Report: Anti-Life Organizations

in American Pro-Life Encyclopedia

CHAPTER 37. THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: ANTI-LIFE LEGAL SHOCK TROOPS

CHAPTER 64. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: THE WORLD’S PREMIER ANTI-LIFE ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER 108. THE HEMLOCK SOCIETY: VANGUARD FOR EUTHANASIA ON DEMAND

CHAPTER 112. EUTHANASIA MOVEMENT: DEADLY ECHO OF THE ABORTION MOVEMENT

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

CHAPTER 37. THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: ANTI-LIFE LEGAL SHOCK TROOPS

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”-- Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The American Civil Liberties Union accurately portrays itself as the “Guardian of the Bill of Rights,” and is the foremost defender of our individual freedoms.

The ACLU’s paramount interest is free speech, and it will defend the right of anyone to speak in public on any topic whatever from any viewpoint at all. After all, if unpopular speech is censored today, popular speech will be banned tomorrow.

The ACLU’s Number One Priority: Abortion!

“We are the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American First Amendment Union.”-- ACLU President Norman Dorsen.[2]

Deceptive Rhetoric.

The American Civil Liberties Union has cloaked itself in the red, white, and blue trappings of the First Amendment for decades. The general public impression fostered by the group is that its first and foremost mission is the defense of free speech.

However, the number one priority of the ACLU is certainly not free speech! Consider the following quote from the pamphlet entitled “The ACLU’s Campaign for Choice;” “The American Civil Liberties Union has made the right to choose its number one national priority. The ACLU’s legal victories helped establish the right to choose, and we have no intention of seeing that right weakened or destroyed. We are challenging the Hyde Amendment in federal court, lobbying for new laws requiring states to pay for abortions for poor women, and fighting against the call for a Constitutional convention in every state legislature.”

This one paragraph says it all. The ACLU (often called the “American Child Liquidation Union” by pro-lifers) was one of the leading forces that enshrined abortion in our culture. It demands that everyone pay for abortions with their tax dollars and is even trying to obstruct the wishes of the people by attempting to disable the processes of the state legislatures in trying to curtail abortion in any manner whatever!

The ACLU’s Meddling Zealotry.

Introduction.

The ACLU claims to represent the rights of every group and individual equally. However, its actions depart dramatically from its rhetoric.

The ACLU instantly leaps to the defense of sodomites, pornographers, and Nazis, but comes down very hard on Christians, homeschoolers, and pro- life activists.

In particular, the ACLU’s legal stormtroopers demand that there be no dignity or status whatever conferred upon preborn children, as demonstrated by the actions described in the following paragraphs.

8-1/2 Month “Blobs.”

A car carrying Janet Johnson, 8-1/2 months pregnant, was struck by a drunken driver in Minnesota in 1985. Her baby, just days from being born, was killed. Incredibly, the ACLU took the side of the drunk driver and argued before the state Supreme Court that the driver was guilty of no crime, since he didn’t injure anyone. The Court agreed, and the Johnsons couldn’t recover a penny of damages.[3]

Interestingly, in June of 1977, the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU auctioned an abortion for $30, a divorce for $19, and a DUI defense for $10.[4]

No Upper Limits on Abortion.

In 1985, a number of prominent abortion supporters, including Dr. Philip Stubblefield, past president of the National Abortion Federation, suggested lowering the upper limit on abortions to 22 weeks for the purpose of improving their public relations image. But Stubblefield was shouted down when he formally presented this proposal. Abortion lawyer Janet Benshoof of the American Civil Liberties Union demanded no upper gestational age limit, stating as fact that abortion on demand “... is a precondition for all other legal and constitutional guarantees of women’s equality.”[5]

Dead Babies = Trash.

When 16,000 aborted preborn babies were found stuffed into a storage container behind a California pathologist’s house, local pro-lifers arranged to have a funeral service for them. However, the Federation of Feminist Women’s Health Centers and the ACLU filed suit to stop the burial, because the ACLU claimed that the babies were only “unwanted biological tissue,” and such burial would, of course, “violate the separation of Church and State.”[6]

Some of the babies were as large as 4 pounds. This incident shows that pro-abortionists must deny even a decent burial to their victims in order to make certain that the babies’ humanity is concealed from the public.

Shoot Those Pregnant Women!

In January of 1991, the Utah state legislature passed a law that merely made it easier for women who had been injured by abortions to file civil suits against their abortionists. The legislature specifically wrote into the law that women would be totally free of any penalties whatsoever for obtaining any abortions -- legal or illegal.

In response to the passage of this law, the ACLU took out a hysterical full-page advertisement in the March 25, 1991 New York Times that was headlined;

“IN UTAH, THEY KNOW HOW TO PUNISH A WOMAN WHO HAS AN ABORTION. THEY SHOOT HER.”[7]

This action proved to the satisfaction of most observers the pro-life allegation that the ACLU does not care about women -- or the truth. It wants only to insure the preservation of an absolute right to abortion, and will resort to any trickery to achieve its objectives.

The ACLU’s Official Policy Statements.

The ACLU’s Policy Guide.

In 1988, the American Civil Liberties Union issued for public purchase its 576-page official Policy Guide .

Since the positions of the radical Left and the ACLU are virtually synonymous, a conservative activist need merely glance through this massive volume to determine exactly where the extreme Left Wing stands on literally any issue.

The ACLU embraces the complete Neoliberal spectrum. Not a single one of the more than 300 “Policy Statements” issued in the Policy Guide is conservative in philosophy. In summary, the ACLU demands;

· legalization of abortion to the day of birth, with no parental interference, and complete state funding for the indigent;

· legalization of all drugs, including marijuana and the “hard” drugs, like ‘crack’ and PCP;

· legalization of all sexual perversions, including sodomy, bestiality, and necrophilia;

· legalization of all pornography, including “kiddie porn;”

· legalization of all prostitution, even homosexual and child prostitution; and

· immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Figure 37-1 is a summary of just a few of the more than 300 major points outlined in the ACLU’s Policy Guide .

FIGURE 37-1 OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

ACLU Policy No.	Official Statement of Policy
4:	The ACLU supports the legalization of all pornography, including “kiddie porn.”
18:	The ACLU supports ending the private rating system of movies.
47:	Despite the very clear language of the Second Amendment, the ACLU claims, in its best blind fashion, that “the possession of weapons by individuals is not Constitutionally protected.”
62:	The ACLU demands that parents should have no role whatever in their children’s education. This means that parents would be legally liable to sanctionsfor even attempting to take some control over how their children are educated. The ACLU, of course, virulently opposes all home schooling.
75:	The ACLU opposes the school tuition voucher system, because it takes too much control away from the Humanistic school system and puts it in the hands of parents.
76:	The ACLU denies that school officials may search school lockers for drugs, even for probable cause.
78:	The ACLU states school libraries may give any material to children, including hard-core pornography. Parents should have no input on this matter.
81:	The ACLU supports a total ban on Nativity scene displays on public property, but supports the display of Menorahs.
84:	The ACLU demands that the words “under God” be removed from Pledge of Allegiance.
88:	The ACLU demands that the military chaplain system be scrapped.
92:	The ACLU urges an end to all church tax exemptions as a “clear and flagrant breach” of the First Amendment.
120:	The ACLU supports making all branches of the Armed Forces completely sex-neutral. All women should be in all branches and treated in exactly the same manner as men, even in combat.
210:	The ACLU calls for total legalization of all narcotics and dangerous drugs, including rock cocaine and PCP (“angel dust”).
211:	The ACLU states that all prostitution should be legalized.
216:	The ACLU opposes laws that prohibit public drunkenness.
239:	The ACLU opposes the death penalty for any reason whatever, even for repeated offenses by mass murderers.
242:	The ACLU demands that all criminals except those guilty of murder should be given a suspended sentence and sent back to the community. Convicted rapists, child molesters, robbers, and burglars should live in our communities.
263:	The ACLU supports all abortions through all nine months of pregnancy and states that all abortions should be paid for by the taxpayer.
264:	The ACLU thinks that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, become foster parents, and engage in street prostitution.
268:	The ACLU opposes compulsory AIDS contact testing.
306:	The ACLU supports Equal Opportunity “numerical remedies” (i.e., enforced quotas).
314:	The ACLU endorses the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
315:	The ACLU supports “comparable worth.” It also supports tax-supported day-care centers for working mothers only: such benefits for homemakers and church-based day care centers are specifically excluded.
318:	The ACLU opposes policies that require able-bodied adults to work as a condition for receiving welfare.

Reference: The American Civil Liberties Union’s 1988 Policy Guide .

The Inescapable Conclusion.

Note very carefully that every one of the ACLU Policies is designed to weaken the fabric of our society. The aggregate effect of all of the ACLU Policies would give the individual unlimited power to do anything he or she wanted -- in other words, unlimited freedom for all people to abuse or dominate those weaker than themselves. And this, of course, leads to anarchy and destruction of the society.

The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated that “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”[1]

The ACLU is fulfilling its founder’s stated mission admirably.

It is no coincidence that the ACLU has simply elaborated on Lenin’s famed “Ten Rules for Revolution.” Its official policies are merely a detailed action guide based upon Lenin’s teachings.

What the ACLU really wants, or course, is the ‘individuation’ of religion, where people may hold personal religious viewpoints and stay at home or in their churches and pray, but are prohibited, both legally and societally, from joining with others in attempts to make those viewpoints public policy.

For a revealing examination of the parallels between the goals of the ACLU and of Communism, read Chapter 95 in Volume III, “Lenin’s Rules for Revolution.”

The ACLU’s Ultimate Weapon.

“America needs a civil liberties union. It no longer has one. I still make my contribution because the ACLU still does some good, but if things don’t change, it could become an enemy of free speech.”-- 25-year ACLU member Professor Alan Dershowitz.[2]

No Consistency Here!

The Neoliberals have found a very powerful and faithful ally in the nation’s court system. Since the public at large resists the Neoliberal agenda, and the state legislatures usually can’t be depended upon to implement it to an effective degree, the ACLU uses the court system to force its radical worldview on all of us. The classic example, of course, is abortion. But the ACLU is also diligently pushing homosexual “rights,” euthanasia, and a host of other extreme views upon society through the courts.

The favorite tactic of the ACLU is to file lawsuits against anyone or any organization that does not bow and scrape to their atheistic views. Not surprisingly, the ACLU will go to any extremes to achieve its objectives.

This naturally leads to glaring philosophical inconsistencies, as outlined in the following paragraphs.

The Walter Polovchak Case.

The American Civil Liberties Union is the most inconsistent gang of cutthroats imaginable. Just ask Walter Polovchak.

Walter was a Russian boy who had lived in the United States for several years and did not want to be forced to return to the Soviet Union. He pleaded with a Federal court to allow him to stay in this country until he was 18 years old and could make his own decision regarding this matter. The boy obviously knew all too well that he was facing a one-way trip to a vast prison whose gate only swings one way.

The ACLU immediately jumped into the fray and attacked the boy’s position in court, stating that “a minor child of tender years does not have the right to control his own destiny.”[8] The ACLU poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the effort to pry the boy away from the United States, but, just as it was about to succeed, Polovchak turned 18, and stayed in the U.S. -- much to the chagrin of the ACLU.

Why does this case demonstrate inconsistency? Because the ACLU stridently opposes any and all parental consent laws for abortion on the ground that even ten-year old girls “... are mature enough to control their own reproductive destinies.”

Henry Polovchak’s attorney, Henry Mark Holzer, summed up the situation when he claimed that “It still strikes me as strange. The ACLU has a children’s rights project. Their attorneys argue that teenage girls are competent to have an abortion without parental consent, but a teenage boy can’t choose the United States over a totalitarian state. The only answer that makes sense is that their decisions aren’t based on civil liberties but liberal politics. The ACLU likes abortion, and it likes the Soviet Union.”[2]

The Rescuers and the Black Man.

The ACLU is at its inconsistent worst when it responds to injustice heaped upon individuals. The organization’s reaction is based solely upon the political correctness of the victim’s views.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this inconsistency was recently provided by the Los Angeles ACLU. The organization was totally silent while scores of pro-life rescuers were beaten and injured by Los Angeles police, but it exploded in outrage when the same type of treatment was administered to a single Black man by the same police department.

On March 25, 1989, pro-life rescuers were bound and lifted by Los Angeles police, who jammed their fingers up rescuers’ nostrils and into their eye sockets. The pro-lifers were dragged by their hair and ears, and mounted police horses “accidentally” and repeatedly stepped on them. Police stood on rescuers’ backs and repeatedly slammed their faces into the concrete pavement. At least seven people suffered severe injuries, including broken bones.[9]

Police sexually molested numerous women and strip-searched them in a mocking, exaggerated, and sexually explicit manner. One wave of police would move in and savagely beat rescuers, and retreat, then a second wave would go in and make arrests.

A total of 600 injuries were reported out of a total of 1,100 arrests in two days.

The response of the Los Angeles ACLU? Dead silence, despite the organization being provided with evidence of police brutality by pro-lifers.

By comparison, the ACLU went positively ballistic when a single Black man was beaten by the same Los Angeles cops after being stopped for speeding on March 3, 1991. The organization took out a full-page, $35,000 ad in the March 12 Los Angeles Times showing a brutal-looking policeman wielding a baton with the headline, “WHO DO YOU CALL WHEN THE GANG WEARS BLUE UNIFORMS?” Below was a demand for the immediate resignation of Police Chief Daryl Gates.[10]

One would think that an organization that claims to be a champion of a neutral right such as the right not to be beaten up by cops for a minor infraction would be equally concerned regardless of the skin color or belief system of the victim. This would be a consistent position. But the glaring inconsistencies in ACLU response show it to be yet another garden-variety left-wing pressure group, whose degree of response to injustice is based solely upon the political correctness of the victims.

Print This -- Or Else!

The ACLU not only wants pro-lifers to shut up, they want pro-lifers to approve of the abortionists, baby-killing. This is central to the anti-life mentality: it is not enough to reduce your opponent to sullen, glowering disapproval -- he must enthusiastically applaud your immoral activities!

In early 1990, a Vermont Catholic couple who ran a private printing press, Regal Art Press, refused to print membership forms for the state chapter of ‘Catholics’ for a Free Choice (CFFC). Chuck and Susan Baker said that they refused because CFFC consistently lies about Catholic teachings on abortion.[11]

Linda Paquette, a member of Vermont CFFC (VCFC), sniveled that she was “bewildered” by the Bakers’ refusal, since VCFC “promotes freedom of conscience” and “tolerance.”[12]

Paquette could easily have taken her business to any other printer, but she had to punish the Bakers because they were pro-life. Hypocritically ignoring the Bakers’ “freedom of conscience,” Paquette, showing a complete lack of “tolerance,” complained to the Vermont Human Rights Commission, which threatened the Bakers with a $10,000 fine and a lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages.

The charge? “Religious discrimination!” The Commission Investigative Report of July 11, 1990 found that businesses “... cannot deny services to individuals based on religious doctrine ... even if the result has the effect of curtailing the ... free exercise of the owner’s religious beliefs.”[12]

Perhaps most incredibly, the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to prosecute the Bakers for exercising their ‘freedom to choose!’

Note that this couple run a private printing press. They receive no government money, and are not a tax-deductible charity. In other words, they are a private small business -- but they are being forced to print material that violates their religious beliefs!

This idiocy leads one to speculate as to what action the American Civil Liberties Union would take if a Jewish printer refused to print flyers for the White Aryan Resistance or for any other overtly racist group.

The answer to this question should be obvious.

John Birchers Under Pressure. As a final example of inconsistency, the ACLU brought suit in the mid-1960s to have the membership lists of the John Birch Society made public, because, as it claimed, “the public has a right to know.” Yet the ACLU has repeatedly refused to disclose its own 250,000-member list, claiming that its people had the right to be preserved from prying eyes. This is yet another example of the liberal double standard.

Let ‘Em Flunk.

Any ACLU staffer will tell you that he supports the rights of minorities.

But apparently the ACLU doesn’t believe its own rhetoric when it comes to helping out minorities who just need a little boost to make it in society on their own terms.

In Detroit, the dropout rate for inner-city Black boys was 54 percent, and the rate for Black girls was less than half that. Therefore, Detroit’s board of education set up three special schools for ghetto boys to help equip them with the tools and social skills necessary to get out of their situation and better their lives.

But the Neoliberals apparently didn’t like that idea. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the American Civil Liberties Union immediately sued and won an injunction against the program in Federal Court, and the City of Detroit, unwilling to spend more than a million dollars in its own defense, closed down the schools.

The NOW and ACLU never once set foot in the afflicted neighborhoods to talk with the parents of the boys who would have benefitted from the program or to see what the disastrous results of their social tinkering were. After the judge handed down his decision, 300 parents protested outside the courthouse. One mother said, “If you have money you can go to whatever kind of school you want. But the average Black guy can’t go to special schools.”[13]

Other ACLU Silliness.

Introduction.

One would think that the ACLU would have better things to do with its time than try to stamp out every vestige of religion in the public arena. After all, it was believers that made this country great -- not a motley gaggle of sex perverts, pornographers, abortionists, and flag burners.

They Will Overcome.

The ACLU filed suit against Bernalillo County, New Mexico, to have the cross and Spanish words Con Esta Vencemos (“With this we overcome”) removed from the county seal. It said that these items, used continuously by the county since 1925, “promote Christianity.”

No Bible Clubs -- Period!

In late 1989, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act of 1984, which held that Bible clubs and other religious clubs had to be admitted to schools as extracurricular activities under the same rules as other clubs.

Despite this final and decisive ruling by the highest court in the land, Ed Doerr of Americans for Religious Liberty urged the ACLU to intimidate schools into locking out Bible clubs by threatening them with lawsuits.[4]

Pro-Homosexual Bigots.

After failing by ballot measure three times, and by legislative action twice, homosexuals in the state of Oregon finally managed to convince their pro-homosexual governor, Neil Goldschmidt, to sign an Executive Order banning job discrimination by the state based on sexual orientation. This bypass procedure forced the views of one man on the entire state. Such blatant disregard for the wishes of the people and the elected legislature spurred the Oregon Citizens Alliance to place on the ballot a measure that would repeal the Order.

The ballot measure passed, and the ACLU immediately challenged it in court. In early 1993, the wishes of the people of Oregon were deemed inferior to those of the ACLU, and the results of the referendum were thrown out.

This demonstrates conclusively that the ACLU couldn’t care less about the will of the people -- and that they scoff at the mechanisms of government that allow the people to have a voice.

ACLU: Pro-Euthanasia.

The ACLU has proven again and again that it is not only pro-abortion, but very much pro- active euthanasia as well. For example, the ACLU’s Colorado Branch intervened in the case of 34-year old quadriplegic Hector Rodas, saying that “... he has the right to receive medicine and medicinal agents that would result in his comfortable and dignified death.”[14] In plain English, the ACLU wanted him to die by lethal injection.

The ACLU vs. Parents.

Ohio’s state House and Senate overwhelmingly passed a parental consent law that was approved by 76 percent of the state’s residents. But the ACLU brought suit on behalf of two (naturally) anonymous teenaged girls, and Federal judge Ann Aldrich threw out the new law.[15] This court action demonstrates yet again that the ACLU has nothing but utter contempt for the will of the people, and will trample such will blindly in its rush towards its own vision of a perfect society. The ACLU’s warped vision of a perfect, Godless society is all that is important to it.

The ACLU Even Opposes Chastity!

In reaction to a California sex education program that emphasizes chastity, the ACLU’s California Legislative Office sent a letter to state legislators that stated, in part; “It is our position that teaching that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools.”[16]

Whenever state governments fund chastity programs, the ACLU immediately sues to have the program thrown out, since teaching chastity is “a violation of the separation of church and state.” It never seems to occur to the ACLU that teaching comprehensive sex education, establishing school-based clinics, and passing out condoms in high schools also violates the separation of church and state -- the ‘church’ in such cases being the self-professed ‘religion’ of Secular Humanism.

Watch Out, Singles!

When the State of Louisiana passed a law that forbade deliberately exposing others to the HIV virus, the ACLU challenged the law on the grounds that it violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.[17]

It apparently does not matter at all to the ACLU that literally hundreds of wives and their children have been killed by bisexual or homosexual husbands who have concealed their HIV status. All that is important to the organization is the safeguarding of an absolute ‘right to privacy,’ which is essential if perverted and anti-life activities such as homosexuality, pornography, abortion and euthanasia are to flourish.

Figure This One Out.

The ACLU wants to make sure that it wipes out any trace of religion -- even if it is the kind that 99.9 percent of the public never sees.

Three miles off the coast of Florida is a submerged statue named the Christ of the Deep, placed in remembrance of those lost at sea. Since the statue is technically within the coastal waters of the United States (and therefore is, by definition, located on Federal property), the Florida ACLU argued that it represents a violation of the separation of Church and State.[18]

What this means is that the ACLU will defend the right of a so-called ‘artist’ to submerge a picture of a Crucifix in his own urine -- but when private people sink a statue of Christ in ocean water, the ACLU goes ballistic.

Go figure.

ACLU: Gestapo in Pinstripes.

The ACLU commonly goes to extreme lengths to smear and discredit any opponent that effectively challenges it. In fact, some of the organization’s tactics are frighteningly reminiscent of the Secret Police that operated behind the Iron Curtain.

Just ask Congressmen Henry J. Hyde about his experience.

After Hyde introduced the amendment that would ban Federal funding of abortions, ACLU agents tailed him constantly for a period of several months. In support of ACLU challenges to the Hyde Amendment, these spies gathered evidence and took pictures showing Hyde attending Catholic Masses, reading Bible passages from the lectern, and even receiving Communion.

The ACLU demanded to read the mail that Hyde received. Although he was in no way required to agree to such a blatant invasion of his privacy, he agreed. ACLU staffers then constructed a large wall chart and checked off the number of times such “offensive passages” as “God bless you” and “Our Lord Jesus Christ” were included in the letters to Hyde.

The ACLU spies accumulated a large pile of evidence and wrote in a voluminous report that Hyde listened to one priest claim during a sermon that “pregnant women and children” bore “gifts of life.” The report also stated that he “prayed frequently.”[4]

All of this ‘evidence’ was used by the ACLU in its attempt to demonstrate that Hyde’s beliefs were destroying his effectiveness as a United States Congressman.[4]

On the basis of this “evidence,” the ACLU filed suit in Federal court alleging that Hyde was a (gasp!) “practicing Catholic” and was, through his Amendment, “... using the fist of government to smash the wall of separation between church and state by imposing a peculiarly religious view of when life begins.”[19] The ACLU squawked in its pamphlet “The ACLU’s Campaign for Choice,” that “The Hyde Amendment forces one religious view of the beginning of life on poor women, a violation of the separation of church and state.”

Naturally, the ACLU was oblivious to the fact that “a peculiarly religious view of when life begins” has already been imposed on this country -- the mistaken view that life begins at birth.

The ACLU’s persecution of Congressman Hyde brings to mind the old question, “If you went on trial tomorrow for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The ACLU found Hyde guilty as charged.

Naturally, if anyone dared to tail and harass a Neoliberal hero, like Edward Kennedy or Henry Waxman, the ACLU would go into a legal frenzy and denounce such tactics as “Fascism,” “McCarthyism,” and “Nazism.”

It is also interesting to speculate about the Neoliberal reaction should a conservative organization begin harassing a liberal Jewish congressman (like sodomite Barney Frank) in a similar manner.

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

[1] Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Quoted in the National Federation for Decency Journal , September 1988. Page 9.

[2] Charles Oliver. “Has the ACLU Sold Out?” Reason Magazine, October 1990, pages 20 to 27.

[3] Leslie Bond. “8-1/2 Month Unborn Child Not a Human Being, Minnesota Supreme Court Rules.” National Right to Life News , December 19, 1985. Page 5.

[4] Tom Hess. “Suddenly It’s Uphill for the ACLU.” Focus on the Family Citizen , August 19, 1991, pages 1 to 5.

[5] Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. “Public Revulsion to Late Abortions Worries Pro-Abortionists.” National Right to Life News , November 21, 1985. Page 9.

[6] Leslie Bond. “16,500 Aborted Babies Buried, But Without Religious Services.” National Right to Life News , September 26, 1985, page 6.

[7] Gail Quinn. “The ACLU and Truth in Abortion Advertising.” The Portland, Oregon Catholic Sentinel . May 31, 1991, page 5.

[8] Alan Dershowitz. “Says ACLU Caters to Lesbians, Abortionists, Communists.” National Federation for Decency Journal , September 1985. Pages 14 and 22.

[9] Stanley Interrante. “Operation Rescue Marked By Massive Arrests and Police Brutality.” The Wanderer , April 13, 1989, pages 1 and 8.

[10] Patricia Edmonds, Knight-Ridder News Service. “Members of Congress Want Federal Probe of LA Police Brutality.” The Oregonian , March 13, 1991, page A13.

[11] Free Speech Advocates fundraising letter of September 1990.

[12] “Pro-Life Printers Wage Battle of Conscience.” Free Speech Advocates newsletter, January 1991, pages 2 and 3.

[13] “NOW Says Never in Detroit.” The Wall Street Journal , November 11, 1991, page A12.

[14] David H. Andrusko. “ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Colorado Quadriplegic Seeking Assisted Suicide.” National Right to Life News , April 30, 1987. Page 8.

[15] “Judge Says State Interest in Children Overrides Parents.” National Federation for Decency Journal , August 1986, page 18.

[16] “ACLU Uses Hyde’s Christianity as Basis for Suit.” National Federation for Decency Journal , August 1986, page 14.

[17] Janet McConnaughey, The Associated Press. “Law Against Passing AIDS Virus Faces Challenge.” The Oregonian , November 18, 1992, page B12.

[18] “This Week.” National Review , June 11, 1990, page 12.

[19] Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund. Education Reporter , October 1988, page 1.

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

CHAPTER 64. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: THE WORLD’S PREMIER ANTI-LIFE ORGANIZATION

“I intend to be out on the front lines of our issues. That is why I’m here ... Right now, we have three clinics in this city and I want ten more. We currently have a small storefront office in central Harlem, and it is my first priority to see if we can transform that into a clinic ... With all her success, my grandmother left some unfinished business, and I intend to finish it.”-- Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger.[1]

Planned Parenthood’s ‘Accomplishments.’

“Planned Parenthood’s love affair with Socialism has become more than a harmless upper middle-class hobby and now borders on the ludicrous.”-- Wall Street Journal editorial, December 19, 1984.

It is impossible to say enough about -- or against -- Planned Parenthood, undoubtedly the most dangerous anti-life organization in the world.

Operating behind the respectable facade of a public service agency, it has expended more than $2,000,000,000 (two billion dollars) of our tax dollars to accomplish the following;

· it commits more abortions per year (130,000+) and refer for more abortions per year (100,000+) than any other organization in the United States;

· it was and is the prime mover for the ‘sexual revolution’ in this and many other countries;

· it has undercut parental rights to an unprecedented degree through the courts, so that now a teenage girl may fornicate, get birth control devices, and obtain unlimited free taxpayer-funded abortions without her parents even knowing;

· it is extending U.S. ‘contraceptive imperialism’ throughout the world, in more than 70 countries, frequently in direct contravention to these countries’ beliefs and traditions;

· it has proudly declared itself in the forefront for abortion ‘rights,’ while shrilly denouncing all who oppose them (even Mother Teresa)!

· it opposes any restrictions on third-trimester abortions, fetal disposal, and any efforts to spare the baby any pain or suffering. For example, PP of Southwestern Indiana fired 18-year Medical Director Dr. Roger Newton when it learned of his support for a bill requiring “humane disposal of fetal remains.” Newton grumbled “Unless you are willing to be absolutely pro-abortion, then evidently you are not welcomed.”[2]

· it proposed making all abortions free (taxpayer funded), and applauds the program of forced abortions in China; and

· it has even proposed a program of involuntary sterilization and forced abortions for implementation in the United States!

The threat posed by Planned Parenthood has been clearly recognized by clear thinkers for decades. Immediately following World War II, General Henry C. Evans sounded the warning;

“The [Planned Parenthood] movement is insidious because its authors are generally respected citizens, leaders in their communities in civil affairs. It is a danger because it advocates breaking the Natural Law and Moral Law. Whenever in history a people have broken such a law, their civilization has perished.

It is hard to convince the advocates of this modern form of race suicide of the error of their ways. Logic does not touch them. Statistics make no impression. These persons give little thought to history or experience. Warnings not to tamper with nature are wasted. They turn a deaf ear to the appeals of religious or moral or spiritual motives.

They call themselves patriotic. Yet they see nothing wrong with a cause that eventually decimates our beloved country. Our returning soldiers, who risked their lives on foreign soil, have a right to object to the suicide of our race, the inevitable result of any further headway made by the Planned Parenthood Movement.”[3]

Planned Parenthood’s Ultimate Goals.

“Increasingly, Planned Parenthood is viewing radical feminists as obstacles, not allies ... the clear thrust of these [Planned Parenthood] policies is to provide contraception and sterilization services, not to further women’s control of their own reproduction, but to halt the population growth of poor nations ... in the first eight months of 1980, Planned Parenthood shipped 15 million packages of contraceptive pills, 300,000 intra-uterine devices, and 2000 sterilization kits to other countries. That sounds like population control, noted Cindy Pearson of the Feminist Women’s Health Center ... Planned Parenthood favors two methods of contraception above all others: sterilization and use of the dangerous hormone-like drug Depo-Provera.”-- The Guardian .[4]

The above list of atrocities committed by Planned Parenthood could be extended endlessly. The ultimate goal of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with a annual worldwide budget of more than $1,000,000,000, is the reduction of God’s gift of sexuality to a mechanical tool of pleasure. PP hopes to separate God and morals totally from this critical function, and would like to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion for everyone in its brave, sterile new world.

As Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger stated, “Our objective is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

Chapters 65 through 68 provide information on Planned Parenthood’s history, including the views of its founder, Margaret Sanger; gives statistics on its United States abortion activities, and lists many quotes by Planned Parenthood spokesmen -- quotes of great use to pro-life debaters, because they paint an accurate picture of PP’s anti-life and anti-God philosophy and goals.

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

[1] Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger, became President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood of New York City in January of 1991. This organization has a budget of $18 million a year and 250 workers. Sanger made the above boast in “Another Sanger Leads Planned Parenthood.” The New York Times , January 23, 1991, page B2.

[2] Frontline Updates. “PPFA Official Fired for Supporting “Humane Disposal” of Aborted Babies.” National Right to Life News , May 16, 1985, page 4.

[3] Brigadier General Henry C. Evans. Shall We Have Children? The Ethical Aspects of the Planned Parenthood Movement . New York: Evars Press, September 1947, page 7.

[4] The Guardian , a New York City left-wing newspaper, April 1981. Quoted in “In Brief.” ALL About Issues , May 1981, page 5.

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

CHAPTER 108. THE HEMLOCK SOCIETY: VANGUARD FOR EUTHANASIA ON DEMAND

“Having to respond to Derek Humphry’s claims of my mother’s ‘mental illness’ is both humiliating and insulting. Anyone who knew Ann Wickett realizes how courageous and sensible she was, and how preposterous such claims are. And no one [knew] better than Humphry himself. Death for Humphry’s Hemlock Society is strictly business, and to him his wife simply became bad business, to be discarded. What he did to my mother disgusts me. To top it off, he had no qualms about printing a eulogy in The New York Times, then later openly admitting its purpose was damage control.”-- Robert W. Stone, Ann Wickett Humphry’s son.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The Hemlock Society and other “Right to Die” organizations are fighting for the most basic rights of all people. After all, if you have no control over how you will die, life itself has little meaning. The Hemlock Society is a champion of the idea that we should all have the Constitutional right to control our own bodies.

The Fractured History of the Hemlock Society.

The End and the Beginning.

Derek Humphry, a British journalist, was in a difficult situation in early 1975. His wife Jean was suffering from the agony of incurable bone cancer, and he could not bear to see her in such pain. So, after much discussion between them, he handed her a cup of coffee loaded with barbiturates and pain killers. She drank this concoction and died.

Less than a year after Jean died, Humphry married American Ann Wickett. With her help, he wrote the book Jean’s Way , published in 1978, that described the ordeal he shared with his first wife. With media attitudes toward euthanasia being as favorable as they were, the book was soon made into a television movie and a stage play entitled Is This the Day? , the last words Jean Humphry allegedly spoke before she killed herself.

Laying the Foundation.

In 1980, Humphry moved to Los Angeles, where he founded the Hemlock Society, aptly named after the cup of poisonous herbs that the Greek philosopher Socrates was forced to drink by his Athenian enemies (it is significant that Socrates was the victim of involuntary “euthanasia”). Humphry also founded a pro-euthanasia political group named Americans Against Human Suffering to promote the legalization and social acceptance of assisted suicide.

The Deaths of Ann’s Parents.

In 1986, Ann Wickett Humphry’s parents took their own lives, assisted by her and Derek Humphry. The Humphrys illegally impersonated doctors in order to obtain lethal doses of Vesparex, a powerful barbiturate. They then mixed the crushed tablets into applesauce and ice cream. Ann spoon-fed her mother the deadly ice cream, and Derek watched her father feed himself the applesauce. Both of Ann’s parents died minutes later.[2] Technically, Derek Humphry assisted in a suicide while his wife actually committed homicide.

In direct contradiction to their philosophy that assisted suicide is a paramount personal right, the Humphrys realized that they had done something very wrong and desperately tried to cover up the evidence. Ann put the dishes in the dishwasher and buried her handbag (containing the unused Vesparex) in the garbage. The Humphrys also destroyed any other evidence of their participation in the deaths, including all correspondence between themselves and Ann’s parents regarding assisted suicide. To top it all off, Ann told the coroner that her sister was their parent’s primary caregiver, thereby attempting to implicate her in the deaths![2]

Following her husband’s lead, Ann Humphry soon authored a book about her parent’s death entitled Double Exit (perhaps the title was in deference to Britain’s Exit Society, another “Right-to-Die group).

Ann’s Turn.

In September of 1989 Ann Humphry was diagnosed with breast cancer. Derek Humphry, the leader of the “compassionate” Hemlock Society, responded to this situation by labeling her a mental incompetent and then dumping her.

Robert W. Stone, Ann Humphry’s son, defended her and revealed some of the inner machinations of the Hemlock Society when he wrote that “Having to respond to Derek Humphry’s claims of my mother’s ‘mental illness’ is both humiliating and insulting. Anyone who knew Ann Wickett realizes how courageous and sensible she was, and how preposterous such claims are. And no one better than Humphry himself. Death for Humphry’s Hemlock Society is strictly business, and to him his wife simply became bad business, to be discarded. What he did to my mother disgusts me. To top it off, he had no qualms about printing a eulogy in The New York Times, then later openly admitting its purpose was damage control.”[1]

She then publicly charged him with gross hypocrisy. Where was the caring, nurturing attitude so prevalent in Hemlock Society literature? Ann said that “I am an embarrassment to them. I was dumb enough to get cancer.”[2]

Eventually, Ann Humphry rode her horse into a remote Oregon wilderness and killed herself.

The Hemlock Society’s Assisted Suicide.

Ann Humphry charged that the Society had become a “parasitic organism,” taking dues from tens of thousands of members and returning very little (Derek Humphry’s salary was at least $65,000, not counting travel expenses and many other perquisites).[2] Additionally, Humphry retained full control of Hemlock Society finances, and authorized illegal transfers of Society money to non-tax exempt satellite organizations like Americans Against Human Suffering.

The Hemlock Society Today.

Although it does not flatly say so, the Hemlock Society has, as its ultimate objective, the enshrining of euthanasia on demand in this country in the same manner that abortion on demand is now so honored. This goal is frequently enunciated at Hemlock Society conferences and meetings.

For example, Dutch euthanasia doctor Julius Hackethal presented a talk at the Second National Voluntary Euthanasia Conference of the Hemlock Society, in which he confidently predicted that “Your [Hemlock Society] congress will help that the self-evident human rights for a dignified death will become a fixed and steady law all over the world. Such a vested human right would automatically cause that everybody would be able to determine for himself at what time and in which way he wants to die.”[3]

As Derek Humphry has made perfectly clear, the Society intends to use the virtually infallible strategy of gradualism to achieve its ultimate goal. First the euthanasiasts pushed for the Living Will, and then the durable power of attorney. Then it was doctor-assisted suicide, and finally it will be euthanasia on demand.

For more detailed information on this general strategy and how it precisely follows the pro-abortion strategy, see Chapter 112, “Objectives of the Euthanasia Movement.”

In aid of its goals, the Hemlock Society and its members actively counsel people to take their own lives. Their purpose in doing so is not only to relieve the suffering of individuals; they assume (correctly) that widespread flouting of the law is a powerful propaganda tool. After all, if the law is widely ignored, why retain the law? It’s outmoded and antiquated, after all, and society has matured beyond such meaningless restraints.

Does all of this sound familiar?

If it doesn’t, it certainly should!

Today’s Hemlock Society.

Although the Internal Revenue Service seems to have taken an interest in Hemlock Society finances, the Society continues its fight for euthanasia on demand on several fronts. It has found that the Pacific Northwest is fertile ground for its ideas.

The Hemlock Society publishes a book entitled Compassionate Crimes, Broken Taboos , which is a detailed anthology of mercy killings and assisted suicides.[2] The Society likes to joke that libraries have a real problem in getting people to return this book (after all, dead people don’t worry about nickel-a-day fines).

Disturbingly, the Hemlock Society has recently experienced a large influx of new members, notably many AIDS sufferers. If American society continues to follow the utilitarian Hemlock lead, we may soon find a cheap, easy, and efficient way to avoid the expense of caring for all of these stigmatized “AIDS people.”

Even more unsettling is the fact that the “Right to Die” movement is spreading all over the world. Derek Humphry was recently elected president of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, which has half a million members in 17 countries. Some of these organizations are listed in Chapter 112, “Objectives of the Euthanasia Movement.”

Revisiting the Crime?

The entire sequence of events in Humphry’s life is most peculiar, but at the same time most familiar. Instead of attempting to legalize euthanasia and then killing someone, he reversed the order by killing his first wife and then attempting to legalize euthanasia. He then reinforced this behavior by assisting his second wife in the 1986 killing of her parents.

The role of guilt in such activities is clear. Humphry regularly boasts about how “caring” and “compassionate” he was in killing his first wife. He has never repented of this crime, so he is attempting to force society to approve of his crime -- albeit in a belated fashion -- by legalizing what he has done.

This drive to assuage guilt instead of repenting is typical among those who adhere to the anti-life mentality, as described in Chapter 2 of Volume I. Homosexuals, pornographers, and pro-abortionists band together and attempt to legalize their behavior, as do prostitutes and the users of illegal drugs. The examples of this kind of behavior are countless, and they are all damaging to the fragile fabric of society.

Hemlock’s Fishy Survey.

Propaganda Tools.

Anti-life groups commonly use doctored or entirely phony surveys of public or professional opinion to bolster their viewpoints. They point at the “results” of their survey(s) and say that, since they are in the majority, then everyone else must fall into lockstep behind them.

Not surprisingly, they refuse to allow anyone to examine their methodology or the actual survey results, purportedly for unspecified “legal reasons” or “to protect the privacy of their respondents.”

Failed California Initiative.

In 1988, the Hemlock Society pushed hard to get an initiative ballot on the California election slate that would have legalized assisted suicide. The initiative failed to gather enough signatures, primarily due to the strong opposition of the California Medical Association and the Catholic Church.

The 1988 Hemlock survey of California doctors was apparently performed in support of this initiative ballot. The idea of the survey was to “show” that most doctors killed their patients anyhow, so it must be all right.

After allegedly receiving input from hundreds of doctors, the Hemlock Society summarized its responses and then burned them “on advice of legal counsel” so that the numbers could not be crosschecked.[4]

The Hemlock Society “found” that;

· 79 percent of California doctors had killed a patient that had asked to die. Of these ‘doctors,’ 84 percent thought that they did the right thing, and 13 percent had killed at least three persons;

· 68 percent of all California doctors favored a relaxation of existing euthanasia laws; and

· 51 percent of all California doctors said that they would practice euthanasia if it were legal.

One of the indicators that this was a bogus survey is the conflict between the first and third results as tallied above. If 79 percent of all California doctors had already killed at least one person when euthanasia was still illegal , does it make any sense that only 51 percent would practice euthanasia if it were legal -- a drop of 28 percent?

A “Doctor” With an Attitude.

Public and Private Objectives.

The Hemlock Society has, as its ultimate objective, the legalization of euthanasia on demand. Under such laws, anyone of any age could enter a euthanasia clinic and, after perfunctory “counseling” (of the same type women currently receive in abortion clinics), “end it all” for a modest fee.

However, the Society cannot state this goal publicly because it is too radical for the general public -- at least for now . The Society officially insists that all it wants is perhaps the Living Will here, the withdrawal of nutrition there, and perhaps at the most “assisted suicide” for those in the last months of life. As Derek Humphry himself has said, “We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this; we have to go stage by stage. Your side would call that the ‘slippery slope.’”[5]

An Honest Killer.

At least one Hemlock member seems to have thrown off the shackles of conventional tactics and has spoken his mind freely. He is a retired pathologist, Jack (“The Dripper”) Kevorkian.

After he helped fellow Hemlock member Janet Adkins kill herself in 1990, he said that “Religious dogma has become part of the marrow of humanity. We can’t get rid of it. There should be absolutely no connection between medicine and religion, but there is, and it’s paralyzing ... Religion has fouled up medicine for centuries.”[6]

Kevorkian is right, of course; religion has “fouled up” his brand of medicine ever since it was first practiced -- the kind of “medicine” where “doctors” expose newborns, kill preborn babies, let people starve to death, and commit murder and assisted suicide.

Kevorkian says that he wants to set up a chain of “obitoriums” or euthanasia clinics for people who wanted to commit suicide. He says “Let me put together a small [euthanasia] team called the Untouchables. I guarantee, under my supervision, it would be incorruptible.”[7]

Kevorkian describes himself as an “obitiatrist,” or ‘death doctor,’ and has advocated everything from involuntary medical experimentation on death-row inmates to chains of non-profit suicide clinics. His motto: “A rational policy of planned death.”[7]

Interestingly, Kevorkian’s business card reads:

Jack Kevorkian, M.D.
Bioethics and Obitiatry
Special death counseling
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY

The Obvious Conclusion.

What is really interesting about Kevorkian’s assisted “kill” of Adkins is the reaction of the Hemlock Society to it. Instead of publicly disavowing Adkin’s death, Society members revealed their true objectives by embracing it. Janet Good, president of the Michigan chapter of the Hemlock Society, enthused that “He’s [Kevorkian] compassionate, he’s courageous; thank God we have a doctor like him. He’s done a great service.” After Kevorkian helped Susan Williams kill herself on May 15, 1992, Good also announced that “Hemlock has prospered and grown because of him.”[8]

Jack Kevorkian has indeed done all of us a great service. He has shown us precisely what the Hemlock Society ultimately wants: Euthanasia on demand, the establishing of a chain of euthanasia clinics (“obitoriums”), and a corps of “doctors” willing to kill for a living. The abortionists will finally have company

If American society chooses to ignore this clear warning, as it has ignored so many other warnings, then it deserves everything -- yes, everything --it gets.

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

[1] Robert W. Stone, son of Ann Wickett Humphry, in a letter to Vanity Fair , March 1992.

[2] Thomas W. Case. “A Requiem for the Hemlock Society.” Fidelity Magazine, June 1990. Pages 24 to 32.

[3] From the transcript of a speech by Dr. Julius Hackethal entitled “Medical Help By Suicide -- As a Method of Voluntary Euthanasia,” presented at the Second National Voluntary Euthanasia Conference of the Hemlock Society on February 9th, 1985, in Los Angeles, California.

[4] Leslie Bond. “Hemlock Society Burns Responses to Euthanasia Survey.” National Right to Life News , March 10, 1988. Page 5.

[5] Derek Humphry, Director, Hemlock Society, in a December 18, 1986 interview.

[6] National Catholic Register , June 24, 1990, page 2.

[7] Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. “Rational Suicides: Urge to Control Death.” The Oregonian , June 17, 1990, page K3.

[8] Janet Good, quoted in Mary Meehan. “Down the Slope.” National Catholic Register , June 7, 1992, pages 1 and 6.

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

CHAPTER 112. EUTHANASIA MOVEMENT: DEADLY ECHO OF THE ABORTION MOVEMENT

“We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this, and of that; we have to go stage by stage. Your side would call that the ‘slippery slope.’”-- Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“My Life Prayer.”

“Oh, for more Quality

and less Quantity in Generation

Oh, for less Suff’ring

and more Wisdom in Termination.”

-- Robert H. Williams, M.D.[2]

All we want is death with dignity for just the hard cases -- the incurable, comatose vegetables. Maintaining these post-humans costs society billions of dollars per year and returns no benefits whatever.

Because we are achieving our goals, those people who oppose the right of people to control their own bodies are constantly spewing inaccurate propaganda about how we will soon have involuntary euthanasia in the United States.

This is obviously a ridiculous argument.

The Ultimate Goal.

Condemned German:

“But we didn’t think it would go that far.”

American judge:

“It went that far the very first time

you condemned an innocent human being.”

-- Conversation in the American motion picture “Judgment at Nuremburg.”[3]

The members of the euthanasia movement, many of whom were leaders in the abortion movement, know the value of incrementalism, as Derek Humphry’s opening quote reveals: They will attain their ultimate goal by taking their time and achieving their intermediate objectives one by one.

It is crucial for anti-euthanasia activists to recognize that precisely the same strategy was used by the pro-abortion movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s as is now being used by pro-euthanasiasts. And their methods were undeniably effective: We now have abortion on demand for any reason in the United States and in most of the world -- and even abortion on command in some nations, including the People’s Republic of China.

Identical Pro-Euthanasia and Pro-Abortion Strategy: General Principles.

“The fundamental question about euthanasia: Whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice, or an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different, this question can now be answered. It is both.”-- Dutch cardiologist Richard Fenigsen.[4]

Figure 112-1 compares the primary strategies employed by both the pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion movements, and Figure 112-2 outlines some of the similarities between the strategies of these movements. Notice that the overall strategy for both movements is identical in its sequence and approach. Notice also that the euthanasia movement trails the abortion movement by about 20 to 25 years. This means that active euthanasia on demand will be a stark and concrete feature of our society by approximately 1997 unless direct and massive action is taken to prevent it.

The quotes by leading euthanasia advocates in Figure 112-3 support the general strategy of the movement as shown in Figure 112-1.

FIGURE 112-1 COMPARISON OF THE OVERALL STRATEGY OF THE PRO-ABORTION AND PRO-EUTHANASIA MOVEMENTS

GENERAL STRATEGY OF THE PRO-ABORTION MOVEMENT
TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:
1960 to 1968	1969 to 1973	1973 to 1993	1985 to date
STATUS: ACHIEVED	STATUS: ACHIEVED	STATUS: ACHIEVED	STATUS: IN PROGRESS
Prepare public; stress individual rights; conceal true objectives of the movement (kill on demand)	Use courts/legislatures to get abortion for the ‘hard cases;’ ignore unfavorable abortion laws	Progressively eliminate all restrictions until abortion on demand is an accepted “right.”	Convince courts and legislatures and then public that compulsory abortion is necessary for the public good
OVERALL STRATEGY OF THE PRO-EUTHANASIA MOVEMENT
TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:	TIME FRAME:
1970 to 1990	1975 to date	1985 to 2000	begin in mid-1990s
STATUS: ACHIEVED	STATUS: IN PROGRESS	STATUS: IN PROGRESS	STATUS: FIRM FUTURE GOAL
Prepare public; stress individual rights; conceal true objectives of the movement (kill on demand)	Use courts/legislatures to get euthanasia for the ‘hard cases;’ ignore unfavorable euthanasia laws	Progressively eliminate all restrictions until euthanasia on demand is an accepted “right.”	Convince courts and legislatures and then public that compulsory euthanasia is necessary for the public good - -

FIGURE 112-2 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PRO-ABORTION AND PRO-EUTHANASIA MOVEMENTS

THE 1970 PRO-ABORTION MOVEMENT	THE 1990 PRO-EUTHANASIA MOVEMENT
THE MOVEMENT’S STATED GOALS
All we want is abortion for just the “hard cases”-- rape and incest. Abortion on demand? Don’t be ridiculous!	All we want is death with dignity for just the “hard cases” -- the incurable comatose vegetables. Euthanasia on demand? Don’t be ridiculous!
THE MOVEMENT’S PRIMARY STRATEGY
The people don’t want it. The legislatures don’t want it. So we’ll go through the courts and the medical community.	The people don’t want it. The legislatures don’t want it. So we’ll go through the courts and the medical community.
THE MOVEMENT’S PRIMARY TACTICS
Emphasize individual rights and control of one’s own body; ridicule the opposition and stereotype it as a tiny minority of religious fanatics; use “feel-good” slogans such as “freedom of choice” to dull public awareness of what is happening; paint abortion “rights” as social progress; eliminate or ignore anti-abortion laws; use the sympathetic media to the fullest possible extent.	Emphasize individual rights and control of one’s own body; ridicule the opposition and stereotype it as a tiny minority of religious fanatics; use “feel-good” slogans such as”freedom of choice” to dull public awareness of what is happening; paint euthanasia “rights” as social progress; eliminate or ignore anti-euthanasia laws; use the sympathetic media to the fullest possible extent.
THE MOVEMENT’S FAVORITE SLOGANS
(1) Women have the right to control their own bodies. (2) Abortion is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. (3) You can’t legislate morality. (4) There is a diversity of opinion on this issue. (5) Don’t let religious fanatics foist their narrow morality off on you.	(1) People have the right to control their own bodies. (2) Euthanasia is a private decision between a person and his doctor. (3) You can’t legislate morality. (4) There is a diversity of opinion on this issue. (5) Don’t let religious fanatics foist their narrow morality off on you.
THE OPPOSITION IS PORTRAYED AS:
Intolerant, judgmental Roman Catholics and fundamentalist bigots who want to cram their morality down our throats	Intolerant, judgmental Roman Catholics and fundamentalist bigots who want to cram their morality down our throats
WHAT’S NEXT?
Voluntary euthanasia	Involuntary euthanasia and genocide
THE CAUSE
Atheism/humanism/modernism	Atheism/humanism/modernism
THE RESULTS
Abortion on demand. State comes have a “compelling interest” in preserving the “Constitutional right to abortion.” Opposition suppressed. Eroding respect for human life.	Euthanasia on demand. State comes have a “compelling interest” in preserving the “Constitutional right to euthanasia.” Opposition suppressed. Eroding respect for human life.

The four steps of the overall pro-euthanasia strategy are shown below. The most important step -- the first -- is described in the following paragraphs.

THE FOUR-STEP PRO-EUTHANASIA STRATEGY

STEP #1: Prepare the public.

A. Use the media.

B. Dehumanize the helpless.

STEP #2: Work through the courts.

Ignore current laws.

STEP #3: Expand to euthanasia on demand.

STEP #4: Compulsory euthanasia.

Emphasize organ harvesting.

FIGURE 112-3 -- QUOTES SUPPORTING THE OUTLINE OF THE FOUR-STEP PRO-EUTHANASIA STRATEGY SHOWN IN FIGURE 112-1

STEP #1: PREPARE THE PUBLIC

“It will probably be many years before we [physicians] in America can bring ourselves to chloroform an idiotic infant or to permit a slowly dying patient to take an overdose of medicine. What we will first have to train ourselves to do will be to leave by the patient’s bed a lethal drug, which he can take some night if he so desires.”-- Walter Alvarez, M.D., 1970.

“It is no good the Voluntary Euthanasia Society saying they only want a very small number of suffering people to be killed, when their own officers who were saying it have demonstrated utterly different intentions. Arthur Kostler killing his young wife to spare her the grief of being bereft of him. Nicholas Reed giving to Mark Lyons the address of a lady for him to kill who had only a depression and no other reason to wish to die. The euthanasia societies producing a suicide how-to-do-it booklet whose circulation they obviously could not control and which was used by a desperate teenager in Claridges ...”-- Richard Lamerton, Medical Director of the Hospice of the Marches, Hereford and Cheltenham, England. “Euthanasia Threat to Old People.” Friends of Humanity Backgrounder [England], Dec. 1987, page 4.

STEP #2: WORK THROUGH THE COURTS AND IGNORE CURRENT LAWS

“We now “let go” of some babies, notwithstanding the rules against euthanasia. But we do not announce this to the world. Such practice allows the actors to hide from themselves the fact that they have changed or departed from the rule while announcing their strict adherence to the absolute rule of sanctity of life in all cases.”-- Attorney F. Raymond Marks, euthanasia conference participant, quoted in Victor G. Rosenblum and Michael L. Budde. “Historical and Cultural Considerations of Infanticide.” National Right to Life News, April 11, 1985, page 11.

“I have yet to hear of a set of guidelines for euthanasia which would not lead to terrible abuses even in the opinion of those physicians who are sometimes willing to practice it. Inevitably, this form of “therapy” would spread to situations in which at present it would be unthinkable.”-- Jonathan H. Pincus, M.D., Yale University.

STEP #3: EXPAND TO EUTHANASIA ON DEMAND

“If we may terminate the lives of cancer victims, why not extend the same “mercy” to those slowly dying from debilitating diseases or cardiovascular disorders? If lack of brain function is accepted as a criterion for legal euthanasia, what degree of senility or comatoseness shall be established as the point at which a person deserves to die? And why should we not include in this “act of mercy” those who are suffering from apparently irreversible mental illness? What of the horribly crippled or bedridden...?”-- Louis Cassels, syndicated UPI columnist, April 17, 1973.

“We realize there will be demented [Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s] patients by the tens of thousands. So I’m a little bit afraid. I really think that we may accept that, for purely economic reasons, they can stop life after a period of three years of complete dementia, for instance. I don’t believe we can prevent it.”-- Dutch euthanasia leader Dr. Pieter Admiraal, quoted in Michael Fumento. “The Dying Dutchman: Coming Soon to a Nursing Home Near You.” The American Spectator, October 1991, pages 18 to 22.

“It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the ending of a subhuman life by abortion while refusing to give approval to the ending of a subhuman life by positive euthanasia. If we are morally obliged to put an end to a pregnancy when an amniocentesis reveals a terribly defective fetus, we are equally obliged to put an end to a patient’s hopeless misery when a brain scan reveals that a patient with cancer has advanced brain metastases.”-- Joseph Fletcher, M.D., American Journal of Nursing, November 1973.

STEP #4: COMPULSORY EUTHANASIA FOR THE ELDERLY AND “DEFECTIVES”

“A terrific article that I’ve read, one of the philosophers of our time, I think, is a guy named Leon Kass -- has anybody seen his stuff, he’s just terrific! In The American Scholar last year he wrote an article called “The Case for Mortality,” where, essentially he said we have a duty to die. It’s like if leaves fall off a tree forming the humus for the other plants to grow out. We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”-- Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm, March 27, 1984.

“One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection (abortion) are extended inevitably to death selection and death control, whether by the individual or by society ...”-- California Medicine editorial, September 19, 1970, page 22.

“Most people would prefer to raise children who do not suffer from gross deformities or from several physical, emotional or intellectual handicaps. If it could be shown that there is no moral objection to infanticide, the happiness of society could be significantly and justifiably increased ... A newborn infant does not possess the concept of a conscious self any more than a newborn kitten possesses such a concept ... infanticide during a time interval shortly after birth must be morally acceptable.”-- Michael Tooley, “Abortion and Infanticide.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, January 1972.

“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.

“It seems unwise to attempt to bring about major changes permitting positive euthanasia until we have made major progress in changing laws and policies pertaining to negative euthanasia.”-- Robert H. Williams, M.D. “Numbers, Types and Duration of Human Lives.” Northwest Medicine, July 1970, pages 493 to 496.

“There is no more horrific sight than a human being whose age makes him totally dependent upon others. I prophecy that before the end of the century, the Demise Pill will be available, and if civilization continues, it will be obligatory. The overriding policy will be survival of the fittest.”-- Dr. John Goundry, Essex County Practitioner. Pulse Medical Journal, August 1977. 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.

The First Step: Prepare the Public.

“What I’m talking about is inevitable. The people who are opposing this are gonna lose eventually, just like they lost in birth control and everything else that happened in medicine. It’s an obstinate, futile opposition. The future, well, it comes eventually.”-- Jack (“The Dripper”) Kevorkian.[5]

Introduction.

One of the most chilling parallels between the Nazi movement and the American pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia movements is the pervasive propaganda used to lull the populace into a state of dull and uncaring acceptance.

The Nazis used the newly-established German film industry to crank out a succession of sloganistic and shallow movies that attempted to establish that (1) there are people living that are an unfair burden to the rest of us and to society, and (2) that it is really in everyone’s best interests to remove these people from the picture by killing them -- as humanely and as decently as possible, of course.

Naturally, sophisticated Americans would never be taken in by the relatively crude, half-century old Nazi propaganda flicks. No way. Instead, we Americans willingly allow ourselves to be lulled by much more subtle and pervasive ‘logic’ (actually raw emotion disguised as refined “thinking,” which is really just a desire to follow perceived public opinion).

A few examples of latter-day euthanasia propaganda films are described below.

NBC’s “The Right to Die.”

NBC initially screened their 1987 film “The Right to Die” for families of the victims of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, or ‘Lou Gehrig’s Disease’). The purpose of this screening was to allow the pro-euthanasia group Concern for Dying to ‘educate’ the families as to the virtues of euthanasia for those with ALS.

As could be expected, NBC glowingly described the ‘balance of viewpoints’ in this film. But, just as in the network’s atrocious “Cagney and Lacey” episode “The Clinic,” the only defender of life in “The Right to Die” was the usual stereotyped Catholic who didn’t put up any kind of a coherent or logical defense at all.

The ALS sufferer, Emily, gradually sees the ‘wisdom’ of accepting death and the ‘fact’ that she is really just a burden for everyone. Her only ‘considerate’ and ‘courageous’ course of action is to die.

An NBC-written “Guide” given to all of the ALS families bemoaned the “fact” that 10,000 comatose patients are being kept alive at prohibitive cost. The “Guide” also contained a question by euthanasia pusher Joseph Fletcher which asked if the respondents agreed that the true issue was not the right to die (which was naturally moot), but the “right to help those who choose to die.”

The five pages of the “Guide” contained only two short paragraphs even hinting that there were any objections to of euthanasia at all, and, of course, “even the right to life groups are divided on this issue” (which is a barefaced lie).

In case the status of the film as pro-euthanasia propaganda is not clear, star Racquel Welch, in a subsequent interview with the New York Times , stated that “I have always been a staunch supporter of individual rights and the freedom of choice.”

NBC’s “Mercy or Murder.”

This film, shown in January of 1987, enthusiastically endorsed Roswell Gilbert’s act of blowing his wife’s brains out because she was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease and wanted her suffering to end.

The film neglected, of course, to mention that the pain of almost all Alzheimer’s patients can be eased or totally eliminated by drugs. The primary message transmitted was that “EUTHANASIA = LOVE.”

The actor who played Marcus Welby, M.D. (Robert Young), was cast in the part of the murderer. Writer-director Steven Gethers stated that he intended to present a “balanced” view of the issue and would “present both sides.” However, Young told the New York Times in a subsequent interview that “I suppose this film may be one small step in the campaign to change law to consider euthanasia as a form of justifiable homicide.”[6]

ABC’s “When the Time Comes.”

This two-hour film was shown on May 25, 1987, and featured 34-year old Lyddie Travis, who was dying of cancer. The entire first hour told the story of how she relentlessly pressured her husband into giving her a lethal dose of drugs.

This program was nothing more or less than a two-hour ‘how-to’ course in mercy killing. Right to Life inquirers were told that, in the opinion of the producers, the show was “balanced” and “very even-handed.”

Of course. They always are, aren’t they?

The obvious messages of this show were;

· Real love is helping a person kill themselves.

· Religious or ethical objections are for idiots and ‘backwards thinkers.’

· Cancer patients are “rotting lumps of nothing.”

· Not everyone is against suicide.

· There are organizations that you can go to help you kill yourself.

· The show listed the names of those “progressive” and “forward-thinking” countries that have legalized euthanasia.

· The program showed how to assist someone in killing themselves without getting caught.

· The virtues of “Love” and “friendship” outweigh any significant moral objections to any act that might be considered.

Stars As Killers.

One of the mainline strategies employed by the pro-abortion movement when abortion was illegal -- both in the United States and various European countries -- consisted of having famous personalities declare that they had had abortions. These “stars” then literally dared the authorities to prosecute them.

The pro-abortionists could not lose when they employed this tactic because, if the “stars” were prosecuted, they would become martyrs and cause a huge splash of pro-abortion publicity. If the “stars” got off scot-free (as they invariably did), this sent the strong message to the public that it was all right to flout the law.

Today, of course, we have pro-euthanasiasts employing precisely the same tactic. The “stars” are now killing their parents or spouses and daring the law to punish them. Derek Humphry, director of the Hemlock Society, is the best-known example. He assisted in killing his first wife, Jean. Then, he and his second wife assisted in the killing of both of her parents. Humphry and his second wife, Ann, wrote two books about their experience and were not prosecuted. The Hemlock Society publishes a suicide “cookbook,” and also conducted a phony “survey” that purported to show that most California physicians had directly killed one or more of their patients.

Another pro-euthanasia “star” is Betty Rollin, who for more than ten years was a highly-visible correspondent for the NBC Nightly News and ABC Nightline. She described how she researched fatal poisons and stood at the bedside of her mother as she overdosed and died. Her book Last Wish was, of course, warmly received by the pro-euthanasia people. Naturally, there was not even the slightest hint of any type of prosecution, even though Rollin’s book includes a ‘how-to’ chapter on suicide by poison, and despite the fact that her actions clearly violated the law.[7]

Dehumanizing the Victims.

The second step in the euthanasiast’s preparation of the public is to convince everyone that the targets of their program are not really human beings -- just as pro-abortionists did twenty years ago.

A classic example of this dehumanization involved Nancy Cruzan, a woman who was severely injured and incapacitated by a car crash.

In order to kill Cruzan, it was necessary to first dehumanize her, a task willingly and expertly taken up by Dr. Fred Plum, Chief of Neurology at the Cornell New York Hospital.

During testimony, he referred to her as a mere “collection of organs” and an “artifact of technological medicine.”[8]

In an interview with writer Nat Hentoff, Dr. Ronald Granford observed that she was the “moral equivalent of a biopsy from Nat Hentoff’s arm,” and asserted that her “legal personhood” should be removed so she could be disposed of or experimented upon without the bother of having to go to court.[8]

It is interesting to note that, just as the preborn are being referred to as “pre-human,” those in a coma are now commonly referred to by physicians as “post-human.”

It is also fascinating to note that, in a world where everyone except White males is considered to be handicapped in one way or another, some Neoliberal death pushers would like to strip protection away from those human beings who are handicapped more than anyone else. This is obviously necessary to kill the handicapped, because, in our new and more sensitive world, anyone who is defined as debilitated in any way is deserving of respect and protection -- not death.

In support of this view, Neoliberal syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote that

“Indeed, one of the most striking new impressions from the [PVS] conference is how the language of “disability” is being applied to those in a persistent vegetative state. It’s being used in courtrooms against families who want to stop treatment of the unconscious and let them die. It’s being used by advocates such as James Bopp of the National Legal center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, who accuse families like Ryan [Amerman]’s and Christine [Busalacchi]’s of “discounting, devaluing life based on disability.”

“There is something not only deceptive in this, but cruel. To describe a PVS patient as disabled is, as ethicist George Annas put it, “to describe a Minnesota blizzard as precipitation.” To use funds intended for those who can benefit on those who cannot is somewhere between perverse and immoral.

“There are indeed slippery slopes. But patients in a persistent vegetative state are not people with a reduced quality of life. They are people with no quality of life. We have to look squarely at this reality.

“To apply the language of disability to permanently unconscious people is not to strengthen but to cheapen that language and that cause. It makes a mockery of our best intentions...”[9]

Supporting Quotes.

The very idea of euthanasia clinics (obitoriums) may seem so ludicrous and frightening as to be almost surreal. But, rest assured, the objectives of the euthanasia movement are not some bizarre fantasy. They are concrete and they are real!

Figure 112-3 lists quotes by leading pro-euthanasiasts which clearly outline and prove, beyond all possible doubt, that compulsory death for all those they consider “unfit” is their most cherished dream and objective. Each stated goal, as listed in Figure 112-1, is supported by quotes by the euthanasiasts themselves. Once again, we allow the killers to indict themselves with their own careless rhetoric.

Euthanasia: How It Will Be.

The Future of Euthanasia.

It is instructive to examine the situation in a country where euthanasia is a fact of life, in order to ask ourselves the question: Do we really want this for our country? We need look no further than Holland, whose permissive euthanasia laws have come under increasing scrutiny over the last five years.

A Matter of Mere Economics ...

Being elderly and ill in Holland is a frightening experience, because the elderly know that they are officially “expendable.”

Such people are expendable because the primary motivation for Dutch health ‘care’ is not care per se , but cost containment. They have been examined by ‘healers’ using a callous and soulless benefit-cost equation -- and they have been found wanting.

For a detailed examination of the euthanasia situation in Holland, see Chapter 109, “History of Euthanasia.”

Reaction of the Americans.

The topic of runaway health care costs is becoming more and more prominent in the United States. As may be expected, the more utilitarian (or eugenicist) mindset naturally opts for the easy solution: Instead of working to increase efficiency and cut waste, simply eliminate those who are too costly to care for under the current system.

Daniel Callahan of the openly pro-rationing and pro-euthanasia ethics “think tank,” the Hastings Center, says that; “... a denial of nutrition may in the long run become the only effective way to make certain that a large number of biologically tenacious patients actually die. Given the increasingly large pool of superannuated, chronically ill, physically marginal elderly, it could well become the nontreatment of choice ... Our emerging problem is not just that of eliminating useless or wasteful treatment, but of limiting even efficacious treatment, because of its high cost. It may well turn out that what is best for each and every individual is not necessarily a societally affordable health care system.”

Callahan and others advocate a “fixed categorical standard” which would deny each category of surgery past certain ages, regardless of prognosis, i.e., coronary bypass banned after the age of 60.

Naturally, withholding care from perfectly healthy older people would add immeasurably to the supply of organs envisioned by some pro-euthanasia agitators.

One of these ‘advanced thinkers’ is Willard Gaylin, former President of the Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences (the “Hastings Institute”), who would like to see comatose persons (he calls them “neomorts” stockpiled in special repositories (called “bioemporiums”) for organ harvesting and experimentation.[10]

Another author describes Gaylin’s objectives; “Various illnesses could be induced in neomorts, and various treatments tried, thus protecting live patients from being “guinea pigs” in experimental procedures and therapies ... Neomorts would provide a steady supply of blood, since they could be drained regularly ... Bone marrow, cartilage, and skin could be harvested, and hormones, antitoxins, and antibodies manufactured in neomorts ... To do this, [Gaylin] notes, we would have to accept the concept of “personhood” as separate from “aliveness” for adults, as we do now with fetuses.”[10]

Perhaps Dr. Robin Cook was influenced by the horror of Gaylin’s views when he wrote his bestselling medical thriller Coma .

While Callahan and Gaylin continue with their speculations and dreams, there is growing fear among medical professionals that programs such as those in Holland will quickly become entrenched in United States health care facilities. Dr. Charles L. Sprung warns that “Widespread practice of active euthanasia in the United States appears not very far away.”[11]

However, others would welcome such ‘advances’ with open arms. Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society, said of the euthanasia program in Holland; “It’s been tested there ... it appears to be working.”[12] Margaret Battin, another Hemlock officer, urged that the United States adopt the Dutch euthanasia program; “Let’s use the Netherlands as a role model.”[13]

The Dutch euthanasia pushers apparently wouldn’t mind seeing their brand of killing exported all over the world. Maurice De Wachter, director of the Institute for Bioethics in Maastricht, ominously said in 1993 that “The Netherlands is what I would like to call a test case for an experiment in medical ethics ... There is a practice growing where doctors feel at ease with helping patients to die, in other words killing them.”[14]

And Dutch euthanasia doctor Julius Hackethal presented a talk at the Second National Voluntary Euthanasia Conference of the Hemlock Society, in which he confidently predicted that “Your [Hemlock Society] congress will help that the self-evident human rights for a dignified death will become a fixed and steady law all over the world. Such a vested human right would automatically cause that everybody would be able to determine for himself at what time and in which way he wants to die.”[15]

No one can deny that the Dutch model would certainly save lots of money in the United States. It is estimated that 20,000 persons are killed in Holland every year -- most of them involuntarily (the 3,000 Dutch voluntary euthanasias are strictly registered; the remainder are classified as involuntary ).[16,17]

Holland has a population of about 15 million. If this figure were ratioed up to the United States’ current population of 255 million, this would mean 340,000 murders by euthanasia every year in this country -- one every twenty seconds during working days -- equivalent to the total population reaching the age of 80 every year!

And so, Hollywood’s “B” movie “Logan’s Run” has become eerily prophetic.

“It Can’t Happen Here ...”

Pro-euthanasia activists continue to insist that involuntary euthanasia will never take place in the United States.

This is part of the psychology of the movement; it continues to strive vigorously for precisely that goal that it claims is impossible -- just as the pro-abortionists did in 1965. When pressed for answers, of course, euthanasists will be able to offer no concrete reasons as to why euthanasia on demand (or command) is unavoidable or impossible in this country.

But the purportedly impossibility of doctors killing patients is already happening in this country -- and, sometimes, the doctors are even forced to kill!

For example, in March 1987, a California superior court ordered cardiologist Dr. Allen Jay to remove 90-year old Anna Hirth’s feeding tube. He refused, stating that “[This] was something I could not do, either as a practicing Jew or as a practicing physician -- or as an American.”[18] The judge immediately threatened to imprison him indefinitely on contempt of court charges.

This was the first know case of attempted judicial coercion for a forced euthanasia. The Court was perfectly willing to jail a doctor indefinitely unless he turned his back on his beliefs, his religion, and the tenets of his profession. The only reason that Dr. Jay got away with his refusal is because there was a public outcry over the judge’s coercive tactics -- but how long will it be before the public just doesn’t care anymore?

Several medical journals have described the mass practice of eliminating or weakening ‘biologically tenacious’ elderly living in nursing homes by deliberately tampering with their diets, medicines, and environments in subtle ways.

At the other end of life, of course, our medical professionals commit more than 5,000 cases of infanticide of handicapped newborn babies in the United States every year.

For further information on infanticide, see Chapter 110.

Conclusion.

“An event is happening about which it is difficult to speak but about which it is impossible to remain silent.”-- Edmund Burke.[3]

The euthanasia movement made its first well-organized attempt to establish the ‘right to die’ in the late 1960s. However, the drive for legalized suicide stalled, because its proponents moved too quickly and too soon. Experts now recognize that no nation can establish euthanasia as a ‘right’ before establishing abortion as a ‘right.’

The reason is simple: The anti-life forces must gradually erode society’s respect for human life. First, the most helpless and invisible of society’s ‘unwanted’ members -- the unborn -- are dehumanized and rendered expendable. This is followed by the ‘bridge’ of infanticide, the killing of so-called ‘defective’ newborns, which is already happening in this country on a large scale.

Finally, the door can be thrown wide for euthanasia on demand and ultimately involuntary euthanasia. We are standing at that crossroads in the United States right now.

Anti-Euthanasia Organizations.

“This is a precious possession which we cannot afford to tarnish, but society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer -- to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of the cancer patient ... It is the duty of society to protect the physicians from such requests.”-- Margaret Mead.[19]

The Anti-Life Opposition.

Pro-lifers must not be led into believing that euthanasia is just a local threat. As Figure 112-4 demonstrates, the Hemlock Society and other American pro-euthanasia organizations are just a small part of a massive worldwide network of anti-life groups that work together very efficiently in achieving their goals.

Fortunately, pro-lifers also have a nationwide network with which to oppose the killers, and some of the main groups within this system are listed in this section.

FIGURE 112-4 WHO’S WHO IN THE INTERNATIONAL EUTHANASIA NETWORK

Worldwide.

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies -- international umbrella group.

Australia.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES), founded in 1974, 3,500 members.

Colombia.

Fundacion Po-Derecho a Morir Dignamenta (DMD, Foundation for a Dignified Death), founded in 1979, 2,300 members.

Denmark.

Landsforeningen mit Livstestamente (My Life’s Testament Society), founded in 1976, 14,000 members.

France.

(1) Association pour la Droit de Mourir avec Dignite (ADMD, Association for the Right to Die With Dignity), founded in 1980, 17,000 members. Secretary general Madame Paula Caucanas-Pisier committed suicide in 1984. She had commented “AIDS will help us, I’m sure.”

(2) Association du Mourir Doucement (Association for Euthanasia). 11,700 members and 65 departmental delegations.

(3) Association pour la Prevention de L’Enfance Handicappee (APEH, Society for the Prevention of Handicapped Children). APEH director is French Senator Henri Caillavet, who declared that “If I were to have a retarded child, I would not let it live. I gave it life, and I also have the right to take it away. We must legalize this procedure so that parents are not considered criminals when they demand euthanasia for their abnormal children.” Caillavet is also president of the ADMD.

Germany.

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Humanes Sterben (DGHS, German Society for a Humane Death), founded 1980, 10,000 members. Sponsored by the Humanist Union, which has campaigned against any law that would hobble terrorist activity in the former West Germany. Staffed with pro-terrorist lawyers, including Heinrich Hannover and Heinreich Albertz. More than a thousand DGHS members have committed suicide. DGHS member Dr. Julius Hackethal, known as “Dr. Cyanide,” killed a 69-year old patient because her disfigured face gave her a “poor quality of life.” He made a film of her swallowing his poison and showed it at the 1984 Hemlock Society conference. He also admitted that he had killed his own mother in 1983 without her consent.

Great Britain.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Dr. Glanville Williams, author of Beneficent Euthanasia, is president of the Abortion Law Reform Association, a pro-abortion lobbying group.

India.

The Society for the Right to Die and the Indian Society for the Right to Die.

Italy.

Club dell’ Euthanasia (CDE, Group for Euthanasia), founded 1986, 1,200 members.

Japan.

Japan Society for Dying With Dignity, 5,200 members. Founded as the Japan Euthanasia Society in 1976 by Dr. Tenrei Ota, who was a primary advocate of “freedom of choice in abortion,” and who developed the popular intra-uterine device (IUD), the Ota-Ring.

Netherlands.

(1) Stichting Vrijwillige Euthanasie (Netherlands Foundation for Voluntary Euthanasia, founded 1973.

(2) Informatie Centrum Vrijwillige Euthanasie (ICVE, Information Center for Voluntary Euthanasia), founded 1975, 6,000 members.

(3) Nederlandse Verniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie (NVVVE, Netherlands Organization for Voluntary Euthanasia), founded in 1973, 26,000 members. Pieter Admiraal wrote the “how to” euthanasia manual Justifiable Euthanasia, which was sent to 21,000 Dutch physicians and pharmacists.

Spain.

Asociacon Derecho a Morir Dignamenta (DMD, Association for a Dignified Death), founded in 1984.

Switzerland.

(1) Association pour le Droit de Mourir dans la Dignite Exit (DMD, Association for Death With Dignity), founded in 1982, 1,000 members.

(2) Exit Deutsche Schweiz Vereinigung fur Humanese Sterben (Group Supporting a Humane Death), founded 1982, 1,800 members.

United States.

(1) Americans Against Human Suffering (AAHS), founded with startup money from the Hemlock Society.

(2) Society for the Right to Die, president emeritus Joseph Fletcher.

(3) The Hemlock Society, which publishes The Hemlock Quarterly. Contributors have included Joseph Fletcher, P.V. Admiraal, Humanist behaviorist B.F. Skinner, Helge Kuhse, and Rev. William Wendt, who sells coffins for use as coffee tables. Founded by Derek Humphry in 1980. Humphry assisted in the suicide of his first wife, Jean, and left his second wife, Ann Wickett, who subsequently killed herself. Hemlock member psychiatrist Allan Pollack has declared that “Everyone has the right to end their life -- even a child. If we do not allow children or the incompetent to commit suicide or have euthanasia administered, we are really practicing age discrimination and illness discrimination.” The Hemlock Society is described in more detail in Chapter 108.

(4) The Human Betterment Foundation (eugenics and euthanasia).

(5) Foundation of Thanatology, founded in 1968 in New York City to promote the Humanistic study of the aspects of dying.

(6) The Death Education Research Group (DERG), founded in 1973 at the School of Education of the University of Massachusetts. One of its primary purposes is to prepare a high school death education curriculum. National periodicals on suicidology include Death Education; The Bulletin of Suicidology; Death Studies; and Omega -- Journal of Death and Dying.

Other Countries.

More than twenty other countries have pro-euthanasia organizations, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, and South Africa.

Reference: 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.

Human Life Center (HLC).

The HLC, directed by Mike and Rita Marker, is an educational resource center with an extensive and up-to-date library of research materials and “Life Issue Files” drawn from various publications all over the world. The HLC is considered to be the national center of pro-life material on euthanasia (through the International Anti- Euthanasia Task Force), and offers a “Euthanasia Packet” for $12.50, which includes copies of materials which groups like the Hemlock Society and Americans Against Human Suffering use in their relentless drive to secure the right to kill born human beings. HLC also publishes two newsletters: Human Life Issues , at $6.00 per year, and International Review , at $20.00 per year (both published quarterly). The address of HLC is; Human Life Center, University of Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio 43952. Telephone: (614) 282-9953.

Human Life International (HLI).

This organization fights the “right to die” and International Planned Parenthood on a global level. HLI has been named Planned Parenthood’s “number one enemy,” which means that it is quite effective indeed. HLI has an expert staff of consultants, researchers, and advisors, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The annual dues of $25 includes 17 issues of the HLI newsletter, and an additional $15 will purchase ten special reports, published approximately monthly. Father Paul Marx heads HLI. Mailing address is Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879. Telephone: (301) 670-7884.

Jews Opposing Euthanasia.

The body of Jewish Noahide law and accumulated case law is much more strictly opposed to euthanasia than it is to abortion. However, Jews who actively fight euthanasia are usually anti-abortion as well. Rabbi Yonah Fortner leads Jews Opposing Euthanasia, the most prominent such group in the United States. He may be reached at the National Synagogue of the Physically Handicapped, 6451 Charlesworth Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91606, telephone: (818) 985-2429.

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

NRLC is the largest existing United States pro-life organization, with more than a quarter of a million members. The primary purpose of NRLC and Right to Life is to sponsor community, legislative, and political action to change current and proposed liberal abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia laws. Right to Life chapters usually maintain excellent video and book libraries.

For a listing of the addresses and telephone numbers of state Right to Life chapters, see Chapter 20 of Volume I, “Pro-Life Organizations.”

Other Pro-Life Groups That Oppose Euthanasia.

There are a number of other pro-life “multiple-purpose” groups that work in a wide variety of fields and which also oppose euthanasia. Some of these groups are listed below.

American Life League (ALL)
Post Office Box 1350
Stafford, Virginia 22555
Telephone: (703) 659-4171
ALL gathers and disseminates activist and legislative information on a national scale.

Americans United for Life (AUL)
343 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1804
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Telephone: (312) 786-9494
AUL is a public interest law firm which protects anti-abortion, anti-infanticide, and anti-euthanasia activists.

Association for Interdisciplinary Research in
Values and Social Changes
419 7th Street NW, Suite 402,
Washington, DC 20004
The Association sponsors research and development of pro-life ideas and publication in various professional journals.

Center for the Rights of the Terminally Ill (CRTI)
2319 18th Avenue, South
Fargo, North Dakota 58103
Telephone: (701) 237-5667

Christian Action Council
422 C Street, Washington, DC 20002
The objective of the Christian Action Council is to get churches of all faiths involved in the struggle against abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)
812 Stephen Street
Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411
Telephone: (304) 258-LIFE

National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB)
Committee for Pro-Life Activities
1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 659-6673
The NCCB administers the national Respect Life program for Catholic parishes.

World Federation of Doctors
Who Respect Human Life
Life and Family Center, Post Office Box 7244
Collegeville, Minnesota 56321
Telephone: (612) 252-2526

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

[1] Derek Humphry in a December 18, 1986 interview. Quoted in Leslie Bond. “Hemlock Society Forms New Organization to Push Assisted Suicide Initiative.” National Right to Life News , December 18, 1986, pages 1 and 10.

[2] Robert H. Williams, M.D. “Numbers, Types and Duration of Human Lives.” Northwest Medicine , July 1970, pages 493 to 496.

[3] Quotes from Father John Powell, S.J. Abortion: The Silent Holocaust . Pages 2 and 29.

[4] Dutch physician Richard Fenigsen, Willem-Alexander Hospital, the Netherlands, at his presentation entitled “Euthanasia in the Netherlands.” Washington, D.C., April 26-28, 1990, conference entitled “Current Controversies in the Right to Live, the Right to Die.” Also quoted in Living World , Volume 5, Number 2, page 30.

[5] Dr. Jack Kevorkian, quoted in Sarah Sullivan. Kevorkian: The Rube Goldberg of Death.” Cornerstone , Volume 19, Issue 93, pages 14 and 15.

[6] Robert Young, quoted in David H. Andrusko. “Don’t Ask Dr. Welby.” National Right to Life News , February 5, 1987, pages 2 and 8. Story on NBC’s pro-euthanasia propaganda “Mercy or Murder.”

[7] Joseph Piccione. “You Die Your Way ...” National Right to Life News , September 26, 1985, pages 1 and 12.

[8] David Brockbauer. “Pagan Ethics: The Nancy Cruzan Case.” Fidelity Magazine, February 1990, pages 11 to 14.

[9] Ellen Goodman. “Doctors Won’t Draw Line in New Medical Dilemma: 14,000 People Trapped in a Persistent Vegetative State.” The Oregonian , December 11, 1992, page E9.

[10] World Trends and Forecasts. “Recycling Human Bodies to Save Lives.” The Futurist , April 1976, page 108.

[11] Dr. Charles L. Sprung. Journal of the American Medical Association , April 25, 1990. Also quoted in Medical Survey. “Active Euthanasia in U.S. Imminent, Predicts Author.” ALL About Issues , June/July 1990, page 43.

[12] Derek Humphry on the television show “Face the Nation,” September 2, 1985.

[13] Margaret P. Battin, “The Art of Dying in the United States and Holland,” presentation given at the Hemlock Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on May 20, 1989.

[14] John Henley, Associated Press. “Dutch Euthanasia Rule Stirs Ethical Conflicts.” The Oregonian , February 11, 1993, page A9.

[15] From the transcript of a speech by Dr. Julius Hackethal entitled “Medical Help By Suicide -- As a Method of Voluntary Euthanasia,” presented at the Second National Voluntary Euthanasia Conference of the Hemlock Society on February 9th, 1985, in Los Angeles, California.

[16] Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. “Rational Suicides: Urge to Control Death.” The Oregonian , June 17, 1990, page K3.

[17] “Voluntary Euthanasia Common, Accepted in Netherlands.” The Washington Post , April 6, 1987, page 3.

[18] Jan Bear. “Euthanasia Expected to Top Right to Life Agenda.” Portland [Oregon] Catholic Sentinel . November 3, 1989, page 24.

[19] Margaret Mead, quoted in Maurice Levine. Psychiatry and Ethics . George Braziller Publishers, New York, 1972, page 325.

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