Archive for ‘contraception’

July 16, 2009

Big Money and the Culture of Death

This morning, I watched Michelle Malkin on Fox News talking about Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren, advocate of “compulsory abortion” and “involuntary fertility control” to deal with a non-existent overpopulation crisis.

Where did Holdren get his wacky ideas? His Ecoscience co-author Paul Ehrlich was the author of a notorious 1967 book, The Population Bomb, which promoted the overpopulation hysteria.

But where did Ehrlich get his wacky ideas? That story — and a lot more besides — is told in an excellent 2001 book by historian Donald L. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Goverment in Modern America.

The population control movement, which generated the anti-baby hysteria that Ehrlich and Holdren promoted in their books, was largely the brainchild of John D. Rockefeller III. Rockefeller funded much of the movement himself and through a number of family trusts and foundations, and he encouraged other foundations (Ford, Scaife, Carnegie) to do the same.

Rockefeller promoted the population control movement through many means, but just to give you an example, between 1959 and 1964 one organization alone, the Population Council, got more than $5 million from the Rockefellers, $8.4 million from the Ford Foundation and $2.1 million from Scaife. So that’s $15 million in five years, back when a million dollars was a lot of money.

‘Babies: Threat Or Menace?’
One of the things that the population control movement did was to promote their agenda through the press, and by subsidizing writers with grant money. From page 54 of Critchlow’s book:

[T]o raise the public’s consciousness about the threat of overpopulation . . . the population movement undertook a concerted public relations campaign through a steady stream of books, pamphlets, and magazine and newspaper articles. This campaign was aided by the involvement of key publishers and editors who were actively involved in the movement, including George Hecht, editor of Parents Magazine. The drumbeat around the population crisis reached crescendo by the early 1960s. Readers of popular magazines were faced with a barrage of articles warning of an impending population crisis . . . Women readers were inundated with articles like “Are We Overworking the Stork?” (Parents Magazine, 1961), “Why Americans Must Limit Their Families” (Redbook, 1963), “Intelligent Woman’s Guide to the Population Explosion” (McCall’s, February 1965), “Overpopulation: Threat to Survival” (Parents Magazine, 1967) and “Population Increase: A Grave Threat to Every American Family” (Parents Magazine, 1969).

The point, you see, is that there was an organized propaganda campaign, funded and directed by big money. One of the most active promoters of this agenda was Hugh Moore, a millionaire who was a contributor to Planned Parenthood and who later founded his own organization, the Population Crisis Committee. In fact, the title of Ehrlich’s book, The Population Explosion, was borrowed from a pamphlet of the same name published by Moore in 1954. And Ehrlich’s book was then promoted by the Sierra Club, which had its own wealthy donors.

‘We’re the Smart Ones’
Big money continues to fund the Culture of Death. In 1999, I was the only reporter in the room when Ted Turner gave a speech at a conference of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association:

Mr. Turner, founder of CNN and now the vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., also suggested that world population could be reduced by the adoption of an international “one-child policy.”…
The Atlanta-based billionaire and his wife, actress Jane Fonda, are active supporters of the United Nations Population Fund. In 1997, Mr. Turner pledged $1 billion to a new foundation to support U.N. efforts on population and the environment.
Though he fathered “five kids — boom, boom, boom — by the time I was 30,” Mr. Turner said, he now believes overpopulation is a major problem and suggested people should “promise to have no more than two children.”
Mr. Turner recalled a discussion many years ago with Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s and ’80s as a result of global overpopulation. Mr. Turner said he asked Mr. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne, what the ideal world population would be.
“They told me about 2 billion,” Mr. Turner said. World population is now 5.9 billion, but the world could reduce its population to that ideal, Mr. Turner suggested. “We could do it in a very humane way,” he said, “if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years.”….
“If you’re only going to have 10 rules, I don’t know if [prohibiting] adultery should be one of them.” Speaking of himself as a member of “the progressive movement,” Mr. Turner urged the NFPRHA audience to “give ’em hell” when seeking more government funds for population control.”People who think like us may be in the minority, but we’re the smart ones,” he said, and as a result should be able to defeat opponents he called “a whole bunch of dummies.”
Mr. Turner, whose net worth is more than $3.2 billion, got laughs with his responses during a question-and-answer session after his speech. . . .
Asked what he would say to Pope John Paul II, who opposes abortion and artificial contraception, Mr. Turner responded with an ethnic joke — “Ever seen a Polish mine detector?” — and then suggested the Pope should “get with it. Welcome to the 20th century.”

People like Turner think they’re “the smart ones,” and love to recite environmental nonsense, global warming idiocies and pro-choice talking points as if these were indisputable facts. The neo-Malthusian agenda (which I discussed in “Forbidding To Marry” in April) is advanced by people who don’t even realize they’re advancing an agenda at all.

“It’s science!” these people declare, dismissuing skeptics as “ignorant,” when in fact the real ignorance is on their part — environmentalists and pro-choicers often don’t know the real history of their own movement. A half-century ago, in Up From Liberalism, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote:

In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators . . .

It’s even more true than ever.

May 4, 2009

The Demographics of Dhimmitude


May 1, 2009

Why does CNN anchor hate women?

Remember when my reaction to over-the-counter sales of Plan B to 17-year-olds was denounced by lefties as ignorant, hateful, misogynistic and anti-sex? OK, so now there is a column by CNN anchor Mike Galanos criticizing the decision.

Sully? Pandagon? Mahablog?

Oh, and while you’re at it, be sure to denounce Monique Stuart as a self-hating puritanical anti-sex bigot. But maybe I should warn you about her 6-foot-tall penis. NTTAWWT.

April 23, 2009

What next? Over-the-counter roofies?

Plan B — the drug that allows guys to breathe a sigh of relief the morning after using some chick for selfish pleasure — will now be available to 17-year-olds without a prescription.

Who cares that she’s not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes legally? Get her drunk on wine coolers, get what you want, then the next morning, take her to CVS to get Plan B and make sure there’s no chance the slut will show up in a few months talking child support payments and DNA tests.

So guys, if you screw a 17-year-old and “forget” to use a condom, remember: Nothing says “thanks a lot, you cheap whore” like the gift of Plan B!

UPDATE: Linked at Mahablog and Pandagon, both of whom ascribe my comments to mental pathology. OK, let’s unpack that, shall we?

First, I am anecdotally acquainted with specific examples of how guys are using Plan B in exactly the way described: “Hey, I don’t have to use a condom! Just take her to the CVS in the morning and dose her with the ‘morning-after pill,’ and I’m off the hook!” And their partners feel demeaned by this treatment: “Wow, he really doesn’t want to risk a permanent commitment with me, does he?”

Mahablog particularly repeats the lie — and it’s not the first time — that my comments about the FLDS cult in Texas were intended as an endorsement of their polygamous practices. Rather, I was pointing out the abusive overreach of the Texas officials, who mounted a SWAT raid and put all of the FLDS children in custody, even tiny infants. And I was also pointing out the hypocritical double standard involved, since the putative object of the raid was to prevent teenage motherhood, even while Texas led the nation in teenage pregnancy: “If they’re going to stage a paramilitary raid every time a 15-year-old gets pregnant in Texas, they’re going to need to hire a lot more SWAT officers.”

Finally, and I know this will produce gasps of astonishment from you feminists: Men and women are not “equal,” in the sense of being identical and therefore fungible. The sexes are different in ways that are socially important, and only a radical egalitarian fanatic would argue otherwise.

Thus, the idiot commenter who accuses me of denying women’s “agency” in sexual activity has ludicrously missed the mark. I don’t for a moment deny that women voluntarily choose to have sex; what I deny is that their motives and reasons for doing so are, in general, the same as men’s motives and reasons.

The academic/political/legal forces that would compel us to pretend that men and women are identical are engaged in denial of truths that are obvious to any stand-up comedian. C’mon, people: How many thousands of stand-up routines have been built upon observing the differences between men and women? And we laugh because these observations are true.

Yes, men do tend to fetishize power tools and other grown-up “toys.” Yes, women are kind of crazy about shoes. Yes, men do tend to go into a store, find exactly what they want and buy it, while women tend to linger in the mall for hours “just looking.” Men and women are different, and even if you don’t exactly fit the gender-role stereotype, the general differences are observable and funny as hell when Jerry Seinfeld or Jeff Foxworthy points them out.

Gender differences even hold true among homosexuals, as Andrew Sullivan once pointed out by repeating this joke:

Q. What does a lesbian bring on her second date?
A. A U-Haul trailer.
Q. What does a gay man bring on a second date?
A. What’s a second date?

Which is to say, the female tendency toward domesticity — the preference for long-term relationships — persists even in the otherwise anti-traditional world of lesbianism, and the male tendency toward promiscuity is even more marked among gay men, who don’t have women to say “no” to them.

In general, among heterosexual singles, men and women approach the mating ritual with different objectives. The fact that more women nowadays play the role of sexual aggressors cannot be denied, but is an understandable response to decades of egalitarian dogma pumped into the culture. Despite this shift, it is nevertheless still true that women generally date in search of a long-term committed relationship, while men (especially successful, attractive men) are more generally content to “play the field.”

It is only the feminist ideologue — with her androgynous insistence that all things must be equal — who considers it “empowering” for women to imitate male behavior in the dating game. Men and women are different, and this “pro-sex feminist” strategy of empowerment through promiscuity ultimately disadvantages all women.

But don’t let me trouble you with these quibbles, you egalitarian fanatics. Stay comfortable inside your ideological bubble, viewing me as a boorish right-wing misogynist, and employing your Adorno/Hofstadter thesis that all conservatives are repressed mental cases to dismiss any evidence or argument that might contradict your worldview. And when you start reading crime stories about teenage girls being abused by men who use Plan B as part of their exploitation strategies, interpret that data through your narrow prism, ignoring the possibility that you just might be wrong about some things.

UPDATE II: Wow, my third Malkin Award nomination since February! I’d like to thank the Academy . . .

UPDATE III: After commenters are done excoriating me as a “clueless douchebag,” they might want to check out Monique Stuart’s take on this:

The beauty of a prescription being required is that it might actually involve some parental guidance. That is why this judge is against it. They want to detach children from their parents’ social mores.
The drug companies are also involved. They want to make money, and they’ll be making a lot more of it if all of this would become over the counter. . . . This is about the companies that produce these drugs opening themselves up to a wider market. It’s disgusting.
Anyway, parents just lost some more of their rights. The government, primarily through the courts, have told parents time and again that they have no business in their childrens’ lives.

Right. We’re just breeder units, producing taxpayer-drones for The State.

UPDATE IV: “Do her. Dose her. Ditch her.” Really, Jimmie, I think the Bar Kays said it best:

Hit and run,
You played your game so well,
You really made it hard to tell
That all you planned
Was a one-night stand.

How is it that being an easy pushover for a selfish user is now regarded as “liberation,” and anyone who tries to wise you up by pointing out the simple facts of the game is a misogynist oppressor?

February 11, 2009

The taxpayer shortage

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) For years, pro-life activists have warned that abortion and the contraceptive culture were leading us toward a demographic crisis. At least a decade ago, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League was warning: “In order to turn things around . . . young people getting married have to be thinking of having four or more children.”

Well, the crisis is now upon us. Today, Conservative Grapevine linked my reaction to Obama’s Monday press conference:

Suppose a pipe-dream hypothetical: Somehow, this “stimulus” actually produces a sort of dead-cat bounce in the economy, so that unemployment is down around 5% again by 2012. Is that good? No, not really, because government will have produced that bounce by borrowing massively against the future in a society that’s about to sustain a serious demographic shock.
The first Baby Boomers turn 65 in 2011, and every year after that will see more and more retirees going onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls. Even if we raise the retirement age, there is still the net drain of productive labor. The average 67-year-old can’t produce goods and services as efficiently as the average 38-year-old and (due to certain legal decisions circa 1973) after 2011, we’ll have a growing shortage of 38-year-olds and a growing surplus of 67-year-olds.
We are on the verge of a taxpayer shortage, you see, and what the Democrats want to do is take out a massive loan that will have to be repaid by a shrinking pool of taxpayers, who will be expected to support a burgeoning population of increasingly sickly Baby Boomer retirees.

Yet, even as America reaps the disastrous economic consequences of the Culture of Death, the misanthropic Malthusians continue to scream about “overpopulation.” As I’ve said elsewhere, some people at least have the excuse of ignorance. Others are merely evil.

UPDATE: A 12-year-old pro-lifer speaks:

“I was stunned by how good this video is,” says Cassie Fiano. (Via Melissa Clouthier, who isn’t sure that 12-year-olds should be voicing their opinions on political issues.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin reports that House Democrats have reached a backroom deal on the “stimulus,” excluding Republicans from the conference negotiations. Which is good news, because now they’ve given Republican Senators a valid excuse to filibuster the conference report. This “stimulus” abomination might blow up yet!

UPDATE II: Thanks to the commenter who informs me that YouTube commenters are saying vile things about the girl who made this video. You stay classy, “progressive netroots”!

UPDATE III: Welcome Ace of Spades readers.

UPDATE IV: Allahpundit:

[Y]oung talent in the service of a righteous cause deserves some extra publicity. Worth watching for the sheer precocity of the performance, which suggests she’s destined someday for Hollywood.

Destiny? Kind of a religious concept, eh?

UPDATE V: “She’s more articulate than most people I know, and even our teleprompter president.” Heh.

“[I]f this girl is this good at 12, just imagine what she’ll be like in high school and college. Politics is clearly in her future.” Heh — and once again, happy birthday, Sarah Palin!

UPDATE VI: Linked at

January 27, 2009

Hey, it worked!

Who’d have thunk it? Republicans complain and Obama actually pays attention:

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation. . . .
Several Democrats said Monday night that Obama had spoken personally with Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., about removing the provision. Waxman is chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid and a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Obviously, Obama could see that Pelosi’s anti-baby agenda was political poison. It was a shrewd move for him to ask them to ax it. Expect the Left to howl that Obama’s given in to the “Republican attack machine,” but they don’t understand that not everybody hates babies as much as urban yuppies do.

(Outraged comment from Young4Eyes in 3, 2, 1 . . .)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin calls our attention to Conn Carroll’s indictment of contraceptive Keynesianism:

The entire intellectual underpinning of President Barack Obama’s spending plan rests on the belief that certain types of government spending creates a “multiplier effect” which raises national income beyond the size of government’s initial spending increase. . . . So if Obama’s stimulus plan bails out California’s spendthrift government, and Sacramento then spends that money buying condoms for Nancy Pelosi’s constituents, [neo-Keynesian economist] Mark Zandi wants us to believe that this entire transaction will increase GDP by $1.36 for every $1 in condoms Sacramento buys. Does anybody really believe this?

Hmmm. Given Pelosi’s San Francisco-area district, I’m not sure if buying condoms for her constituents actually qualifies as “birth control.” But you see how easy it is to make this measure look ridiculous on economic grounds alone.

Perhaps some clever GOP researcher can find out how much money the latex industry gave the Democrats, so we can accuse Pelosi of being in the pockets of Big Rubber.

UPDATE II: Well, that didn’t take long:

Is the Obama administration caving to the right wing on family planning provision in stimulus bill?

See? If Republicans don’t go along with Obama’s agenda, we’re divisive haters. But if Obama shrewdly placates conservatives, he’s “caving.” Hey, tough luck, lefties: If you wanted somebody who was 110% for your anti-baby agenda, you should have nominated Hillary.

Michelle Malkin rounds up the news on the “condoms under the bus” deal.

January 26, 2009

Pelosi: ‘They reduce cost’

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) Children are a net budget expense that Nancy Pelosi says government can’t afford:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Or, as some used to say: Lebensunwertes Leben.

UPDATE: “Brilliant. No People = No Costs!”

UPDATE II: Don Surber:

Stephanopoulos could have pointed out that the reason the health costs for kids are rising is that Pelosi just led the charge to expand SCHIP to cover families of 4 that have incomes of more than $80,000 a year.

Right. On the one hand, liberals insist on ever-expanding entitlements “for the children.” On the other hand, they insist on pushing birth control to reduce the Baby Menace. Pelosi is one of those alleged Catholics whose politics are 180 degrees out of phase with her own church.

UPDATE III: Ed Morrissey asks: Cui bono?


And by the way, why does ‘family planning’ cost so much? As many morons can attest to, not having sex is pretty damn inexpensive.

Yeah, rich guys get all the good stuff.

UPDATE V: Michelle Malkin: “Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education.”
January 11, 2009

‘Science’ and teen sex

Thursday, I wrote about how liberals were spinning the latest teen pregnancy statistics as an argument against abstinence education. I had missed Bill McGurn’s take on how research results have been misrepresented in the media:

A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don’t. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers: most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.
Like a pack of randy 15-year-old boys, the press dives right in.
“Virginity Pledges Don’t Stop Teen Sex,” screams CBS News. “Virginity pledges don’t mean much,” adds CNN. “Study questions virginity pledges,” says the Chicago Tribune. “Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds,” heralds the Washington Post. “Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data,” reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.
In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: “Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study.”
Here’s the rub: It just isn’t true.

Liberal reporters, McGurn explains, don’t look past the bullet-points on the press release to examine the underlying methodology of the study. The researchers pulled some hocus-pocus by comparing the pledge-taking teens not with the general population of teenagers, but rather with a “control” group who were matched demographically and socio-economically with the pledgers:

The first to notice something lost in the translation was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health. Today she serves as health editor for U.S. News & World Report. And in her dispatch on this study, Dr. Healy pointed out that “virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general — a fact that many media reports have missed cold.”

In interviewing professionals in the science/medical/health fields, I’ve found they are almost unanimous in loathing the way the MSM report on research. Often, research that merely indicates a possible correlation between two facts — say, between coffee drinking and cancer rates — ends up with a headline implying that scientists have proved a cause-and-effect relationship: Coffee prevents cancer!

What is true in reporting on medical and scientific research is even more true in reporting on social science research. As one criminologist has remarked, social scientists can “prove” anything. Trying to isolate cause-and-effect in sociological research (which is what this abstinence-education study purports to do) is a damned difficult task. There is a disturbing tendency among liberal journalists to cherry-pick research — hyping research that seems to confirm their own biases and downplaying contradictory results.

Given the high correlation between delaying sexual activity and positive socioeconomic outcomes (i.e., completing high school, obtaining full-time employment, avoiding drug abuse, etc.), there is clearly a social good to be obtained by discouraging teen sex. Much of the media, however, think of this as a “Republican” or “conservative” objective, and therefore bring to bear the usual liberal bias. Since when did it become “liberal” to be indifferent to kids messing up their lives?

UPDATE: Laura Gallier of Inspiring Abstinence e-mails:

I see a huge contradiction in the medias’ response to the issue of teen sex, two primary contradictions to be exact. For one, the media cries out for answers when teen pregnancy rates are on the rise but then seems to go out of their way to undermine abstinence programs. Two, the same media that reports that we must find answers to the teen sex crises then turns around and includes sexually based images and comments in nearly everything they produce.

Indeed, one of the rich ironies is how TV producers, on the one hand, claim that their sex-saturated programming doesn’t influence kids’ behavior, but on the other hand, collect billions in advertising revenue by telling clients that a 30-second commercial can influence consumer behavior. Either TV influences behavior or it does not, so which is it?

BTW, Ms. Gallier is the author of a new book about abstinence called Choosing to Wait: A Guide to Inspiring Abstinence.

December 15, 2008

Silliest argument of the day

Planned Parenthood is pro-life, says a “pragmatist” blogger:

Parenthood, on net, prevents more abortions than it provides, from the massive amount of birth control, family planning and emergency contraception they provide.

Uh . . . no. Jonathan Schwenkler and Ross Douthat engage, but they don’t really get down to the fundamental error involved in this argument. Here is the dirty little secret of the pill-and-condom industry: Contraception causes abortion.

Here’s how: Every method of artificial contraception has a failure rate, and the contraceptive user who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant is a prime candidate for abortion. Even if the failure rate of any particular method is 1% or less, the law of large numbers means that, with tens of millions of people using contraceptives regularly, there will inevitably be several hundred thousand unplanned pregnancies.

Beyond this statistical fact, the contraceptive mentality teaches people to think of pregnancy as an unlikely outcome of sex — even though, biologically speaking, pregnancy is the purpose of sex. With this life-changing consequence shoved off into a mental corner, there is a hell of a lot more extra-marital sex than there would otherwise be, which swells the number of extra-marital pregnancies, and thus provides a ready-made clientele for the abortionist.

Contraception is unnatural — humanity at war with its own biology — and results in social distortions, with the natural relationships of love, marriage, sex, reproduction and family artificially divided, then patched back together as a sort of Frankstein’s monster: Test-tube babies, sperm donors, surrogate motherhood, gay adoption, etc., etc.

The entire contraceptive regime is anti-life and anti-family, and Planned Parenthood perhaps does as much moral harm by promoting contraception as it does by performing abortion. Douthat and Schwenkler are allowing the question to be framed as, “How best can society accommodate fornication?” At some point, how about social conservatives live up to the judgmental stereotype and condemn something?

UPDATE: A liberal blogger accuses me of being anti-woman — and anti-fact. I think Mahablog must be one of those “women’s rights women”: “The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be tomorrow the accomplished fact.”

UPDATE II: Suddenly, I’m a cause celebre with the Left:

I don’t think it is uncharitable to say that McCain is proposing a view of sex in which its pleasurable or emotional aspects are subordinate to its biological function. This strikes me as a very limited view of sex. By definition, sex involves a level of intimacy which quite often is a means through which two people can achieve a deeper level of emotional engagement.

What Jamelle never explains is how contraception enhances “emotional engagement” or the (ahem) “pleasurable . . . aspects.” As a married father of six, I think I’m doing OK in both departments.

UPDATE III: Freddie the Pragmatist has a clever retort: “[P]eople enjoy having sex and are not going to stop anytime soon. ” Well, thanks for passing along that news.

UPDATE IV: Linked by CrankyCon, who is impressed by the stunning logic of pro-choice commenters.