What web does Planned Parenthood (PP) weave, its victims to deceive?
What is the deceit? Who are the victims? How is it funded? Why?
The web begins to spin in public elementary schools. It seems silly to help first graders plan parenthood, so perhaps something else is going on. “Obstacles that make young people uncomfortable about themselves, their bodies and their relationships should be removed.” Would that be parents? (“Manifesto” of PP, April 2001, CITIZEN, 7-01, p. 17)
More spinning. “Society may frown on sex play between children, but we have to remember that society disapproves of a great many sexual acts that take place, and there are two sides to the story.” (Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy, a member of Kinsey‘s research staff, 1981, p. 48 and 52)
More spinning. “If [your parents] seem to fear your sexuality . . . you may feel you have to tune out their voice entirely.” (Changing Bodies, Changing Lives by Ruth Bell, 1980)
More spinning. “. . . Boys and girls who start having intercourse when they’re adolescents, expecting to get married later on, will find that it’s a big help in finding out whether they are really congenial or not . . . it’s like taking a car out for a test run before you buy it.” (Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy, 1981, p. 117. This and the two books above have been used by PP.)
Pause spinning. Did you note when these textbooks were written? Do you realize that as early as 1970, PP encouraged homosexuality as a way to reduce U.S. fertility? So, should we be surprised that PP shared their key to the schoolhouse door with LGBT advocates? Should we be surprised by the boldness of GLSEN, Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” program, and same-sex marriage proponents teaming up with PP in public schools?
More spinning. Working hard to preserve “reproductive freedom,” PP disconnects procreation from sex. In PP’s Young Woman’s Guide to Sexuality, girls learn “we are all sexual” and “sexual expression is one of our basic human needs, like water, food, and shelter.” But, as Dr. Miriam Grossman asks, does PP mention that a girl is born with all the eggs she’ll ever have, and that when she turns thirty, her eggs do, too?
More spinning… and spinning. Oh, my! Our kids are sexually active! (Does PP feign surprise?) We can’t let children have children. And, HIV/AIDS isn’t just for homosexuals anymore. PP stands “ready to serve”. Contraceptives all around! Sixth grade girls practice putting condoms over the finger of sixth grade boys. By freshman year, girls are on The Pill. But, even after lessons on how to have sex without getting caught, pregnancy happens.
More spinning. “These girls are much too young,” laments PP. “They have college, careers and marriage ahead. Let’s help them out of a difficult situation… by postponing their parenthood.” In 2009, PP in the U.S. performed 332,278 surgical or RU-486 “home” abortions. How many were on minor girls? I’m not sure. Parents aren’t always sure, either, because not every state requires parental notification. Alternatives to abortion? PP, last I knew, performed 134 abortions for every 1 adoption referral.
Certainly, the spinning stops here. But, no. Once a girl or young woman agrees to let PP help them and consents to an abortion, she may be asked if she’d like to have “some good come out of a difficult situation.” Fetal tissue “banks” stand ready to receive human embryos and, if a young woman is a certain number of weeks along in her pregnancy, she may choose to “donate.” Human tissue “banks” don’t pay abortion clinics for the “products of conception.” However, money may exchange hands for “handling, transportation, and/or storage.” (WORLD, 8-13-11)
The web is tight. Well financed. Government is complicit in the deception and entrapment of our children. PP is tax-payer funded. SIECUS is tax-payer funded. The California Teacher’s Association which supports the LGBT-friendly textbook is tax-payer funded. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which funds grants to fetal tissue distributors (WORLD, 8-13-11) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and, yes, is tax-payer funded.
The web is spun. The child deceived and caught as prey. The spinning continues night and day. “Once I had an abortion, what did it matter?” a 40-something woman told me. Her life, for many years, was a blur of promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, and two more abortions. Until, one day, she heard the words, “The Spirit of the Lord . . . sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isaiah 61:1).
The web will be spun as long as the culture allows it. But, one life at a time can be kept from the snare. And, even after becoming prey, a single, precious life can be set free. Free to begin again. To heal. To better navigate the journey. To warn others away from the web.
The Failure of Sex Education is a short booklet written by L. Bartlett
for parents, educators, and church workers who want to protect children
from PP’s web. Available from Lutherans For Life or CPH








Sexual Menu?
July 16, 2011 by ezerwoman
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships | Tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman | Leave a Comment »