Source?
Please be more specific
Source?
That's because PP concentrates on black communities.
78% of PP clinics that provide abortions are located in black communities.
PP is the largest abortion provider in America. While blacks make up 12% of the population, 35% of the abortions are on blacks.
According to USAToday, black populations are on the decline in every large American city, and overall nationwide.
Margaret Sanger (the founder of PP) is succeeding beyond her wildest dreams.
Sanger started "The Negro Project" in 1939. The Negro Project was designed to sterilize young black woman. It was part of Sanger's eugenics.
Margaret Sanger said the following about black people:
"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated"
I'm surprised PP doesn't put that quote by Sanger above the doors at each of its abortion clinics.
If Margaret Sanger was alive today, she would be very proud of what PP is accomplishing on blacks.
The only thing those recent videos don't point out, is that all those baby parts and baby cadavers are most likely from black babies.
The source of your heavily biased and racist information, please.Please be more specific
The source of your heavily biased and racist information, please.
(and that twenty-five cent "quote" of yours appears to be a total invention).
I deny any and all statistics or theories you claim to be fact until you provide a reputable source for them. This is "Debate 101" stuff.Do you deny that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood?
How about the following quote from Sanger found on Wikipedia?
I deny any and all statistics or theories you claim to be fact until you provide a reputable source for them. This is "Debate 101" stuff.
Source?
Sanger's entire comments that you selectively cite make perfect sense: She didn't want to exterminate the black population and didn't want them thinking she did. None of this is hard to find out or understand.
No, here goal was to exterminate as many as possible from the black population. She didn't want the blacks to know about it as she was doing it.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics.
She founded "The Birth Control Review" in 1917. The magazine published pro-eugenic articles constantly.
I am not surprised.The 'weeds' comment appears to be fabricated to undermine Sanger.
See http://quotefail.com/quote/margaret-sanger-colored-people-are-human-weeds-and-need
The eugenics comment doesn't appear to be true either, given that Sanger was trying to improve their economic prospects be giving black women the ability to restrict family size.
Not true at all, I already gave a response. "No amount of "good" can ever cover up PPs heinous crimes. Secondly when we defund PP that 500 million in taxpayer money will be realloacted to healthcare clincs that dont have to resort to killing the unborn and selling off their body parts to pad their bottom line."https://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/provider-location.html
Even if Planned Parenthood's clinics were mostly to be found in minority-dominant neighborhoods it would prove nothing more than the economic disparities that make PP the only viable option to these women. But that's a discussion no conservative seems interested in having: Pocketbook issues freak out evangelicals if it's suggested actual money can solve some problems.
I recently asked a question that no one on TOL wanted to touch: If raising your taxes guaranteed fewer abortions, would you support this?
If they can't get birth control or a breast exam anywhere else, where are these women supposed to go? Nobody else other than PP seems interested at all in helping them.
You can't beat something...with nothing.
I deny any and all statistics or theories you claim to be fact until you provide a reputable source for them. This is "Debate 101" stuff.
...when we defund PP that 500 million in taxpayer money will be realloacted to healthcare clincs that dont have to resort to killing the unborn and selling off their body parts to pad their bottom line."
A third party academic source or a verified agency that handles statistics would be a start.Define what you consider to be "reputable"
Define what you consider to be "reputable"
Generally not a private organisation advocating for one viewpoint with a strong interest it.