FRC Blog

The Real Margaret Sanger

by Arina Grossu

October 18, 2016

This article first appeared on May 5, 2014 in the Washington Times. It is reposted here as a reminder of Margaret Sanger’s legacy in lieu of Planned Parenthood’s 100th year anniversary since Sanger opened her first illegal birth control clinic on October 16, 1916 in Brooklyn, New York.

Recent articles have reported on an unearthed video from 1947 of Margaret Sanger demanding “no more babies” for ten years in developing countries. A couple of years ago Margaret Sanger was named one of TIME’s “20 Most Influential Americans of All Time.” Given her enduring influence, it’s worth considering what the woman who founded Planned Parenthood contributed to the eugenics movement.

Sanger shaped the eugenics movement in America and beyond in the 1930s and 1940s. Her views and those of her peers in the movement contributed to compulsory sterilization laws in thirty U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including people she considered “feeble-minded,” “idiots,” and “morons.”

She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger: “An Autobiography,” p. 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks.

In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939).

Her own words and television appearances leave no room for parsing. For example, she wrote many articles about eugenics in the journal she founded in 1917, the Birth Control Review. Her articles included “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925) and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), to name a few.

The following are some of her more telling quotes:

While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter” (Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” February 1919, The Birth Control Review).

Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit” (Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” February 1919, The Birth Control Review).

Stop our national habit of human waste” (Margaret Sanger, “Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Ch. 6).

By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing … No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective” (Margaret Sanger, “Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Ch. 7).

The main objects of the Population Congress would be … to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization” (Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” 1932).

In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Margaret Sanger revealed: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world—that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit.”

This line of thinking from its founder has left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the U.S. were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. Another 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics and seven percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically preformed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.

Continue reading

The Social Conservative Review: October 17, 2016

by Daniel Hart

October 17, 2016

Dear Friends,

In the midst of worrying about the presidential election, the state of our culture, and the daily struggles that arise in our lives, it can be quite difficult to maintain an inner peace. I know it is for me. And yet, Christ’s constant bidding in the Gospels is, “Peace be with you.” I think it’s worth pondering what His true intent is with these words. It seems to me that Christ is not merely wishing that everyone should have more peace in their lives. He is literally giving His peace to us as a gift: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you” (John 14:27). It is therefore up to us to authentically receive His peace in humble thanksgiving and let it enlighten our lives.

These thoughts come to mind as I reflect on a recent blog post by Dr. Tom Neal, in which he expounds on the idea of “blooming where you’re planted.” In it, he quotes several pithy thoughts on the idea that in order to maintain Christ’s peace in the chaos of life, we must humbly accept whatever comes our way as a gift from God. According to one theologian: “Those who refuse to embrace life’s present joys and trials as coming from the Hand of God, who constantly complain of their present circumstances … these will never grow in sanctity, but rather will forever remain mired in the stagnation of mediocrity.”

Part of receiving and maintaining Christ’s peace is to not be afraid of suffering—it is inevitably part of all of our lives. Seeing suffering ultimately as a gift and an opportunity to grow in holiness is essential. Here are the reflections of another theologian:

Christians in the West have largely become repulsed by the tragic elements of life, and in so doing lose the opportunity, in facing tragedy, to experience the divine depths of faith and hope that spring from the corpse of Christ. They never get to know what it means to cling to God in the dark. Running from darkness and tragedy, one loses that most precious gift, that feeling, that thrill that makes us most human: the joy at seeing the first rays of a long awaited dawn after a long, dark night. Instead, we keep our self-made night lights on.”

The road ahead for our country may indeed be a “long, dark night,” especially for believers. But no matter what trials we face, Christ never fails to offer us his peace. This fact alone should reveal to us that we should not burden ourselves with worry about a distasteful present and an ominous future. In the words of Thomas Merton: “You do not need to know precisely what is happening, or exactly where it is all going. What you need is to recognize the possibilities and challenges offered by the present moment, and to embrace them with courage, faith and hope … It is better to find God on the threshold of despair than to risk our lives in a complacency.”

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.


Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council


Religious Liberty

Free to Believe”

Christian Radio Banned on School

Federal judge lifts temporary ban on ritual slaughter of chickens, minutes before start of Yom KippurLouis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times

International Religious Freedom

I Found the Gospel in Communist RomaniaVirginia Prodan, Christianity Today

UN Event Shows How Sexual Agenda Tramples Children’s RightsRebecca Oas, C-Fam

Military Religious Freedom

Air Force officer under fire for saying Jesus Christ has influenced himGregory Tomlin, Christian Examiner

Gen. Boykin: How Does Transgender Integration Help Our Military to Fight and Win Wars?Michael W. Chapman,

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

4 Cultural Trends Leading to the Decline of Religious LibertyTrevin Wax, The Gospel Coalition

LGBT Group Threatens Johns Hopkins Over Report That Science Doesn’t Show People Are Born Gay, TransgenderLeonardo Blair, The Christian Post

The All-Out Assault on the First AmendmentHans von Spakovsky, The Daily Signal

Christian school sues for right to pregame prayerBonnie Pritchett, World

Anti-Religious Freedom Activists Defeated at Procter & Gamble Annual MeetingThe National Center for Public Policy Research




9 real ways that abortion is just like slavery – Calvin Freiburger, LifeSiteNews

100 Abuses of Planned Parenthood – Students for Life of America

Mother pens letter to doctor who told her to abort her baby with Down syndromeNancy Flanders, Live Action

A baby’s first heartbeat is just 16 days after conceptionMark Prigg, Daily Mail

Bloody Business: 37 Companies That Fund Planned ParenthoodKatie Yoder, NewsBusters

Appeals Court Upholds California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote AbortionsSteven Ertelt and Jay Hobbs, Life News


Baby safe havens exist so that every mother has life-affirming optionsAdam Peters, Live Action


Death RightsHans Feichtinger, First Things

Shocking Oregon Assisted Suicide Report Shows Law is Rife With AbuseDiane Coleman, Life News

Court Forces Christian Nursing Home to Allow Killing Patients in Assisted SuicidesMicaiah Bilger, Life News

Euthanizing ChildrenWesley J. Smith, First Things

Dutch government wants to allow euthanasia for those who feel ‘done with life’Jeanne Smits, LifeSiteNews


Obamacare’s millennial problemRachana Pradhan and Paul Demko, Politico

Leading Democrat Governor: “The Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable”AP

Stopping Another Obamacare BailoutSen. Mike Lee, The Daily Signal

Bill Clinton Is Right: Obamacare Is Crazy. Here’s a Sane ReformJohn R. Graham, Independent Institute




Projections Differ, but Social Security Is in Deep Trouble – Lauren Bowman and Romina Boccia, The Daily Signal

A Portrait of the Un-Working American Man – Nicholas Eberstadt, Family Studies

Let Us Give Our Families the Care We Give Your Families’ – Adrienne Green, The Atlantic


How divorce kills faith — and all of us sufferNaomi Schaefer Riley, New York Post

Five Steps to Becoming a Better ParentJustin Coulson, Family Studies

It’s The Truth That Keeps You Going, Even When Motherhood HurtsGrace Olmstead, The Federalist

Please Help Me Remember The Children I Have Lost To MiscarriageEmily Carrington, The Federalist


The World Is Yearning for Beautiful Orthodoxy – Mark Galli, Christianity Today

A Lament on the Declining Quality of Public DiscourseJohn A. Cuddeback, Crisis

Bloom Where You’re PlantedTom Neal, Word On Fire

Human Sexuality

Having Transgender Parents Will Hurt Kids Like It Hurt MeDenise Shick, The Federalist

Truth and lies in ‘Night Moves,’ a telling anthem of the Sexual RevolutionTom Hoopes, Aleteia

Evangelical Campus Ministry Decides Employees Should Hold Evangelical Beliefs on MarriageEd Stetzer, Christianity Today

Human Trafficking

Researchers Uncover Disturbing Link Between Sex Trafficking and AbortionArdee Coolidge, Care Net


The horror stories are real. Don’t give your children a smartphone. – Jonathon Van Maren, LifeSiteNews

Mayor rallies citizens to ‘create a city free from porn’ – Steve Weatherbe, LifeSiteNews

Continue reading

FRC Submits Public Comment with March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and Charlotte Lozier Institute Opposing Obama’s New HHS Title X Planned Parenthood Rule

by Andrew Guernsey

October 7, 2016

The Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a new proposed regulation blocking states from defunding Planned Parenthood from federal Title X family planning funds.

Family Research Council submitted public comment today with the Susan B. Anthony List, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, urging HHS to reconsider and rescind this harmful regulation, which would effectively create a backdoor handout for the abortion industry.

You can read those comments in full here.

Continue reading

The Social Conservative Review: October 3, 2016

by Daniel Hart

October 3, 2016

Dear Friends,

In a culture that is increasingly losing sight of the foundational importance of man and woman as distinct yet complimentary, of natural marriage as the basic unit of society, and of unborn children as a gift from God, it is tempting to think that the only way to turn things around is to hammer home the truth of these fundamental realities with a tunnel vision-like single-mindedness whenever and however possible.

There is, however, a deeper way to think about cultural renewal, as John Cuddeback writes in a bracing recent essay “A Father’s Presence in the Home.” He states:

Now is the time to redouble our efforts to discover and implement the fullness of marriage and family life. One man and one woman permanently committed to each other and open to new life—this is a great thing. But it is not enough. Or in any case, there is yet a whole art, a virtue of how to do this well. Living family life well means unlocking the potential that marriage has to be a powerhouse of joy and blessing, even far beyond its own borders.

How can this be accomplished? Cuddeback argues that the father’s role in this endeavor is absolutely essential. He makes this radical suggestion: “At the center of this model will be a husband and father whose very success in life is fundamentally, though not solely, seen and judged in terms of what he does in the home.” As the author points out, this understanding of manhood is quite different from a typical archetype of fathers from the 1950’s who spent most of the week away at work and most of their time at home acting mainly as disciplinarian. Cuddeback points out that this disconnection from genuine relationships in family life is still very much a problem—it has merely taken on new forms in the decades since.

The author further argues that “a central measure of [a father’s] manhood will be the quality of his presence in the home.” He elaborates that “a central way a man loves and is present to his children, is by loving and being present to his wife. That is the natural order of the fabric of family life.” This presence can be manifested in creative ways by sharing activities with family members such as gardening, cooking, carpentry, landscaping, etc. The temptation to wile away free time by staring at a screen can instead be dedicated to “being together in richer ways” by reading, playing music, hiking, praying, etc.

It’s such simple advice, and yet so desperately needed in our age of distraction. Fathers will need to step up and take leadership roles in these areas for this art of genuine presence to be most effective. Cuddeback concludes: “At the heart of the renewal will be husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, united in the intensity of their intention to focus on relationships in the household and to embody that intention in daily life.”

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.


Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council 


FRC Articles and Publications

We Need to Amend the Johnson Amendment So the IRS Will Allow Free SpeechTony Perkins

The Hyde Amendment Has Saved 2 Million Lives. Democrats Want To Kill ItArina Grossu

Twenty-one states file suit against Obama to stop another end run around CongressKen Blackwell

A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in EducationPeter Sprigg

Tim Kaine’s Dangerous LiaisonsKen Blackwell

Celebrating 40 Years of the Hyde Amendment and Rep. Henry Hyde, A Pro-Life HeroArina Grossu and Andrew Guernsey

New York Times: All the Opinions (about North Carolina’s Bathroom Law) That Are Unfit, They PrintPeter Sprigg

Testimony on the Need for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection ActArina Grossu


Religious Liberty

Free to Believe”

Christian school goes to court to defend a 30-second pregame prayerTodd Starnes, Fox News

Kansas Police: You Can’t Pray in Your Own HomeBob Eschliman, Charisma News

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

SOGI Laws: A Subversive Response to a Nonexistent Problem – James Gottry, Public Discourse

Why Christian Colleges Will Thrive Amid Liberal Attacks – Eric Metaxas, The Christian Post

IRS Accused of Operating ‘Behind a Veil of Secrecy’ in Probe of 99 Churches – Penny Starr,

The Government’s Civil Rights BulliesRichard A. Epstein, Defining Ideas

International Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom: The Basis for Human Rights … and the Survival of Christians in the Middle EastIgnatius Joseph III Younan, Public Discourse

French gvmt announces plan to criminalize websites opposing abortion – Jeanne Smits, LifeSiteNews

India Is Quietly Shining a Light on the Refugee CrisisJoseph D’Souza, The Christian Post

Organizations raise (false) alarm over “global contraceptive crisis”Rebecca Oas, C-Fam

Military Religious Freedom

Eglin removes Bible from clinic following retiree’s complaintWendy Victora, Northwest Florida Daily News




The 54-million-person hole in America – Christian Schneider, USA Today

I was pregnant and in an abusive marriage, but I chose lifeLive Action

The insidious way Team Obama is funneling money to Planned ParenthoodRep. Diane Black, Fox News

A GOP Congress Should Not Give Planned Parenthood Another Dime of Taxpayer MoneyRoger Severino, The Daily Signal

Bioethicists Sign “Consensus Statement” to Force Pro-Life Doctors to Promote AbortionsWesley Smith, Life News


Death Control” and the Bioethics PerilWesley J. Smith, First Things

All Death is Death Without DignityAaron Rothstein, Public Discourse

The Late, Great Stem Cell Debate: Why Pro-Lifers Were Right All AlongJohn Stonestreet, The Christian Post

The Precarious Future of Assisted SuicideJohn G. Stackhouse Jr., Christianity Today

Three Parent Babies? Our Macabre New WorldGeorge Neumayr, The American Spectator


Health Insurance Premiums Have Continued To Rise Faster Than Worker Wages Under Obamacare – Chris Conover, Forbes

Conservative Groups Put Spotlight on Obamacare ‘Bailouts’ for Insurers – Melissa Quinn, The Daily Signal

Yet Another Health Insurer Scales Back Its Participation in Obamacare – Peter Suderman,

3 Simple Ways to Win the Debate on Obamacare – Beverly Hallberg, The Daily Signal




Brokering the American Dream – Adrienne Green, The Atlantic

Democrats Debate Preschool: Should It Be Fascist Or Socialist? – Joy Pullmann, The Federalist

Fear of a College-Educated Barista – Derek Thompson, The Atlantic

The So-Called ‘Wage Gap’ Is Going Down. And the Numbers Don’t Tell the Full Story. – Rachel Greszler, The Daily Signal


A single phrase helped save this marriageElizabeth Scalia, Aleteia

Same-Sex Marriage vs. the Real Thing: A Gay Man’s View of the Big PictureDoug Mainwaring, Public Discourse

How ‘soul mate’ nonsense is destroying Christian marriagesEric Metaxas, LifeSiteNews

The Benefits of Monthly Date Nights for Married CouplesHarry Benson, Family Studies

Should We Really Marry Our Best Friend? Yes, and Here’s WhyMonica Gabriel Marshall, Verily

How decades of divorce helped erode religionJulie Zauzmer, The Washington Post


Tell the truth when it might hurt youDavid Mills, Aleteia

Delight in the GoodKaren Swallow Prior, First Things

Why Americans are Leaving Religion—and Why They’re Unlikely to Come BackPRRI

In Miami, a Monday Night MiracleTom Sileo, The Stream

2016 State of American Theology StudyLifeWay Research

Human Sexuality

We did the sexual revolution once before. It didn’t go well.Eric Metaxas, LifeSiteNews

Pushing Kids Into Transgenderism Is Medical MalpracticeWalt Heyer, The Federalist

The Media Won’t Pressure Charlotte To Solve The Trans Bathrooms Squabble, But You CanRichard Nelson, The Federalist

Transgender Identities Are Not Always PermanentWalt Heyer, Public Discourse


Pornography: the destruction of women’s bodies & souls – Lisa Thompson, Aleteia

American Idol’ star confesses his porn addiction - and how he broke free – Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews

9 Reasons Men Should Stay Away From Porn – Tyler Ward, The Christian Post

Why No One Actually “Needs” Porn in Their Life – Fight the New Drug

Continue reading

Celebrating 40 Years of the Hyde Amendment and Rep. Henry Hyde, A Pro-Life Hero

by Arina Grossu , Andrew Guernsey

September 30, 2016

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortion. As a result of the Hyde Amendment, over 2 million Americans are alive today. To learn more see this op-ed in The Federalist and watch FRC Action’s new ad.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) was a tireless warrior for preborn babies, as this transcript clearly depicts. In 1976, only three years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, he introduced the Hyde Amendment to stop taxpayer funding of abortion. From 1973 to 1977, the federal government spent about $50 million annually to fund about 300,000 abortions per year under Medicaid. He wanted to put an end to this, saying we “cannot in logic and conscience help fund the execution of these innocent, defenseless human lives.”

The Hyde Amendment is one of the spending bills Congress must pass each year. It has been renewed every year since and signed into law by both Republican and Democrat presidents. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment in the 5-4 Harris v. McRae landmark decision. Hillary Clinton has promised to make repealing the Hyde Amendment a key priority if she becomes president. In addition, this year’s Democratic Party platform for the first time ever called for its repeal. In contrast, Donald Trump has pledged to make the Hyde Amendment permanent. Congress must enact the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7, S. 582) to codify the Hyde Amendment and to apply it across the government, including Obamacare.

Below, we reprint from the Congressional Record, Rep. Henry Hyde’s remarks when he first introduced his famous amendment in 1976, and again in 1977. Hyde’s remarks show his incredible passion not only to stop the taxpayer funding of abortion, but also to end all killing of preborn babies.

Thank you Rep. Henry Hyde for standing up for the rights of unborn babies, and happy anniversary to the Hyde Amendment that has saved over 2 million lives.


Congressional Record

June 24, 1976

Mr. HYDE Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HYDE: On page 36, after line 9, add the following new section:

Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to pay for abortions or to promote or encourage abortions.”

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment may stimulate a lot of debate—but it need not—because I believe most Members know how they will vote on this issue. 

Nevertheless, there are those of us who believe it Is to the everlasting shame of this country that in 1973 approximately 800,000 legal abortions were performed in this country—and so it is fair to assume that this year over a million human lives will be destroyed because they are inconvenient to someone.

The unborn child facing an abortion can best be classified as a member of the innocently inconvenient and since the pernicious doctrine that some lives are more important than others seems to be persuasive with the pro-abortion forces, we who seek to protect that most defenseless and innocent of human lives, the unborn—seek to inhibit the use of Federal funds to pay for and thus encourage abortion as an answer to the human and compelling problem of an unwanted child.

We are all exercised at the wanton killing of the porpoise, the baby seal. We urge big game hunters to save the tiger, but we somehow turn away at the specter of a million human beings being violently destroyed because this great society does not want them.

And make no mistake, an abortion is violent.

I think in the final analysis, you must determine whether or not the unborn person is human. If you think it is animal or vegetable then of course, it is disposable like an empty beer can to be crushed and thrown out with the rest of the trash.

But medicine, biology, embryology say that growing living organism is not animal or vegetable or mineral – but it is a human life.

 And if you believe that human life is deserving of due process of law—of equal protection of the laws, then you cannot in logic and conscience help fund the execution of these innocent defenseless human lives.

If we are to order our lives by the precepts of animal husbandry, then I guess abortion is an acceptable answer. If we human beings are not of a higher order than animals then let us save our pretentious aspirations for a better and more just world and recognize this is an anthill we inhabit and there are no such things as ideals or justice or morality.

Once conception has occurred a new and unique genetic package has been created, not a potential human being but a human being with potential. For nine months the mother provides nourishment and shelter, and birth is no substantial change, it is merely a change of address.

We are told that bringing an unwanted child into the world is an obscene act. Unwanted by whom? Is it too subtle a notion to understand it is more important to be a loving person than to be one who is loved? We need more people who are capable of projecting love.

We hear the claim that the poor are denied a right available to other women if we do not use tax money to fund abortions. 

Well make a list of all the things society denies poor women and let them make the choice of what we will give them.

Don’t say “poor woman, go destroy your young, and we will pay for it.”

An innocent, defenseless human life, in a caring and humane society deserves better than to be flushed down a toilet or burned in an incinerator.

The promise of America is that life is not just for the privileged, the planned, or the perfect.


Hyde Amendment Passes, Roll Call: 207-167 (57 Not Voting)

Congressional Record, House, Vol. 122, pt. 15, 20410 



June 17, 1977


Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:

On page 39, after line 23. add the following new section:

Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to pay for abortions or to promote or encourage abortions.”

 (By unanimous consent. Mr. HYDE was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must abbreviate this amendment to exclude the therapeutic abortion qualification, the absence of which was raised as a great argument against this amendment when it was offered last session. So it went through with no exceptions whatsoever. And in the conference committee we were able to put in the therapeutic abortion exemption where the claim for a life is equal to a claim for a life. But I am forced into this position today by points of order. So be it.

Yesterday, remarks were made that it is unfortunate to burden an appropriations bill with complex issues, such as busing, abortion and the like. I certainly agree that it is very unfortunate. The problem Is that there is no other vehicle that reaches this floor in which these complex issues can be involved. Constitutional amendments which prohibit abortions stay languishing in subcommittee much less committee, and so the only vehicle where the Members may work their will, unfortunately, is an appropriation bill. I regret that. I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the HEW Medicaid bill. A life is a life. The life of a little ghetto kid is just as important as the life of a rich person. And so we proceed in this bill.

Lest anyone think it is aberrational that millions of people are concerned about our tax dollars paying for the slaughter of innocent, inconvenient, unborn children, I point out that this Is no novel position. In most every session. There is a bill, HR 4897 this session, which provides that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed to participation in war may elect that his income, estate, or gift tax payments be spent for nonmilitary purposes. This creates a trust fund, the world peace tax fund. 

Many people, I am sure, who will speak today against my position, the pro-life position, are vigorous supporters of H.R. 4897.

But if it is wrong to spend money for defense of this country, then may we not object to spending millions of tax dollars for the slaughter of innocent children?

I think it is important to clarify the constitutional issue that is involved in this question. In the first place, conceding that under Roe against Wade a woman has a constitutional right to seek an abortion, the question here is whether it is mandatory that the taxpayers pay for that abortion.

The Washington Star’s editorial last Tuesday put this issue in perspective when it said:

The glib argument that it is a denial of the 14th Amendment equal protection to deny Medicaid subsidy to abortions strikes us as overingenious.

This Government, through the National Endowment for the Humanities subsidizes writers all over the country. Is it then a burden on our first amendment rights to free expression to deny a tax -paid printing press to everyone in the street who wants one? Clearly not.

The Solicitor General of the United States said this:

There Is no right to receive an abortion. The privacy right vindicated in Roe v. Wade and Doe v Bolton Is not the right affirmatively to obtain an abortion, but rather the lesser right to be free to seek abortion services without governmental obstruction or Interference. The Government has no constitutional obligation financially to facilitate the exercise of privacy rights. Its constitutional duty Is merely to refrain from violating such rights.

We spend about $50 million a year to pay for about 300,000 abortions under Medicaid. The contention has been made by respectable sources that it costs too much to bring these welfare kids into the world, it is much cheaper to abort them. This argument even the Washington Post said was terrible and inhumane.

One of the “Dear Colleague” letters that came from a distinguished Member of this body called the paying of the bill for the welfare kids “economic imprudence.” Well, I cannot accept that argument.

We have heard both sides of the argument: If we deny Medicaid abortions, the women are going to have kids anyway; therefore, let them have abortions in a safe place. The other side of the argument is: If we deny Medicaid abortions, we are going to have an explosion of welfare children, and it is going to cost us a lot of money. Which way is it? Are we going to have a lot of costly welfare kids or are women going to get their abortions anyway? As far as I am concerned, every welfare study I have seen shows these children will be born and not slaughtered, and I am prepared to pay the price to see that they get an education, decent housing, and adequate clothing.

I have read every pro-abortion editorial I can lay my hands on and every article I could find, and they all emphasize that the decent and economic and compassionate thing to do is to let these welfare mothers abort their unborn children. Never do they discuss the essential question, the humanity of the unborn.”

What is it that is being aborted? Is it a chicken? Is it a tumor? Is it animal? Is it vegetable? Is it mineral? Is it a bad tooth to be pulled out, or is it a diseased appendix to be cut out and thrown away? No. It is a human being.

Theology does not say it is a human being; biology says it is a human being. Theology does not say, “Thou shalt not kill a fetus”; it is biology that says “Thou shalt not kill a fetus.” That is a part of the tradition and the criminal code subscribed to on the part of individuals in every civilized nation. This is what biology says. Let us quit kidding ourselves. This is human life.

Mr. Chairman, let me read a quotation from the California Medical Association Journal. This is not a religious publication, I assure the Members. In an editorial the California Medical Association said as follows:

… It has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra- uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.

So why do we not face up that abortion does not merely “terminate a pregnancy” nor remove the “products of conception” from a deactivated womb? It is the calculated killing of an innocent, inconvenient human being.

The old argument that we who oppose abortion are trying to impose our religious concepts on other people is totally absurd. Theology does not animate me; biology does. That is a human life; that is not a potential human life; it is a human life with potential.

When a pregnant woman, who should be the natural protector of her unborn child, becomes its deadly adversary, then it is the duty of this legislature to intervene on behalf of defenseless human life.

If that is not so, I do not know why we need this building or why we need law libraries.

By what right do the pro-abortionists seek to deny us access to the political process? That is what we are engaged in today. If they say we have no right to seek to get written into law protection for innocent life, if they say, “No” to us, they turn back 200 years of this country’s history.

I used to think that abortionists had a world view of humanity as animalistic, and that these people feel that the rules of animal husbandry are sufficient to cope with the problems of poverty and need in the ghetto. But I am wrong. I am absolutely wrong.

We think more of animals than we do of human beings. Do the Members realize that today is Whale Survival Day? Today, June 17, in Lafayette Park, there is going to be music, there will be celebrities and whale experts, and there will be whale art, and this is all done in the campaign to save the endangered whale.

There is some kind of schizophrenia that makes us want to protect the snail darter, the baby harp seal, the whale, and the dolphin, and not to be concerned about human life and our unborn children. In our wisdom and compassion, we put a limit on the number of dolphins that can be eliminated; that number is 69,910. You kill one more, and you go to the slammer. But there is no limit on the number of unborn children that are slaughtered simply because they are inconvenient. 

We now what a dolphin can do. It can jump through a hoop and eat a guppie. But somehow that is more important to this Congress and more important than human beings.

Under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 it is a crime to take possession of a bald eagle’s egg. That seems to be more important than a human life.

Is it not sad that we give more concern to the protection of migratory birds and wild horses than we do to human beings?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (MR. HYDE) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, MR. HYDE was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. HYDE. I just want to make this comment, Mr. Chairman: We can tell the ghetto mother that she is going to have to fight for everything which the middle-class woman has, such as education, housing, clothing, and food; but then we can say, “We will give you one thing. We will give it to you and we will pay for it. We will let you kill your young.”

Mr. Chairman, the problem of the unwanted child is a human problem. The violent act of abortion is no solution. It is the failure to look for a solution.

Mr. Chairman, I was in Jerusalem recently. I visited a building complex to memorialize the 6 million dead in the holocaust. It is called the Yad Vashem. There is a legend there from the Talmud. It says, “He who saves one soul saves humanity.”

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to think about that when they vote on my amendment.


Hyde Amendment Passes, Roll Call: 201-155 (77 Not Voting)

Congressional Record, House, vol. 123, pt. 16, 19700–19701

Continue reading

Question of the Week - September 26, 2016

by Daniel Hart

September 26, 2016

Question: Do you have pamphlets that explain the importance of Christians participating in the voting process?

FRC: We have two brochures that give a thorough explanation on the call of all Christians to fully participate in all aspects of civic life. They are “Why You Should Be Involved“ and “Why Christians Should Seek to Influence Government for Good.”

Continue reading

New York Times: All the Opinions (about North Carolina’s Bathroom Law) That Are Unfit, They Print

by Peter Sprigg

September 23, 2016

A Facebook friend recently posted a meme that displayed some text upside down. The message was that you have an amazing talent if you are able to read the text when it is upside down and backwards (i.e., right to left).

Actually, it was fairly easy to read. But a similar (modest) talent is needed to read the New York Times these days — especially an editorial about North Carolina’s “bathroom protection bill,” House Bill 2, known as HB2 (“North Carolina Pays a Price for Bigotry,” September 21). Simply take everything the New York Times says and invert it, and you will come close to understanding the truth about the HB2 controversy.

The Times says that Charlotte, N.C.’s sexual orientation and gender identity ordinance was “used as a reason” to pass HB2. Used? Charlotte’s passage of this ordinance in February was the only reason for the state law that was “hastily passed in March” — to prevent the Charlotte ordinance from taking effect on April 1. If Charlotte had left well enough alone — including allowing issues of transgender bathroom use to be settled on a case-by-case basis like they always had — there would have been no state intervention.

Continue reading

Testimony on the Need for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

by Arina Grossu

September 23, 2016

Arina Grossu’s Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on the topic of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on September 23, 2016:

Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

I am grateful and honored to have been invited to testify on “The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.”  My name is Arina Grossu and I am the Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.  As a policy analyst, my issues of expertise and research encompass the dignity of human life from conception until natural death. 

FRC has long supported the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented government funding for elective abortion for over thirty years.  This law, if revoked, would increase the number of abortions in the U.S.  FRC also supports the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, on which I will focus my remarks.

In 2000 and 2001, Jill Stanek testified before this Committee about her experience as a registered nurse where she discovered babies born alive after an attempted abortion and left to die in the department’s soiled utility closet.

In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. It passed by voice vote in the House and with unanimous consent in the Senate.  

Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed and into the present.

Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself.  It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections.


Up to 2010, abortionist Kermit Gosnell operated his dirty and dangerous abortion facility where  he did “hundreds of snippings” of born-alive babies as part of his abortion process.  The Grand Jury Report noted:

Many of [the women] gave birth before he even got there. When you perform late-term ‘abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies…Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them… by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.

See for example the image of Baby Boy B who was found in his facility (A). (warning, graphic content)

Federal and state authorities finally raided his facility, not because he was illegally killing born-alive infants, but because of his illegal prescription drug activity.

While Gosnell’s case was particularly gruesome, he is not an outlier.  A former employee of current Texas abortionist Douglas Karpen described how he regularly killed babies born alive by snipping their spinal cords, fatally injuring them with blows to the soft spot on their heads, and twisting their necks. 

She said:

I’m pretty sure I was seeing at least three or four [large babies] that were completely delivered in some way or another [daily].

….when the fetus would come completely out, of course the fetus would still be alive, because it was still moving… of course you could see the stomach breathing and that’s when he would do [this].

Yet, despite the gruesome photo and eyewitness evidence, Karpen was cleared in December 2013.

The Center for Medical Progress, in its investigative videos, authenticated by in-depth forensic analysis, revealed a lot of evidence of babies killed after being born alive.

Perrin Larton, a procurement manager from Advanced Bioscience Resources said, “The whole point is not to have a live birth…“I literally have had women come in and they’ll go in the O.R. and they’re back out in three minutes, and I’m going, ‘What’s going on?’ Oh yeah, the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stirrups. It just fell out.”

Holly O’Donnell, a former procurement technician with StemExpress, recounted one incident where her supervisor said, ‘want to see something kind of cool…And she just tap[ped] the heart, and it start[ed] beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating.”

Data that the CDC collects also confirms babies are born alive after attempted abortions.  Between the years 2003 and 2014 there were somewhere between 376 and 588 infant deaths under the medical code P96.4 which keeps track of babies born alive after a “termination of pregnancy.”

The CDC concluded that of the 588 babies, 143 were “definitively” born alive after an attempted abortion and they lived from minutes to one or more days, with 48% of the babies living between one to four hours.  It also admitted that it’s possible the number is an underestimate (B).

We know it is an underestimate because these are just reported numbers from hospitals, not abortion facilities.  Gosnell is only one abortionist who was responsible for “hundreds of snippings” of born-alive babies, yet he did not report even one.  His numbers alone exceed the “definitive” numbers of the CDC.

Even one baby born alive after an attempted abortion who is then killed, is one too many.  But we are talking in the hundreds of reported ones.

Yet not one person to date has been charged or convicted under current Born-Alive law.

Due to developments in technology, babies who are considered “extremely preterm” can now survive outside the womb as early as 20 and 21 weeks post-fertilization, recent science journals announced, with 67% surviving after receiving active care.

Here, for example is Lucas Moore who was born prematurely at 21 weeks post-fertilization and one year later (C).

Dr. David Burchfield, the chief of neonatology at the University of Florida said of care for extremely preterm babies, “It confirms that if you don’t do anything, these babies will not make it, and if you do something, some of them will make it.”

We need the proposed Born-Alive act to ensure that babies born alive after an attempted abortion are given the proper medical treatment.  The bill:

  • explicitly requires health care practitioners to treat born-alive abortion survivors with the same care they would treat any other born baby and admit such babies immediately to a hospital. 
  • provides enforcement mechanisms such as criminal sanctions and penalties to hold abortionists accountable for killing born-alive infants
  • the bill also expressly excludes any prosecution of the mother of a baby born alive, and it gives her a private right of action to seek relief if an abortionist were to kill her born-alive infant.

The White House promised that the President would veto the Born-Alive legislation citing it would have a “chilling” effect.  I cannot think of a more chilling effect than continuing to let U.S. abortionists get away with infanticide.

Born-alive babies after an attempted abortion are already recognized as legal persons since the 2002 federal Born-Alive law.

The proposed Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act simply recognizes the obligations that follow from this reality, to ensure that babies born alive after attempted abortions will be given the best medical care available and the full and equal protection of our laws.

I earnestly ask that you support this bill to stop infanticide in the United States.

Continue reading

The Social Conservative Review: September 16, 2016

by Daniel Hart

September 16, 2016

Dear Friends,

For Americans, “freedom” is central to our identity. We are the “land of the free, the home of the brave.” Our media and culture tell us that with the progression of “LGBT rights” and with the expansion of “safe spaces” on college campuses, we are now a more free and inclusive society. So are we now happier and more satisfied as a result? R.R. Reno of First Things has pinpointed a “politics of vulnerability” that clearly shows we are anything but.

As Reno writes, current developments have instead led to “new dissatisfactions.” He elaborates: “It’s telling that the institutions with the most highly developed rhetoric of inclusion are the most elite, which is to say the most competitive. Again the paradox: The most successful kids with the greatest opportunities seem to be the ones most eager for protection [i.e. “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces”].” Among LGBT activists, we see example after example of lawsuits being utilized when bathroom policies and wedding cake referrals are deemed “hateful.” Why does this occur? When the most basic human forms of authority and societal structure — the family and the church — are torn down in the public square, people can’t help but feel increasingly vulnerable. What does this lead to? Reno explains: “Without a trustworthy Father in heaven (and often without a father in the home), the rising generation is more and more likely to ask big government (and a culture of political correctness) to provide security and comfort.”

A true understanding of “freedom” can go a long way in restoring this sense of security and comfort that many have lost. As believers know, true freedom is not merely the ability to choose something amongst a multitude of options; it is the ability to become who we were made to become — a child of God. As children, we learn about God’s love and authority — the surest source of genuine security and comfort — through our parents’ example and the faith they instill in us, in both literal and symbolic ways. We in turn pass this example and faith on to our children, and they to theirs, etc. In this way, a society’s well-being and hopeful future depend upon the strength of the family.

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.


Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council

FRC Articles

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

International Religious Freedom

Military Religious Freedom










Human Sexuality

Human Trafficking


Continue reading

Debunking Right Wing Watch

by Travis Weber

September 14, 2016

Right Wing Watch (RWW) is again sending out alarms about the supposedly alarmist words of FRC.

RWW says FRC “relies on a constant stream of easily debunked tales of martyrdom, and points to “a fundraising email from the group’s president, Tony Perkins, in which Perkins lists a number of debunked tales of Christian persecution in the military.”

RWW then continued by citing portions of the FRC email, but neglected to quote FRC in saying that “[n]o service member should ever be denied the very freedom he or she bleeds and dies to defend!” (Perhaps RWW agreed that was quite reasonable.)

The word “debunk” is defined as “to show that something (such as a belief or theory) is not true,” or “to show the falseness of (a story, idea, statement, etc.).” RWW really seems to like using this term with regard to FRC’s claims. Well, are they “debunked?” Let us examine the two references to the term.

First, RWW claims FRC “relies on a constant stream of easily debunked tales of martyrdom,” with a link to an article posted by its also-biased media buddy People for the American Way. Only one of the incidents listed by FRC is mentioned in the article—the matter concerning Sergeant Monk. The link to the mention of Sergeant Monk contains another RWW posting about his case, claiming it is false (the hyperlink to this claim does not work), and quoting military officials claiming he was not reassigned because of his views on same-sex marriage (of course they are going to say that; they are defending their position). It is quite possible they are wrong, as Sergeant Monk contends, especially since the military exonerated him of making false statements after they had accused him of doing so. At a minimum, Sergeant Monk’s claims that he was reassigned in retaliation for his views have never been “debunked.”

Second, RWW claims FRC President Tony Perkins “lists a number of debunked tales of Christian persecution in the military,” with four different hyperlinks enclosed.

The first link contains a supposed debunking of Chaplain Lawhorn’s claim, but the link (to RWW ally Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU)) does nothing to rebut the claim that Lawhorn’s public mention of his faith got him in trouble (he has humbly maintained he was sharing his personal story). Indeed, the linked source only affirms that it was the public mention of faith which draw the ire of activists.

The second link contains a story on Chaplain Modder by liberal website Think Progress. How this “debunks” his story is quite unclear. The story discusses Chaplain Modder’s allegation of retaliatory action for counseling according to his beliefs on sexuality in private counseling sessions. He suffered adverse action, which was ultimately reversed by the Navy. This is not even close to being “debunked.”

The third link is a story at the Huffington Post by Chris Rodda of Mikey Weinstein’s foundation (which spends its time trying to suppress traditional Christian views from being expressed in the public square) on Monifa Sterling, a Marine who was court martialed after refusing to remove a Bible verse from her workstation. While Rodda can offer her opinions on the matter, that does nothing to debunk the fact that Sterling alleged her religious exercise was suppressed.

The fourth link is a November 2013 AU story further discussing Sergeant Monk’s case, repeating the Air Force’s findings as objective fact and dismissing Monk’s assertions. The story claims the Air Force “found that Monk has made false official statements.” Yet an October 2013 memo from the Air Force to Sergeant Monk states it “determined that the allegation” that Monk made a false statement “was unsubstantiated.” Assuming good motives on the part of AU, we can assume the author of its story didn’t know about this Air Force letter, and was not intentionally misrepresenting the status of Monk’s case. If the letter was publicly available, perhaps AU was just negligent. However, another AU publication one year later still only states the following with regard to Monk’s situation: “The investigation also determined that Monk made false official statements to the Air Force. The Air Force considers the matter closed.” It seems AU’s representation of this matter is what is “debunked” here. Such an intentional mischaracterization of the facts reminds us that we can’t trust organizations this scared of religion to be fair in describing these incidents. Their fear of freedom always gets in the way.

Continue reading