13-feb-17

Emilee Body had heard much about the protesters outside Albury’s Englehardt Street abortion clinic. Feeling nervous as she approached it, she turned a corner and immediately saw them.

She remembered stories of women being harassed, being filmed and even being handed plastic foetal dolls as they entered the clinic.

Ms Body was stressed enough as it was, and did not want to suffer the indignity of their protests. But as her car entered the clinic’s driveway they started to approach. She locked eye contact with them and panicked.

Zipping past and parking out the back, Ms Body rushed into the building. Once inside, a doctor and nurses reassured her, apologising for the protesters outside. And they also gave her the option to reconsider her choice and leave.

Having made her decision, the procedure was performed under general anaesthetic and afterwards Ms Body went home to rest, supported by her close friends.

Four years later, the issue of abortion law reform has flared once again, with Albury MP Greg Aplin asserting: “abortion can have profound physical or psychological effects and side-effects”.

Upon hearing Mr Aplin’s words, Ms Body said she felt compelled to send a message to NSW politicians who will debate this year whether to decriminalise abortion and enforce safe access zones around clinics, therefore putting an end to the Englehardt Street protesters:

“I have no profound physical or psychological effects or side-effects,” Ms Body said.

“I made a calculated and well thought-out decision that I would never change.

“Yes, some women may experience these effects, but a lot of women won’t, and just because something can be harmful doesn’t mean it should be banned.”

And Ms Body said she is proof that not every woman who has an abortion in a controlled environment suffers long-term side-effects. Three years later, the 27-year-old gave birth to a baby boy in December 2015.

Before her abortion, she had fallen pregnant while on the pill. Her personal and financial situation was totally unsuitable to raise a baby, she said.

As politicians return to Parliament in Sydney this week, some will have in mind the findings of a Lonergan Research poll in 2015 that interviewed 1015 NSW residents about abortion.

It found 83 per cent of Liberal and National party voters supported enforcing safe access zones around clinics as Victoria has already done.

Ms Body said she wants politicians like Mr Aplin to listen to women like her.

“It wasn’t an easy decision, but if someone’s made that decision, don’t try and get in a woman’s way to change it,” she said.

Source: Herald

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4462632/mum-speaks-out-amid-abortion-reform-fight/?cs=2452#slide=1

7-nov

A federal appeals court has upheld a New Hampshire law allowing buffer zones around abortion clinics that supporters say protect women from harassment.

The law allowing buffer zones up to 25 feet has been on New Hampshire’s books since 2014, but no clinic has set up a buffer zone.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said in its Wednesday ruling that anti-abortion activists had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law because with no buffer zones in place, their protests have not been affected. It said the case was premature.

“The act is not currently preventing the plaintiffs from engaging in expressive activities in whatever public areas they please,” the court wrote.

The court also rejected allegations that the challenge was valid based on fears that protesters could be prosecuted someday if the zones are set up. The ruling called the arguments “overly speculative allegations of injury.”

While supporters say the zones protect women, opponents say they infringe on their free speech rights. An attorney for the plaintiffs said Thursday the group would decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“An unconstitutional law shouldn’t remain on the books just because abortionists haven’t taken advantage of the power the law gives them to silence speech,” said attorney Michael Tierney.

The Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Massachusetts shortly after New Hampshire’s law took effect. But unlike the Massachusetts law, New Hampshire’s law does not mandate the buffer zones.

Jennifer Frizzell, vice president for public policy at Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund, called the ruling good news for women seeking reproductive health care in New Hampshire. She said she hopes lawmakers considering proposals to repeal the law will keep it in mind.

“No one should face violence, harassment, or threats when accessing safe, legal health care. New Hampshire women deserve safe passage when entering or exiting reproductive health care facilities,” she said. “Yesterday’s decision preserves the thoughtful law crafted by the (New Hampshire) legislature ….”

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/court-upholds-states-law-buffers-abortion-clinics-44739983

 

 

 

4-nov

The Zika outbreak has led to calls for Latin American countries to loosen their strict abortion laws and make contraceptives more readily available.

The Zika virus outbreak and its probable association with microcephaly in newborns are prompting calls to loosen Latin America’s strict abortion laws and make birth control more readily available.

Abortion is fully criminalized in six countries in the region. In El Salvador, for instance, women who have abortions can face prison. In many other countries, including Brazil and Colombia, abortion is permitted only in cases of rape, incest or fetal impairment.

As Zika raises anxieties about babies born with significant medical problems, some physicians and reproductive health advocates think the virus should create another legal exception for abortion.

Even though abortion is outlawed in much of Latin America, women still seek it out at legal and physical risk. In fact, 13 percent of maternal deaths (the fourth highest cause) in the region can be attributed to unsafe abortions.

Concern about Zika could lead to real change for reproductive health for millions of women in the region. But this can happen only if the expansion of abortion and contraception is based on human rights and reproductive health equity, not driven primarily by fears of defective babies.

Abortion is restricted in most of Latin America

Abortion is fully criminalized, with no exceptions, in El Salvador, Chile, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and Suriname. In El Salvador, 30 to 40 women are serving prison sentences for seeking abortions.

In many other countries, including Argentina, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia, abortion is permitted under certain circumstances.

In Brazil, for instance, abortion has been allowed since 1940 in instances of rape or endangerment to the woman. Women who seek abortions outside these exceptions and the physicians who perform the procedure can be imprisoned.

In 2012, Brazil’s Supreme Court upheld anencephaly (the absence of parts of the brain and skull in the fetus) as a justifiable condition for the termination of a pregnancy, creating a new exception.

Health officials in Brazil have suggested that women avoid pregnancy until the Zika crisis is over. While Brazilian women are using contraception at a slowly increasing rate, up to 81 percent in 2006 from 78 percent in 1996, there are significant class and regional divides when it comes to access.

A member of ‘Miles,’ an NGO supporting sexual and reproductive rights, shows pins that read ‘I support the abortion decision’ at their headquarters in Santiago.

In 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued Decision C-355, guaranteeing three health exceptions for abortion: when the woman’s health is endangered, when serious malformations make the fetus unviable or when the pregnancy has resulted from criminal acts such as rape or incest. The decision was based, in part, on action from two groups called Women’s Link Worldwide and La Mesa.

Now that Zika is spreading in Colombia, affecting as many as 6,300 pregnant women, some physicians and women’s health advocates are eyeing the possibility of another exception.

While that possibility is debated, officials are urging women of childbearing age to avoid pregnancy, a suggestion as problematic as it is unrealistic. Colombia has high levels of unplanned pregnancy, and birth control is expensive.

El Salvador, Ecuador and Jamaica have made similar calls for women to delay pregnancy.

Why is access to birth control and abortion so restricted?

Up to one-half of sexually active women in Latin America have an unmet need for contraceptionUp to 58 percent of pregnancies in Latin America are unintended (compared to 45 percent in the United States).

Many factors explain why birth control is out of reach for so many Latin American women. Cost can be a significant barrier to access, but it’s not the only one.

The Catholic Church and evangelical religions are stalwart opponents to abortion and contraception. Even when there is growing public support of birth control and abortion, legislatures have been exceedingly slow to enact change.

 Why are mothers in El Salvador being charged with homicide or manslaughter after losing a child? Dateline investigates the country’s extreme anti-abortion laws and finds local women fighting to have their cases heard.

For instance, in the mid-2000s, then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sought to expand abortion in Brazil, casting it as an important public health issue. Despite rising public support, he could not obtain enough support from his own left-wing Worker’s Party (PT) to change existing law.

Judicial interpretation frequently invokes moral law about protecting the right to life from conception. For example, both Argentina’s Civil Code and Brazil’s Penal Code and Constitution uphold that life commences at conception. This has been invoked in a range of abortion cases.

Finally, mainstream media coverage of abortion tends to be negative and reflects patriarchal values around motherhood and reproduction.

These obstacles are why women’s rights groups and reproductive health advocates, like those who argued for exceptions in Colombia, have strategically used harm reduction and exception rationales to open wedges in ironclad abortion policies.

Where is abortion legal in Latin America?

Abortion is legal and accessible in just a few places in Latin America.

In 1979, Cuba fully legalized abortion and made it available as part of overall health services.

In 1995, Guyana allowed women to obtain abortions on request in the first eight weeks of pregnancy. After that, abortion is available under certain circumstances.

In 2007, following campaigns that involved women’s groups, supportive legislators and NGOs, Mexico City bucked national policy and decriminalized abortion in the first trimester. The decision was based on human rights, reproductive health and even sympathetic theological arguments.

Uruguayan senators vote 17 to 14 in favor of a bill to legalize abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in Montevideo.

In 2012, Uruguay made abortion available upon request in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, following a five-day period of reflection for the woman considering termination. Later-term abortions are permitted in instances of rape and when a women’s health is endangered.

The seeds for this change were planted in the mid-2000s with the implementation of a “harm reduction model,” which allowed women to induce abortions using drugs like Mifeprex. Although this law depended on the logic of health exception, it was passed amid increasing emphasis on health equity. Since its passage, maternal deaths due to abortion have decreased markedly in the country. Uruguay now has the third lowest maternal death rate in the Americas after Canada and the United States.

Not surprisingly, contraception also is more accessible and accepted in countries where abortion laws are less restrictive. For example, a 2014 Pew Research Center poll found that only five percent of people in Uruguay believe contraception is morally wrong, compared to 45 percent in El Salvador.

Underground abortions are a major public health problem

Zika is a public emergency in Latin America, forcing nations to devote resources to halting its continued spread. But unsafe abortion is another public health crisis the region faces.

Latin America has the highest incidence of unsafe abortion in the world, resulting in approximately 1,100 maternal deaths per year. According to the Guttmacher Institute, of the 4.4 million abortions performed in all of Latin America in 2008, 95 percent were unsafe. About 760,000 women are hospitalized for complications from these substandard procedures each year.

Many of the women harmed by lack of access to abortion are indigenous, low-income or live in rural areas. They may not have money nor the legal resources to obtain abortions in private clinics or to make a case for an exception based on rape or incest.

Indeed, 1.6 million women are raped each year in Latin America, making access to emergency contraception and abortion all the more critical.

The Zika outbreak has the potential to promote change in abortion and birth control policies across Latin America. Yet these reproductive health options should not be framed simply as solutions to the latest health crisis or the specter of babies with deformities. Women need contraception and access to safe, legal abortion whether they are living in an area where Zika is active, or not.

Following the lead of Uruguay and Mexico City, framing abortion and contraception in terms of human rights and reproductive health equity could help expand access to these critical services for millions of women.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/article/2016/11/04/zika-and-abortion-will-virus-prompt-latin-america-rethink-abortion-and-birth

Source: SBS

Anti Choice

Anti Choice

John Dunkle is an eighty-ish year old anti-abortion activist who makes his base in the Allentown/Reading, Pennsylvania area. For way too many years, he has regularly protested outside of a few abortion clinics in the area and occasionally at the home of clinic staff people.

I became acquainted with Dunkle through this blog. When I posted my stuff, he immediately jumped into the fray. For several years he almost single-handedly carried the banner for the anti-abortion crowd. Of course, we disagreed on everything but I always gave him credit for one thing: he had energy. He always seemed to have an answer, a reply, a zinger to my posts or to the comments from others. While I never agreed with him, I was always candid about my support of his ability to protest at a clinic and even at a house within certain boundaries. Indeed, years ago when the pro-choice groups were lobbying hard for passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, I took a lot of heat because I felt the First Amendment protected most forms of protest and we ultimately got language in the law saying so.

So, Dunkle regularly ranted and raved. I always found it interesting, however, when another anti-abortion person chimed in because I always thought Dunkle resented someone else barging in on “his” terrain. Then, about 18 months ago, Dunkle signed off. I don’t remember if he gave a reason, but he basically said adios and disappeared. I actually wondered if he was ill.

I will admit that I missed him in some way. I’ve always enjoyed being in the middle of the great abortion debate and I’ve always relished the opportunity to articulate my very strong convictions on this very delicate issue. And I never hid behind the “choice” word. I went right to the meat of the issue and talked about ABORTION. And I took a bunch of hits for doing so.

Anti Choice

Anti Choice

Then, lo and behold, Dunkle reappears! Like Lazarus rising from the dead, one day he just popped up and commented on a post! WTF?

I welcomed him back, as did some of the other pro-choice commentators. We had a few back and forth repostes, no damage done, then I asked him if he was still out there protesting. He said he was, that he continued to go to two clinics and a house. It was funny because, when I read that, I almost felt sorry for him. I envisioned this worn out activist, lamely standing outside of an abortion clinic, a pathetic sight to behold, shouting to the women as they entered the facility.

And then I asked him if he felt that, after all of these years, he had accomplished anything. His answer was something like that was not for him to judge. He didn’t say he had saved any babies, that he had furthered his cause, that he had made a difference. It sounded like a tired response.

I admire anyone who stands up for a cause, as long as it is done within legal limits. At least that person stands for something and is taking part in our democratic process. But I also think of Dunkle’s family, his kids, his grandkids, his wife and other loved ones who have watched him trek on down to the local abortion clinic every Saturday. I wonder if they think he has accomplished anything?

How sad.

If you have been following my recent posts, you know I am supporting the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride set to kick off on 23 July 2013 in New York City and San Francisco.  I discussed this summer’s action with a number of people I respect, and there is a divide in the abortion rights community on whether or not it is wise to embark on this action.  I did not reach the decision to support and join with the Riders without giving the decision due diligence; nor, did I neglect to consider the multiple outcomes of the action.

When facing a dichotomous debate among two sides of the community, two camps who should be working together toward common goals, I ask myself now as I did in the past, What Would Dad Do?  Would he shrink back into the shadows, rely solely on private action and influence, or would he advocate, and actually engage in, direct action and response to those who tormented, stalked, and eventually killed him?  Obviously, we know the answer:  he did not back down!  As I wrote a couple of posts ago, I also cannot and will not back down.

Upon the 20th year after my dad’s murder by a Christian terrorist, as we face continued threat of violence, and as state after state passes draconian anti abortion legislation, I reflect not only on what my dad would do but also consider the words of Yeats:

Things said or done long years ago,
Or things I did not do or say
But thought that I might say or do,
Weigh me down, and not a day
But something is recalled,
My conscience or my vanity appalled.

Knowing I will be appalled by remaining silent, I resolved the vacillation by opting to support what I believe is the right course of action.  To that end, I co-authored a piece on the merits and need of the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride with one of its primary organizers Sunsara Taylor.  I want to share with you our recent missive so perhaps more of us will come together on the need for direct, vocal, and mass support our clinics, our doctors, and our rights

Abortion Rights Are At a Crossroads:
This is NOT a Time to Lay Low – It is Time for Massive Uncompromising Struggle!

By Sunsara Taylor and David Gunn, Jr.
July 12, 2013

Across the country, people are waking up to the state of emergency facing the right to abortion. As legislators in Texas push hard to close down 37 of 42 abortion clinics statewide, new laws in North Carolina would close four of their five remaining clinics. Meanwhile, Ohio’s recently passed budget could close as many as three abortion clinics. North Dakota, on August 1st, may become the first state to effectively ban abortion. Already Mississippi’s last abortion clinic is merely an appellate ruling away from closure. We could go on.

If we do not reverse this trajectory now, we will condemn future generations of women and girls to forced motherhood, to lives of open enslavement, terror, and life-crushing shame. Women will be forced to have children they do not want, trapping them in abusive relationships, driving them into poverty, forcing them out of school, and extinguishing their dreams. Women will go to desperate and dangerous measures to terminate unwanted pregnancies, once again flooding emergency rooms and turning up dead women in cheap motels with blood caked between their legs.

We face two divergent roads: Either we seize control of the debate and reset the terms and whole trajectory of this fight; or we continue down the road of “established conventional wisdom,” only to awaken before long to an unrecognizable and untenable situation for women. What each of us does matters,and matters tremendously.

It is in this context that we initiated an Abortion Rights Freedom Ride. Our echo of the Civil Rights Freedom Rides is intentional and fitting. Women who cannot decide for themselves if and when they have children are not free. On the contrary, they are mere child-bearing chattel whose purpose is to serve and not actively chose their destinies.

Volunteers on this Freedom Ride will caravan from both coasts to North Dakota, traverse through the middle of the country into Wichita, and head due south to Jackson, Mississippi. Our aim is threefold: one, we must move beyond localized fights andlauncha national counter-offensive; two, we must radically reset the political, moral, and ideological terms of this fight so that millions understand that this fight is about women’s liberation or women’s enslavement; lastly, and of paramount importance, we must call forth the mass independent political resistance that is necessary to defeat this war on women.

As the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride evolved from conception to genesis, many have responded by with enthusiastic and unequivocal support. Regular people from across the country as well as those who have been on the front lines of the abortion rights struggle are joining with us in demanding abortion rights without compromise and thanking us for daring to travel to where women’s rights face harshest threat.

However, some who share our passion for the cause have raised concerns and even opposition to this action. They fear the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride will be too confrontational, too vociferous for abortion, and may turn off avenues of support.
Some have argued that it is wrong for people to come into local areas from the outside. Others argue that mass political protest will endanger the chances of winning important court cases and that it is better to rely on official channels of politics.

Because the future of women is at stake, we feel it is critical to address these concerns head on. In fact, it is exactly the faulty logic at the root of these concerns that has contributed to all of us finding ourselves in such a dire situation.

First, while local ground conditions are different and unique in some ways, the fact that every clinic and every state is facing heightened assault is not unique nor is it local. We all face a national assault on abortion rights which requires a national counter-offensive. Not only is it utterly immoral for us to abandon the women living in the states most under direct duress, it is delusional to think that what happens in states like Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota and Kansas will not come soon to a theater near you. Our futures are bound together and we all share the responsibility to take this on and turn the tide where the attacks are the most severe.

Second, while it is true that a great many people – including many who support abortion rights – are defensive about abortion, they should not be ashamed and this defensiveness and shame is precisely something we must eradicate.

Among the reasons many are defensive about abortion are decades of propaganda by those who oppose women’s equality but posture as defenders of “babies”; meanwhile, supporters of abortion rights have too often been conciliatory, muted, and compromising. This must stop. This fight has never been about babies. It has always been about controlling women. This is why there is not a single major anti-abortion organization that supports birth control.

If we want to turn the tide, we have to tell the truth: there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion. Fetuses are NOT babies. Abortion is NOT murder. Women are NOT incubators.

A great many people are hungry for this message. They are furious and searching for a meaningful vehicle to make their outrage felt. It is only by asserting the positive morality of abortion rights that we can call forth and mobilize the tens of thousands who already share our resolve. Only through direct action and a polemical shift can all of us stand together and change how millions of others are thinking. Shouldn’t this emergency situation awaken us to the need to change public opinion, not accommodate it?

History has proven that directly confronting oppressive social norms can be disruptive and scary; yet, it is a necessary and uplifting part of making any significant positive change. Many argued that it was wiser for LGBT people to stay closeted until society was more accepting; others counseled against the Civil Rights Freedom Rides out of fear that it would only rile up the opposition, but it was only when people took that risk and got “in your face” that broader public opinion and actions began to change.

We must create a situation where being anti-abortion is seen to be as socially unacceptable as it is to advocate lynchings, anti-LGBT violence, or rape (although, if you listen to some on the Right, rape advocacy is not necessarily off their table).When we reach that summit, we will be on our way to turning the tide.

Third, while court cases are important – even essential – it is only through truly massive independent political struggle that we stand a chance at defeating the truly unyielding and powerful foe we face. Every setback the anti-abortion movement experiences only makes them more determined and every victory only makes them more aggressive. They will not be appeased if we lie low. No court case or election or new law will stop them. Not only has the existing power structure proven unwilling or unable to do so, people who believe they are on a “mission from God” are not bound by human laws and do not yield to public opinion.

But they can be defeated. Forced motherhood is deeply opposed to the interests of humanity. If we get out there and tell the truth, if we resist, if we clarify the stakes of this battle, and if we mobilize wave upon wave of the masses to get off the sidelines and into the streets with us, we can win. There is a tremendous reservoir of people who can and must be called forth to join in this struggle. We have seen this vividly in Texas. Let us not underestimate the potential that exists in every state across this country.

We stand at a crossroads. For the future of women everywhere, let us refuse the worn pathways that have allowed us to lose so much ground. We must not lay low, hope these attacks will blow over, and allow women in some parts of the country to be forced into mandatory motherhood while hoping to preserve the rights of a shrinking few. We cannot continue to foster the attitude that abortion is the 21st Century’s Scarlet Letter while allowing abortion providers to be further stigmatized and demonized. We cannot recoil from the massive fight that urgently needs fighting at this moment in this time.

Now is the time for courage, for truth telling, for stepping out and launching an uncompromising counter-offensive. We have right on our side. We call on everyone who cares about the future of women to join with us in strengthening the national impact and influence of this Abortion Rights Freedom Ride. Join with us at our kick-off rallies in New York City and San Francisco in July 23. Caravan to meet us in North Dakota, Wichita, Kansas, and Jackson, Mississippi. Send a donation or a message of support. Reach out to individuals and religious communities that can provide safe passage to the courageous individuals who are giving up their summers and putting everything they have into winning a different and far better future for women. Most importantly, let us together take the rough road to victory. It may be less traveled, but only through struggle can we reap the benefits of love’s labor won.

To learn more about and get involved with the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride, go to: http://www.stoppatriarchy.org/

Sunsara Taylor writes for Revolution Newspaper (revcom.us) and is an initiator of the movement to End Pornography and Patriarchy: The Enslavement and Degradation of Women (StopPatriarchy.org)

David Gunn, Jr. is the son of David Gunn, Sr., the first abortion doctor to be assassinated by an anti-abortion gunman, and blogs for Abortion.ws

Abortion Martin Luther King

Abortion Martin Luther King

Since we are celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King weekend….

A short while ago, Republican Congressman Trent Franks announced that he would soon introduce legislation that would, among other things, prohibit women from having an abortion if it was because of the child’s race.  The bill is called – take a deep breath – the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011.”  Not sure why he didn’t throw in the name of Francis Scott Key, but that’s between him and his maker.

Franks Abortion

Franks Abortion

Franks noted that abortion is the greatest cause of death of African Americans and he added that this “will be the civil rights struggle that will define our generation.”  What a guy!  Then, the ever-present “Concerned Women for America” chimed in saying “it is horrific that in America today babies are being killed based on their race…”  Finally,  and here’s the real kicker, Pat Mahoney, another anti-abortion leader, added “you can walk into a clinic and get an abortion if you find out your child is African American.”  Think about that statement for a second.

Anti Abortion, Kill the Mother Politics

Anti Abortion, Kill the Mother Politics

The facts:  according to the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women and for Hispanics.  I don’t know why that is true, but it is.  And, of course, our goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies amongst all races.

But, the first problem with this legislation is that it makes a big assumption (something the anti-abortion advocates do a lot because they have never been inside a clinic).  It assumes that when women are counseled before the abortion, they are asked why they are having it.  That ain’t the case folks.  Unless the woman brings the issue up herself, the doctor does not know why the woman is aborting.  Yes, if a woman volunteers that she is aborting because the fetus is black, then the doctor will be prohibited from performing the abortion.  But, sorry Mr. Franks, but you ain’t gonna “save any babies” because the woman, now aware of the law, will simply go to a different clinic and just not share the reason why she is aborting.

Mr. Franks and others like to suggest that abortion clinics are “targeting” the black community and engaging in “black genocide.”

Puleeeze.

The people who own and run abortion facilities are trying to help women.  At the same time they are running – dare I say it – a business.  They incorporate, they pay taxes, they hire people, they buy equipment, they advertise, they do everything that the local burger place or dry cleaners does.   And, if they are smart they locate their facility in a spot that has enough population to allow them to pay the bills.  And some locate their facilities in predominantly black areas.

But it’s not what Mr. Franks thinks.  In 2008, 63 percent of abortion clinics — defined as providers of 400 or more abortions annually — were located in predominantly white neighborhoods while 12 percent were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents are Hispanic. Only 9 percent were located in predominantly black neighborhoods.  So much for the “campaign” to wipe out the black population.

Sanger Abortion

Sanger Abortion

And before anyone tells me how Margarget Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was out to wipe out the black race, don’t even go there.  She may have made some very unfortunate comments at a time when racism was still very rampant in this country, but don’t tell me that today when a Planned Parenthood staff person goes to work, they are quoting Margaret Sanger and looking for pregnant black women in the hopes of convincing them to abort.  How silly.  .

No, Congressman Franks is just playing the race card with the hopes of convincing African Americans that the Republican Party cares about them.

What a bunch of horse-hockey.