Tag Archives: Lila Rose

UCLA pro-lifers attacking Planned Parenthood for… racism

(Originally posted at DailyKos.)

Pro-lifers hate Planned Parenthood.  We know that.  But now they’ve taken their attacks to a whole new level, with viral videos and such.  Now, there’s an ongoing campaign right here at UCLA in 2008 to discredit PP as being associated with racists.  This latest onslaught highlights PP founder Margaret Sanger of being in favor of eugenics, which was true, but then tries to equate her views with that of the present-day Planned Parenthood.  Logical fallacy, anyone?  And then there’s been “undercover” work done to try and prove that Planned Parenthood in its present state is still secretly racist against black people.

This is their latest attack video they’ve released.

From this new pro-life magazine, The Advocate (run by a UCLA student, no less), we have this “article” that claims Margaret Sanger’s legacy is one of “abortion as eugenics”.

But Planned Parenthood has not really left eugenics behind. They deny it, but consider their deeds. In a 1921 article Sanger called eugenics “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” As if marching to her tune, PP is solving those unfitting racial and social problems daily: 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are placed in minority neighborhoods (black and Hispanic). According to the Center for Disease Control’s report, “Abortion Surveillance”, blacks in particular receive 35% of all abortions in the United States, though they comprise less than 13% of the population. Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

PP has so far avoided comparison of their sales figures with Sanger’s messianic hope for genetic cleansing. It is interesting that they have escaped condemnation in a world so sensitive to racism. After all, words kill in politics-take ’08 presidential candidate Joseph Biden, whose campaign sank after he uttered “macaca.” The puritans of PC stoned Biden for the slightest hint of racism, but not a one has looked into the progeny of Margaret Sanger, who was the real deal, bona fide racism with a brick and a noose. While Biden was martyred, Sanger is praised for PP’s hands-on work curtailing the unwanted.

First… Joe Biden?!?!?!?!?  Yes, in these people’s minds, Joe Biden was Mr. Macaca, instead of the actual bigot who uttered those words, Republican George Allen.

But the bigger problem is their conclusion.  First, you can read the latest Abortion Surveillance report for yourselves.  It’s from 2004.  And yes, as they say, 35% of women who get abortions in the U.S. are black, even though blacks only make up about 13% of the population.  But look at that next sentence.

Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

OK, I’m calling bullshit on this one.  How can this person say “almost half”?  It’s similar to what former Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said, that “70 percent” of black babies were aborted, which drew sharp and fast rebukes from African-American legislators.  Beauprez quickly apologized for that incredibly wrong number.

So where are they getting this “almost half” number?  Well, it’s a combination of the CDC report and not understanding basic math.  The report says this:

In the 38 reporting areas for which race was provided, classified according to the same categories used in previous years, approximately 53% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were white; 35%, black; and 8%, other; race was not known for 4% (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (472 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (161 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogeneous “other” race category (330 per 1,000) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women.

That’s what the person saw.  The numbers 472 and 1,000, and so it must mean 47.2%, which is “almost half”!  Except… it’s a RATIO, not a percentage.  Those “1,000 live births” are just that; babies that are actually born, i.e., not aborted.  If you want the percentage, it’s 472 / (472 + 1000) = 32%.  (FYI, the percentage for whites is 13.9%.)  Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on whether 32% is too high of a number.  But we simply don’t refer to a percentage that less than one-third as being “almost half”!  Well, unless you’re a pro-lifer, I guess.

Now, I am not a historian well-versed in what Margaret Sanger’s personal beliefs actually were.  I’ll just cite her Wikipedia entry about what pro-lifers are trying to do.

Sanger remains a controversial figure. While she is widely credited as a leader of the modern birth control movement, and remains an iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movements, she also is reviled by some who condemn her as “an abortion advocate.” Pro-life groups have frequently condemned Sanger’s views, attributing her efforts to promote birth control to a desire to “purify” the human race through eugenics, and even to eliminate minority races by placing birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods. For this reason, Sanger is often quoted selectively or out of context, and her history and involvement with socialism and eugenics have often been rationalized or even ignored by her defenders and biographers. Despite allegations of racism, Sanger’s work with minorities earned the respect of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In their biographical article about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood notes:

In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city’s health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community’s elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois.

Now, the Advocate, along with Live Action Films (the pro-life counterpart to Brave New Films, it seems), is putting forth viral videos of their own undercover investigations.  The latest is calling Planned Parenthood personnel in Ohio and Idaho pretending to be a potential donor, where they “catch” the workers there being OK to taking money from a racist donor.  Um, that’s it?  While that may be bad, these people then want to paint the entire organization as being racist and in favor of eugenics.  Live Action Films did their part in putting out a video of those phone calls to Ohio and Idaho.

And already, WorldNetDaily is on the case reporting this story too.  Except to see it on Drudge in a few days, and Bill O’Reilly to bloviate about it next week.  The reporter who broke this story has already been interviewed by Brad Mattes for his show I’ve never heard of, Facing Life Head-On.

And just who is this crack reporter who broke the story?  UCLA student Lila Rose.  You may remember her from last year, when she did a similar undercover thing with Planned Parenthood, pretending to be a 15-year-old girl seeking an abortion, and getting the PP person she talked with to tell her to lie about her age.  She had brought a hidden camera and recorded the entire conversation, and put it up on YouTube.  It became a hit among pro-life groups, netting her interviews with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.  Oh, and Live Action Films?  She co-founded it.  She does seem to have an up-and-coming career; look for her as an investigative reporter on Fox News in a few years.

(There’s no way I’m embedding Fox News or pro-life videos on this site, which is why I’ve only linked to the YouTube videos here.  Too much nausea involved.)

No Dirty Tricks: Bruins sounding the call

(We need to stay on top of the education aspect of this. There are already reports that low-information voters are getting bogus explanations of what’s in PERA. – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

UCLA is about to begin classes this week.  That’s right, this week.  I know, it’s almost October.  That’s how we roll.  😎

So in the inaugural issue of the Daily Bruin, they generally have submissions from both the Bruin Republicans and the Bruin Democrats.  So what does the president of Bruin Democrats have to talk about in the first issue?  Iraq?  Global warming?  Health care?  Our kick-ass quarter-opening barbecue?

No, he uses it to educate the UCLA student body about the GOP’s dirty trick to steal California’s electoral votes.

He ends it with this flourish.

The upcoming academic year at UCLA will be extraordinarily political.

You will be asked to sign all sorts of things on behalf of various causes, but remember your mother’s advice about going to parties: watch your cup closely; you never know what someone might put in it when you’re not looking.

As cheesy as your mom’s advice may be, it certainly applies here. Be careful about which petitions you sign when you’re on Bruin Walk. If you don’t pay close attention, your signature might contribute to this ruthless Republican power grab.

Now that’s something you will wake up regretting in the morning.

Keep in mind his audience is college students who are probably more concerned with when the next frat party is than some bizarre ballot initiative.  You have to break through that wall to really reach them.  Likening it to a bad hook-up seems more than appropriate for this crowd.  🙂

We’re gonna be getting the message out to the student body this year at UCLA.  Of course, that means also educating the many conservative students at UCLA too about it, who may be inclined to support it after learning what it does.  Ah well.  Such is life.

BTW, as for the conservative point of view in the paper, it was given by this girl, who complains the pro-life voice isn’t being heard.  You may recognize her name as the same girl who secretly taped a Planned Parenthood session where she pretended to be a 15-year-old girl, and got an employee to tell her to pretend she was 16 so she wouldn’t have to report her boyfriend for statutory rape.  She put it on YouTube, and the controversy exploded.  Got invited on Bill O’Reilly and everything.  She also founded the pro-life magazine The Advocate on our campus.  Her op-ed includes gems like this:

In 1973, the Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy.

Goodness gracious sakes alive!  (John Wooden reference.)  You mean, you can just go and get an abortion at 8 1/2 months, like that??  Who knew??? She is clever, though.  She won’t come right out and make a blanket statement that she’s against abortion.  She knows there’s too many ways to destroy that argument.  So instead she goes for the plea of letting her people be heard.  Yes, why aren’t they being heard, the voice of the enfranchised?

Yeah, we have to deal with that kind of shit at UCLA.  Anyway, I’d like to hear about what’s going on in terms of trying to stop the GOP’s power grab at other universities across California.  Anyone hear other things going on there?