by 
Meet Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Answers in Genesis has a good writeup about her and the organization that she helped to create, but I’d like to focus on the tactic that I believe is behind the whole battle for the lives of unborn children.
You see, the culture that we now live in is one of presentation, public relations, and communication. Words have multiple meanings and are used to give the best possible meaning (or spin) on things so as to leave impressions that things are not as they are.
Take, for instance, the whole battle over whether you’re “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion”. Obviously, they mean the same thing, for what “choice” are you for if you’re “pro-choice.” It’s not adoption– for no one is against that. To be “pro-choice” you have to support the use of abortion and yet you use a name that sounds a whole lot better. That way you can say “I’m for a woman’s right to make the choice, I’m personally not for an abortion” or in other words “It’s ok if some people kill their babies, but I wouldn’t kill mine.”
And that’s what’s at the heart of Planned Parenthood:
PP began as the dream of Margaret Sanger, a pro-eugenic, pro-abortion advocate.1 Between 1920 and 1922, Sanger launched the American Birth Control League (ABCL), the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. This organization was founded to maintain a so-called “fit” nation and keep society from being filled with, in the words of Sanger, “the most far-reaching peril to the future of civilization” (referring to people of different ethnic groups).1 The ABCL thus targeted low-income families as those most in need of birth control.
In 1942 after the Nazi horrors discredited outright eugenics (killing the “unfit” in order to breed a “master race”), the ABCL was renamed Planned Parenthood. At that time the organization’s affiliates made legal access to unrestricted abortion a high priority. As one medical director stated, “You can’t get adequate fertility control with contraception alone. You have got to grapple with sterilization and abortion.”1
Therefore, PP began pressuring governments to limit births through incentives and punishments. It also called China’s brutal one-child campaign a “stunning success.”1 Government entitlement programs currently pay for much of PP’s lucrative business based, in part, on the idea that it will reduce welfare costs by reducing the number of people.
So, you can see– it’s not all about choice, but all about abortion– and the terms that we use do mean something. Make sure you know what’s behind the name of the organizations that you choose to support!
Great post. I find this to be very true with several of the organizations that advocate to end violence. I need to be intentional about learning about the organization to know what they are about at the core.
If there is one thing I have learned it is to do research on organizations and to see exactly where they stand on moral issues. I most diligent when it comes to politicians.
We, as Christians, always need to be aware of a wolf covered in sheep’s clothing.
I remember the first time that it was brought to my attention that the name was deceiving was back around 9/11 when all those Islamic organizations were getting caught because they were funding terror.
In this case “Planned Parenthood” sounds nice– and would be if the planning were made before intercourse– you know, abstinence? In this case, it’s more like destroying parenthood.
Probably not relevent to the thing as a whole, but pro-life people are guilty of the same crime. They choose to call themselves pro-life because it sounds nicer than calling themselves anti-abortion or anti-choice. In a world were trivial things such as a name can ruin a cause people must be very choosy with words. It does not mean that they are trying to decieve, but that they want someone to actually look at what they are trying to accomplish before writing them off.
So, what are you implying that “pro-life” is covering? Isn’t the whole point of the position to keep what people believe is a baby alive? If not that, then what else?
The problem with the “pro-choice” name is that it equals “pro-abortion”– you have to support the latter unless you’re telling me the only choice you are supporting is adoption.
On top of that, I’ve seen many people refer to themselves as “anti-abortion” and wear the name with pride. I agree that “pro-life” does sound better than the “anti-abortion” title because positives always sound better, but there really isn’t much comparison.