Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
Beyond Family Planning:
Rockefeller social engineers pre-announce

THE SECOND
CONTRACEPTIVE REVOLUTION

Abortion, contraception and the coming era
of sophisticated coercion

Prepared by Suzanne M. Rini for American Life League;
Edited for the Internet by the PhilFam Committee.
25 February 1996



ROCKEFELLER EUGENICS BANDWAGON. For nearly a century, the Rockefeller scions and the Rockefeller Foundation have been the most visible and consistent patrons and agents of an anti-Christian social order, whose religion, as Sir Julian HUXLEY long ago promised, is EUGENICS — the systematic socio-scientific intervention in order to improve the human racial stock through social and genetic engineering. The foundation's 1994 annual report announced a "second contraceptive revolution." The foundation helped engineer the first contraceptive revolution by funding Margaret SANGER's Planned Parenthood of America, as well as supporting the research, development and deployment of many contraceptive/abortifacient products.

"THE BEST INTENTIONS" PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN. The foundation's announcement denotes a multi-layered apparatus already in place. In April 1995 the Institute of Medicine, an important adjunct to the Rockefeller-founded National Research Council, published a study, "The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families",1,2  funded by several long-time eugenics links — the U.S. Public Health Service, the Carnegie Corporation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — and a new player, the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

"The Best Intentions" is a carefully wrought propaganda campaign to induce Americans to choose "longterm contraception", including Norplant, Depo-Provera, new brass IUDs, abortifacient vaccines that cause "immunological sterilization",3   and someday, bizarre male and female contraceptives, including a male "contraceptive" that "stops sperm production" but whose side effects will have to be countered with female steroid progesterone." 4  

FALSE ANTI-ABORTIONISM OF LONGTERM CONTRACEPTION. The premise of "The Best Intentions" is that a full 60% of U.S. pregnancies are "unintended" — the result of failed contraception or no contraception. The study warns that a mistaken focus on teenage pregnancy prevents understanding just how widespread "unintended pregnancy" is. It also relates the 60% "unintended pregnancy" rate to 800,000 abortions per year, and promises that "longterm contraception", much of which is abortifacient, would prevent that many abortions.

So the agents of decriminalized abortion now are seemingly opposed to the tragic number of babies aborted yearly in the U.S. Yet in 1973, Dr. John KNOWLES, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, called for an apparatus to smooth the way for 1.4 million abortions per year — a body count eerily accurate in 1995.5   "The Best Intentions" calls for all levels of government, and even families and educators, to promote this shift to "longterm contraception", and calls on "philanthropic foundations", as if they were outsiders, "to meet this challenge".6  

"The Best Intentions" is the soft presentation of the "second contraceptive revolution." The hard presentation came from a Rockefeller-founded (and funded) eugenics think tank, the Hastings Center. The January-February 1995 Hastings Center Report was a special supplement entitled "Long-Acting Contraception: Moral Choices, Policy Dilemmas"; it emerged from a "two year project on the ethics of long-acting contraceptives".7   "Moral choices" and "policy dilemmas" are verbal smokescreens: the policy has already been made behind closed doors, and the "moral choices" will be for the Rockefeller syndicate to define and spread.

COERCION DISGUISED AS BENEVOLENCE. Hastings’ high priests seem to be wondering how to overcome the specter of long-term "contraceptives" being "dismissed by some as instruments of class prejudice and eugenic social coercion".8   Perhaps just the right public relations firm will give coercion a happy face. Eugenics propagandist Garrett HARDIN considered this problem and offered his recommendations:

Coercion is a dirty word to liberals now, but it need not forever be so. As with the four-letter words, its dirtiness can be cleansed away by exposure to the light, by saying it over and over without apology or embarrassment. To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats, but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.9

Another of his pro-coercion meditations:

Freedom to breed is also counterproductive ... beyond a certain level of population or population-growth rate. ... If we want to be equitable in the allocation of the right to breed, we must say that an individual has such a right until she has n children, but not beyond. Beyond n she has broken the law.10

"BEYOND FAMILY PLANNING". So, "longterm contraception" is a form of what Bernard BERELSON called "beyond family planning." This approach already in place in developing countries provides incentives to those who limit the number of their children according to population controllers' appraisal of what is compatible with "sustainable development".11

Abortion on demand was but a stopgap measure, although a lethal and ruthless one. Lacking was the means to prevent people from having children. Surgical abortion had to be the backup until the preferred contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization methods had been developed. As these move to market, cutting down on surgical abortion will be part of the public relations campaign to achieve a voluntary shift in conduct that will someday explode into outright coercion.

Anti-fertility vaccines have long been linked to coercive reproductive social policy. In 1971, in The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, Edgar R. CHASTEEN, then a national board member of Zero Population Growth and a board member of Planned Parenthood of Greater Kansas City, predicted:

Assuming that we could soon have a vaccine to immunize against fertility, it would then be possible to inoculate all children. Unlike the smallpox vaccine which furnishes lifelong protection, however, the antifertility vaccine will have to be reversible. Following marriage, fertility could be temporarily restored by another shot. After the permitted number of births, permanent immunity to fertility could be re-established.12  

CONSPIRATORS OF THE "SECOND CONTRACEPTIVE REVOLUTION" was never kept secret. A 1978 meeting at Rockefeller University, suggested vaccines as a "beyond the pill" strategy.13   This solution would eventually put teeth in Dr. Allan C. BARNES's 1973 (when he was head of the Rockefeller Foundation) dictum:

"Death control without birth control is pure folly".14

In the 1970's a consortium was formed to develop the vaccines and other new long-term contraceptives that would help cut the live-birth rate in half (the stated goal of the global population control machine). The consortium comprised:

· The World Health Organization, the Population Council (funded by eugenicists such as the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the Dodge and Rockefeller Foundations, USAID and the National Institutes of Health).15  
· The National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi, India, funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation.16  
· CONRAD (the Contraceptive Research and Development) Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. Their focus is "anti-sperm" contraceptives designed to prevent fertilization.17  
· The taxpayer-funded National Institute of Child Health and Development, especially its Contraceptive Development Branch in the Center for Population Research.18,19

ANTI-FERTILITY VACCINES. The vaccines they developed are abortifacient. Furthermore, the woman's auto-immune system must be suppressed for the destroying antibodies to move in and prevent fertilization or implantation. Some scientists have said that immunizing women against their own babies could unleash new auto-immune diseases.20   These "anti-fertility vaccines" are in Phase III trials in the Philippines and Mexico, where they have been combined with tetanus immunizations given to women and pre-pubertal girls without their understanding what is happening to them.

The killing power of these vaccines is being disguised. Indian contraceptive researcher Dr. Gursaran Pran TALWAR defended the World Health Organization when it was charged with causing abortion through anti-fertility vaccine administration in the Philippines and Mexico. Talwar considered the embryo a non-human "pre-fetal" product; thus, any human being killed from fertilization through the eighth week of life, either by vaccine technology or by surgical abortion, could not be said to have been killed. The vaccine, he said, is not abortifacient. "It intercepts the implantation of the embryo to the endometrium." 21   The woman vaccinated against pregnancy will never even know she was pregnant.  


END NOTES
CLICK BACK BROWSER BUTTON TO RETURN TO DOCUMENT

1 The National Research Council funded Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent sexual research. See Foundations, Their Power and Influence, by Rene Wormser (Devan-Adair: New York, 1958; second printing 1977 by Angriff Press, Hollywood, CA). Also see Kinsey, Sex and Fraud by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, et al. (Lochinvar, 1990; distributed by Huntington House, Lafayette, LA).

2 "The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families", Institute of Medicine, 1995 (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).

3 "Abortion Vaccine Technology: Technological Overview and Pro-Life Appraisal", by Lawrence F. Roberge, M.S., Catholic Family News, July 1995.

4 "Future Contraceptives" by Nancy J. Alexander, Scientific American, Sept. 1995, p.137.

5 "The Health System and the Supreme Court Decision: An Affirmative Response", by John H. Knowles, M.D., Hospital Practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1973, pp.113-116.

6 Institute of Medicine news release, April 27 1995.

7 "Long-Acting Contraceptives: Moral Choices, Policy Dilemmas", Hastings Center Report, Supplement, Jan-Feb 1995, p.S1.

8 "Long Acting Contraceptives: Ethical Guidelines for Policy makers and Health Care Providers", by Ellen H. Moskowitz, et al., Hastings Center Report, Supplement, Jan-Feb 1995, pp.51-53.

9 Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle, by Garrett Hardin (Viking Press: New York, 1972), p.261.

10 Ibid., p.201.

11 "The Present State of Family Planning", by Bernard Berelson, Studies in Family Planning, The Population Council, No. 57, Sept 1970, pp.1-11.

12 The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, by Edgar R. Chasteen (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 1971, p.109.

13 "Beyond the Pill", by Ira Mothner, RF Illustrated, Sep 1978, pp.12-13.

14 "Population and the Social Sciences", by Dr. Allan C. Barnes, RF Illustrated, June 1973, p.6.

15 "Vaccination Against Pregnancy: Miracle or Menace", by Judith Richter, Health Action International, Aug 1993, p.14.

16 Ibid., p.15.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Alexander, op. cit., p.141.

20 Ibid., p.37.

21 Telephone interview with Dr. G.P. Talwar by radio host Mel Acuña of ZNN Radio Veritas Asia, dated July 13, 1995; also "Vaccine Not Causing Abortion — Expert" by Diana Mendoza, Today, July 9, 1995.



AAA Matilda Asia

SUBMIT YOUR PAGE TO
34 POPULAR SITES FOR FREE!
Add Me!

BACK TO TOP