– PART TWO-
– Second of two parts
– By TORONTO RIGHT TO LIFE
Planned Parenthood in Canada; the United Way connection; Buffalo abortion mills; C.A.R.A.L. and THE MONEY: Canadian tax dollars to promote killing of children around the world!
Planned Parenthood in Canada
As an example of the Planned parenthood federation in Canada, let us examine the Toronto Office.
Planned Parenthood of Toronto is affiliated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (I.P.P.F.). In December 1972, at its Annual general Meeting, the Family Planning Federation of Canada (now the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada) passed the following two resolutions:
- to recommend to the Canadian Government that all mention of abortion be deleted from the Criminal Code.
- to urge all Canadian provincial and territorial governments to require all hospitals receiving public funds to provide abortion services. (This was given unanimous support.)
Original Purpose
Planned Parenthood of Toronto was constituted as a birth control organization to counsel and disseminate information about birth control. In recent years, however, Planned Parenthood of Toronto has become involved in abortion, first in the issue, then in abortion services, until today it has reached a point where it is also deeply involved in abortion referrals.
C.A.R.A.L.
At the founding meting of Canadians for the repeal of the abortion law in June 1973, a steering committee was set up which included among others, Henry Morgentaler. It also included representatives of Planned Parenthood of Toronto. The aim of this organization was “repeal of all sections of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion, and the provision of adequate abortion services across the country.”
A.C.C.R.A.
In October of 1973, Planned Parenthood of Toronto and the Association for Contraceptive counseling and Related Areas (ACCRA) – formerly known as the Association for the Repeal of the Canadian Abortion Laws (ARCAL), merged and combined the board of directors of the two organizations. To accommodate their new partner, Planned Parenthood of Toronto expanded its services to include a Pregnancy Counselling Service (PCS). The aim of PCS is to “work with women and couples in post-contraception fertility.” (Translated this means abortion referral.) At the time of this merger, Planned Parenthood of Toronto stated that they would need more help to deal with the additional “workload” created by this merger. This appears to have been so, because in April of 1974, at a conference for women at Humber College, Colleen Mathieu, co-ordinator of volunteers for Planned Parenthood of Toronto, said they were then doing more work in the abortion area than in birth control counselling.
Counselling Service
Planned Parenthood of Toronto’s abortion counseling service consisted of little more than facilitating the obtaining of a quick abortion. Their entire operation was run by two regular employees, with the rest of the counseling staff made up of volunteers. To be a volunteer for Planned Parenthood of Toronto, one does not require any specific qualifications. The volunteer training sessions total ten and a half hours, during which time various methods of birth control and abortion has to be covered. Office appointments are reserved for abortion counseling. Birth control information is relegated to phone service.
Literature
The literature provided by Planned Parenthood of Toronto to its volunteers in their training session is totally pro-abortion, and abortion is accepted as a method of birth control. Two of the brochures used in this training session are from abortion clinics in New York State, to which Planned Parenthood of Toronto refer some of their clients for abortion (thereby circumventing the Canadian Abortion Law). The titles of these brochures “Abortion – every Woman’s Right” and “Freedom to Chose,” imply what is neither a right nor a choice under Canadian Abortion Laws. Sampling of other literature passed out by Planned Parenthood of Toronto, mostly American, strongly reflects the abortion-on-demand mentality acceptable under American laws. For instance, a brochure written especially for teenagers says “we think having an abortion is more moral than bringing an unwanted child into the world.” Even more dangerous than the abortion mentality is the information given about actually having an abortion – for instance, one brochure referring to saline induction abortion, the method used to destroy four to five months old pre-natal babies – says “it is a simple in-hospital procedure.” Another pamphlet summing up all abortions up to the fifth month of pregnancy, ends by saying, “So don’t let anyone tell you it is a dangerous operation.”
Buffalo Abortion Mills
Three Toronto area women who visited Planned Parenthood of Toronto offices in January and February 1976, seeking counseling for unplanned pregnancies, were referred to two abortion mills in the Buffalo area for abortions. These women also found the counseling offered at Planned Parenthood of Toronto to pregnant distressed women strongly directed toward abortion as the most satisfactory solution. One woman has alleged that, “The counseling given me during the interview at Planned Parenthood was solely directed toward abortion, with the result that by the time I left the premises I felt that the only solution to my problem was abortion.”
The “United” Way
In the spring of 1975 Planned Parenthood of Toronto applied for membership in the United Way. Planned Parenthood of Toronto’s abortion activities were community knowledge so it is reasonable to assume that the United way was aware of them when in the spring of 1975 they initially accepted Planned Parenthood of Toronto’s application for membership. But, obviously the United Way did not anticipate the reaction from agencies within the United Way and from the public when it was learned that Planned Parenthood was to be admitted. The Council of Catholic charities approached Barrie Rose, President of the United Way, with the specific complaint that a portion of the community, non-Catholic as well as catholic, would not support a United Way Campaign which had among its agencies an organization which included abortion referral as part of its program. In response to this reaction at Planned Parenthood’s application, the United Way decided to suspend Planned Parenthood’s application rather than jeopardize the 1975 United Way Appeal. Planned Parenthood then withdrew its application.
Planned Parenthood had no sooner withdrawn its application for membership in the United Way, than it was announced that it would be re-applying for admission to the 1976 United Way Campaign. Mr. Rose made it clear that the United Way was committed to work for the entry of Planned Parenthood. It was not a matter whether Planned Parenthood would be accepted but only HOW to get around the barriers, in order to approve their 1976 application. One suggestion, from Mr. Rose himself, was that Planned Parenthood play down the fact that it provided abortion counseling.
While Planned Parenthood was under suspension, the United Way made arrangements to ensure that it would have funding to replace its anticipated contribution from the 1975 United Way Appeal. In December 1975, Planned Parenthood of Toronto made a formal application for membership in the United Way for the year starting January 1, 1977. Many concerned individuals and groups wrote to the United Way Admissions Committee, asking them not to admit Planned Parenthood as a member agency. Toronto Right to Life warned, that acceptance of Planned Parenthood would split the community, with the result that instead of a “United Way,” there would be a “divided way.” However, in a letter appearing I all three Toronto dailies, the president officially supported admission of Planned Parenthood.
Subsequently, on February 24, 1976, the United Way accepted Planned Parenthood as a member agency. Shortly thereafter, Philip Pocock, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, protested that action in Declaration on Behalf of Life. He announced that the Council of Catholic Charities was withdrawing from the United Way. The Archbishop’s statement declared: “we have been asked to embrace the spectre of death…abortion is a crime against life…western democracy…has been built upon the concept of defending the defenseless…Abortion is…a moral evil and a human disservice.” The Archbishop pointed out that the decision “was not ours to make. We were required to respond to a decision which was taken by others.” Thus, the prophecy of the Toronto Right to Life Association was fulfilled and today Toronto’s “United Way” is really Toronto’s Divided Way.
In March 1976 the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and the Toronto West Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church withdrew their representatives from the Inter Faith Committee of the United Way of Toronto. In July St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church withdrew its support because the United Way considered abortion as a medical procedure having nothing to do with moral precepts. Finally, in October 1976. Bishop Donald Bastian of the Free Methodist Church in Canada sent a directive to ministers in the Toronto area stating that the Free Methodist Church could not support the United Way since it has compromised its principles by accepting as a member agency Planned Parenthood, which includes abortion referral in its services.
The split in the “United Way” of Toronto is one example of the fulfilling of the prophesy that “if the abortion law is not repealed one of the consequences …will be the permanent alienation of a large number of people. This sense of alienation will grow as the implications of the new philosophy begin to demonstrate themselves in other areas….” Planned Parenthood is part and parcel of this growing division among Canadians. Its philosophy and its services are a threat to the nation.
Goals
As noted, the U.S. and Canadian Federations of Planned Parenthood are affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federations and, consequently, share similar goals. These goals were set out in the U.S. Federation’s manifesto entitled “A Five-Year Plan: 1976-1980” adopted by its membership in October 1975. One of the objectives of the manifesto was to support the efforts of others elsewhere.
Some of the goals are as follows:
- the establishment of induced abortion as a safe legal back-up to failed contraception.
- the use of P.P.’s medical service program as “catalyst or change agent” and as a means of enhancing P.P.’s “ability to command authority in the councils where national decisions aare made.”
- the promotion of P.P.’s national image :through favourable and frequent coverage” in the mass media, and the development of a national advertising campaign which will “describe the Federation and its goals in a favourable fashion.”
- the use of public education for the “dissemination of specific information for target audiences with the objective of modifying attitudes, behaviour changes and/or skill.”
- the development of strong working relations with national organizations whose goals and policies are consistent with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in order to increase support for key national issues such as keeping abortion legal and accessible to all.
- the development of programs designed to support laws and opinions favourable toward the elimination of restrictions in all fertility management programs.
P.P. had two major targets in its Five-Year Plan – teenagers and the poor. Consequently, adolescents throughout North America have been inundated with P.P. literature, films, counselling, and such gimmicks as the distribution of :Love Carefully” valentine cards (with a bright red condom inside), “Love Carefully” T-shirts, buttons, and other items. P.P.’s youth counselling is, in reality, a positive encouragement of sexual activity among teenagers. As educator Michael Schwartz pointed out, “Showering these young people with contraceptives and provocative literature results in a tremendous peer pressure that makes teenagers who do not engage in sex feel abnormal.”
According to the October 1975 Manifesto, P.P. sees itself as an “agent for social change.” It decided to undertake a nationwide and worldwide campaign for “modifying attitudes, behaviour changes and/or skills” and doing away with “the arbitrary and outmoded restrictions – legal, regulatory and cultural – which continue to limit the individual’s freedom of choice in fertility matters.” In other words, to quote Schwartz again: “Their goal is to eliminate any moral standards that would inhibit their view of what population control should be.”
To achieve this end P.P. intended to “infiltrate the media, professional organizations, educational institutions, churches, civil-liberties organizations and community health agencies.” The Five-Year Plan also called for lobbying, legal activism and political pressure as fundamental elements of the programme. In all these areas, P.P. has achieved monumental success, both in the United States and Canada.
Canadian Federal Support
On April 11, 1978 Monique Begin, then Minister of National Health and Welfare, in response to a question from Jake Epp (MP, Provincher), stated that PPF Canada had received the following grants:
1972/73 – $500,000
1973/74 – 498,000
1974/75 – 600,000
1975/76 – 785,000
1976/77 – 448,000
1977/78 – 600,000
Total: $ 3, 432,238
Regular grants for 1978 and 1979 amounted to over one million dollars. In addition, the affiliates of Planned Parenthood received grants from the Health Department amounting to $679,290 bringing the overall total for the 1972-79 period to well over five million dollars.
As if these grants were not sufficient, PPF also received further donations from the Canadian International Development Association (CIDA) (which was established to assist development in the Third World!), from the Secretary of State (apparently for translation purposes), and from the National Capital Commission. In fact according to the financial statement distributed at its 1977 Annual Meeting, PP received over 90% of its income from federal taxpayers.
Support of PP by Canada’s international development agency, CIDA, is on an even larger scale. During the six years between 1971 and 1977 the Canadian government handed over a total of ten and a half million dollars to Planned Parenthood International.
1971-72 – .77 million dollars
1972-73 – .99 million dollars
1973-74 – 1.50 million dollars
1974-75 – 2.00 million dollars
1975-76 – 2.50 million dollars
1976-77 – 2.75 million dollars
Total -10.51 million dollars
When in May, 1978 the attention of the President of CIDA was drawn to this subsidization, Mr. Michel Dupuy replied that, according to the information at his disposal “IPPF is not involved in abortion activities for purposes of birth control…” When he was supplied with documentation on these abortion activities he claimed that IPPF was only a loose federation of autonomous units and in this respect like the united Nations. Thus support did not mean that CIDA subscribed “to all its policies or to those of its member states. One wonders, of course, what activities of IPPF other than its sex education – birth control – abortion line could have been worth ten and a half million dollars.
The agency within the Department of Health and Welfare from which PP’s support springs is the Family Planning Division. Created in January 1972 as a gathering and information centre, it changed from a passive role to an active one, at first gingerly (following Trudeau’s 1968 declaration that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation), then openly after the submission of the so-called Badgley report by the federally appointed Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law in February 1977. Before that time the Division already had published six glossy sex education booklets, one of which was on abortion, the others reflecting the Planned Parenthood contraceptive mentality already described. By March 1977 it had convinced the then Minister of Health, Marc Lalonde to announce a massive nation-wide campaign to promote birth control and women’s clinics of which abortion counseling was to have been an integral part.
This development in the Department of Health and Welfare parallels the policy of the Canadian PPF whose members have been dominant in the Family Planning Division from the beginning. In 1977 the Badgley Committee identified the PPF as the largest abortion referral agency in Canada. Since 1972 the PPF had passed annual resolutions supporting unrestricted abortions, ie. Abortion on demand. At its 1977 annual meeting it naturally endorsed marc Lalonde’s newly announced national campaign. At this meeting both it’s President and the Executive Director announced for PPF Canada what Marc lalonde had announced for the Family Planning Division, namely that from now on PPF was no longer to be a service agency but rather “an agent for change” whose role was to be an advocate to pave the way and to initiate action.
It may be noteworthy that the Minister’s special assistant, in preparing the change of policy in the Department of Health and Welfare, was Patrice Merrin, former Executive director of Toronto Planned Parenthood, who had established and guided that organization’s abortion referral and counseling organization in 1973. It is not too surprising, therefore, that the Minister’s address of March 4, 1977 included a direct reference to the standard PP argument that “reducing the incidence of unwanted children” will “serve to reduce the problems of child neglect, abandonment, desertion, dependency and abuse” and that it concluded with a reference to PP’s slogan “Every child is a wanted child.” Nor does it come as a surprise to know that, while PP was receiving grants from the Department of Health and Welfare, the Acting Director of the Family Planning Division of that Department was Mr. C. Norman Knight, who, upon his retirement from the Health and Welfare Family Planning Division assumed and presently holds the dual position of Vice-President of PPF Canada and Chairman of its Public Affairs Committee.
It may be noted that continuous pro-life pressure coupled with the federal government’s desire for budgetary cutbacks and restriction finally led to the announcement in the spring of 1978 that commencing April 1979, federal grants to PPF Canada would be reduced for the next five years and that at the end of this time, PP would receive “only” $200,000 annually – this grant to be used solely to maintain its national office.
Provincial and municipal support
Already prior to the proposed reduction of federal grants, PP affiliates predictably had begun to pressure provincial governments for increased funding. Although it was successful, for example, in Alberta, where PPF Alberta is now in a much better position financially because of increased provincial grants, the PP affiliates in Saskatchewan and British Columbia suffered defeats as their requisitions for grants were either substantially deceased or totally rejected. In British Columbia, the then Minister of Human Resources stated openly that he could not extend financial assistance to organizations such as PPF which are engages in abortion activities.
In other places such as Brandon, Manitoba, city councils have begun to refuse grants to Planned Parenthood groups. In Calgary, the Calgary Birth Control Association, a PPF affiliate, continues to receive a municipal grant at the moment, but in October, 1979 the United Way in that city refused it membership in its organization. In Halifax, on the other hand, the United Way accepted the local PP organization in October 1979, apparently without much consultation, thereby incurring the hostility of a large number of traditional supporters. Meanwhile, in Winnipeg an attempt was made, supported by the local Pp affiliate, to revive the Lalonde idea of a woman’s clinic which would do abortions as well. So far, the attempt has been unsuccessful. Significantly enough, both from the point of view of illustrating the international connections between the various PP groups, and the financial rewards to be reaped from such a clinic, the American PP offered a $135,000 short term, low interest loan to the Winnipeg PP which the latter had planned to pay back within only 36 months of the first day of the clinic’s operation.
Lobbying politicians
In accord with the October 1975 manifesto and also perhaps because of increasing pro-life opposition, the PPF Canada has become actively involved in political activity, specifically in the federal election of May 1979.
Under Canadian law, organizations which are classified as “charitable” are given a tax-exempt status but may not participate in political activity. This was set out again in Circular No. 78-3 dated Feb. 27, 1978. All pro-life educational groups in Canada have been given tax-exempt status as charitable organizations. They have refrained from political activity which has been carried out by other pro-life political organizations which do not have charitable status. In the spring of 1979 the PPF of Canada and the YWCA, both of which are recognized charitable organizations, joined the national Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and the Canadian Association for the Repeal of Abortion Law (CARAL) in issuing a manifesto to the National Voluntary Organizations in Canada, calling on them to join in lobbying all federal Members of Parliament to bring in abortion on demand.
The manifesto stated that women “have the ultimate right to choose whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy” and that “individuals (must) have ready access to…early abortions.” The organizations then went on to say: “It is our intent to circulate the enclosed material to all candidates in the next federal election. When the election is called we will reprint the above statement, together with a list of all those organizations which have endorsed it. This sheet will then be included in the candidate’s information package.
While all of this was going on, the then Minister of Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, in a letter dated January 12, 1979 in response to an enquiry from a colleague, Robert Coates, stated that “the Department (of Health and Welfare) does not fund agencies whose activities are predominantly directed towards implementing changes in Canadian law, nor does it align itself with the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion positions.” As any reader is able to conclude from the above information, the truth is the exact opposite. By 1980, the Canadian federal government, through its various agencies, will have supported Canada’s leading abortion referral and counseling agency and its affiliates, national or international, to the sum of almost twenty million dollars, without mentioning the indirect support through institutional and department cooperation.
What is to be done?
On March 3, 1978, Gwen Landolt, the then President of the Alliance for Life, the national coordinating body for the pro-life educational movement in Canada, wrote to all MPs including the then Minister of Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, calling on the federal government and the House of Commons to investigate the use of federal funds in support of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. This must now be followed up.
Supporting PPF of Canada means, in fact, endorsing abortion and a philosophy of sexual behaviour which is amoral, irresponsible, destructive and contrary to the common good of this nation. This support must stop.
