China practiced 330 million abortions between 1971 and 2010


China carried out almost 330 million abortions between 1971 and 2010, according to figures made ​​public by its own Health Ministry before announcing a merger of their activities with those of the National Population and Family Planning.

“Family planning will be strengthened, not weakened,” said Wang Feng, deputy head of the office of public sector reform agency quoted by China News. “After the reform, China will continue its family planning policy,” he the Chinese Secretary General, Ma Kai.

Since the beginning of the 80s, the limit imposed on the number of births to all Chinese is part of its one-child policy for urban residents as determined by the government in Beijing, which according to their own numbers helps the Chinese avoid 400 million births in the world’s most populous country, which had 1.354 million people at the end of 2012.

But abortions were also used for the selective elimination of female fetuses and embryos, which reduced the number tens of millions of women.

The number of abortions was more than 10 million per year between 1982 and 1992, with a peaks of more than 14 million between 1983 and 1991, says the Ministry of Health. The limitation of births brought a large number of forced abortions, that although supposedly banned, are still practiced in many regions of the country.

This past June, the case of a woman forced to abort when she was seven months pregnant caused a scandal and forced the authorities to apologize. But most of forced abortions and abuse committed by government agencies goes without any challenges as China has become the worldwide model for a strong Eugenics campaign that has been slowly but surely implemented in most Western nations.

Much of the propaganda being used to brainwash women and families into opting for not having more than one child originates from the idea that the world is overpopulated, or that women are supposed to neglect their children and family in order to become successful in life. It is also asked of families to leave their children in the hands the government, which through its traditional educational system, manages to destroy all creativity and self-respect in the minds of youngsters.


Eugenics in Europe: Euthanasia for minors and ‘accelerated death’ for the sick

AFP | DECEMBER 19, 2012

Belgium is considering a significant change to its decade-old euthanasia law that would allow minors and Alzheimer’s sufferers to seek permission to die.

The proposed changes to the law were submitted to parliament Tuesday by the Socialist party and are likely to be approved by other parties, although no date has yet been put forward for a parliamentary debate.

“The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,” party leader Thierry Giet said.

The draft legislation calls for “the law to be extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate.”

Belgium was the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalise euthanasia in 2002 but it applies only to people over the age of 18.

Socialist Senator Philippe Mahoux, who helped draft the proposed changes, said there had been cases of adolescents who “had the capacity to decide” their future.

He said parliamentarians would also consider extended mercy-killing to people suffering from Alzheiner’s-type illnesses.

Euthanasia was allowed to an Alzheimer’s patient for the first time in the Netherlands last year.

In Belgium, some 1,133 cases — mostly for terminal cancer — were recorded in 2011, about one percent of all deaths in the country, according to official figures.

A seriously ill prisoner serving a long jail sentence this year became the first inmate to die under Belgium’s euthanasia laws.

Accelerated Death

France should allow doctors to “accelerate the coming of death” for terminally ill patients, a report to President Francois Hollande recommended Tuesday.

Hollande referred the report to a national council on medical ethics which will examine the precise circumstances under which such steps could be authorised with a view to producing draft legislation by June 2013.

“The existing legislation does not meet the legitimate concerns expressed by people who are gravely and incurably ill,” Hollande said.

The report said physicians should be allowed to authorise interventions that ensure quicker deaths for terminal patients in three specific sets of circumstances.

In the first case, the patient involved would be capable of making an explicit request to that effect or have issued advance instructions in the event of him or her becoming incapable of expressing an opinion.

The second scenario envisages medical teams withdrawing treatment and/or nourishment on the basis of a request by the family of a dying patient who is no longer conscious and has not made any instructions.

The third would apply to cases where treatment is serving only to sustain life artificially.

The author of the report, Professor Didier Sicard, stressed that he did not support any measures which “suddenly and prematurely end life.”

“We are radically opposed to inscribing euthanasia in law,” Sicard told a press conference.

He also stressed that he was not advocating Swiss-style clinics where people are provided with lethal medication to enable them to end their own lives.

Instead, Sicard said he favoured amendments to a 2005 law which already authorises doctors to administer painkilling drugs at levels they know will, as a secondary effect, shorten a patient’s life.

Sicard’s report was drawn up after extensive consultation with the terminally ill and their families which revealed widespread dissatisfaction with a “cure at all costs” culture in the medical establishment.

United Nations Environmental Program Embraces Calls for Eugenics


The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro has begun. The global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. In the months preceeding the summit, a continuing stream of publications has poured down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter.

One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen.  Their joint statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” was clearly designed to inspire the UN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiends call for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.

“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”

The authors go on to assert that “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.

Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- therefore governments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.

Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of the bunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded of the words he wrote in Ecoscience which he co-authored with John P. Holdren, the current White House science czar. To highlight a few of these:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Read Full Article →

UN Rio+20 Summit Entertains Anti-Human Declaration


The UN’s Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio+20 this month has attracted more than 100 science academies and leaders from all across the globe to discuss population control and human consumption, among other topics of global domination.

Humanity is a viable threat to the eco-system and future of planet Earth, say scientists from the UK’s Royal Society .

“The overall message is that we need a renewed focus on both population and consumption – it’s not enough to look at one or the other,” said Prof Charles Godray from the Martin School at the University of Oxford, who chaired the process of writing the declaration. “We need to look at both, because together they determine the footprint on the world.”

Globalist academics decry humanity’s footprint is getting “heavier and heavier”. They have released a public declaration to coerce developed and developing nations to join forces to combat humanity’s assault on our planet.

The declaration states: “The global population is currently around seven billion, and most projections suggest that it will probably lie between eight and 11 billion by 2050. Global consumption levels are at an all-time high, largely because of the high per-capita consumption of developed countries.”

The fear-mongers assert that if governments fail to enact these changes, “will put us on track to alternative futures with severe and potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being.”

Population control and severely limiting human consumption, being discussed at the UN Earth Summit, will admonish governments to agree to “commit to systematically consider population trends and projections in our national, rural and urban development strategies and policies.”

The drafted agreement claims all governments pledge to “change unsustainable consumption and production patterns” to reflect Agenda 21  Sustainable Development policies within sovereign nations so that the UN can usurp authority by ratification of international mandate within individual countries.

The report claims that over population in under-developed countries has resulted in unsustainable consumption worldwide.

Eliya Zulu, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy  in Nairobi, co-author of the report from the Royal Society, says: “Many African countries are feeling the effects of population growth, and are finding they’ll need to deal with it in order to continue developing as well as to address their environmental issues. If you look at a country like Rwanda, it’s one of the most densely populated in Africa and the government believes one of the reasons behind the genocide was high population density and competition for resources. And the economic downturn that started in the late 1980s made people realize that in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs], you can’t do it if your population is growing rapidly.”

Zulu points out that women in Africa are contributing to the over-population problems, which is causing the need to increase family planning provisions in Africa.

“This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment,” said Sir John Sulston, the report’s chairman, who headed the Human Genome Project , and currently chairs the Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation . “Where we go is down to human volition – it’s not pre-ordained, it’s not the act of anything outside humanity, it’s in our hands.”

These globalists believe that while more people are born, over-consumption becomes an issue of over-population. Under-developed countries are being blamed for ushering our planet toward destruction because of lack of access to family planning services.

By controlling fertility rates, as well as consumption of food, water and other resources, these experts assert that the environment, CO2 emissions and the status of the planet will be saved.

The Royal Society has used gross national product (GDP) to define how a nation’s economy can sustain its population. Their focus is to protect the environment over the rights of humanity as a whole.

While the UN discusses how to deal with the rising human population, radical environmentalists are speaking at the UN Earth Summit, urging that biodiversity be protected from the effects of humanity.

The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) has also released a report called the Living Planet Report that condemns the ecological disaster our planet is becoming from the direct influence of man.

It was the WWF who published a false report  on the polar bear population last year. By purveying the myth that the polar bears are drowning due to ice sheets melting because of global warming, the WWF participated in the alarmism of climate change.

Real world observations from researchers found that polar bear populations are estimated at 66% higher than climate change alarmists predicted.

David Nussbaum, CEO of the WWF in the UK, says: “The Rio+20 conferences are an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development to be made sustainable. We need to elevate the sense of urgency, and I think this is ultimately not only about our lives but the legacy we leave for future generations.”

The report from the WWF is compiled from data obtained from the Zoological Society of London  (ZSL), as well as analysis from the Global Footprint Network  (GFN) to further globalist agendas for global sustainability and encompassing the world’s ecological footprint. They assert issues surrounding the use of fossil fuels, deforestation for agricultural use, logging wood, and depleting fish populations as a food source.

The ZSL claims 30% of the species of the world have been in a steady decline since 1970, while tropical species have been waning at a rate of more than 60% because of the destruction to tropical lakes and rivers.

Tim Blackburn, director of the Institute of Zoology at the ZSL, maintains: “Nature is more important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can’t live without nature and the essential services it provides.”

Nations under pressure by the UN and defined as completely unsustainable are: Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates countries, Denmark, Belgium, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom.

The WWF report points out that 405 river systems are under attack worldwide, as well as the 30% food wastage caused by countries in the West contribute to the global food shortages and infrastructure in under-developed countries.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has launched a “ global conversation ” to keep the appearance that the UN is interested in creating the “future we want”.

Through Facebook , Twitter or simply mailing in concerns, the panelists and event participants will answer “questions, expectations, or comments . . . at the event on November 22, 2012 at 10am EST.”

The UN hope to continue to purvey the ruse that they are an international community dedicated to making our world a better place. In the shadows, the globalist Elite lurks and patiently wait while the very right to human existence is stripped from sovereign nations through international directives.

This vision of the future is not what we want.

Scientific American Advocates Government Violence to Finance Planned Parenthood


One of the most effective forms of violence is that which isn’t noticed or felt, and in that regard, government has all the accolades. Often, the existence of big government is justified by its supporters based on the idea that it is a government’s duty to take care of the needy, or to provide services to people who cannot pay for those services themselves. The problem arises when the government, or anyone else for that matter, initiates violence against citizens and coercively forces them to do what they would not do if left to decide: Fund and support a large, out of control government bureaucracy. One of the services government is strongly involved in today is sexual education and contraception methods, which in the United States are largely provided by Planned Parenthood.

The organization was founded by known eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who a century ago began — well intentionally perhaps — to offer birth control services to women who she believed might not have had access to them. But Sanger’s supposed well-intentioned initiative changed for the worst, as she later became a confessed anti-humanist. Her thoughts about the need to reduce world population and to do it by stealth through government-sponsored healthcare programs is documented through her books and speeches.

At the start of her adventure as a defender of women’s health, Sanger rationalized the need to provide contraception on the idea that if it wasn’t for those services, women would have to go through painful dark ally abortions which in many cases they would have to execute themselves. She also thought that the education she provided to women would help them deal with reproduction and unwanted pregnancies. But Sanger’s idea of safer pregnancies and abortions changed radically as she became influenced by colleagues and mentors.

Her little clinic grew exponentially until it became what we know today as Planned Parenthood, an institution well connected with known eugenicists like Bill Gates’ father, William Henry Gates, Sr. Gates Sr. was a lawyer and a philanthropist who admittedly founded and later funded Planned Parenthood. Gates Sr. shared Sanger’s desire to reduce the world’s population, first in the US and then the rest of the world. Today, just as Gates Sr. did in the past, Bill Gates Jr. channels money to Planned Parenthood and other eugenics projects through his foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, which just as many other philanthropic organizations is tax excepted. Planned parenthood itself was born out of the American Eugenics Society.

Back in 2003, Bill Gates Jr. admitted that his father was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which had been founded on the concept that human were “reckless breeders” and “human weeds”. In later interviews, such as TED conferences, Bill Gates openly spoke about reducing the world’s population in order to curb what he said was planetary collapse. In later events, Gates told a group of teachers and workers that denying healthcare to the elderly could translate into hiring more teachers, to which the audience applauded and cheered. Bill Gates & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are now heavily invested in other eugenics operations such as genetically engineered food. The total amount of their investment reached $23.1 million in Monsanto stock. In a previous purchase, Gates bought Monsanto stock for another $360,000.

Bill Gates is also invested on another giant of the biotechnology industry known as Cargill. South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety reported about Gates’ investment with Cargill to develop a project to “implement the soy value chain” in the country of Mozambique. Gates is well-known for funding aid programs in Africa, where most of his projects involve sterilizing women and conducting vaccination campaigns. Given the harm that genetically engineered crops causes on people and animals, it is more than suspicious that Gates invests so heavily in two GMO companies.

Where does Scientific American fit in all this you may be asking? Apparently, the editorial board at the magazine is one of Planned Parenthood’s strongest supporters, and they’ve made it clear on an opinion piece published on June 1, 2012. According to the editorial, Planned Parenthood is under attack by conservatives and Republicans in Congress, who, they say, threaten women’s lives because of their intention to defund the eugenicist organization. But Scientific American did not stop at pointing out the supposed attack on women’s health, the article actually called for the enforcement of taxpayer funding to maintain Planned Parenthood open and providing abortions and other services to women who in their opinion cannot have access to a doctor. After quickly mentioning the so-called political attacks on Planned Parenthood, Scientific American goes on to say that most of the negative ideas about the organization are wrongly founded of its image as an abortion provider. This misconception, it says, is wrong because Planned Parenthood’s abortion only account for 3 percent of its services. That is a lie which will be explained later.

After attacking people who oppose Planned Parenthood’s funding with taxpayer money, the article praises the organization for its hard work saying:

“Stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would also sacrifice the 97 percent of its public health work that has nothing to do with abortion, from which many people benefit directly. One in five American women have used the group’s services, and three out of four of its patients are considered to have low incomes. In 2011 it carried out tests and treatment for more than four million individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. It supplied 750,000 exams to prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer among U.S. women. And it performed 770,000 Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer, which was a leading cause of death among women before this screen became widely available. Planned Parenthood is one of the most important public health care institutions in the country, even aside from its work in rational family planning.”

They conveniently leave out important information which again, will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs.

The most important fact is that Scientific American advocates for the government to tax citizens in order to fund an institution that not only does not need the money, but also wastes public funds that could be used to actually improve women’s lives. Planned Parenthood does not need public funds because as we mentioned before it is heavily subsidized by tax exempted foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Bank One Corporation, The Boston Globe Foundation II Inc, the Buffett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Freddie Mac Foundation, the William H. Gates Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and dozens of other ones. See the complete list here. Groups like the Buffett Foundation donated almost $5 million during 5 fiscal years in a row. Most of those monies allocated to finance Planned Parenthood are sent to it through legalized tax evasion schemes which are maintained because of the Foundations’ supposed philanthropic work.

Many of the services pointed out by the magazine and its editorial board are often fake. For example, according to an article on the Weekly Standard, Planned Parenthood lied about providing mammogram services. The article tells how activist Lila Rose’s from Live Action confirmed in a video, that Planned Parenthood actually didn’t provide mammograms. However, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecille Richards insisted on CNN that if Congress defunded the organization, they wouldn’t be able to provide such services. So not only does Scientific American supports a eugenicist organization, but also helps cover the lies spoken by Planned Parenthood’s representatives, because the article published on June 1, does not mention anything regarding the fraud, eugenics or lies coming out of the institution.

In a separate case which was also ignored by Scientific Magazine, the organization “Students for Life of America” released an undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned Parenthood facility admitting that some babies survive abortions even in advanced stages (22 weeks into the pregnancy).  “It does happen,” the nurse said. Another common occurrence is the cover ups of sexual encounters between under age girls and adult men when these girls go to a Planned Parenthood office to get an abortion. In a video obtained by, the lack of care or complicity of Planned Parenthood is put out in the open. In the same video, the nurse admits that cases of infanticide take place at the clinic. She explains that although it is not a common thing, “Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.  It’s an actual delivery,” she says, “but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

For parents who are worried about their children’s well-being there are more bad news when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s actions. In an article published two days ago by CBS Los Angeles, the writer reveals that the eugenics supporting organization just opened a clinic at Roosevelt High School, in the Unified High School District, where it intends to offer its services to teenage girls. This would be just a bit less concerning if California had not approved a mandate that allows schools to vaccinate children without their parents’ consent. Girls will not be able to accept vaccines such as HPV and others that Planned Parenthood offers to women in its clinics.

The move by this organization to set up a clinic in this school, will likely be repeated in other areas of the state as well as other states, where parenting rights are quickly eroding in the hands of bureaucrats that allow organizations like Planned Parenthood to indoctrinate young women and men. “Students can visit the on-campus health clinic to get free birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screening for sexually transmitted diseases – the first program of its kind in the country, according to the Los Angeles Times,” says the article. Groups like Planned Parenthood are doing such a great job at brainwashing youngsters into trusting them and not their parents that many teens now don’t believe it is a good idea to tell talk to them about sex, pregnancy, abortion or similar matters. Here is a typical example: I don’t think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who’s already messed up – like early in my life, and I’d feel like I was a disappointment.”

Despite these and other examples of what Planned Parenthood actually does, Scientific American strongly supports its work saying that the organization’s family planning programs has benefited society in numerous ways. “It has saved lives, opened new horizons for women and kept populations from soaring. As a major provider of contraceptives—it furnished birth control to two million Americans last year—Planned Parenthood serves as “America’s largest abortion preventer,” says the article, citing the Chicago Tribune. The magazine the says that “access to birth control in the U.S. has helped narrow the income inequality gap between men and women by as much as 30 percent during the 1990s alone. The pill has given women greater choice about when to have children, freeing them up to acquire career skills.”

For the sake of argument let’s assume all this is true. It seems Scientific American condones the ‘great work’ conducted by Planned Parenthood which has undoubtedly contributed with the death of over 55 million unborn children in the United States. The argument that the world would be overpopulated if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist is weak and just pure speculation. So is the idea that women could not have turned successful had they not been helped by the foundation ran and funded organization. But the lies don’t end there. Let’s see what else Scientific American doesn’t say or covers up in order to make Planned Parenthood look good.

The claim that Planned Parenthood’s abortion accounts for only 3 percent of its activities is deceiving. How do they make it so? For example, back in 2006, Planned Parenthood completed 289,750 abortions, which added up to  approximately 23% of  all abortions in the country. That made the organization the largest of such procedures  in the United States.  More surprisingly, although abortion in the US continue to drop, Planned Parenthood’s sponsored abortions keep on increasing every year. This information comes from a report issued by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

While Scientific American, the Washington Post and Planned Parenthood officials say that abortion account for only 3 percent of the procedures, therefore trying to imply that such a service  is not the main reason for its existence, reality says otherwise. The deceit comes from the fact that every time that a woman visits Planned Parenthood to receive counseling, pregnancy advice, contraception guidelines or help with an abortion, each visit is counted separately, instead as a group of visits from the same patient which in many cases end up in an abortion. Since the abortion procedure is only done once, the numbers on abortion services are compared with a stack of other visits which make it seem as only a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work.

However, it is just a matter of looking a little closer to see the trees for the forest. In 2006, for example, Planned Parenthood’s services were provided to 3.1 million clients, which added up to 9 percent of the total. In this case the figures are three times what they claim. Another misleading statement often told about the greatness of Planned Parenthood is that it provides a safe way for women to have abortions, which in itself is a risky procedure. Since 1973, when abortion was made legal, thousands of women have died during and after being submitted to an abortion procedure. Many of these women died at Planned Parenthood clinics. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a Planned Parenthood facility personnel failed to realize that one of their patients who came in for help had a vaginal infection. The clinic did not offer any treatment and the patient died a few days later. Her name was Edrica Goode a 21-year-old woman from Riverside California. Planned Parenthood was accused by Edrica’s parents for malpractice.

Another fact left out by Scientific American is that although publicly Planned Parenthood says it rejects racism, the organization was founded by a eugenicist that believed that certain people and ethnicities of people were undesirable. In fact, Planned Parenthood affiliates often set up shop in or near poor neighborhoods, where most of the people are black, hispanic of belong to other minority groups. Even though blacks only account for about 13 percent of the american population, 37 percent of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are done on black women. Author Robert L. Zangrando explains in his book The Reader’s Companion to American History, that more unborn blacks are killed at Planned Parenthood clinics than those who were murdered by the Ku Klux  Klan in their entire history.

Planned Parenthood is not the clean dedicated organization that the Scientific American article intends to paint. In fact, it is controlled by the Planned  Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which extends its tentacles through the work of 97 affiliates all over the United  States. Those affiliates are in charge of opening clinics in communities around the country; many of them as we said, in poor neighborhoods or schools. Its affiliates operate some 880 facilities. Besides the United States, Planned Parenthood also operates in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, three of the poorest regions of the world. In many cases, Planned Parenthood creates partnerships with governments of local medical organizations to provide abortions, contraception methods and supposed medical advice to patients.

Additionally, the Planned Parenthood Federation uses its Action Fund Political Action Committee (PPFAPAC), to lobby the US Congress on keeping abortion unrestricted by law, and well funded with taxpayer money. That may be part of the reason why Congress refuses to defund this organization despite the fact it is supported by private initiatives such as money streams from philanthropic foundations, which are already tax exempted. Annually, Planned Parenthood’s budget amounts to over $1 billion. At least a third of that budget is provided by US taxpayers. Planned  Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in  2006. If that is not a sign that abortions are a business in the United States, I don’t know what it is.

All this information proved meaningless to Scientific American, so they still decided to publicly endorse the work performed by Planned Parenthood. With all this information, it is not hard to see where the future of humanity would walk towards if it was in the hands of Planned Parenthood and its eugenicist financiers. In fact, this organization may just have gotten a new tool in its battle to kill more unborn children. In an article published by the London Telegraph, writer Stephen Adams reveals how scientists will soon be able to supposedly test children for some 3,500 ‘genetic defects’. This new technology, according to Adams, may spur a new era of murder through abortions under the excuse of preventing ‘genetic disorders’. The idea that humans are defective from birth is one of the most popular sickening premises to carry out eugenics programs all around the world.

Before concluding, let’s be clear that it is absolutely unjustified to call for government-sponsored violence against its citizens in any way, shape or form for the sake of supporting any initiative created by government or any other group. Taxation is one of the clearest forms of violence conducted by government throughout the history of humanity, and it is even worse when the money stolen from the labor of citizens is used to finance well-known eugenics programs and institutions like Planned Parenthood. As for the decision of a woman to have an abortion, she is free to do it or not as this decision will directly impact her health — for the worst in most cases. It would be hypocritical to propose the use of force against women to prevent them from having an abortion or any other procedure if that is what they desire. The problem arises, as emphasized before, when governments force citizens to provide funding for abortions, which is proven to be biological murder, if the citizens do not willingly support such initiatives.

If private organizations want to endorse and provide financing to organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is their right to do so, but don’t ask to be exempted from paying taxes while everyone else is forced to pay them in order to finance the murder of unborn children. If private citizens are interested in financing abortions, they can donate their money to Planned Parenthood directly, or give it to the globalist foundations who will gladly accepted. Forcing the whole population to finance a eugenics is like asking citizens to shoot themselves twice on the head.