ITEM ONE
“Margaret Sanger’s Negroes” by Freeelance writer La Shawn, June 6, 2009, says, according to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from the portion of the population lease intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.”

In 1939 Sanger created the “Negro Project,” in which she enlisted the services of black ministers to share her solution to the problem: contraception, sterilization, and abortion. “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal,” Sanger wrote.

In Citizen Magazine, January 20, 1992, we read, “At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the ‘black’ and ‘yellow’ peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as PLANNED PARENTHOOD.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "UNFIT," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization . . . ." She also wrote, “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of what Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

ITEM TWO
President Richard Nixon believed that abortion would be justified in cases of interracial pregnancies; that abortion is not immoral, but morally neutral.

QUESTIONS FOR BARACK OBAMA
1. Why are you pro-abortion (even partial birth) when the original Planned Parenthood intent was to curb the growth of the Black race (genocide?) in the USA? You could have been one of them.

2. From your Community Service experience do you believe that killing Black babies is a solution to poverty and related problems?

3. Is your pro-life position a continuation of the opinion that statistically too many unmarried black women are having babies?

4. Margaret Sanger was a product of her times. What is your explanation?

Here are some thoughts I would like you and your friends in the Gay community to think about; another point of view, a different perspective about those you call “homophobic.”

As difficult as it may be because of real or imagined past life negative experiences, I ask that you be intellectually honest with yourself, from introspection; and by curbing any anger, hurt, defiance, self-pity or victimhood. When true HONESTY about one’s homosexuality is dismissed, avoided or rationalized, discussion becomes difficult, distorted and even stops.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE?
For those who insist that homosexuality is “biological,” rather than a conscious choice, I pose these questions:

1. If past and present cultures (Greek, African, Middle East, and so on) accept and participate in male to male sexual activity, are all men from those ethnic and regional areas genetically, rather than culturally programmed to be homosexual?

2. If sexual preference is a valid justification, should we condone the choices of those who have a sexual preference for children or animals, or sex between parents and children, brothers and sisters?

GAY MARRIAGE
We hear that it is discrimination when Gays are not permitted to marry each other; that similar laws prevented marriages between “different races.” The statement is unreasonable. There is no equivalence. Blacks were singled out because of SKIN color - about which they could do nothing; homosexual activity is a CHOICE.

MALE-FEMALE BODIES COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER
Common-sense shows there are differences in male vs female anatomy -“COMPLEMENTARY,” meaning that the bodies of men and women (genitalia) are made to fit together - “two in one flesh, according to Christianity. There is not a single line or event in all of Scripture that suggests God permits any other form of sexual union for men and women out of the divine act where the two become “one flesh.” A same-sex union is not equivalent to a marriage. A same-sex union CONTRADICTS the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot create new life; the NATURAL purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved if it isn't a true conjugal union. Therefore, we cannot equate their relationship to a marriage. I see no injustice to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially

DIFFERENT REALITIES
For the sake of clarity, if not acceptance of same-sex relationships, I challenge the Gay community to create or find their own term for same-gender sexual unions; a word that clearly defines and expresses the uniqueness of that relationship rather than distorting and confusing the traditional understanding of the word and concept "marriage."

What is the justification for Gay marriage? “We’re in LOVE” is irrelevant since (1) many cultures historically and even today, join man and woman in matrimony for convenience, cultural (as my parents) or political reasons without professed “love.” Besides, marriage as we know it is historically a relatively new concept. 2) I love my mother, my sister, my best friend. Religious, non-religious and even scientific opposition to Gay marriage has nothing to do with “love, caring, affection.” Humans need to love and to be loved. Should I then marry my heterosexual, best male friend because I love him? The main payoff for Gay marriage then appears to be Sex; to legitimize same-sex activity which is a violation of Natural Law.

NATURAL LAW
Natural law, Reason, says there are obvious truths that are not difficult for people to recognize. The medical profession as well as government puts out health warnings to protect people from harmful consequences. It is not only from a religious judgment that I believe individuals should not have sex with animals, children or corpses, even though they find it is the only way to gratify the need for a “love relationship,” it is obviously a Natural Law (common-sense) judgment.

INFERTILE MARRIED COUPLES
Infertile married couples who have sex and cannot conceive a child is not equivalent to Gays who cannot produce a baby. The natural order (law) ordains that sexual acts in humans, animals, etc, is to procreate or produce new life. That is impossible with same sex unions. Sex between male and female has a natural purpose, even though not always fulfilled. Gay sex has no similar natural purpose, only gratification, self-interest, pleasure.

We can agree that many in the Christian community should practice more humility and follow what they preach, namely 1) not being harshly judgmental because God knows the hearts of each of us; 2) remember we are all “sinners;” 3) practice forgiveness; 4) love the sinner but not the sin; 5) avoid selectively picking and choosing among Bible passages while ignoring or dismissing some that are equally offensive to God. I’m not suggesting that "sin" does not exist, nor that they should ignore sin because sin hurts oneself as well as others. I do remind any “sinner” that unless he’s mentally ill, he is responsible for sinful acts, that the deed is a “free will choice,” they are not pre-programmed in genes.

My main quarrel is with Gay Rights advocates who emotionally and stubbornly overstate their dogmas in order to justify their own unconventional sexual perspective, rather than acknowledge, support and deal with objective research seeking out basic reasons for their sexual persuasions.

I ask that the Gay community be intellectually HONEST with themselves and others about their homosexuality, some latching on to the unfounded notion that it is GENETIC (no evidence to date); reluctance to drop their denial and admit their activity is based on LUST, rather than “being in LOVE;” by not acknowledging that Gay sex IS in opposition to Natural Law and most of all, not having the “balls” to admit it’s all about self-gratification, or to use a less kind word, “selfishness.” They would get more respect if they openly screamed, “I DON'T CARE. I’ll do what I want!”

Here’s a point of view which ProChoice advocates ignore or try to stifle because it challenges their propaganda agenda. ”Biologists of every position on the abortion issue concede that human life BEGINS at CONCEPTION; when a genetically distinct individual with 46 chromosomes comes into being. At that point the hair and eye color, fingerprints, the predisposition to various diseases and so on have been recorded on brain waves of a fetus at 40 days (six weeks) on the electroencephalogram (EEG) (H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 1964, 120). Brain function is "reliably present" on the EEG at eight weeks gestation (which is six weeks after conception) (J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Journal of Medicine, August 26, 1982, 564).

Human beings are not CONSTRUCTED in the womb - they DEVELOP. In fact, all the major organ systems have begun within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a CONTINUOUS process, with no obvious point at which the fetus MAGICALLY becomes a "person." That development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood.

When we deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chicken or pig” it's not murder. Murder uniquely applies to the premeditated killing of a human being. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, when the soul is first present) is important in the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human, one with a soul? When do distinct human qualities emerge?

Regarding the highly exaggerated, emotional response, “What about the woman who has been raped?” Does a reasonable person say it’s OK to KILL a child for the SINS OF HIS FATHER. And, statistically, pregnancies from rape are extremely RARE, partly because rapists often do not perform the sex act to its normal completion. Many pro-life people support the procedure to remove the rapist’s sperm if a rape victim is able to get herself quickly into a medical facility. Finally, it has been reported that keeping the baby has often been part of the healing process from an attack.

Many abortionists readily admit that abortion is the killing of a LIVING BEING. Here are a few examples:

“When you do a D & C most of the tissue is removed by the Olden forceps or ring clamp and you actually get gross parts of the fetus out. So you can see a miniature person so to speak, and even now I occasionally feel a little peculiar about it because as a physician I'm trained to conserve life and here I am DESTROYING life." Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist

"We know that it is killing, but the states permit KILLING under certain circumstances." Dr. Neville Sender, founder of Metropolitan Medical Service, an abortion clinic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

"If I see a case...after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there...On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is "who owns this child?" It's got to be the mother." Dr. James MacMahon, who performs D&X (also known as Partial Birth) abortions.

How can anyone muster respect for pro-choice supporters when they don’t have the intellectual integrity to admit, “Yes, it is killing a human; but I don’t give a damn because it is in MY best (selfish) interests.”

1. The Christian and other religious traditions' position on "gay" marriage is clear and to the point. Marriage, the Sacrament of Matrimony, was created by God in order for a man and woman to produce children. It is biologically as well as nature’s call for such a physical union to do so.

The natural structure of human sexuality (genitalia) makes man and woman COMPLEMENTARY partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual COMPLEMENTARITY willed by God for marriage.

2. The FAMILY is based on marriage between a man and woman. Marriage between man and woman is the fundamental unit of society, “a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children.” Man and woman are equal, however, as created, they are different from, but made for each other. This complementarity, including their sex organs, draws them together in a union that should be open to the procreation of children. These truths about marriage are obvious in the ORDER OF NATURE and can be perceived by human reason.

3. A same-sex union is not equivalent to a marriage. A same-sex union CONTRADICTS the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; IT CANNOT cooperate with God to CREATE new life; the NATURAL purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

4. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and weakened.

5. It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially DIFFERENT REALITIES. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts AND unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

6. The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others.

So, in my opinion, for the sake of clarity, if not acceptance, I challenge the gay community to create or find their own term for same-gender sexual unions; a word that clearly defines and expresses the uniqueness of that relationship rather than distorting and confusing the traditional understanding of the word and concept "marriage."

Beyond short-term abortion complications such as hemorrhage and infection there are long-term complications such as increased risk of premature labor, risk of excessive bleeding (placenta previa), increased risk of suicide and violent death. (European Journal of Public Health).

Forty-nine world-wide studies document an increased risk of preterm births. Induced abortions increases preterm births by 130% to 1,200% Journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; Journal of Reproductive Medicine.) Preterm births increase the risk of cerebral palsy by 38 times.

The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry concludes that “young women who aborted were at higher risk for various mental health problems.”

Numerous studies in medical literature are showing an association between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer (International Journal of Epidemiology). The decision to abort for 18 year olds doubles her risk of breast cancer (Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 2003).

RU-486 (Mifepristone) which accounts for almost a third of early abortions is particularly hazardous. Over 1,300 adverse events or complications such as excessive bleeding and life-threatening infections have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration(Annals of Pharmacotherapy). Because the FDA reporting system is voluntary, it is estimated that only one to ten percent of actual “adverse events” ever get reported. The drug is also a powerful suppressor of glucocorticoid receptors found all over the body, especially in the innate immune system. It is a suppressor of progesterone receptors, found throughout a woman’s brain and reproductive organs.

Proponents of Roe v Wade have done a grave injustice to women over the past 35 years. By preventing accurate data from being collected to openly inform women about medical; risks, research and analysis has been smothered.