, “Infanticide: The Abortion-Euthanasia Link.”

Dr. Robert H. Williams asserted more than twenty years ago that “Planning to prevent over-population of the earth must include the practice of euthanasia, either negative or positive ... Therefore, since we must restrict the rate of population increase, we should also be giving careful consideration to the quality as well as the quantity of people generated ... We doubtless will not get support from all religious groups and it would be best not to force these and other disagreeing groups to conform unless non-conformity would affect society or significant segments of it too adversely.”[32]

Note Williams’ thinly-veiled threat of coercion against “disagreeing groups” in the future if their “non-conformity” would “adversely affect society.” Williams and his cohorts, of course, would reserve such a judgment to themselves and would implement the coercion -- if they have the power -- at any time they felt was appropriate. Notice also that the above rationale is precisely that used by the government of China in justifying its forced-abortion program, which is described in Chapter 50 of Volume II, “Forced Abortions.”

==========================================

“Cultures and civilizations rise and fall with the populations on which they are based ... This is the lesson of history.”-- French Social Affairs Minister Jacques Solideau.[33]

[1] Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb . New York: Ballantine, 1968. Pages 11, 24, 135 to 139, 149, 151, and 180 to 181.

[2] Poem from a population control pamphlet entitled “Paste Your Umbrella Before the Rain.” Prepared by the Chinese Center for International Training in Family Planning of Taiwan. Funded by UNICEF. See “UNICEF and Population Control,” United States Coalition for Life Newsletter dated January 1973. Distributed to every Taiwanese boy and girl graduating from secondary, high, and vocational schools.

[4] Murray Bookchin. “The Population Myth.” Kick It Over , Spring 1992, pages 8 to 12. Also see Reverend John A. O’Brien. Pastoral Life , July-August 1966.

[5] Ansley Coale. “Increases in Expectation of Life and Population Growth.” In Louis Henry and Wilhelm Winkler (editors), Proceedings of the International Population Conference (Vienna, Austria), page 36.

[6] Jean-Michel Cousteau, quoted in Richard L. Hill. “Explorer Finds No. 1 Threat in a Word: Overpopulation.” The Oregonian , October 8, 1992, page B1.

[7] Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, quoted in Charles Oliver. “Liberation Zoology.” Reason Magazine, June 1990, pages 22 to 27.

[8] Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoted in Richard Hertz. Chance and Symbol . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Page 107.

[9] David M. Graber quoting Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature in the Los Angeles Times book review, as printed in the Orange County (California) Register , October 28, 1990.

[10] Les U. Knight of VHEMT, quoted in Joel Dippold. “Live Well and Die.” The Portland [Oregon] Alliance , March 1991, page 5. See also “That’s Outrageous!, A Compilation: The Dodo Solution.” Reader’s Digest , April 1992, page 147.

[11] Proletarian Revolution , Fall 1989.

[12] Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, quoted in Eugene E. Russell. Webster’s New World Dictionary of Quotable Definitions (2nd Edition). New York: Prentice-Hall, 1988. 674 pages, $15.95.

[13] Ingrid Newkirk, Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Quoted by Charles Oliver. “Liberation Zoology.” Reason Magazine, June 1990, pages 22 to 27

[14] “U.S. Presents Views on Population Growth and Economic Development.” The Department of State Bulletin , January 31, 1966, page 176.

[15] John Donne, quoted in Joseph R. Stanton, M.D. “From Feticide to Infanticide.” The Human Life Review , Summer 1982, page 44.

[16] Garrett Hardin. “Everybody’s Guilty: The Ecological Dilemma.” California Medicine , November 1970, pages 42 and 45 to 46.

[17] “Family Planning Gets “Stamp of Approval” From U.S. Postal Service.” Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood newsletter, February-March 1972, page 4.

[18] Undated form letter and attachment entitled “Criteria for Identifying Pronatalism in Books” to volunteers from the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, signed by Gail McKirdy, “Resource Director.”

[19] “Pronatalism: A “Hidden Persuader” Limits Personal Rights.” (3rd edition). 4-page brochure distributed by the National Association for Optional Parenthood, publication number A-4, 1979.

[20] Dr. Charles Ravenholt, Director, Population Office. Quoted in “Population Control of Third World Planned: Sterilization Storm in U.S. Dublin, Ireland Evening Press , May 12, 1979, page 9.

[21] Lynn Phillips. Everywoman . January 22, 1971, pages 17 and 18. Reprinted from the December 14, 1970 Liberated Guardian .

[22] United Nations Population Fund. Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries Around the World, 1987-1988 (15th Edition). May 1989. Also described in The Wanderer , January 25, 1990, page 2.

[23] Mahatma Gandhi, in a letter to N.S. Phadke, Esq., The Honourable Secretary, The Bombay Birth Control League, dated March 20, 1924. Quoted in Father A.S. Antonisamy. Wisdom for All Times: Mahatma Gandhi and Pope Paul VI on Birth Regulation . Family Life Service Centre, Archbishop’s House, Pondicherry 605001 India. June 1978. Quotes are taken from D.G. Tendulkar (Editor). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi , Volumes 2 and 4. Published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

[24] President Eisenhower’s Friday press conference of November 27, 1959, on American foreign aid for population control. Quoted in TRB. “Population Control.” The New Republic April 18, 1981, page 4. Also see Allan C. Carlson. “Must Our Children Be Our Enemy?” The Human Life Review , Spring 1984, pages 16 to 28.

[25] Janie Hampton. “Women at U.N. Conference Stage Heated Fight Over Abortion.” The Oregonian , July 21, 1985.

[26] K. Agnes White. “When is a Decision a Choice?” The Portland [Oregon] Alliance . April 1989, page 10.

[27] Stephen Minkin. “Nine Thai Women Had Cancer ... None of Them Took Depo-Provera: Therefore, Depo-Provera is Safe. This is Science?” Mother Jones , November 1981, pages 34 to 39.

[28] Lawrence Lader, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Quoted in Samuel L. Blumenfeld. The Retreat From Motherhood . New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House. 1975, 222 pages, hardback $7.95. Page 37.

[29] Larry Lader. “The Abortion Revolution.” The Humanist , May/June 1973, page 4.

[30] James L. Buckley. “Sound Doctrine Revisited.” Human Life Review , Summer 1985, page 85.

[31] Emily C. Moore, Ph.D. “The Major Issues and the Argumentation in the Abortion Debate.” Pages 33 to 43. In a looseleaf booklet entitled “Organizing for Action.” Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. 51 pages, no date.

[32] Robert H. Williams, M.D. “Numbers, Types and Duration of Human Lives.” Northwest Medicine , July 1970, pages 493 to 496. [33] French Social Affairs Minister Jacques Solideau, quoted in “In Defense of Population Growth.” The New Scientist , September 8, 1984.

==========================================