NP Rank:
Georgia Pro-life Group Says Black Women Targeted for Abortions
The Radiance Foundation, a pro-adoption, pro-abstinence group along with Georgia Right to Life has begun a billboard campaign in Atlanta calling attention to what they believe to be the targeting of black women for abortions in an effort to reduce the black population.
The billboard features a black child and the caption reads, "Black Children Are An Endangered Species." It directs people to the website TOO MANY ABORTED. com.
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African American women account for about 37 % of all abortions while African Americans are only 13 percent of the population.
In 2006, more than 50 % of abortions performed in Georgia were preformed on African American women.
Catherine Davis, minority outreach director for Georgia Right to Life, says, "18,870,000 black babies have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade. If those babies hadn't been aborted, we would be 59 million strong -- over 19% of the population."
The idea for the billboard came from Ryan Bomberger, the founder of Radiance Foundation. Bomberger, 38, was adopted as a baby and was conceived when a black man raped his white biological mother.
In response to accusations that the billboard was motivated by bigots, Bomberger said, "I am definitely not a white Southern bigot. I am as black as President Obama."
According to a story in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday, "An increasingly vocal segment of the anti-abortion community has embraced the idea that black women are targeted for abortion in an effort to keep the black population down.
Some black anti-abortion activists call the phenomenon "womb lynching." One prominent black cleric, the Rev. Clenard Childress Jr. of New Jersey, often says, "The most dangerous place for a black child is the womb."
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
Recommendations (34)
-
nanute
New York, United States -
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada -
Susan Marie Kovalinsky
Ledgewood, New Jersey, United States -
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States -
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
-
Mary Richard
Toronto, Canada -
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States -
Pat Garcia
La Paz, Mexico -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States





Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (39)
at 11:34 on March 2nd, 2010
A campaign of this type, if true, wouldn't be the first.
Despite Planned Parenthood's modern day role as an advocate for women's reproductive rights, Margaret Sanger, who founded the precursor to Planned Parenthood, the American Birth Control League (ABCL), advocated the control of the poor, White European immigrant population as well as a specific plan for implementation in the Black community of the time called the Negro Project.
This project enlisted the aid of various segments of the Black community to aid Margaret Sanger's organization in winning over acceptance in the Black community.
Her embrace of the racially applied eugenics philosophy of the day is well documented.
Source: blackgenocide.org
There is evidence Sanger's Negro Project campaign was carried out with elements of subterfuge.
From quotes of Margaret Sanger:
Source: dianedew.com
at 13:48 on March 2nd, 2010
Karen: Thank you for your comment. Glen Beck often brings up Sanger and says essentially the same things that you do here.
at 15:03 on March 2nd, 2010
You're welcome, Rory.
at 11:32 on March 2nd, 2010
Source: politicsdaily.com
at 12:07 on March 2nd, 2010
Gad. I'm in agreement with Hatter and she didn't make excuses for the baby killers at Planned Parenthood! Nice job, Karen.
Oh, and Rory, the article wasn't bad, either. The statistical cost (let alone the human cost) of abortion is beyond staggering. It is no coincidence that the number of immigrants in this country since 1990, very nearly matches the number of babies that would have made it to adulthood - had they not been aborted.
at 12:39 on March 2nd, 2010
As I have not been an advocate for or against abortion, Hugh, there is nothing that would indicate I would "make excuses" for Planned Parenthood but, thanks anyway.
at 14:58 on March 2nd, 2010
Hugh: Thank you for agreeing with Hatter. It pleases me more than you'll ever know--all for purely selfish reasons of course.
It is interesting "that the number of immigrants in this country since 1990, very nearly matches the number of babies that would have made it to adulthood - had they not been aborted."
Do you think it's merely a coincidence or a statistical anomaly? Or is there a correlation between those numbers?
at 15:43 on March 2nd, 2010
Considering that those aborted babies would have been at working age and above - starting in 1991 - then no it isn't a statistical anomaly. (abortion became legal in 1973)
Those are real people that aren't in the work force - because they are dead. No problem, though. Millions of Hispanics available right next door!
Yes, it does sound crazy, doesn't it?
at 11:52 on March 2nd, 2010
If the antiabortion religious right crowd are so concerned about protecting lives, then how about being concerned from the very start about how people who can't afford pregnancy or who otherwise did not plan to be pregnant or worse are supposed to raise children responsibly for their lifetime.
These conservatives are the same people who will cheat on social welfare while proclaiming their righteousness.
Life is more complex than simple minded and short answer causes.
I don’t want to see a stream of irresponsible people at abortion clinics. That is why birth control education, protection, and pills are all a part of a comprehensive approach to stemming the tide.
Sex education is a big part of the answer and the antiabortionists are often against that too. It does not add up.
at 12:30 on March 2nd, 2010
Good points, Jim.
My pet peeve with the Right and it's pseudo concern for the sanctity of life is its penchant for trying to gut and often eliminate programs that aid families and their children after they've lobbied so vigorously for these children's lives.
at 12:17 on March 2nd, 2010
So Yankee, are you saying i cheat on social welfare?
I kinda take that personal.
at 12:18 on March 2nd, 2010
Only you can answer that question. Do you support sex education? Do you support planned parenthood? Do you support birth control education?
at 13:14 on March 2nd, 2010
I am sorry. What does that have to do with being opposed to killing unborn children?
Are you saying that those things prevent abortion? Ever look at statistics? Ever wonder why the teen pregnancy rate exploded at the same time we were teaching sex education and birth control in schools? Ever wonder why that happened?
Please, oh, please, don't tell me you think it is because i am against killing unborn children.
We aren't talking about a couple of dozen babies here, this is megamillions.
at 14:02 on March 2nd, 2010
Jim: Ah! But sex education is against their religion. Abstinence and saving it until the bonds of holy matrimony are entered into is the way to go as far as they're concerned.
at 15:15 on March 2nd, 2010
Jim: I'm not being facetious here . . . but why is it necessary for schools to have sex education courses as part of their curriculum? Have we gotten to the point in America that kids are so ignorant nowadays as to not know that having unprotected sex will often times result in pregnancies and STDs?
There's not one kid that I grew up with that didn't know the consequences of engaging in unprotected sex. And they didn't learn that in school because there were no sex education courses being offered by the schools in those days.
I knew quite a few young ladies that had abortions--sometimes multiple abortions--during the 70s. And many of them were honor students and by no means ignorant. They knew the consequences of their sexual acts but went ahead and took a chance anyway. This in spite of the fact that condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, etc. were freely available to them and the cost was not a consideration.
at 12:30 on March 2nd, 2010
And here's a nice quote from a Virginia lawmaker:
On Thursday, Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall (R) spoke at a press conference against state funding for Planned Parenthood. He blasted the organization for supporting a women’s right to choose, saying that God punishes women who have had abortions by giving them disabled children:
at 12:33 on March 2nd, 2010
I heard his rationale the other day, Nanute.
He quoted a verse from the Bible regarding the first born of all species being dedicated to God as back up for his statement.
at 12:47 on March 2nd, 2010
Yes. It give new meaning to rationale.
at 13:13 on March 2nd, 2010
So because you are opposed to religion in general, and poor quotes in particular, that makes killing the babies acceptable?
at 13:50 on March 2nd, 2010
I'm not opposed to religion in general. I don't know about the "poor quotes" you are talking about. And it's not about killing babies. It is about people with religious "convictions" expecting everyone to adhere to their belief system. God grants everyone the right to free will. Good, bad or indifferent. You can call the unborn, babies, but it won't make it so. Is having a vasectomy, killing the unborn? Is contraception or birth control? Is sex for pleasure immoral?
at 14:11 on March 2nd, 2010
nanute:
"Is sex for pleasure immoral?"
Yes! In the eyes of some it is! It's even immoral to me and that makes it all the better when I engage in it for pleasure! LOL!
at 15:46 on March 2nd, 2010
"You can call the unborn, babies, but it won't make it so."
If they aren't babies, what are they? Fishsticks? Landscape pavers?
at 02:09 on March 3rd, 2010
I think for about the first eight weeks, the term is embryo. From then until birth, fetus. I appreciate, and respect your opinion, it doesn't mean that you, or by government sanction, we can force someone to give up their right to terminate pregnancy. Does the "unborn" right trump the right of the mother? Now answer the rest of my question.
at 17:06 on March 3rd, 2010
Does the "unborn" right trump the right of the mother?
No. That work for you? Do the rights of a mother trump those of the unborn? Well, the Supremes have decided they do, although that isn't justice, just a "social issue".
Do we legally terminate the life of any other humans in this country without a trial? Of course we do - frequently, it is what is known as murder &/or manslaughter.
Regarding the terms "embryo" and "fetus", you can call a dog a canine, or a mutt, but most people know that is still a dog.
I do recall an actress, rather well known for her support of abortion, on one of the popular late-night talk shows a few years back. While she and the host talked about abortion rights, she used the term "fetus" several times. Later, he asked about her pregnancy. She then referred to what she had just been calling a fetus, as her "baby".
I reckon if you want to kill it, it is a fetus. If you want to give birth, it is a baby, no?
at 08:49 on March 3rd, 2010
Hugh, if this question was addressed to me, I ask that you do not make assumptions about my religious beliefs.
Regarding the attempt to use the Bible to support his contention re: an increase in the births of disabled children after abortions of first pregnancies, as I stated below at this thread, I haven't read any verse in the Bible that supports his assertion, with him stating that God punished those women and their families for having abortions by making their second babies disabled.
at 14:25 on March 2nd, 2010
What I found most, I guess the word I want is annoying, Nanute, is that, without supplying any data for his claim, he offered that the number of children being born with disabilities, after first time abortions, had dramatically increased, providing his opinion on this occurrence, based on HIS understanding of how God works, that is, knowing that God is punishing these women for having abortions.
I haven't seen anything about that in the Bible.
at 14:04 on March 2nd, 2010
nanute: Thank you! Yes! My wife who has never had an abortion and goes to mass every Sunday will be glad to know that!
at 13:57 on March 2nd, 2010
oh my.
at 14:05 on March 2nd, 2010
nan: And a double oh my!
at 15:34 on March 2nd, 2010
the joys of spring
even the minister
wears a smile