NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting response to South Dakota's draconian anti-abortion law... (http://************/j45og)Giago: Oglala Sioux president on state abortion law
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother’s life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set of a maelstrom of protests within the state.

Napoli suggested that if it was a case of “simple rape,” there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli’s description of rape as “simple.” He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by “simple rape.”

The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.

“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” she said to me last week. “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”

Strong words from a very strong lady. I hope Ms. Fire Thunder challenges Gov. Rounds and the state legislators on this law that is an affront to all independent women.

wait. . . laws don't apply on reservations? (no offense)

*moves*

:D (god i'm so sorry) :D

Cool. The Sioux are going to teach those South Dakota savages a lesson on civilization.

That's bitchen.

Awesome.

Gambling, cheap cigarettes and abortion. That's some one-stop shopping!

is smoking pot legal on rezzies?

wow thats a very strong reaction. i hope they follow through on it. it would be great to see those antiabortion guys find out what its like to have their choice denied.

wait. . . laws don't apply on reservations? (no offense)

*moves*

:D (god i'm so sorry) :D

As a svereign nation, no. However, in exchange for federal recognition of sovereignty, they agree to abide by all Federal laws.

However, they are under no requirement to obey state law.

This is just too funny. Now the governments got indians setting up eugenics clinics for them.

is smoking pot legal on rezzies?
most reservations are dry. no alcohol, no drugs (except for those few that use mushrooms for religious ceremonies)

This is just too funny. Now the governments got indians setting up eugenics clinics for them.
The way it surely should be!

This is just too funny. Now the governments got indians setting up eugenics clinics for them.

Are you kidding? It'll be just as big a cash cow as the casinos if not more so! And guess who the vast majority of the patients will be? Not the Sioux.

most reservations are dry. no alcohol, no drugs (except for those few that use mushrooms for religious ceremonies)
:(

Napoli suggested that if it was a case of “simple rape,” there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli’s description of rape as “simple.” He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by “simple rape.”

he has, however, offered up a nicely detailed look into his own sick rape fantasy.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin.
I bet this guy thinks that rape victims who are not virgins were partially to blame for being raped.

he has, however, offered up a nicely detailed look into his own sick rape fantasy.
All the intellectual honesty I would expect from you. He was laying out what his idea of a, um, "complicated" rape would be.
And most rape is fairly simple (like smashing someone's head in with a sledgehammer is simple), if it were a diffucult or complex procedure there would probably be a large drop in the number of people doing it.

I bet this guy thinks that rape victims who are not virgins were partially to blame for being raped.

he does appear to value virginity itself over 'not getting raped', doesn't he? he also seems to have thought about this in great detail. a lot.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Yah.

I'm a twat - and I freely admit this - but this douchebag just takes the biscuit.

He was laying out what his idea of a, um, "complicated" rape would be.

indeed. a rather overly detailed and intricate little scenario that he just happened to have available right off the top of his head. most people would settle for just saying rape. this dude nearly has his 'description' down to the color of the victim's underpants.

indeed. a rather overly detailed and intricate little scenario that he just happened to have available right off the top of his head. most people would settle for just saying rape. this dude nearly has his 'description' down to the color of the victim's underpants.
If that is your idea of an "intricate" fantasy, you definitely need to start finding better erotica. That was about as sexual or evocative as the assembly instructions for a portable toilet.
And simply saying "rape" wouldn't cut it in that situation. He was trying to explain the difference between "simple rape" and "rape with complications", as he has already stated that, unless the rape somehow threatens the mother, he doesn't want to hear about it. An analogy, in case you still don't get it:
Bob has outlawed dogs in the town of Bobtopia, with certain exceptions being made. When asked what the exceptions are, Bob said "Small dogs. Small and well trained. Small and well-trained enough that it won't endanger the community. I mean, that do won't cause me any problems, I'd allow that dog."
Bob couldn't simply say "dogs", because he was asked to define a specific set of dogs. Similarly, the senator was asked to define a specific set of rape victims who weren't "simple" and could get abortions.

Red man - 1
White man - 0

Not counting from about 1600 to 1900, of course(smallpox blankets were a bitch)...... oh that was wrong, wasn't it.:(

indeed. a rather overly detailed and intricate little scenario that he just happened to have available right off the top of his head. most people would settle for just saying rape. this dude nearly has his 'description' down to the color of the victim's underpants.
Yeah, this guy has clearly been spending a lot of time thinking up rape scenarios. I think maybe his local FBI field office needs to keep an eye on him -- just casually, but I think they need to know where he is at all times.

Reminds me of that schoolboard -- dammit, what state was this is in? curse my lousy memory -- that made a rule saying grade school girls would only be allowed to go to the bathroom one at a time because if more than one went at a time, they might have lesbian sex. When that hit the news, I said to my friends that if I was a parent in that state I would yank my kid -- boy or girl -- out of that school system immediately because I would not leave my kid under the control of people who spend that much time imagining scenarios for underage girls to have sex.

All this pervy obsessing just goes to support my cynical belief that these so-called moralists are really closeted sex addicts who can't think of anything else -- rape; young girls; slutty whores whoring sluttishly -- until they panic and start punishing us for their imaginations.

Yeah, this guy has clearly been spending a lot of time thinking up rape scenarios. I think maybe his local FBI field office needs to keep an eye on him -- just casually, but I think they need to know where he is at all times.
That is hardly a scenario. The closest to "fantasy" he gets is mentioning sodomy and that the woman is a religious virgin (which applies to her mindset, creating a "rape complication", and is therefore neccessary).
Of course he thought about the rape scenario, he had to define a rape scenario in which abortion was allowed. So he went through the mental paces and developed a set of characteristics (young, brutally raped, sodomized, lost virginity to rape, religious) that would allow a woman to abort.

That is hardly a scenario. The closest to "fantasy" he gets is mentioning sodomy and that the woman is a religious virgin (which applies to her mindset, creating a "rape complication", and is therefore neccessary).
Of course he thought about the rape scenario, he had to define a rape scenario in which abortion was allowed. So he went through the mental paces and developed a set of characteristics (young, brutally raped, sodomized, lost virginity to rape, religious) that would allow a woman to abort.
Look, I read that story scenario of yours once. It's clear that you are infinitely more imaginative and talented a storyteller than that guy will ever be. But that doesn't mean this is not a scenario. Most people have much lower standards than you. Haven't you ever read a Stephen King novel?

Reminds me of that schoolboard -- dammit, what state was this is in? curse my lousy memory -- that made a rule saying grade school girls would only be allowed to go to the bathroom one at a time because if more than one went at a time, they might have lesbian sex.
Urban legend. The real reason for such rules is to stop them selling and taking drugs.

Urban legend. The real reason for such rules is to stop them selling and taking drugs.

somebody better tell senator tom coburn

Urban legend. The real reason for such rules is to stop them selling and taking drugs.
The real reasons old laws were instituted sound a lot like urban legend in hindsight. Of course the official reason would have been to hinder the sale of drugs.

somebody better tell senator tom coburn
He already knows. We were the ones buying drugs from the girls when they went to the bathroom . . .
Strictly for, um, "research" purposes, of course.

Heh, this is hilarious. We'll see if South Dakota tries to complain. I'll be able to smell the hypocrisy from here. Good job to the Sioux for putting their sovereignty to good use.

sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated.
Somebody needs to explain the basics of conception to him, because sodomy does not lead to impregnation.

Right. As if the US government has never broken a treaty with a Native American tribe when it's politically convenient.

No time recently; too much bad publicity. And the Federal government has always stomped on any attempt by the states to do so - they don't want to lose any of their foreign relations power.

Are you kidding? It'll be just as big a cash cow as the casinos if not more so! And guess who the vast majority of the patients will be? Not the Sioux.

Well, it would be if there were a snow balls chance in hell that eugenics labs were to be made illegal. That simply is not going to happen. You don't have to go back that far to find out exactly who was behind "Planned Parenthood" and what their true agenda is. It's not a damn thing to do with anyone's rights.

What I found so funny is how easy it is to trick people into doing exactly what they want them to do, by simply declaring it a right and then threatening to take it away. It reminds me very much of the "Right to work" scam in which people were tricked into destroying unions because they were being "cheated", and the true goal was to double the workforce at half the cost. The government and their corporate masters had only to tell people that their "rights" were being abused, and presto.

Somebody needs to explain the basics of conception to him, because sodomy does not lead to impregnation.
Notice the following 'and'. That implies that she was basically raped more than once, by more than one person, or in several separate instances.

This is just too funny. Now the governments got indians setting up eugenics clinics for them.

At least they are taking action rather then sitting around humming God will provide.

Well, it would be if there were a snow balls chance in hell that eugenics labs were to be made illegal.

So what exactly is a eugenics lab?

So what exactly is a eugenics lab?

An old term for an abortion clinic. Hitler's devotion to eugenics mucked up the selling points, so they repackaged it and sold it as Planned Parenthood, and abortion rights.
It's whole purpose is population control, at the expense of what elitiests such as the Rockefeller's consider the least desirable segment of society. The Rockefeller's have some incredibly interesting family history.

An old term for an abortion clinic. Hitler's devotion to eugenics mucked up the selling points, so they repackaged it and sold it as Planned Parenthood, and abortion rights.
It's whole purpose is population control, at the expense of what elitiests such as the Rockefeller's consider the least desirable segment of society. The Rockefeller's have some incredibly interesting family history.
Does this count as a Godwin?

Does this count as a Godwin?
No, as it's all strictly true. besides which, there's not actually a comparison to hitler.

No, as it's all strictly true. besides which, there's not actually a comparison to hitler.
I would actually like to see a link to some proof that Planned Parenthood was originally conceived as a eugenics lab. I would also like to see some proof that it is working to reduce the number of "undesireables" (by Rockefeller standards) in America. Trust me, if you show me some articles I will read them and if I think they are legitimate I'll say so. If I think they're bunk, I'll say that, too, but at least I'll read your sources.

Does this count as a Godwin?

You could try it. I've seen a lot of people here yell "Godwin's Law" when historical facts conflict with their ideological truth, or political indoctrination.

Maybe try instead to learn about the history of the Rockefeller family, their financing of eugenics, planned parenthood, the population council and make up your own mind. The truth is out there, but it might scare you.

You could try it. I've seen a lot of people here yell "Godwin's Law" when historical facts conflict with their ideological truth, or political indoctrination.

Maybe try instead to learn about the history of the Rockefeller family, their financing of eugenics, planned parenthood, the population council and make up your own mind. The truth is out there, but it might scare you.
Got any proof of this tin hat theory? I've seen this bandied about around and around before but have yet to see anything that actually shows it.

Or to put it another way, I have seen the beliefs of one of the founder's of PP, but nothing to tie that orginization with those beliefs. It's like attempting to say Coors Beer is racist because of the Coors Family

I don't know anything at all about the Rockefellers sponsoring eugenics or Planned Parenthood clinics. However, the question itself brings to mind some statistics:

In the 37 reporting areas for which race was provided classified according to the same categories used in previous years, approximately 54% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to be white, 36% black, and 8% other; for 3%, race was not known (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (495 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (164 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogeneous "other" race category (357 per 1,000) was 2.2 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (29 per 1,000 women) was 3.0 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (20 per 1,000 women) was 2.1 times the rate for white women.
http://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

Obviously, minority groups are disproportionately represented in abortion reviews. It’s simple enough to see, African Americans represent 11% of the general population but 36% of the abortion rate. Additionally, FYI: state specific reports usually show a disproportionate representation of urban women (of every race) over rural living women as well (from other studies, not the one linked to above). Consider, the poorer you are and if you are of a minority race ethnic group (specifically African American but to a lesser degree Hispanic or Asian or native American etc.,) then the odds of women having one or more abortions during their lives rises for each of those eventualities over white women of similar circumstances.

Got any proof of this tin hat theory? I've seen this bandied about around and around before but have yet to see anything that actually shows it.

Or to put it another way, I have seen the beliefs of one of the founder's of PP, but nothing to tie that orginization with those beliefs. It's like attempting to say Coors Beer is racist because of the Coors Family

Let's see, you have already declared it a "tin hat" theory and admit to having seen the writings of a planned parenthood founder but that does not translate into the objectives of their organization by your way of thinking.
By my way of thinking you demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion that is not open to any sort of proof, documentation or relationship beyond what you are already hard wired to see as truth. In short, why bother, it would be a total waste of time.

Consider, the poorer you are and if you are of a minority race ethnic group (specifically African American but to a lesser degree Hispanic or Asian or native American etc.,) then the odds of women having one or more abortions during their lives rises for each of those eventualities over white women of similar circumstances.
I would challenge this statement as the study you linked to did not include an income bracket (though I really wish it had as it would be of a lot of use).

I'm actually interested in the rual vs urban numbers as it seems to explain a lot of the differences in numbers between ethnic groups.

Let's see, you have already declared it a "tin hat" theory and admit to having seen the writings of a planned parenthood founder but that does not translate into the objectives of their organization by your way of thinking.
By my way of thinking you demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion that is not open to any sort of proof, documentation or relationship beyond what you are already hard wired to see as truth. In short, why bother, it would be a total waste of time.

Well much of her comments were taken out of context. Especially when religious types tend to demonize things they don't like.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

Care to refute the talking points.

Let's see, you have already declared it a "tin hat" theory and admit to having seen the writings of a planned parenthood founder but that does not translate into the objectives of their organization by your way of thinking.
My point being that the ideologies of a founder does not always translate into the methods or aims of the orginization, confusing the two would mean that you must also accept the conservative bias of Fox News due to the views of News Corp founder Robert Murdock, that Domino's Pizza sponcers and is supports Operation Rescue and abortion clinic bombings due to the views of founder Tom Monaghan, and that The Coors Brewing Company supports right wing idiologies thanks to the actions of the Coors Family.

Again, show me that PP is actually conducting a eugenics program.

By my way of thinking you demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion that is not open to any sort of proof, documentation or relationship beyond what you are already hard wired to see as truth. In short, why bother, it would be a total waste of time.
Translation: I have no proof.

I always read what is posted, but you have not posted anything even when asked to do so by another. I must conclude that you actually have nothing more than urband legend and myth.

Somebody needs to explain the basics of conception to him, because sodomy does not lead to impregnation.
Of course it does, silly!
Where do you think State Senators come from?

Of course it does, silly!
Where do you think State Senators come from?
Eww...

Well much of her comments were taken out of context. Especially when religious types tend to demonize things they don't like.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

Care to refute the talking points.

Naw, i would much prefer to read her books for myself. I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to argure revised history written by the revisors of it.

I will however offer this brief summary of the Rockefeller history on the matter. While it is not as flattering as the history I had read when working for the KC Star (founded by Nelson Rockefeller) it holds a great deal of accuracy as to their "World Views" if you will.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/sprpt/rockefeller.htm

I would challenge this statement as the study you linked to did not include an income bracket (though I really wish it had as it would be of a lot of use).

I'm actually interested in the rual vs urban numbers as it seems to explain a lot of the differences in numbers between ethnic groups.

I only have the Minnesota stuff, for what it’s worth.

2004 Minnesota Resident’s Age at time of having an abortion
15 Years…………...50
15 - 17 Years……...626
18 - 19 Years……..1,249
20 - 24 Years……..4,526
25 - 29 Years……..2,943
30 - 34 Years…….1,804
35 - 39 Years……..1,139
40 Years & Over…416
Unknown Age ……0



2004 Minnesota Resident’s Education Level
8th Grade or Less……….250
Some High School………1,269
High School Graduate…..3,841
Some College……………1,889
College Graduate………..766
Graduate Level………….343

Not Reported…………….4,395

Total Minnesota residents getting an abortion in the State in 2004: 12,753


Each county is also recorded and from that we can see that Hennepin county and Ramsey county alone (not counting all of the twin city counties) but these two alone represent approximately about a quarter of the of the state’s population in 2004 (1.6 million people of 5.1 total), but their resident's had more than half of the abortions in the state (7,157 of the 12,753 total).

If you know anything about education and age statistics and how that impacts income levels, you can see from the two charts above who is having the most abortions and who is not. You can see that my earlier statement about being poor and urban disproportionately increases your odds of having an abortion, and repeat abortions as well, is supported.

Induced Abortions in Minnesota January - December 2004: Report to the Legislature (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2004abrpt.pdf) (WARNING large .pdf file)

Edit*
Minnesota Census 2004 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html) Census of population in Minnesota, can be searched by county as well.

Thus, from the earlier racial stuff from the national report (also supported by the Minnesota report here) added to evidence pile, the posit that Abortion Clinics do more work to 'monority groups and undesirables' than white and rich people, can be supported from these statistics. The end result speaks for itself (but I don't know anything about the Rockefeller stuff myself).

Naw, i would much prefer to read her books for myself. I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to argure revised history written by the revisors of it.

I will however offer this brief summary of the Rockefeller history on the matter. While it is not as flattering as the history I had read when working for the KC Star (founded by Nelson Rockefeller) it holds a great deal of accuracy as to their "World Views" if you will.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/sprpt/rockefeller.htm
What is your motivation for finding abortion to be objectionable?

Translation: I have no proof.

I always read what is posted, but you have not posted anything even when asked to do so by another. I must conclude that you actually have nothing more than urband legend and myth.

I was not asked to do so by another.
Translate as you like. It doesn't alter the fact that you demonstrated with your first sentence that your opinion was set in stone and that any other was a "tin hat theroy" No reasonable person is going to bother with that sort of approach.

Naw, i would much prefer to read her books for myself. I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to argure revised history written by the revisors of it.

I will however offer this brief summary of the Rockefeller history on the matter. While it is not as flattering as the history I had read when working for the KC Star (founded by Nelson Rockefeller) it holds a great deal of accuracy as to their "World Views" if you will.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/sprpt/rockefeller.htm
Ignoring the source for right now, your article says nothing more than rumor, no quote, no sources, no nothing.

Hell, there isn't even a tie into Planned Parenthood beyond a half hearted attempt with quotes. Do you actually have anything?

What is your motivation for finding abortion to be objectionable?

I don't find it objectionable. I am for it personally.
What I find objectionable is the misleading manner in which government, big business and special interests use to manipulate the population. I don't like seeing anyone made a fool of, tricked or lied to by people in a postion of public trust or employee.

I was not asked to do so by another.
I would actually like to see a link to some proof that Planned Parenthood was originally conceived as a eugenics lab. I would also like to see some proof that it is working to reduce the number of "undesireables" (by Rockefeller standards) in America. Trust me, if you show me some articles I will read them and if I think they are legitimate I'll say so. If I think they're bunk, I'll say that, too, but at least I'll read your sources.

Translate as you like. It doesn't alter the fact that you demonstrated with your first sentence that your opinion was set in stone and that any other was a "tin hat theroy" No reasonable person is going to bother with that sort of approach.
So you actually have nothing but would rather fall back to attacking me instead of actually attempting to back up your arguments and allogations. Interesting.

I don't find it objectionable. I am for it personally.
What I find objectionable is the misleading manner in which government, big business and special interests use to manipulate the population. I don't like seeing anyone made a fool of, tricked or lied to by people in a postion of public trust or employee.
Then you have my respect.

If you know anything about education and age statistics and how that impacts income levels, you can see from the two charts above who is having the most abortions and who is not. You can see that my earlier statement about being poor and urban disproportionately increases your odds of having an abortion, and repeat abortions as well, is supported.

We cannot generalize by Minnesota (No matter what that state may think ;) ) of course, but I can see where you are coming from here. My beef was that your previous statement didn't provide that type of link.

Thank you.

Well, it would be if there were a snow balls chance in hell that eugenics labs were to be made illegal. That simply is not going to happen. You don't have to go back that far to find out exactly who was behind "Planned Parenthood" and what their true agenda is. It's not a damn thing to do with anyone's rights.
Is "eugenics" the correct term when it's voluntary?

An old term for an abortion clinic. Hitler's devotion to eugenics mucked up the selling points, so they repackaged it and sold it as Planned Parenthood, and abortion rights.

It's whole purpose is population control, at the expense of what elitiests such as the Rockefeller's consider the least desirable segment of society. The Rockefeller's have some incredibly interesting family history.
Indeed, it's a kind of eugenics I can support. It's voluntary, and it aborts criminals before they're even born. (see Freakonomics (http://www.freakonomics.com/) by Steven Levitt)

the odds of women having one or more abortions during their lives rises for each of those eventualities over white women of similar circumstances.
Racial equality now!

Thus, from the earlier racial stuff from the national report (also supported by the Minnesota report here) added to evidence pile, the posit that Abortion Clinics do more work to 'monority groups and undesirables' than white and rich people, can be supported from these statistics. The end result speaks for itself (but I don't know anything about the Rockefeller stuff myself).
I don't know about you, but I don't believe that minority groups are undesirable.

What is your motivation for finding abortion to be objectionable?
I think Liverbreath is actually pro-choice. He's just 'investigative'.

Racial equality now!

I think this is really more about economic status than race. It just so happens that minorities tend to be less well off than whites. But I think that economic status is the factor that matters here, race being a coincidence.

I think this is really more about economic status than race. It just so happens that minorities tend to be less well off than whites. But I think that economic status is the factor that matters here, race being a coincidence.
Economic status and education level (which are heavily correlated anyway). I suspect that you'd find similar levels of abortion usage among women of similar education and economic level, regardless of race.

Economic status and education level (which are heavily correlated anyway). I suspect that you'd find similar levels of abortion usage among women of similar education and economic level, regardless of race.

Marriage status as an economic indicator
Minnesota Residents

Married …..2,202
Not Married ……..10,402
Unreported ….149

Abortions to 100 live births
4.4 Married
51.6 Not Married

Total: 12,753

From the totals above we can see that overall only about a fifth of all women who have an abortion are married when they do so. However

……………….Abortions & Percentage……….

Population by Race of Twin Cities two most populous counties by race:
White ………………78.95
Black ………………8.3%
A. Indian……………0.9%
Asian ……………….6.8%
Hispanic & Other…..7%

Abortion by Race:
White …………….….7,855 – 62% %...↓ down by almost a fifth
Black …………….…..2,988 – 23% …..↑ almost 3 times higher
A. Indian ……….…….279 – 2% .…...↑ twice as high
Asian …………..........942 – 7% ........= same as population percentage
Hispanic and Other….376 – 3%……↓ - down by half
Not Reported………….313

Induced Abortions by 100 live births, by race:
15.0 White
54.4 Black
21.6 A. Indian
23.2 Asian
14.4 Hispanic & Other

As you can see, race has a significant impact, even accounting for economic factors of similar sized minority groups (comparable to Asians), the black community has a disproportionate representation in the report. Hispanic (re: religion?) and White women have a significantly lower representation any other groups and African American women are more than twice as likely to be represented in the data than the next most represented group (Asian). And since the economic status of the culture groups are the same and living in the same region for employment opportunities (the Twin cities metropolitan area), some other reason than economic status must be at work here.

link (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2004abrpt.pdf) (WARNING large .pdf file)

Let's see, you have already declared it a "tin hat" theory and admit to having seen the writings of a planned parenthood founder but that does not translate into the objectives of their organization by your way of thinking.
By my way of thinking you demonstrate a preconcieved conclusion that is not open to any sort of proof, documentation or relationship beyond what you are already hard wired to see as truth. In short, why bother, it would be a total waste of time.
I haven't dismissed it without facts.
Muravyets Post 41:
I would actually like to see a link to some proof that Planned Parenthood was originally conceived as a eugenics lab. I would also like to see some proof that it is working to reduce the number of "undesireables" (by Rockefeller standards) in America. Trust me, if you show me some articles I will read them and if I think they are legitimate I'll say so. If I think they're bunk, I'll say that, too, but at least I'll read your sources.
Show me some facts, and I will consider them. If you don't have any facts, please say so.

Naw, i would much prefer to read her books for myself. I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to argure revised history written by the revisors of it.

I will however offer this brief summary of the Rockefeller history on the matter. While it is not as flattering as the history I had read when working for the KC Star (founded by Nelson Rockefeller) it holds a great deal of accuracy as to their "World Views" if you will.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/sprpt/rockefeller.htm
Your source site seems to be an opinion site. The articles contain opinions and characterized statements about things but no facts (references, citations, checkable data) to back them up. At least one other article on the site (click "we the people") appears to be a call to political action that contains highly emotional and alarming language. Propaganda, perhaps? But I couldn't identify their cause. I didnt' find an "about us" section. Who are these people and what is their agenda?

I'm sorry, this is not a legitimate source of information. It does not prove your assertions.

It is a well known fact that the Rockefellers were what is called "robber barons" and that they are still powerful players in the corporate-political arena. It is also a well known fact that many members of the Rockefeller family from the 1900s up to WW2 were elitists, racists, and were interested in the theory of eugenics (like many, many Americans in that period). However, it is also a known fact that, at that same time, other Rockefellers were social liberals and progressives and that this faction of the family has held sway since WW2.

It is further a known fact that some wealthy Americans -- Protestants -- did agree to support family planning and contraception because they were prejudiced against Irish and Italian immigrants who, because they were Catholic, did not use contraception. In the view of the rich Protestants, the Catholics were having too many babies. However, this was nothing but propaganda based on religious and class prejudice, not racial prejudice or an interest in eugenics.

However, you have provided no evidence that Planned Parenthood ever carried out eugenics programs or was ever intended to, much less that it does so now. You have not proven that Planned Parenthood ever did anything but take money from bigots and then do their own thing with it.

Liverbreath doesn't have any connection--he's playing the guilt by association card, which is typical of the right. It's like saying that Democrats hate gays because Fred Phelps claims to be a Democrat--it's a crap argument and anyone with any sense knows it.

Yes, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood supported eugenics--Planned Parenthood, neither then nor now, supports eugenics programs, and any attempt to claim they do is slanderous.

Liverbreath doesn't have any connection--he's playing the guilt by association card, which is typical of the right. It's like saying that Democrats hate gays because Fred Phelps claims to be a Democrat--it's a crap argument and anyone with any sense knows it.

Yes, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood supported eugenics--Planned Parenthood, neither then nor now, supports eugenics programs, and any attempt to claim they do is slanderous.
Well, obviously. That's why I wondered if Ravenshrike's post about it might be a Godwin because it so casually made reference to Hitler's eugenics programs as if anyone who had ever been interested in eugenics was a racist on the order of the Nazis. This completely ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood predates the Nazi party by nearly 50 years and the theory of eugenics predates it by even more. Eugenics, like phrenology and the Atkins diet, was just one of those random ideas that experimenters come up with, which eventually debunk themselves but do enjoy a fad popularity. Millions of people were into it before WW2, all across the political and social spectrum. It means nothing because it implies nothing about the people in question.

most reservations are dry. no alcohol, no drugs (except for those few that use mushrooms for religious ceremonies)
Most Reservations where, pray tell? Because this is far from true in a the vast majority of Canadian Reserves...which particular ones in the US are dry?

If that is your idea of an "intricate" fantasy, you definitely need to start finding better erotica. That was about as sexual or evocative as the assembly instructions for a portable toilet.
And simply saying "rape" wouldn't cut it in that situation. He was trying to explain the difference between "simple rape" and "rape with complications", as he has already stated that, unless the rape somehow threatens the mother, he doesn't want to hear about it. An analogy, in case you still don't get it:
Bob has outlawed dogs in the town of Bobtopia, with certain exceptions being made. When asked what the exceptions are, Bob said "Small dogs. Small and well trained. Small and well-trained enough that it won't endanger the community. I mean, that do won't cause me any problems, I'd allow that dog."
Bob couldn't simply say "dogs", because he was asked to define a specific set of dogs. Similarly, the senator was asked to define a specific set of rape victims who weren't "simple" and could get abortions.
Owning an animal and rape (do I really need to type this?) are very different things. Rape is rape, and no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy which will continue to remind them of the attack -- and this is the KEY statement that ALL who attempt to legislate morality on either the right or left often miss -- if they don't want to.

To call any rape "simple" is to, at best, choose a painfully bad adjective. At worst, it trivializes a horrid crime.

I only have the Minnesota stuff, for what it’s worth.

2004 Minnesota Resident’s Age at time of having an abortion
15 Years…………...50
15 - 17 Years……...626
18 - 19 Years……..1,249
20 - 24 Years……..4,526
25 - 29 Years……..2,943
30 - 34 Years…….1,804
35 - 39 Years……..1,139
40 Years & Over…416
Unknown Age ……0



2004 Minnesota Resident’s Education Level
8th Grade or Less……….250
Some High School………1,269
High School Graduate…..3,841
Some College……………1,889
College Graduate………..766
Graduate Level………….343

Not Reported…………….4,395

Total Minnesota residents getting an abortion in the State in 2004: 12,753


Each county is also recorded and from that we can see that Hennepin county and Ramsey county alone (not counting all of the twin city counties) but these two alone represent approximately about a quarter of the of the state’s population in 2004 (1.6 million people of 5.1 total), but their resident's had more than half of the abortions in the state (7,157 of the 12,753 total).

If you know anything about education and age statistics and how that impacts income levels, you can see from the two charts above who is having the most abortions and who is not. You can see that my earlier statement about being poor and urban disproportionately increases your odds of having an abortion, and repeat abortions as well, is supported.

Induced Abortions in Minnesota January - December 2004: Report to the Legislature (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2004abrpt.pdf) (WARNING large .pdf file)

Edit*
Minnesota Census 2004 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html) Census of population in Minnesota, can be searched by county as well.

Thus, from the earlier racial stuff from the national report (also supported by the Minnesota report here) added to evidence pile, the posit that Abortion Clinics do more work to 'monority groups and undesirables' than white and rich people, can be supported from these statistics. The end result speaks for itself (but I don't know anything about the Rockefeller stuff myself).
Let's see -- there are fewer college graduates than there are high school graduates. Don't talk numbers, talk ratios.

And since the economic status of the culture groups are the same

and where is your evidence to support that claim? it certainly isn't in the report, which only ever mentions economics in terms of one of the various reasons people get abortions. in fact, the census data seems to contradict it - feel free to check (http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/IncReport.php?&subtop=I01&area=S)

Let's see -- there are fewer college graduates than there are high school graduates. Don't talk numbers, talk ratios.

I understand, but in my defense those numbers were intended to be used as economic indicators. The older and more educated you are, the more money you are likely to be making. But yes, I agree with the ratios being important, I simply do not have them. Not from the census reports, nor the abortion report to the legislature. HOWEVER, we can deduce from economic studies that neighborhood, education, age and marriage factors can be used to determine economic status ratios.

and where is your evidence to support that claim? it certainly isn't in the report, which only ever mentions economics in terms of one of the various reasons people get abortions. in fact, the census data seems to contradict it - feel free to check (http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/IncReport.php?&subtop=I01&area=S)

You see, that is a state wide resource, I limited my comparison to the twin cities only, in fact, only Ramsey County and Hennepin County, to reduce the chance of economic disparities between the groups.

You see, that is a state wide resource, I limited my comparison to the twin cities only, in fact, only Ramsey County and Hennepin County, to reduce the chance of economic disparities between the groups.

the story is essentially the same in the twin cities metropolitan statistical area (you have to run through the chain from the very beginning to get there on that site though). if anything, it actually levels things out more to include the rest of the state, since that drags down the income of whites a couple thousand dollars per capita. essentially the same relations hold at the msa level as at the state.

(you have to run through the chain from the very beginning to get there on that site though)

for those following along at home, start here (http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/c2000.html), and then scroll down to the box labelled "general - income profiles". then choose the "family, household income, median...blah blah blah... by race" report. and then choose whatever geographic option your heart desires, and you're off to the races. (soory, couldn't be helped)

most reservations are dry. no alcohol, no drugs (except for those few that use mushrooms for religious ceremonies)

And peyote

the story is essentially the same in the twin cities metropolitan statistical area (you have to run through the chain from the very beginning to get there on that site though). if anything, it actually levels things out more to include the rest of the state, since that drags down the income of whites a couple thousand dollars per capita. essentially the same relations hold at the msa level as at the state.


I still don’t see an explanation for the discrepancy between the groups based on economic situation alone (although the non-married percentage of single adult households is extremely high for the black community, reducing their economic status a bit that way, it’s a small percentage when comparing children raising families [single or married]).


The data itself is really starting to show it’s age though, for example, the St. Paul Asian community has nearly doubled in the last five years due to immigration in the Hmong community and that event is not shown at all in this data. Nevertheless, I still see a disparity in the race numbers from 2000 and family options, even when abortion itself is not the statistic. The percentage of the specific race groups creating families and raising children is substantially different.

Census 2000
Asian Total: 23,219
Married-couple Family: ………………………………................….18,534 ~ 79.8%
With Children under 18 years: ………………………...........…....….12,864 ~ 55.4%
Female household (no husband present), with children …..……….…2,056 ~ 8.9%
Per Capita Income………………………………...............……….…......$15,542
Families under poverty level with related children under 18 years: 39.5%
Families above poverty level with related children under 18 years: 60.5%


Hispanic Total: 17,897
Married-couple Family: …………………………………..........…..........11,487 ~ 64.1%
With Children under 18 years: ……………………….........……..........7,887 ~ 44.1%
Female household (no husband present), with children …...……….….2,740 ~ 15.3%
Per Capita Income….…………………………………...................…...…..$13,137
Families under poverty level with related children under 18 years: 36.2%
Families above poverty level with related children under 18 years: 63.8%

Black Total: 33,802
Married-couple Family: ……………………………………....................14,168 ~ 41.9%
With Children under 18 years: …………………………..............…....9,148 ~ 27.1%
Female household (no husband present), with children …....………….12,704 ~ 37.6%
Per Capita Income…………………………………………....................….$14,047
Families above poverty level with related children under 18 years:40.3%
Families above poverty level with related children under 18 years: 59.7%

Most Reservations where, pray tell? Because this is far from true in a the vast majority of Canadian Reserves...which particular ones in the US are dry?

The Isabella reservation of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe isn't dry, and neither is the Bay Mills Indian Community of the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians. I lived near Bay Mills all of last year, and I grew up near the Isabella reservation.

Kudos to the Sioux.

And I don't really see Hitler as being pro-eugenics. He just used eugenics as an excuse to wipe out anyone he didn't like. So I declare this to not be a Godwin.