Analysis

Did Gloria Steinem expose Planned Parenthood’s true agenda?

This week, while delivering the keynote address for a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Memphis, Tennessee, pro-abortion extremist Gloria Steinem tried to link her cause of abortion-on-demand to two other hot-button political issues. The results were… less than impressive:

“Why is it that the same people who are against birth control and abortion are also against sex between two women or two men?” Steinem asked her audience, reports the Memphis Flyer. She continued that those people “are against any sex that cannot end in reproduction.”

Endlessly repeating the clichéd “controlling sex is pro-lifers’ secret ulterior motive” conspiracy theory won’t change the fact that our stated reason for opposing abortion—it kills innocent people—is scientifically, objectively, irrefutablyobviously true. Anybody claiming not to understand that recoiling at violence against children is one of the average person’s most basic human intuitions—which anyone who dismisses this obvious motivation to oppose abortion is doing—is lying.

The other issue Steinem invoked? Climate change. It turns out that climate change—or rather, global warming, as the term has apparently reverted back to this week—can only be alleviated by embracing abortion-on-demand, making abortion the latest in a long line of policies Steinem’s allies have advocated for years anyway, that conveniently are also cures to an existential threat to the planet!

Purely coincidental, I’m sure. “Forced childbirth is the single biggest cause of global warming,” she said.

For the record, she’s referring to a “threat” contradicted by historical precedent, based in large part on falsified, hidden, and manipulated data, and propped up by a fabricated scientific consensus that misrepresents the dissenting views of many scientists, with dissent further stigmatized by climate alarmists’ open desire to criminalize dissent.

Nor is the overpopulation that supposedly fuels global warming an existential threat. The mass starvation predictions of the 60s and 70s turned out to be bogus, and as David Harsanyi explains at the Federalist:

According to the World Bank, because of the spread of trade, technological advances, and plentiful energy, the number of people around the world living in extreme poverty has fallen below 10 percent. We also have fewer hungry people than ever in the world; fewer people die in conflicts over resources, and deaths due to extreme weather have been dramatically declining for a century. Over the past 40 years, our water and air is cleaner, despite population growth […] Everything is headed in the wrong direction for environmental scaremongers. If we’re already experiencing the negative force of climate change — which I’m told we are every time we have ugly weather somewhere in the country — shouldn’t things be getting worse?

[…] Even the United Nations estimates that the nine billion people expected by 2050 could be supported with the technology we already possess. What Malthusians never take into consideration are the efficiencies and technology we don’t have yet, which continually amaze us and undermine their dark vision of humankind’s future.

Perhaps most interestingly, Steinem inadvertently alludes to Planned Parenthood’s true goal, and it’s not “choice.” If her premise was correct—the more babies are born, the more danger the planet is in—wouldn’t it logically follow (from their perspective) that the number of abortions needs to go up? If they really believe abortions heal the environment, then how can they be indifferent to the choice women ultimately make, as they profess to be? Wouldn’t actively encouraging the outcome where the baby dies be their duty to Mother Nature?

Then again, if Planned Parenthood didn’t have a preference for which choice women make, their prenatal care wouldn’t have dropped 53.8% from 2009 to 2013, and their ratio of abortions to adoption referrals would be a little more even than 134.54 to 1

Nor is this the only time Planned Parenthood has played footsie with population control. There is, of course, the eugenics agenda of not only Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, but of numerous leading officials in the organization’s history. In the modern day, the International Planned Parenthood Federation has received $20 million from the United Nations Population Fund, which has ties to China’s barbaric forced-abortion regime.

Worse, as Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers explains:

Today IPPF is still CFPA’s [China Family Planning Association] main international supporter, and its executives have gone on record praising the achievements of China’s notorious One Child Policy. China’s family planning office, in turn, has expressed the importance of international cooperation for maintaining control over population levels.

In 2009, IPPF director-general Gill Greer called China’s One-Child Policy “very conducive to China’s development in various aspects,” including the realm of “health care services.”

In a 2011 letter to the editor, former Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Norman Fleishman called China’s One Child Policy a “start” to curbing global population.

IPPF’s site points to CFPA as its main operations hub in China and has recently publicized its good relationship with the Chinese government. In 2013, following a change in China’s leadership, IPPF described its meeting with new Chinese premier Li Kequiang and mutual plans to “strengthen the partnership” between China and IPPF.

The secret has been out for a long time that Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion rather than pro-choice, with profit being a greater concern than helping women figure out what’s “best for them” (why else would Planned Parenthood jack up pill prices in poor neighborhoods?). But if we are to take Gloria Steinem’s latest remarks at face value, then it seems we now know another reason for swaying women’s choices.

Or rather, another excuse.

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top

Send this to friend