The UCLA pro-life student group Live Action has just released the second video in a series exposing Planned Parenthood’s racism. As in the first video, the group had an actor call Planned Parenthood clinics in various states and asked if he could make a donation for the express purpose of paying for a black baby’s abortion, and, in most cases, Planned Parenthood staffers were by all means willing to accept the blood money.
Planned Parenthood Racism Exposed
Jill Stanek writes:
This time the actor donor called clinics in OK and NM, asking to make a donation specifically to slice-and-dice a black baby. As you can hear, they are happy to oblige.
Irene Gray of PP of Albuquerque responded, “Yes, yes, it’s a strange time for sure,” in sympathetic tones to our actor’s rant against affirmative action and how baby blacks need to be offed now so they can’t upset his white child’s college acceptance chances…
In the press statement accompanying the video release…editor Lila Rose [outed] the ACLU and NAACP for turning a blind eye to PP’s obvious racism and called on Congress to investigate, particularly since PP receives over $300 million in federal funding annually.
Hats off, once again, to Lila Rose and the other members of Live Action.
More Pro-Life Collegiate Grit North of the Border
Student members of the University of Calgary’s pro-life club, Campus Pro-Life (CPL), disregarded the “Notice to Vacate” with which they were served on March 31, after having displayed their Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on campus without incident all day Monday.
The university is claiming it can use the Alberta Petty Trespass Act to order its own students to remove the controversial GAP, which shows photos of abortion compared with the Holocaust.
But the students refused to be deterred. CPL students held a press conference in the parking lot of the Volleydome at 10:15 a.m. From there, media followed them as they carried 4×8-foot GAP signs onto campus, and set up their exhibit at the same location which has been used on five previous occasions and which has not been booked by any other campus group. They did not turn their signs inwards and away from students passing by as demanded by the University.
“Censorship is not a reasonable compromise,” stated Matthew Wilson, campus pro-life president prior to the campus action. “We intend to exercise our constitutional right to freedom of expression, protected by the Charter. We call on those who disagree with our message to enter into debate, not to censor our opinion,” continued Wilson.
CTV news reported at noon today that a pro-abortion group also put up their signs. The university also put up signs warning about signs that may be considered offensive to look at. Security campus was reported to not have asked anyone to leave and were just watching the activities.
Last month, CPL received correspondence from the U of C demanding that CPL display the GAP signs inwards, such that students passing by could not see the imagery. Yesterday, CPL refused to comply with this attempt at censorship, and set up its GAP as it had done on four previous occasions since 2006. The U of C backed down from this censorship demand and erected some “caution” signs warning students that the GAP display is graphic. The GAP was exhibited on campus without incident all day Monday.
However, at approximately 3:30pm, Campus Security served the students with a “Notice to Vacate” … ordering the removal of all the materials belonging to the student club.
“No other group on campus has ever been subjected to these forms of censorship,” stated Leah Hallman, the club’s treasurer.
To their credit, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association acknowledged that the school’s administration that be were wrong to try to censor the pro-life message.
“Students of Virginity”
In last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, there’s an interesting feature story on the new movement among students on Ivy League university campuses to embrace chastity. It highlights in particular an abstinence club at Harvard.
Now, not at all surprisingly, the story has its flaws. At one point, for example, the author, Randall Patterson, mentions the 2004 Waxman Report, which, he states, “found that 11 of 13 abstinence curriculums that his government-reform committee examined were rife with scientific errors and false and misleading information about the risks of sexual activity”.
He says nothing further about the Waxman Report&mdasdh;and he definitely doesn’t refer to the thorough critiques thereof, which clearly show that the Waxman Report itself is full of errors and false and misleading information. Clearly, then, Patterson’s implication is that the Waxman Report constitutes demonstrable evidence that abstinence curriculums don’t work.
As the old saw goes, however, any publicity is good publicity. Objections notwithstanding, on the whole, the article is quite good, and portrays the courageous students who are boldly proclaiming the value of chastity in a very favorable light.