Report: Family

American Pro-Life Encyclopedia

CHAPTER 113. THE FAMILY: FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY UNDER SIEGE

Why Attack the Family?

What Families Can Do to Protect Themselves.

Attacks on the Family by Neofeminists.

Why the Attacks on “Pronatalism?”

Attacks on the Family by the Schools.

Attacks on the Family by the Government.

Further Reading: The American Family Under Attack.

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

CHAPTER 113. THE FAMILY: FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY UNDER SIEGE

“At this moment in history, the family is the object of numerous forces that seek to destroy it or in some way deform it.”-- Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio .

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“Within the institution of marriage a woman is legally required to perform sexually for her husband at his command ... Male society has sold us the idea of marriage. In the past we women have been afraid to admit that marriage wasn’t all it was cracked up to be because it meant we had failed. Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... The nuclear family must be replaced with a new form of family where individuals live and work together to help to meet the needs of all people in the society ... Heterosexual relationships are by their very nature oppressive to women in a male-dominated society ... The man is expected to be aggressive, strong, virile, self-centered, and a good fucker while the woman is expected to be self-sacrificing, passive, docile, weak, and responsive to men’s initiatives. These roles ensure the oppression of women by men in a heterosexual relationship” [emphasis in original].-- The Document: Declaration of Feminism .[1]

Why Attack the Family?

“Children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home.”-- Pope Pius XI, Gaudium et Spes , #52.

The Situation.

Most Christian parents who care about what happens to the world (and especially about what happens to their children) are at least vaguely and persistently aware of the pressure being placed upon them to conform to the ‘values’ of a world that seems to be value-free.

These parents also realize that there seem to be no major influence in society that favors the family; every public entity seems to be either overtly hostile or indifferent to their values and their dreams.

In particular, most Christian parents may be befuddled and perhaps overwhelmed by the tidal wave of immorality and death that is sweeping over the world in all of its myriad forms. Our nation -- and all other “developed” countries, it seems -- not only accept sinful and immoral behavior, they exult in it. Their citizens joyfully wallow in every imaginable type of perversion: Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, and every other activity that actively works against a strong family life.

Since about 1930, the family has come under increasing scrutiny and attack all over the world. In Western (“developed”) nations, social engineers have criticized, undermined, and even redefined the family in order to achieve their ends. And, concurrent with the weakening of the American family, the United States has exported its anti-family attitudes to almost every developing nation in the world.

The fundamental reason that the family is now under such vicious attack is extremely simple. The family is the cornerstone and the foundation of our society. The new Neofeminist/Neoliberal vision for the world -- the “new society” -- cannot be constructed if the cornerstone of the old society remains. Before a new structure can be built on the ruins of the old, the old foundation must first be broken up and then removed piece by piece, just as a sturdy and antiquated building must be destroyed to make way for a new skyscraper.

Roots of the Revolution.

Christian parents must recognize that the anti-life mentality that drives all immoral sexual activities is fundamentally revolutionary and coercive . The homosexuals and abortionists will never stop evolving in their desires, and they will certainly never cease demanding. If Christians think that anti-lifers will be satisfied with abortion on demand, with “gay rights,” with school-based clinics, and with “death with dignity,” they are kidding themselves.

The anti-lifers say that all they want is equality.

This is unmitigated garbage, spewed out for public consumption.

The anti-lifers strive not for equality, but for identicality . Those people who wallow in sin know, either consciously or otherwise, that they are doing wrong. This causes a nagging guilt in them which drives them to either repent or reinforce their sinful behavior.

Those people who ‘affirm’ their sins are going to feel even more guilt. Since guilt is caused by the contrast between good and evil, the only way to insure that guilt is banished is by making all behaviors morally equivalent.

If everyone’s morality is identical, then there is no contrast between good and evil, and the “right” way of doing things and the “wrong” way of doing things become the same.

Neutralizing the Moral Teachers.

There are five great teachers of morality in our society: The schools, the law, the media, the Church, and the family.

The schools have been effectively neutralized as moral teachers, and, in fact, are probably the greatest enemies of morality in our country today.

The law has been neutralized as a moral teacher. The most hideous and evil acts have been legalized, and so the law’s traditional role as guide has been subverted by the same people who claim that “whatever is legal is de facto moral.”

The media has not only been neutralized, it has become a most powerful weapon of the Neoliberal social engineers. All Christian values are mocked and denigrated, and all perversions and anti-life practices are held up as the pluralistic ideal. The Bundys, the Simpsons, and Roseanne now represent the media ideal of the typical American family.

The fourth teacher -- the Church -- has been neutralized because it has voluntarily given up its role as the country’s moral leader. The devastatingly effective Neoliberal strategy of infiltration and subversion has transformed most of the mainline Protestant churches into spiritual eunuchs and has completely isolated those few real Christians of all denominations. The Church is now a virtual ward of the State, controlled by its tax-exempt status and the desire to conform to those values transmitted to society by the State’s Humanistic leaders, afraid to speak the truth for fear of offending one of the proliferating ‘victim’ groups designated by society.

Since the schools, the law, the media, and the Church are either sitting on the sidelines or are actively working to undermine morality, the only remaining entity that has a hope of restoring sanity to this nation is the family. With all of the other ‘players’ out of the game, the family must now bear the full brunt of Neoliberal fury.

This means that the only institution now transmitting Christian values to society is the family. It is truly the last bulwark of sanity in America, and this is why the attacks on it are so intense; all of the other targets of the Neoliberals have been neutralized, so now the social engineers can focus their efforts on the family.

Attacks From All Sides.

The remainder of this chapter summarizes the various types of assaults that are being staged upon the American family today and shows how family members can work together to overcome them. In order to fulfill our Lord’s command to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), family members must know where attacks upon them are coming from in order to be able to neutralize them.

What Families Can Do to Protect Themselves.

Introduction.

Parents must understand that evil is like water and Christian values (and the family) are like a dike that holds it back. Evil is relentless and it is tireless. It will continue to pound against the ‘dike’ until the end of time, and the only defense against it is to properly maintain the dike. If a family lets its guard down, evil will wash over it and through it like water over a crumbling wall. The members of the family will lose their values, their Faith, and, ultimately, their consciences and their souls.

The ‘water/dike’ analogy holds on a national scale as well. From 1981 to 1992, the pro-family/pro-life movement was slowly being pushed back by the irresistible force of a society bent on freedom, tolerance and nonjudgmentalism. Our creed was literally transformed from “In God We Trust” to “Live and Let Live.” Ironically, under the new slogan, this country has seen more death than at any other time in its history.

For twelve years, one man -- the President of the United States -- almost singlehandedly held back the onrushing tide of evil. But that man is gone now, and in his place stands a creature of the media, a Neoliberal social engineer desperately eager to accelerate the process of national transformation, an evolution into a nation where everyone supposedly will be equal in every way.

Perhaps, in the long run, Bill Clinton’s election will be the best thing that could have happened to this country.

The First Priority.

First and foremost, good Christian families should not lose heart . Although the situation may well appear to be hopeless, the members of each Christian family must understand that there is only one thing in the world stronger than a faith-filled person, and that is a faith-filled family . There is literally nothing that this evil world can do to break up a family unless the family lets itself be broken up.

As 1 Corinthians 15:58 tells us, “Never give in then, my dear brothers, never admit defeat; keep on working at the Lord’s work always, knowing that, in the Lord, you cannot be laboring in vain.”

Every Christian family that feels called to convert the world must first work to strengthen itself . There is no point in fruitlessly struggling to convert others when one’s own family is suffering from neglect and lack of attention.

There are generally four ways parents can strengthen their families, as described in the following paragraphs.

(1) Promote Family Faith and Prayer.

The oldest sayings and folk wisdom have survived because they are true. Certainly one of these is “The family that prays together stays together.”

There is no more corrosive influence on the ‘glue’ that binds a family together than to have a nonbeliever as a member -- particularly a husband or wife. Conversely, the family that shares its living and vibrant faith will not be defeated by any attack, either external or internal.

Not only does prayer serve as a conduit of God’s grace, but it has very practical advantages as well. It serves to keep us mindful of the context in which we operate and helps us keep our relationship with God in focus. We must remember that if you never talk with someone, you’ll forget what He is like.

(2) Actively Transmit Values to Children.

Faith is not enough; James 2:26 warns us that “Faith without works is a dead as a body without breath.” Nothing impresses children more than to see their parents “walk what they talk.” A husband and wife who put their beliefs into action make a vivid impression upon their children that will last as long as they live.

We must not be deterred from action by a belief that we will not make a difference in this world. Precisely the opposite is true. If the entire world were Christian, Christian activism would not have much of an impact. But in a world and in a nation that is primarily and practically Pagan in nature, any activism by a Christian parent is bound to have an impact on people.

This is not only true of outside activities, but applies to how we live our lives at home as well. Children, especially when they reach their teens, are very observant. They also do not believe in the motto “do as I say, not as I do.” Parents who are weak in one or more areas may expect their weaknesses to be passed on to their children in these same areas.

The classic example is the Christian married couple who use birth control and who are shocked when they find out that their teenagers are fornicating.

(3) Join Activist Support Groups.

No Christian family is an island, especially in this hostile world. The world tells us that we may pray silently at home without interference, but let us dare to cross our threshold with the message of Christ and its full fury will be unleashed against us. No single activist family can survive these attacks for long, and so it is essential for them to find and band together with other families of a like mind for support and encouragement.

Every activist Christian family must have a support network. This need not be some complicated organization with phone trees and elected officers. It should instead be a close-knit circle of other families that hold similar beliefs and activities.

There is nothing more demotivating than feeling that you are the only person in the world who believes the way you do. A Christian parent may attend church where the clergy are much more liberal than he is -- a very common occurrence, as described in Chapter 42 of Volume II, “Church Positions on Abortion.” And the parent may be appalled and discouraged at the tidal wave of Neoliberal propaganda constantly spewed by the electronic and print media. He may also feel isolated from the mainstream just by professing Christianity boldly and bearing the resultant inevitable ridicule and lack of belief.

The best solution to this feeling of isolation is to express feelings to others with the same beliefs.

(4) Home School.

Even rats know that it is dangerous to stay on board a sinking ship.

Many Christian parents are sick to death of monitoring their child’s school system constantly, and insuring that permanent damage is not done by atheistic school teachers and staff, school-based clinics, drugs, venereal diseases, Planned Parenthood, and a thousand other dangers. Our schools have been transformed literally into obstacles that our children must survive and endure.

Therefore, more and more Christian parents are pulling their children out of the militantly atheistic American public school system and are educating them properly -- themselves!

There are many reasons for this apparently radical action. A homeschooled child does not learn about “safe sex.” He does not learn that homosexuality is a “perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle,” or that abortion is simply a private decision between a woman and her doctor. He is not exposed to secret psychological counseling, “lifeboat exercises,” Planned Parenthood, or value- and God-free education. Additionally, he is allowed to proceed at his own learning pace, rather than being held back in order to accommodate slower students. On the other hand, if the child is slow in some areas, he is not warehoused in a ‘slow’ section and forgotten, and is not exposed to ridicule and embarrassment.

Numerous studies and interviews by many organizations (some of them quite liberal) reveal that homeschooled children score higher on achievement tests, are superior in knowledge, and are more adaptable and sociable than publicly-schooled children. The paramount advantage of homeschooling, of course, is that your children will receive the proper training in Christian values.

The only Christian families that truly believe that they cannot home school their children are those that have bought into the world’s values to the point where both father and mother must work outside the home to support the lifestyle they believe is necessary to them. Home schooling may sound daunting, but more than half a million families are doing it now, and it is true that any set of parents can home school if they value their children . What is the point in changing the whole world with prayer and activism if one’s own children are lost to the actively anti-Christian public school system?

Chapter 114 contains a more thorough description of homeschooling and provides information on many resources available to Christian parents who would like to teach their children themselves.

Conclusion: Act!

These four suggestions certainly do not mean that a family should perfect itself before it takes action; quite the contrary! If every person and family waited until they felt that they were as good as they could be, nobody would ever do anything. In fact, one of the most common excuses given by fencesitters and those who are just plain afraid is that “they don’t feel ready yet.”

This is a bogus argument. Our Lord did not select twelve perfect men to do His will, because twelve perfect men did not exist in His world at that time, just as they do not exist now. Nobody is perfect but Christ Himself, and to allege that one is not taking action because he is “not ready yet” is the reddest of red herrings.

The Sources of Attacks Upon the Family.

Since the family is the cornerstone of American society and the primary remaining vehicle by which values are transmitted to children, it is not surprising that it would be the primary focus of attack by all of those entities that oppose traditional (i.e., Christian) values and morality.

The sheer magnitude of the army arrayed against the family is almost overwhelming until one considers that the Christian family is more than a match for all of these organizations, their massive resources, and their vaunted “New Age” belief systems combined .

An outline of these sources of attack is shown below. Many of these types of attack are described in detail in the remainder of this chapter.

OUTLINE OF THE SOURCES OF ATTACKS ON THE AMERICAN FAMILY

Attacks by Neofeminists.

The “Sexual Revolution”

Attacks on “pronatalism”

No-fault divorce

Banned parental involvement for minor’s abortions

Banned spousal involvement in abortion

By the Schools.

Values-free education that undermines parental authority (i.e., “situational ethics”)

Permissive sex education

The “Kiddie Lib” philosophy

School-based clinics and abortion referrals

Censoring of religion and the value of the family from school textbooks

Strident opposition to ‘school choice’ and homeschooling

By Homosexuals.

Redefinition of the family

Infiltration of the schools

The Media.

Redefinition of the family

‘Soft-core’ porn on television

Glorification of anti-family values

Permissive and violent music

The Churches.

Benign neglect

The Government.

Enforcement of Neoliberal standards in all tax- funded institutions.

Attacks on the Family by Neofeminists.

“We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage ... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God ... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement ... It is humanism that is the goal.”-- Gloria Steinem.[2]

The “Sexual Revolution.”

For more than thirty years, certain loud and influential women have been demanding equality with men, immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, “equal pay for equal work,” and removal of all obstacles to abortion.

We now know that all they really wanted was what men have had all along --the “right” to hop into bed with whomever they choose, at any time they want, and to have everyone else pick up the pieces of the broken relationships and lives that result.

This is the true goal of the vaunted “Sexual Revolution” -- for both immoral men and women.

As with all other evils, the primary obstacle to the “Sexual Revolution” was and is the family. Therefore, the elimination of the nuclear family and childbearing and the establishment of Marxism is a recurring theme in Neofeminist ‘literature,’ as shown in Figure 113-1.

FIGURE 113-1 STATEMENTS BY NEOLIBERAL SOCIAL ENGINEERS CONDEMNING THE FAMILY AND CHILDBEARING

“The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for white people or for black people. Why we are hanging on to it, I don’t know.”-- Novelist Toni Morrison, quoted in Time Magazine, May 22, 1989.

“The family is the key institution for the determination and perpetuation of women’s subordination, the place where oppression is most excruciatingly experienced ... Marriage, with its legal obligations, institutionalized male authority and compulsory heterosexuality, is incompatible with sexual freedom.”-- Mica Niva. “From Utopia to Scientific Feminism?” Quoted in Lynne Segal. What is to Be Done About the Family? Penguin Books/Socialist Society, 1983, pages 66 and 69.

“We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage ... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God ... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement ... it is humanism that is the goal.”-- Gloria Steinem, quoted in the Saturday Review of Education , March 1973.

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”-- Dr. MaryJo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education at Wellesley College, quoted in New Dimensions Magazine, July 1990, page 22.

“Women are a political class separated out from humanity and thus denied their humanity. While men performed this expulsion, it is the male role or the role of the Oppressor that must be annihilated -- not necessarily those individuals who presently claim the role ... the sex roles themselves must be destroyed. If any part of these role definitions is left, the disease of oppression remains and will reassert itself again in new, or the same old, variations throughout society ... We have a membership quota: That no more than one-third of our membership can be participants in either a formal (with legal contract) or informal (e.g., living with a man) instance of the institution of marriage.”-- Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971.

“It is still possible for weak, stupid, lazy, unambitious and otherwise lesser equipped individuals to remain and make their way within domestic work, both as housewives and as servants. As for the rest, prostitution is always available.”-- Nobel Prize winners Alva and Gunnar Myrdal. Crisis in the Population Question . 1930, page 249.

“The present female liberation movement, like the movements for black liberation and national liberation, has begun to identify strongly with Marxist class analysis ... Our analysis of women as an exploited caste is not new. Marx and Engels, as well as other nineteenth-century socialist and communist theorists analyzed the position of the female sex in just such a way. Engels identified with family as the basic unit of capitalist society, and of female oppression. The family unit is a decadent, energy-absorbing, destructive, wasteful institution for everyone except the ruling class ... The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules. And within the family, he [the man] is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat.”-- Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 486.

“As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism ...”-- The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Towards World Understanding , Page 58, Book V. 1949.

“Pregnancy is barbaric. Pregnancy is the temporary deformation of the body of the individual for the sake of the species ... Moreover, childbirth hurts. And it isn’t good for you. Childbirth is at best necessary and tolerable. It is not fun. Like shitting a pumpkin ... But-look-you-get-a-reward, says the School: A-baby-all-your-own-to-fuck-up-as-you-please.”-- Shulamith Firestone. The Dialectic of Sex . Bantam Books, 1973, pages 198 and 199.

“A popular medical dictionary defines “disease” as “literally, the lack of ease,” venereal disease as “one usually transmitted through sexual intercourse.” It’s obvious, therefore, that unwanted pregnancy is the most common venereal disease ... This disease is associated with immense suffering. Seeking to be cured of this disease, women from time have risked pain, mutilation, and death in numbers that really stagger the imagination.”-- Barbara H. Roberts, M.D. “Abortion Laws Murder Women.” Essay in a Women’s National Abortion Action Coalition booklet entitled “Abortion is a Woman’s Right: March on Washington, DC and San Francisco, November 20 [1972].”

“We must destroy love ... Love promotes vulnerability, dependence, possessiveness, susceptibility to pain, and prevents the full development of woman’s human potential by directing all her energies outward in the interests of others.”-- Women’s Liberation, Notes From the Second Year , page 117.

“I think that what women are conditioned socially to experience as love is a form of annihilation of self ... Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment. Compare victims reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike ... In this light the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot see anything wrong with it.”-- Catharine MacKinnon, professor of law at the University of Michigan, quoted by Christina Sommers. “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation.” Wall Street Journal , November 7, 1991, page A14.

“A woman who stays at home, caring for children and the house, leads an extremely sterile existence. This kind of woman leads a parasitic existence that can aptly be described as “legalized prostitution” ... The time has not only come, it is past due, when marriage and motherhood as a life’s goal should be cut out of the training of the female child ... The day has come when motherhood should be the lot and privilege of a select minority.”-- Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful . New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 246.

“The menial housewife programmed into a cheap source of breeding and domestic labor should be relegated to the ashheap of Puritan morality.”-- Larry Lader. “The Abortion Revolution.” The Humanist , May/June 1973, page 4.

“The right to abortion will be guaranteed ... As far as the policy toward the family, it will be recognized for what it is: not some holy or sacred institution to be preserved for all time ... not only will the family be a secondary form for determining children’s upbringing, but its influence in promoting conservatism among its members, especially the women and children, will be actively combatted. While the parents will still have significant responsibility for their children, this does not mean they are “theirs,” and there will be struggle to prevent parents from imposing old values, and conservative, non-revolutionary thinking generally on the children.”-- Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA, New Programme . Page 78, “The Proletariat, Upon Seizing Power, Will Immediately Take Up the Transformation of Society.”

“Babies are not sweet little things. They wet and dirty themselves, they get sick, they’re very expensive to take care of.”-- Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. “The Perils of Puberty.” Denver, 1974, page 15.

These quotes are, of course, merely restatements of the Neoliberal view that all change is good, that culture and society are infinitely malleable (never mind ‘reactionary’ tradition or common sense), and, since the great bugaboo Patriarchy set everything up wrong from the start, everything should, can, and must be torn down and rebuilt.

Under the proposed “New Matriarchy,” women would not even have the choice of staying home and raise children. As the “Mother of the Neofeminist Movement,” Simone de Beauvoir, puts it, “too many women would make the choice to stay at home and care for their children.”[3] And, as Neofeminist author Vivian Gornick insisted in the April 25, 1981 University of Illinois Daily Illini , “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession ... the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be . The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”[4]

So much for “pro-choice!”

Target for Destruction: Marriage.

The incandescent Neofeminist rhetoric betrays the inexorable desire to destroy any and all parental influence, and highlights its inbred loathing of childbearing. If parents are prohibited from inculcating their values into their children, the State (with a capital “S”) can assume total control of them and fill their little heads with good Trotskyite and Marxist theory.

Some naive pro-life activists truly believe that abortion is all that the Neofeminists want.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Neofeminists correctly recognize that the traditional family is the means by which values are passed on to children. If marriage and the family can be eliminated for at least controlled and directed in the “proper” directions, the warped ‘ethic’ of Neofeminism can be force-fed to our impressionable children. The quotes shown in Figure 113-1 are by Neofeminists who are members of groups that purport to represent “women’s rights.” Notice how Marxist Newspeak and Newthink dominates the Neofeminist philosophy.

The Psychology of Loathing.

The primary reason that the Neofeminists want to destroy the family and marriage is, of course, because they want everyone else to fail at (or at least be terrified of) marriage and childbearing, just like them.

They ignore any facts that do not support their philosophy: That a child living with only one parent is 20 times more likely to grow up in poverty than a child with both parents; that a child with both parents is healthier in both mind and body than a child with only one parent; that children living with only one parent are three times as likely to need psychiatric help as those with both parents; that children of single parents are four times as likely to run afoul of the law than children with both parents; and that adults who are married and smoke a pack of cigarettes every day are healthier than single non -smoking adults.[5]

Special Attention to Teenagers.

The Neofeminists, like the Communists, know that if they can warp the values of our children, they have won the war. And so, our teenagers are deluged with drivel that is broadcast over television stations or attractively packaged and displayed on supermarket shelves. Trendy magazines aimed at teenaged girls have little to say about traditional morality and ethics; instead, they relentlessly pound into our kid’s minds the desire for material ‘things,’ a nice tanned body and unlimited free sex.

As one example, Seventeen Magazine reaches more than two million teenaged girls per month. In one four-year period, it featured only one article on marriage, and this was written by a bitter 18-year old girl whose parents had recently gone through a messy divorce. Her article appeared in the July 1971 issue, and her message was “Is motherhood really fulfilling? I have seen many cases where it is not. I baby-sit for several young mothers in my neighborhood. For some, motherhood is creative, but for most it tends to be intellectually stifling and routine. As child after child appears, once cheerful and lively women become increasingly bitter, exhausted and resentful of lost career opportunities. They complain, “If I have to change one more diaper today, I am going to go stark raving mad!”“

This is the only message about marriage that these teenage girls saw in this magazine over a period of four years. Readers are led to believe that all other professions are exciting and worthy, and that motherhood is unglamorous, undesirable, and unfulfilling.

This is not surprising to those familiar with the Neofeminist mindset. Neofeminism is intrinsically a depressing, angry, bitter outlook. A Neofeminist can see only the dark side of things.

People who are anti-marriage rely very heavily on slogans and unthinking jingoism, just as the pro-abortionists do. The classic Neofeminist anti-marriage and anti-child slogan is “I don’t see what is fulfilling about swishing a dirty diaper around in a toilet bowl!”

How many times have you heard this whining nonsense? This is a slogan used by pessimistic people who couldn’t care less about the many joys that children have to offer. Instead, they focus on the nastiest one-half of one percent of child rearing.

Conclusion.

According to Neofeminist logic, if a person has not experienced something, he can’t express any opinions about it. For example, (pro-life) men cannot speak or even think about abortion because they cannot get pregnant. And the Pope can’t talk about artificial birth control because he doesn’t use it.

So what gives these bitter, sterile, never-married women the right to speak about the family?

Why the Attacks on “Pronatalism?”

Introduction.

Not only do Neofeminists attack the institution of the family, they attempt to convince people that Having Children Is A Bad Thing.

There are three basic reasons for this attitude;

(1) The environmentalist mindset -- more children mean more of a ‘strain on the planet.’

(2) The desire for control -- having one or two kids is all right, but most families that have more than two kids tend to be very religious, and these “excess” children are thus more likely to grow up to oppose the Neoliberal agenda.

(3) The desire to escape responsibility -- having a child is perhaps the ultimate statement that a couple is mature and ready to accept the tremendous responsibility that comes with having babies. Since the Neoliberal psyche strains against personal responsibility in all of its forms, childbearing is naturally a repugnant concept to Neoliberals.

One Opinion Only, Please.

The same people who rail against “pronatalism” tend to decry conservative “censorship” in the schools as well. Such individuals generally subscribe to the entire Neoliberal “Seamless Garment,” and want to be seen as progressive in all areas of their lives.

Strangely, they dabble in occasional censorship themselves -- although, of course, they would never use such a harsh word to describe their activities.

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

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

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

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

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

1 ...

3. Definition of family to exclude couples without children.

5. Large families favored over one-child or no child families.

6. Failure to discuss family planning when appropriate.

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

10. Bias against abortion or adoption.”[6]

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

NAOP even went so far as to whine about Holiday Inn’s “Kids Eat Free” program, claiming that “The symbolic message in policies of this kind may be interpreted as “approval” for parenthood, there being no comparable benefits for those without children.”[7]

Fun With Statistics.

Most Americans who possess common sense shy away from any association with statistics and public opinion polls. They harbor a deep mistrust of mathematics in any form when used to make a social point, and for good reason.

Anyone with the slightest amount of expertise can make numbers sit up and beg, roll over, and do just about anything they want them to.

Neoliberals have used statistics to “show” that “the “traditional American family is dead.” They often say that only 26 percent (19 percent, 12 percent, pick a number that sounds good) of all children live in “traditional households.”

What they don’t tell you is that their strict definition of a “traditional household” is one with a father, a mother, and exactly two children. Sometimes the definition even states that one of the children must be a boy and one must be a girl.

A family with a working father, a mother who stays at home, and three kids, for example, is not a “traditional family,” according to the Neolibs, who don’t mention that mother/father/children families comprise 41 percent of the total population, and another 20 percent is married couples whose kids are all grown and who have left home.

According to the Census Bureau’s 1990 Statistical Abstract of the United States , 57 percent of all Americans aged 25 and older are married and have children. Only eight percent are married without children, and this number includes those couples who have been married only a few months and intend to have children and those couples who are sterile due to environmental reasons.

Another 13 percent of adults are single and the remaining 22 percent are married with spouse absent, widowed, or divorced.

So it is obvious, if we take an honest look at the numbers, that the family is alive and well in America. Christian families should therefore not be conned by the Neoliberal number-crunchers into believing that they are some strange or “out of the mainstream,” because they are the mainstream. It is the childless or single Neoliberals who are the “odd men out.”

In addition to trying to make married people with children feel out of place, Neoliberals use numbers to try to convince everyone that children are just too expensive to have in today’s society.

The social engineers are now telling us that it costs $200,000 to raise a child to the age of 18. This cost is broken out by category in 1993 dollars as shown below;[8]

· food, $53,500

· clothing, $17,700

· housing, $60,000

· medical care, $9,800

· education, $3,400

· transportation, $29,700

· all other costs, $22,200

These numbers are obviously absurd. Who on earth spends $11,000 per year on each of their children?

What the Neoliberals don’t reveal is that the above numbers are for their ‘ideal’ two-parent, two-child family, and that it would take real effort on the part of a parent to spend the colossal sum of $200,000 on a child, even if it was spread out over 18 years.

In order to accomplish this feat, this mythical family would live in a $275,000 house, buy a new car every two years , and eat out twice a week at a good restaurant. Each child would get a new set of clothes each two weeks and a new pair of shoes each month and would have an allowance of $10 per week beginning at the age of five and ramping up to $50 per week by the age of 15.

Once again, how many American families meet the above description?

Maybe five percent -- if that many.

There are many families with four, five, or six kids whose single income amounts to less than $30,000 per year. Their children are well-fed and groomed, wear nice clothes, and enjoy themselves just as much as kids with no siblings from a two-income family with a total annual income of $100,000.

Perhaps it is true that only the poor can afford to have children.

Attacks on the Family by the Schools.

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”-- C.F. Potter. Humanism, a New Religion .[9]

Views of the Educators.

Most Christian parents sincerely believe that there can be little or no harm in sending their children to public schools. After all, some of them say, socialization is very important and we must expose our kids to other children with different values if they are going to be able to function in this complex secular world.

Christian parents who have this kind of attitude might just as well sell their kid’s souls to Satan and at least get some profit out of the deal.

While parents have taken their good old time and mulled over the atrocious state of American education, they have been forcibly divested of their most important responsibilities by Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, the PTA, and the all-powerful State. Our children are force-fed value-free pablum. They are taught that there are really no absolute standards; that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle; that religion has no place in the mind of a thinking person; and that abortion is a purely private matter between a woman and her physician.

In fact, this philosophy has been put into concrete action. Any child who attends public school must learn the following;

· that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle;

· that abortion is a matter to be decided not by the church or by the state, but solely by a woman and her physician;

· that Communism is merely another economic system that is inherently superior to Capitalism in many ways, and which must ultimately prevail;

· that the Christian religion has absolutely no place in education, although “New Age” and various Eastern and African practices abound;

· that there are absolutely no concrete ethical or moral rules, and that all problems must be considered on a case-by-case basis (the insidious ethical relativism or “situational ethics”);

· that there is really no good or evil, and that the concept of “sin” is outmoded;

· and that, above all else, the highest of all virtues are compassion and tolerance.

Extending State Control.

Humanists know that the future of our country rests with our children. Therefore, in order to control the future of our country, they must control the minds and the attitudes of our children. And the easiest way to control our children is to control the schools. Radical left-wing writers, including Alexander Cockburn and James Ridgeway, incessantly rail against parental “interference” in schools, because, as they openly acknowledge, “The Left can’t survive politically without a public school system to spread leftist attitudes.”[10]

Now that they have virtually absolute control over the schools, the Humanists would like to guarantee the success of their agenda by extending their pervasive control to the home. This is why they are so fanatically opposed to any type of home schooling. They say that they care about homeschooled children and worry about how they may be falling behind academically.

This, of course, is utter nonsense; homeschoolers have always excelled in academics and invariably outstrip their public-school educated peers, primarily because they have the personal attention of their parents.

The real reason the Humanists oppose home schooling is because it is a direct challenge to their system of absolute authority and control. They know that children who are homeschooled will grow up to challenge the Humanist agenda. And the Humanists, as we all know, despise dealing with opposing voices and viewpoints, because they hinder the headlong rush to the Utopian society.

The Glittering Bait.

Curiously, the means by which the Humanists have achieved absolute control over our children is by offering them absolute freedom . Children desire and need discipline, but they even more strongly yearn for freedom. They are thus strongly attracted by any philosophy that emphasizes their power to overcome man-made limits on their behavior.

The Mechanisms.

The Humanists in the public schools have many powerful weapons with which to subvert the values taught by parents. The most powerful of these weapons are situational ethics, permissive sex education, and the “kiddie lib” philosophy, as described below.

Weapon #1: Situational Ethics.

The most basic weapon used by the educators, of course, is the teaching of moral relativism, or “situational ethics.” This philosophy asserts that the only rule that is absolute is that there are really no rules that are absolute -- not even laws against murder. The moral relativists argue that every rule has exceptions, and that people must be free to judge whether or not society’s rules apply to them. Therefore, by extrapolation, children need not heed their parents if they do not want to.

But situational ethics must be taught while other values are being systematically excluded -- particularly values associated with Christianity. Not only have public schools banned the Bible because of its religious nature, but it cannot even be examined in its historical or literary context!

New York University psychologist Paul Vitz performed a comprehensive study of the Left-wing bias in textbooks for the National Institute of Education, and concluded that “Religion, traditional family values, and conservative political and economic positions have been reliably excluded from children’s textbooks.”[11]

Researchers funded by the National Institute of Education examined sixty standard social studies textbooks used by the majority of children in grades one through twelve in public schools. The primary conclusion of the study was dramatic: It found that religion, traditional family values, and conservative positions on virtually every issue have been completely censored from the curriculum of all public school students.[12]

· not a single word of the more than 1.5 million total words in the sixty volumes referred to any religious activity in contemporary American life.

· the words “marriage,” “wedding,” “husband,” and “wife” did not appear once in any of the sixty textbooks. No text even suggested that being a wife, mother, or homemaker was a worthy occupation in any way. No story gave any significance to children or babies. However, there were plenty of examples of aggressively Humanist/Neofeminist stories that derided and belittled traditionally male-oriented roles.

· of the 23 “role models” held up as examples to modern youths by the sixty texts, only one was a conservative. The only role models who were not Democrats were women. Not a single contemporary role model was a White male. There was not a word about the experiences and influence on society of a prominent preacher or clergyman, including Billy Graham, Terence Cardinal Cooke, and Norman Vincent Peale.

Weapon #2: Permissive Sex Education.

The second most powerful weapon used by public school systems are permissive sex education programs which desensitize children and strike at the heart of the parent/child relationship. Almost all school sex education curricula represent thinly-veiled attempts to inculcate students with a utilitarian “anything goes” attitude towards living, and these views are reinforced by other books that are freely available to students. For example, Wardell Pomeroy’s book Boys and Sex states that “I have known cases of farmboys who have had a loving sexual relationship with a farm animal and who felt good about their behavior.” And the Los Angeles grade-school reading series “Impressions” features monsters biting children’s heads off and Indian chiefs who urge children to cut the hearts out of their siblings and parents while they are sleeping.[11]

While Christianity emphasizes chastity before marriage and faithfulness to spouse afterward, public schools laugh at God and tell our kids that contraception, abortion, fornication, adultery, sodomy, and even sex with animals is value-free and therefore involves fundamental human rights that cannot be tampered with or interfered with -- especially by parents. Where Christianity teaches the necessary skill of self-control, the Humanists dangle the tempting vision of complete freedom in front of our children.

For more information on the destructive influence of comprehensive sex education in the schools, see Chapter 138.

Weapon #3: School-Based Clinics.

“Too many of us are focused upon stopping teenage sexual activity rather than stopping teenage pregnancy ... Sexuality education must be a fundamental part of the school curricula from kindergarten through twelfth grade in every school district in the country ... Easier access to contraception must be another priority -- access without any barriers. We must establish many more school-based health clinics that provide contraceptives as part of general health care.”-- Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[13]

Why Carry On?

Every Christian parent is aware of the proliferation of government-funded teen sex-related programs in the schools -- particularly the sex education programs and the school-based clinics (SBCs).

During the period 22-year period 1971 to 1992, the federal, state and local governments have poured $14.56 billion into teen birth control programs, including SBCs. The results of these programs? The rate of teen fornication has risen 99 percent; teen pregnancies have gone up 55 percent; and teen abortions have exploded 213 percent.[14]

If the numbers plainly show that the government’s teen birth control programs aren’t working, why do the bureaucrats continue to pour billions into them?

Because they are getting their money’s worth -- the sex ed, birth control, and SBC programs are breaking the most sensitive link between the generations -- the link of sexual values. The older generation is relatively conservative in its sexuality, and therefore unamenable to the social engineer’s tinkering. However, self-centered, fornicating, freedom-loving teens are eager for change. And so, the decisive split between parent and child becomes wider and wider with the help of permissive sex education and the SBCs.

How SBCs Deceive Parents.

School-based clinics not only corrupt the sexual morals of our children, they teach them how to lie and deceive their parents as well. This is another devastatingly effective way to insure that kids are brought up with values far different from those of their parents.

Once a school-based clinic is in place, its personnel, who are well-trained in standard unethical pro-abortion procedures, use underhanded tactics to insure that teenagers are given access to abortion and birth control devices, regardless of parental intent or wishes.

For example, once a parent has given permission for any health clinic service (say a sports physical), the child may then obtain any other service (such as birth control pills) without parental knowledge or consent.

Virtually no parents are aware of the existence of this sneaky carte blanche .

The Center for Population Options (CPO) encourages school-based clinics to distribute parental consent forms that are composed in such a manner that any forms not returned to the clinic are automatically interpreted as parental notification and consent. In other words, clinic personnel may simply give a teenage girl who wants birth control pills one of these consent forms and advise her not to give it to her parents -- and then they tell her that this ‘covers’ her for permission to use any clinic service whatever.

One Montana SBC worker said that her clinic advised teenaged girls to “bring a note from their parents -- any note,” and it would not be “investigated” or even read by clinic staff. The girls quickly caught on and forged their own notes.[15]

The Support Network.

Anyone who is confused or uncertain about the intentions of a program need only look at its list of sponsors and judge for themselves.

The support network for school-based clinics is primarily centered in quasi-governmental agencies and rich pro-abortion organizations, as follows;

· Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), owner and operator of the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States;

· Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of PPFA;

· Center for Population Options (CPO), a subsidiary of the Population Institute, which in turn operates the National Support Center for School-Based Clinics;

· Hillary Clinton’s favorite organization, the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), whose stated purpose is “To create a national climate of concern about adolescent pregnancy,” as outlined in the April 12, 1986 Chicago Metro News . The CDF runs the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse, which relentlessly promotes a negative image of pregnancy; and

· The Adolescent Pregnancy Child Watch Project (APCW), which also relentlessly peddles SBCs. Comprised of the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Council of Negro Women, the Association of Junior Leagues, the March of Dimes, and the Nation Coalition of 100 Black Women.

The Final Solution.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the above information are painfully obvious. As tax money is poured into providing pills and condoms for teenagers, they acquire not only a pervasive feeling of sexual invulnerability, but receive validation of fornication from the ‘system’ as well. The percentage of sexually active teenagers skyrockets. And, inevitably, since contraception is not designed for relatively undisciplined teenagers, it fails and the teen pregnancy and abortion rates explode as well.

The school sex clinic concept has been labeled ineffective and a failure --not only by its critics, but by its proponents as well, as shown in Chapter 82 of Volume II.

But this is only if the real objective of the clinics is to stop teen pregnancy. This is not the case, as outlined above. The real purpose of SBCs is to break the link of common morality between parents and their children -- a job they have accomplished very well indeed.

Weapon #4: “Kiddie Lib.”

The fourth weapon used by the school systems is the “Children’s Liberation” movement. Although their demands are many, the primary focus of the “Kiddie Libbers” is complete and total autonomy for every child. The objective of such programs is plain: Emancipated children are easy prey for any organized group that wants to exploit them.

The “Kiddie Lib” movement is described in more detail in Chapter 114, “Home Schooling.”

Attacks on the Family by the Government.

Introduction.

Some politicians in government are merely a sometimes distorted reflection of their constituents. However, others are virtual slaves to Neoliberal special interest groups and come under intense pressure to conform once they are elected to office. Neoliberal pressure groups have billions of dollars to spend on social engineering, and their best investments have been in the judicial and legislative arenas.

All veteran pro-lifers know that the United States Supreme Court, acting on cases decided at lower levels, gave us contraception on demand in 1965, abortion on demand in 1973, and now euthanasia on demand in certain cases. The courts have also been the primary players in striking down almost all restrictions on pornography and homosexual behavior, contrary to what the Neoliberals claim with their scaremongering propaganda.

But few people are aware that government and government-funded organizations attack the family and its values on every possible front in a consistent and logical manner, through population control, through anti-natalist propaganda, by the funding of filthy “art,” and by undermining parental values directly.

Indirect Attacks.

Government planners are certainly cunning enough to know that a direct assault on the family by the Federal government would create chaos and a huge backlash, both of which would be detrimental to its primary goals of self-perpetuation and creative social engineering.

Therefore, the United States government attacks American families indirectly -- by funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars annually to organizations that willingly and eagerly do its dirty work. Government-funded and quasi-governmental organizations operate at every level and work together with very little friction. The more than 200 organizations that undermine family values include, among others, the Support Center for School-Based Clinics, the Population Institute, the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).

Examples of Projects.

It would require thousands of pages to outline the projects undertaken by this network of organizations in just one year. However, it is interesting to take a tiny sample and examine the activities of one of the groups that operates primarily outside the United States, and one that does its dirty work in our country.

In 1987, the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), in partnership with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), spent $720,684 to purchase abortifacient contraceptives in Jamaica; contributed $700,000 to a World Bank project that established 18 sterilization facilities in Kenya; contributed $1,800,000 to another World Bank project in Malawi for the development of sterilization services; financed for $795,569 an UNFPA and World Health Organization (WHO) project that expanded mobile sterilization units in Nepal; funded for $37,116 a UNFPA project in Rwanda that supplied abortifacients; funded for $21,657 another UNFPA project in conjunction with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in Tanzania that provided abortifacients; funded a stockpile of contraceptives in Zimbabwe; and sponsored the formation of committees in 15 African nations to expand contraception, abortion and sterilization availability.[16] Every one of these projects was designed to attack indigenous family values and childbearing.

In the United States, the Population Institute kicked off The Rock Project in 1975 with a satiric “Civic Consciousness-Raising Award” to Paul Anka for his song “Having My Baby (What a Wonderful Way of Showing How Much You Love Me).” The award was a gift certificate for a free vasectomy.

The PI followed this rather obvious antinatalist propaganda with its first National Condom Couplet Contest, whose winners were announced on a special Condom Day designated on February 20, 1978. Entrants were instructed to make up a two-line “poem” that denigrated the value of children and parenthood.

There were more than 500 entrants, all examined by a three-judge panel consisting of a teenaged girl, a sex educator, and the senior editor of Rolling Stone Magazine.

The “winning” couplets are shown below.

WINNERS OF THE POPULATION INSTITUTE’S “CONDOM COUPLET CONTEST”

FIRST PRIZE: A Solid Gold Condom.

“From using a condom you will learn/ No deposit means no return.”

SECOND PRIZE: A Bronzed Wallet with Circular

[Condom] Indentation: “Rubberizing copulation/ Puts a cap on population.”

THIRD PRIZE: A Gross of Condoms (144) for the

Night of Your Life: “When you rise ... Condomize.”

FINALISTS.

“Twins are bad, triplets worse,/ Use a condom, safety first!”

“Rubbers are jolly, rubbers are fun,/ Better to use one than end up a mum.”

Reference. The “Condom Couplet Contest” is described in National Alliance for Optional Parenthood. “Searching for Alternatives to Teenage Pregnancy.” 1980, 36 pages, $2.75.

There are more than 200 major population control organizations with a combined annual budget of more than fifteen billion dollars operating all over the world right now. UNICEF and the Population Institute are only two middle-sized groups from this vast assortment of anti-family, anti-life organizations.

The activities of the largest of all of these groups, Planned Parenthood, are described in Chapters 64 to 68 of Volume II.

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

[1] The Document: Declaration of Feminism . Originally distributed in June of 1971 by Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger of Post Office Box 7064, Powderhorn Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407.

[2] Gloria Steinem, quoted in the Saturday Review of Education , March 1973.

[3] Katarina Runske. “Empty Hearts and Empty Homes.” Feminism v. Mankind . Family Publications, Wicken, Milton Keynes, Britain, 1990. Page 21.

[4] David Kupelian and Mark Masters. “The New McCarthyism.” New Dimensions Magazine, July 1, 1990, page 22.

[5] As described in The Oregonian , October 27, 1989, page D7.

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

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

[8] Lisa Baxter. “‘50s Boomers have a Boomlet of Their Own.” Chicago Tribune-Review , October 10, 1982, page G2.

[9] D.L. Cuddy. “Are Public Schools Opening the Door to Humanism?” National Federation of Decency Journal , October 1986, page 21. This is an excellent discussion of the various methods used by Humanist groups to censor Christian viewpoints.

[10] Joseph Sobran. “The Abortion Culture.” Human Life Review , Spring 1981, pages 7 to 19.

[11] Don Feder. “Censorship is in the Eye of the Beholder.” New Dimensions Magazine, December 1990, page 15.

[12] Paul C. Vitz. “Scholars Say Textbooks Censor Out Religion.” National Federation for Decency Journal , March 1986, page 6.

[13] Faye Wattleton, PPFA President. “Reproductive Rights for a More Humane World.” The Humanist , July/August 1986 page 7.

[14] M. Zelnick and J.F. Kantner. “Sexual and Contraceptive Experience of Young Unmarried Women in the U.S., 1971 and 1976.” Alan Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives , March-April 1977, page 62. M. Zelnick and J.F. Kantner. “Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Pregnancy Among Metropolitan Area Teenagers, 1971 to 1979.” Family Planning Perspectives , September-October 1980, page 235. Stan E. Weed. “Curbing Births, Not Pregnancies.” The Wall Street Journal , October 14, 1986. Charles W. Norris, M.D. “Teaching Respect.” Fidelity Magazine, April 1987, page 29. “The US Family Staggers Into the Sexy Secular Future.” Family Research Newsletter , January-March 1991, page 1, Table 1 entitled “Percentage of Women Aged 15-19 Who Reported Having Had Premarital Sexual Intercourse, By Race and Age -- United States, 1970- 1988.” The numbers in this figure are linearly extrapolated using 1970- 1990 rates.

[15] Mary Meehan and Elizabeth Moore. “Forced Abortion Suggested at Clinic Owner’s Conference.” National Right to Life News , June 2, 1980, pages 1 and 13.

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

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