• admin_saltandlight
  • No Comments


In 1921, Margaret Sanger, a nurse and political activist in New York City, founded the American Birth Control League, later renamed Planned Parenthood. In doing so, she set in motion an unprecedented slaughter of human flesh that continues today. Was “planned parenthood,” however, that which was being planned?

The League published a manifesto meant to popularize three guiding Principles: “Children should be (1) Conceived in love; (2) Born of the mother’s conscious desire; (3) And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health. Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied.”

In Sanger’s vision, birth control would shape a healthier destiny for children. For children, mind you! At least, for the ones that saw the light of day. In reality, contraception for Sanger provided a thinly veiled excuse for planned extermination—not planned parenthood. To fulfill her three Principles, she introduced a game of Russian roulette where, when pregnancy did result, and as America’s social conscience moved away from the sanctity of life, mothers would predetermine the “the best and brightest” over children deemed inconvenient or less than…whatever.

October 16, 2016 marked Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary. Using the Manifesto’s Principles, here is a look at why the mass murder of millions of preborn infants could be predicted, and at the legacy Sanger has left America and the world after a century:

Principle #1—“Children should be conceived in love.”

In her Manifesto, Sanger suggested conception was not always due to an act conceived in love. Really? What about “free love,” a guiding doctrine of the feminist movement Sanger helped birth? Wasn’t free love supposed to increase—love? Or, was “free love” actually a euphemism for licentious, earthy lewdness and lust, with children sacrificed at the altar of “the morning after”?

And, what did love mean to Sanger? Romance? Fleeting, emotional attraction? What about love that dies? Where were the rights of the child? Mother and baby, once conceived, describe two separate human beings sharing one body. Sanger’s statements permitted the most selfish nature of human beings: Pleasure—only, responsibility—never!

This casting aside of human life argues not for birth control—which comes before conception—but for abortion. After all, subsequent to using contraception, how would the mother know for weeks whether conception occurred?

Principle #2 “Children should be born of the mother’s conscious desire.”

The conscious desire was to have sex; that is the initial act causing conception. There is no such thing as being pro-choice once a baby is conceived. It is not for us to choose. Conception is in the providence of God, the Creator of life. The only way purposely to end a pregnancy is to abort the baby. Was the mother’s “conscious desire” Sanger’s attempt to strengthen families? Or, was is a means to an end; the end being “population control”—another euphemism, this time masking the sinister goals of eugenics?

There is forgiveness for those who have participated in abortion. We have a merciful God. But, desire changes like the weather. One day you want pepperoni on your pizza, the next day you don’t. Reducing issues of life to a whim is catastrophic, and once societal acceptance stigmatized birth as an inconvenience, we all became culpable.

Principle #3: “Children should be only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health.” What defines “health” prior to the birth of a baby? In Sanger’s day, science was forced to rely on what was known about the parents, such as race or IQ. How could a mother know for sure if a pregnancy would result in a perfectly healthy baby? Whose litmus test would determine human value? We do know abortion stops a beating heart. A mother, in that case, is guaranteed to not have a healthy baby.

Planned Infanticide—Not Planned Parenthood

The American Birth Control League, aka Planned Parenthood, robbed generations of parents of parenthood. According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.[ii] Here in the United State, in Sanger’s New York City alone, more Black babies are aborted than born alive.[iii] Her influence unleashed an epidemic of seismic proportions.

It was impossible, from the beginning, for contraception to fulfill the three principles in the manifesto. To be effective, the principles, by their stated objectives, had to rely on infanticide. “Children should be conceived in love” presupposes the child is already conceived. The choice to have sex is the only “conscious desire” that counts; what follows is its result. “Heritages of health” smacks of eugenics: the planned, systematic promotion of whatever are deemed positive—as opposed to negative—traits.

Who is any human being, be it Margaret Sanger, or anyone else, to set such a far-reaching societal standard? She had help. Sanger tapped into a legitimate need of women to be empowered after ages of marginalization. In attempting to even the playing field, however, she transgressed an ancient boundary—life. The march from life to death, from the legitimate into the illegitimate, from the light into darkness, helped fuel what became a national flight from God and an explosion of denial and pleasure-fueled hedonism.

After 100 years of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger’s legacy is bathed in blood. Entrenched in infamy, it reaches in new directions as Planned Parenthood International and our current U.S. administration push a culture of comprehensive sexual education. This program legitimizes the sexualizing of children globally. It further undermines natural marriage between only one man and one woman; and the two-parent, mother-and-father led, family.[iv]

The chicken has come home to roost. The three principles set down 100 years ago to extinguish innocence in the womb now cannibalize the innocence of children who survive the womb. Let’s be honest. The term “birth control” by its very nature, means controlling birth—not conception. “Free love”? Love is not free. Someone always has to pay.

[i] https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=300368.xml

[ii] www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[iii] http://issues4life.org/#

[iv] http://www.stopsexualizingchildren.org/ssc/index.cfm

Author: admin_saltandlight