Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: Best Friends Forever or Coincidental Business Associates?

 by Hannah Carter, Director of Education

Like many families, my grandmother and great-grandmother both had breast cancer. The issue of wanting to fight what harms your family or friends is noble. So when I tell people that I do not support Susan G. Komen an organization that exists to “fight breast cancer”, I normally get the look of one: why would you abandon your family or two: oh there goes one of those extremist.

However, my reasons are not that extreme, but rather principled. I’m sure many of you reading this article have also been confronted with the issue of if I ‘m pro-life then how can I support an organization that supports the nation’s leading abortion provider. Hopefully, the following principles can shed some light on how to respond sympathetically, yet firm with why you cannot wear pink, or join the race, or all the various ways that Susan G. Komen is supported.

Principle # 1 Don’t give to organizations that promote the shedding of innocent blood.

If this were a list of commandments, we could start with Thou Shall Not Kill. However, Proverbs 6:17 states that one of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood.

Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen has given over $3 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to Planned Parenthood which is the nation’s leading abortion provider. While Susan G. Komen makes claims that these grants go for breast exams, once the funds go to Planned Parenthood they are fungible. For example, you can throw two twenty dollar bills into a purse one from a friend and one from your own account, but when you go to pay the light bill you use both.

The same is true with Planned Parenthood’s money it receives from Komen. Whenever someone applies for a grant they can say that while this $5,000 is going to breast cancer research, 20 percent of that money is going to pay for administrative costs like keeping the lights on and paying rent. So in essence, the money that people are raising to fight breast cancer is also going to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood.

According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%.

 In 2008, Susan G. Komen gave $731,000 to Planned Parenthood.

Principle # 2 Know and Recognize the Risk Factors for the Disease You are Trying to Prevent.

There are certain risks that can increase an individual’s chance of getting breast cancer. While Susan G. Komen says that they believe in knowing your risk factors, they have repeatedly denied the link between breast cancer and one of the greatest avoidable risk factors, abortion.

 According to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.”

When a woman has an abortion she interrupts the natural process of estrogen production and breast development. When a woman first becomes pregnant her body produces a Type 1 carcinogen, cancer causing agent, estrogen in order to nourish and provide for the baby. If the mother has her child, her body stops producing as much estrogen and her breasts mature. However, if that process is interrupted, the estrogen production continues and her breasts stay in an immature state, making them more susceptible to breast cancer.

Groups like Susan G. Komen acknowledge that the level of exposure to estrogen throughout a woman’s lifetime is one of the greatest predictors for breast cancer. Sadly, they do not acknowledge that the increased exposure to estrogen after an abortion could increase risks of breast cancer as well. For an organization whose primary goal is “to have a world without breast cancer”, you would think they would try to let women know of all the risk factors for breast cancer, especially those that are preventable like abortion.

Recently, in an article by Jill Stanek, pro-life author and blogger, asked a very thought-provoking question, “Is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?”

Stanek also noted in her article that recently that the ties between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen are running deeper and deeper. See an excerpt below from Stanek’s article:

Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006. PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker. Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK’s board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.” But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. So there is much still unanswered. Why didn’t PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn’t Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.

In essence, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s nephew own a mall together.

The bottom line is that Susan G. Komen is not accomplishing its mission every time it gives to Planned Parenthood.

Every time a woman has an abortion and part of the money to fund that center staying open came from Komen, they are putting women at a greater risk for breast cancer.

Every organization no matter how noble the cause they claim to represent seems to be needs to be held accountable.

The question is will you?

 

To continue your search for the ties between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, please visit:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Awards 72 Grants to Planned Parenthood

http://www.bdfund.org/breastcancer.asp

Komen Giving to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Down as Donations Drop

http://lifenews.com/nat6297.html

 Planned Parenthood Deepens Link to Breast Cancer Group

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=134729

 Susan G. Komen’s List of Grants to Planned Parenthood

http://ww5.komen.org/ResearchGrants/CommunitybasedGrants.html

Studies about the Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/index/

Report: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: A Visible Link http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf

Georgia Senate Passes SB 529, Coercion and Prenatal Non-Discrimination Ban

March 26,2010
Contact: Catherine Davis 770-339-6880

Lawrenceville, GA – Today the Georgia Senate passed SB 529, a bill which would ban abortion in cases where the woman was coerced against her will into aborting her child. It would also ban abortion for gender selection, as well racially discriminatory abortion. It passed by a vote of 33 yeas and 14 nays. Senator Chip Pearson was the sponsor of SB 529 which is the Senate version of House Bill 1155.

Besides seeking to address the issues of coerced abortions and abortions performed because of the race, gender, or color of the child, the bill provides enforcement of the existing law regarding the Women’s Right to Know. The bill also gives the women who have been coerced the opportunity to bring suit against abortionists who violate Georgia Law.

“According to the CDC, of the 38 states that report, Georgia is currently leading the nation in abortions in the black community. African-Americans make up 30% of the population and 59% of the abortions. In 2008, according to the Georgia Division of Health, 18,901 abortions were performed on black women. SB 529 seeks to protect these women and their children, from making decisions they did not want to make,” said Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach at Georgia Right to Life.

“No child should be aborted because of his or her race, sex, or color. If it’s wrong to discriminate in the workplace, in housing and in education because of race or sex, it should be wrong to discriminate against a child because she was born the wrong sex,” noted Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life.  “It would appear that even pro-abortion advocates share this perspective” said Becker, “Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, recently stated, ‘Unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.’”

The timeliness of this policy debate is evidenced by last week’s edition of The Economist magazine and its featured cover story, “Gendercide: What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?” No less than four articles address the issue of gender selection abortions.  They noted, “For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”, a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic.” “We agree.” said Becker.

This bill now moves to the Georgia House.

Georgia Right to Life (www.grtl.org) promotes respect and effective legal protection for all human life from its earliest biological beginning through natural death. GRTL is one of the numbers of organizations that have adopted Personhood (www.personhood.net) as the most effective pro-life strategy for the 21st century.

Gendercide:What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?

This article was featured  in the March 4, 2010 print edition of The Economist. The UN also released a report last week confirming these numbers. What is interesting is that while this is a worldwide problem, this article clearly states that this problem of gender selection is happening in America as well. What are your thoughts: should someone be able to kill a child because it’s a girl and he or she wanted a boy?

Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls

Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising

Mar 4th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IMAGINE you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.

Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?

For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.

For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic.

China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity (see article).

It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now. The crumb of comfort is that countries can mitigate the hurt, and that one, South Korea, has shown the worst can be avoided. Others need to learn from it if they are to stop the carnage.

The dearth and death of little sisters

Most people know China and northern India have unnaturally large numbers of boys. But few appreciate how bad the problem is, or that it is rising. In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike.

Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China’s one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.

In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.

How to stop half the sky crashing down

Baby girls are thus victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. Only one country has managed to change this pattern. In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China’s. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice—then overwhelmed it.

But this happened when South Korea was rich. If China or India—with incomes one-quarter and one-tenth Korea’s levels—wait until they are as wealthy, many generations will pass. To speed up change, they need to take actions that are in their own interests anyway. Most obviously China should scrap the one-child policy. The country’s leaders will resist this because they fear population growth; they also dismiss Western concerns about human rights. But the one-child limit is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on the population as much as China). And it massively distorts the country’s sex ratio, with devastating results. President Hu Jintao says that creating “a harmonious society” is his guiding principle; it cannot be achieved while a policy so profoundly perverts family life.

And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said “women hold up half the sky.” The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.

The Two Lists: When It’s “Okay” to Have a Baby

by Jennifer Fulwiler

 

Of all the things I remember about the Texas March for Life in Austin last January, the memory that stands out the most is the look on the faces of the counter-protesters who followed us along Congress Avenue and down to the capitol that frosty morning. When I glanced over to see the source of the epithets that were being screamed at us, I met the eyes of one young woman wearing a black bandana over the bottom half of her face. She happened to look over and meet my gaze, and in her eyes I saw one thing: hatred.

 

I was caught off guard when my gut response to her rage-filled glare was one of sympathy. In fact, I realized as she turned away to continue yelling angry pro-choice slogans that I knew the source of the rage behind her eyes and had even felt it recently.

 

Until a couple of years ago, I was militantly pro-choice. When I heard people make anti-abortion statements, it filled me with a white-hot anger that I could barely contain. Behind my views was a buried but unspoken sense that there was something inherently unfair about being a woman, and abortion was a key to maintaining any semblance of a level playing field in the world.

 

My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. We absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that every normal person will have sex at some point in his or her life, and that the sexual act, by default, has no significance outside the relationship between the two people involved. In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman’s body. My friends and I lamented the awful position every woman was in: Unexpected pregnancies were like lightning strikes, and when one of these unpredictable events did occur, there were no good options for dealing with them. Abortion wasn’t ideal — even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman’s body — but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one’s biology.

 

My staunch support of these views did not soften until a few years ago, when a religious conversion after a life of atheism led me to the Catholic Church. I began researching the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, in which the sexual act is seen as being inextricably entwined with its potential for creating new human life. The more I considered this point of view, the more I questioned my long-held views. In fact, I started to see the catastrophic mistake our society had made when we started believing that the life-giving potential of the sexual act could be safely forgotten about as long as people use contraception. It would be like saying that guns could be used as toys as long as long as there are blanks in the chamber. Teaching people to use something with tremendous power nonchalantly, as a casual plaything, had set women up for disaster.

 

The gravity of this error became clear to me when I came across research that Time magazine published in 2007, citing data from the Guttmacher Institute that showed the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list — not feeling capable of parenting, not being able to afford a baby, not being in a relationship stable enough to raise a child — were conditions that we encourage women to consider before engaging in sexual activity.

 

 

It was then that I could finally articulate the source of the anger I’d felt all these years. In every society, there are two critical lists: acceptable conditions for having a baby, and acceptable conditions for having sex. From time immemorial, the one thing that almost every society had in common is that their two lists matched up. It was only with the widespread acceptance of contraception in the middle of the 20th century, creating an upheaval in the public psyche in which sex and babies no longer went hand-in-hand, that the two lists began to diverge. And now, in 21st-century America, they look something like this:

 

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have sex:

• If you’re in a stable relationship
• If you feel emotionally ready
• If you’re free of sexually transmitted diseases
• If you have access to contraception

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have a baby:

• If you can afford it
• If you’ve finished your education
• If you feel emotionally ready to parent a child
• If your partner would make a good parent
• If you’re ready for all the lifestyle changes that would be involved with parenthood

As long as those two lists do not match, we will live in a culture where abortion is common and where women are at war with their own bodies.

 

Considering the disparity between the two lists made me begin to see the level of damage that contraception and the mentality it produces have done to women as individuals and as a group. I thought of the several friends whom I’d helped procure abortions, how each was scared and caught off guard, overwhelmed with a feeling of “I never signed up for a pregnancy,” angry at a faceless enemy. They had followed all of society’s rules, yet still ended up in a gut-wrenching position. We hated the anti-abortion zealots because we thought they tried to take away women’s freedom; what we didn’t understand is that women’s freedom had already been taken, when society bought the lie that sex is primarily about bonding and pleasure, and that its life-giving potential is tangential and optional.

 

In an article published by the Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives, John A. Ross estimates that a woman using contraception with a 1 percent risk of failure has a 70 percent chance of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy over the course of 10 years. Guttmacher also reports that more than half of women seeking abortions were using a contraceptive method when they got pregnant. As soon as we as a society accepted contraception, a large-scale game of Russian roulette began, with women and their unexpected children as the players with the guns to their heads.

 

Austin’s March for Life was this past Saturday; I wonder if the girl with the black bandana was there again this year. I wish I could offer to buy her a cup of coffee and tell her that I think she’s right to sense that something deeply unfair is afoot in our society, and that nothing less than women’s freedom is at stake.

 

---

This article was reprinted with permission from InsideCatholic.com. The original article can be found by clicking here.  Jennifer Fulwiler is the author of ConversionDiary.com, where she writes about her experiences with Catholicism after a life of atheism.

A Clarion Call to Clergy: One Black Pastor’s Response to Black Genocide in Georgia

by Pastor James Leak III, MA

Executive Pastor New Harvester International Ministries (N.H.I.M)

“Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet”  (Isa 58:1, New International Version) was the voice from within me.  A range of emotions from righteous indignation to bewilderment engulfed me as I watched the documentary “MAAFA 21”, and the apparent link between eugenics (the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding) and the systematic abortion of black babies by Planned Parenthood, formerly called the American Birth Control League (ABCL). At the conclusion of the documentary, I felt a call to action.

Studies of the shift in the abortion demographics from 1974 until 2004, and the purposeful location of abortion clinics in minority communities, corroborate “MAAFA 21’s” claims that black babies are a target of black genocide.  According to a 2008 Guttmacher Institute study (ironically, Guttmacher  was a eugenics supporter as President of Planned Parenthood between 1962-1974),“Although abortion rates have declined among all racial and ethnic groups, large disparities persist, with Hispanic and black women having the procedure at rates three to five times the rate of white women.  In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white women ages 15 to 44, compared with … 50 per 1,000 black women. That translates into approximately 1 percent of white women having an abortion in 2004, compared with … 5 percent of black women.” A Life Dynamics website reveals that Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

A review of biblical history shows exploitation of the poor by leaders and elected officials to be nothing new. The U.S. government’s funding of Planned Parenthood’s diabolical plans invites God’s wrath upon our nation: “The leaders and the princes (elected officials) will be the first to feel the LORD’s judgment. … You have taken advantage of the poor… (Isa 3:13-14, New Living Translation). As a minister of the gospel, I am compelled to defend the poor from deceptive racism, and protect the innocent unborn in the womb. One of the sins that the Lord clearly hates is the shedding of innocent blood (Prov. 6:17, King James Version), which clearly fits the bill of abortion.

As ministers for the minority communities there is a two-fold strategy that we must employ to combat this genocidal atrocity; a preemptive one and a redemptive one. A preemptive strategy has three components:

1. Preach and teach abstinence until marriage to our members. Rid ourselves of soft messages absent of sexual purity. No longer should we adopt the weak mindset of using condoms under the fallacy of “people are going to have sex anyway.” The Scriptures admonish us to flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18).
2. Teach black men how to take responsibility for their families. Most families today are headed by unwed mothers.
3. Elect public officials who believe abstinence to be the most effective way of unwanted pregnancies. If there are no officials who believe our standards, we should pray harder for them, train up our own, or give no rest to our eyes until those in office begin to listen.  No longer should we give in to apathy.”Woe to you who are complacent in Zion, and to you who feel secure…”(Amos 6:1, NIV)

A redemptive strategy has two components:

1. The church should embrace the theology of pure religion, that is, we must care for orphans … and refuse to let the world corrupt us (James 1:26-27, NLT). A movement of adoption of unwanted babies should be promoted. Once these children enter the world, they will need our loving support.
2. Lobby the state and national elected officials to protect the innocent unborn and defund Planned Parenthood. As taxpayers, we are unwittingly funding the annihilation of the innocent.

 

Sources

Eugenics. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

Stein, Rob (2008, September 23) Study Finds Major Shift in Abortion Demographics.  

Washington Post. Retrieved February15, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

National Black Leaders Join Georgia Legislators to End Ugliest Form of Racism: Abortion

Lawrenceville, GA – In 2008, blacks made up 30% of the population but over 57% of the abortions in Georgia. Today national black leaders gathered at the Georgia State Capitol to join a bipartisan group of black and white Georgia legislators to call for an end to the disproportionate levels of abortion in the black community in Georgia.

“Black children are aborted at three times the rate of all other populations. Georgia leads the country in the number of reported abortions performed on black women, 18,901 in 2008 alone,” Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach for Georgia Right to Life reported.

Dr. Johnny Hunter, President of LEARN noted, “The civil rights activists did not fight to make lynching safe, legal, and rare. They ended it. We must fight to end the ugliest form of racism: abortion.”

Hunter also noted, “More black children die every 4 days from abortion, than the Klu Klux Klan killed in 144 years.”

Dr. La Verne Tolbert, former board member of Planned Parenthood stated, “Abortions increase where clinics are located and where are those clinics located? Ninety-four percent of the clinics are located in urban areas where blacks reside. In my own neighborhood which is an African American neighborhood in California, there are three abortion clinics strategically located all in the same area.”

On Tuesday, Representative Barry Loudermilk introduced bipartisan legislation that targets this very issue. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, HB 1155, makes it illegal to knowingly perform, solicit or accept funding for either race- or sex-selection abortions. This bill is based upon existing federal legislation in the 111^th US Congress.

“In Georgia, you cannot fire or hire a person based upon their race or gender. If discrimination is wrong in the workplace and in schools, those same standards should be applied to who enters this life and who doesn’t. No child should be kept from entering this world based upon their race, color, or sex,” said Representative Loudermilk

Dr. Johnny Hunter stated, “All the civil rights gained in education, voting,  and equal job opportunities mean nothing to a dead black child.”

Catherine Davis noted, “HB 1155 will not victimize or harm women, but will hold accountable those who would perform, solicit, or coerce an abortion because of the race, color, or sex of  the child. We must stop the exploitation of these women and their children.” 

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. commented, “I commend Rep. Loudermilk and the other legislators for ending this last bastion of racism. Abortion is the civil rights issue of the 21^st Century.”

Black Children Are an Endangered Species

by Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach

Every 4 days in American more black children are killed through abortion than the KKK killed in 144 years.

Georgia leads the country in the number of reported abortions performed on black women, 18,901 in 2008 alone.

While these numbers may seem staggering, they are our present reality.

The question is what will we do about the fact that black children are aborted at three times the rate of white children?

Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation have launched a project to answer that question. The Endangered Species Project is an initiative to increase awareness of the impact of abortion on Georgia’s minority communities and women.

The campaign began with the placement of billboards in Dekalb and Fulton counties where the majority of abortions occur. According to Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach, over 67% of the abortions in Georgia occur in those two counties.

Ms Davis maintains that this is by design. “Planned Parenthood’s Negro Project is succeeding”, Davis said. “They targeted blacks in order to control their birthrate, limiting the growth of populations they ‘don’t want too many of as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed was the goal behind Roe v. Wade (Women on the Court, New York Times Magazine, July 2009).”

In addition to the billboards a website was also launched this week — http://www.TooManyAborted.com –where the motives for abortion in America are discussed. Ryan Bomberger, co-founder of The Radiance Foundation stated, “TooManyAborted.com is the response to the rhetoric of ‘reducing abortions’. Regardless of race, religious and civic community leaders and the general public need to understand the destructive nature of the abortion industry and get outraged by the truth.”

The video clip below helps to illustrate the facts in a relevant way.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. commented, “My Uncle Martin once stated, ‘The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.’ Those words are still true today. After all, how can the dream survive if we let them take our children?”

Dr. Alveda King also captured the heart of the matter. We need to see these children as our children. We need to be reminded as Dr. Alveda King also stated,”Abortion is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.” The question is will we get involved in this 21st century fight or will we sit on the sidelines and say it doesn’t affect me?

For More Information about the campaign, please visit www.TooManyAborted.com.

40 Days to End Abortion in Georgia

40 Days to End Abortion in Georgia

By Kateri Howard

Last September, Atlanta once again united with thousands of believers across America in the nationally coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign of prayer and fasting to end abortion.  In October, strongholds crumbled.

Former Director of Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas

In Pensacola, Florida, an abortion facility that had stood for twenty-five years in the city, a dark seemingly unshakable fortress of evil, was shut down.

In Bryan, Texas, the director of the local Planned Parenthood walked out.

In Kalispell, Montana, the local Planned Parenthood closed completely.

On November 2, figures were released showing at least 534 babies confirmed as saved from abortion in just over 40 days.

What a sign of hope!  The best part of these incredible pro-life successes is that they did not come from big funding, political strategies, or legal action.  Important as those can be, ultimately, it is the Lord himself who transforms hearts and heals the wounds of nations.  These hope-filled successes are the results of people who simply put their trust in God in prayer and fasting, and took their faith to the streets.  He did the rest.

To date, more than 5000 churches in five nations have joined 40 Days for Life in their local communities.  Through their efforts, hundreds of men and women have been spared the pain and loss of abortion.  Hundreds more with abortion in their past have found forgiveness, hope, and healing.  Dozens of abortion facilities have cut back hours.  At least twenty-nine abortion industry workers have quit the deadly industry.

Here in Atlanta last fall, over a dozen churches from more than four denominations prayed and fasted in this powerful campaign.  People of faith from diverse corners of the Atlanta area – Gainesville – Marietta – Alpharetta – drove into the city to participate in peaceful hours of prayerful vigil at the Feminist Women’s Health Center abortion facility.  Speakers took a pro-life message to youth, and campaign volunteers contributed to the placing of a billboard with a pregnancy center hotline number in a strategic interstate location.  Most importantly, by the grace of God we know of six lives that were saved as through these efforts, and I am hopeful that somehow through our prayers and presence God has begun to melt the hearts even of the abortionists and workers at the facility.

To stand in front of the facility and see people go in and out and pray for them, or even try to talk to them is an experience that goes right to your heart.  One man who rolled down his window to speak with me, it later turned out may have been one of the abortionists.  He said no one wants to adopt black babies.  That’s just not true of course, and it was the saddest thing to hear him say, since he himself is black.  Some other pro-lifers and I afterwards spiritually adopted him and have been praying for him ever since.

In any given community, the most visible component of a 40 Days for Life campaign is typically that peaceful, round the clock vigil presence outside the local abortion facility.  40 Days participants also perform community outreach projects, knocking on neighbors doors, writing letters to the editor, and spreading the pro-life message in other creative ways.  In Atlanta, we’ll be carrying out five community outreach projects this spring.  But the results of these visible efforts flow from the hidden centerpiece of the campaign, prayer and fasting.

Through humble prayer and fasting, Christians tap into God’s promise of healing for a nation

If my people, who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Efforts at ending abortion once and for all have not succeeded – yet!  Jesus speaks of some demons that can only be cast out through prayer and fasting.  Through humble prayer and fasting, strongholds are crumbling.  Through humble prayer and fasting, hearts are being changed and healing taking place.  Through the humble prayer and fasting of the 40 Days for Life campaign, God Himself appears to be moving to bring about the beginning of the end of abortion across America.

The dates for the Spring 40 Days for Life campaign are February 17th thru March 28th.

For More Information about the Atlanta 40 Days for Life Campaign and to find out how to get involved or get your church involved, please visit, http://www.40daysforlife.com/atlanta/

Rethinking Court Martials for Pregnant Soldiers

Republished with permission from Modern Commentaries blog

This was a stupid policy. Stupid and anti-life. From ABCNews.com: An Army general in Iraq backed away from his threat today to court martial female soldiers who get pregnant.

“I see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a female soldier by court martial for a violation … none,” Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III wrote to ABC News in an exclusive statement. ” I fully intend to handle these cases through lesser disciplinary action.”

Cucolo triggered debate, some of it angry, when his Nov. 4 policy forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers became public recently. His policy statement said violation of the rule could be punishable by court martial, and that it would also apply to the men who get female soldiers pregnant, even if the couple is married.

While legal and military experts said the order was proper, a spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women called it “ridiculous.”

“How dare any government say we’re going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “This is not the 1800s.” She said NOW would seek to have Cucolo’s order rescinded, and would turn to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and even President Obama for help.

“Applying this criteria is intended to promote thoughtful and responsible behavior,” Cucolo told ABC News today. “I wanted all my soldiers to think before they act, before they make a personal choice that has consequences.” Cucolo, who ran the policy by several of his female commanders, told ABC News that seven soldiers — four women and three men — have so far been found in violation of the pregnancy portion of his general order.

The four women and two of the men received letters of reprimand that will not be remain in their permanent military files. I’m of two minds on the NOW statement. It’d be nice if NOW realized supporting abortion punishes women for getting pregnant, and Obama himself described it as punishment.

This post was originally seen on Modern Commentaries, a pro-life blog, and was reposted with permission from the original writer Amy. Please check out her writings and her blog when you get the chance. http://moderncomments.wordpress.com