Implications of the Jaffe Memo for Christians in Society

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life.]

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

  • Fertility control agents in the water supply
  • Encourage women to work
  • Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
  • Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
  • Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
  • Discouragement of private home ownership
  • Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
  • Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law” but their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included that item in order to make a very important point.

I can help make that point here by sharing something from my foreword to Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilization.  I illustrate it by asking my readers to identify who wrote the following:

 “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.  Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

 “As Western society comes to distinguish between those forms of euthanasia that are pernicious and those that are therapeutic- an inevitable consequence of our progress toward liberal humanism- expanded access to neonatal euthanasia appears likely.”

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.   …  No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions… ”

And which Nazi wrote these words?  Was it Himmler?  Goebbels?  Hitler himself?    The case could be made that any Nazi could have comfortably made these statements, but in fact they were uttered by current ‘science czar’ of the Obama administration, John Holdren (1977), ‘bio-ethicist’ Jacob Appel (2009), and Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case, in a letter to Bill Clinton in 1992.

These are essentially the same ideas and concepts as embodied in the Jaffe Memo, as well as the sort of reasoning seen in Sanger, the eugenicists, and the Nazis;  the words and phraseology are different, for 2 reasons.  1., they are not idiots;  they know that it is not 1930 anymore, and if you talk like a Nazi, people are going to object and 2., they don’t actually think they are Nazis;  true, the ideas may be the same at some points and in some ways, but the Nazis used violence.  And therein lies the difference:  they want to achieve many of the same goals, but without the excessive bloodshed.

Which brings me back to the notion of women and working.  My random reader’s eyes glazed over at the rest of the list, but my inclusion of the hallmark of women’s liberation will set their teeth on edge.  But isn’t it curious to see such a thing on a list of ideas for controlling the world’s population?

Here, then is the point:   many of the positions accepted in our society are thought to be defensible on one set of arguments but they were originally advanced on an entirely different set of arguments.   I don’t know about the reader, but I get a little nervous about a particular position that was advocated, sometimes for the first time, by nazis, communists, and eugenicists.

The Jaffe Memo shows what anyone who has ever looked into Planned Parenthood and its roots will see:  Planned Parenthood doesn’t care at all about ‘women’s liberation’ and never has.   The average person on the street thinks that the crux of the abortion issue centers on whether or not a woman has the ‘choice’ to do as she pleases with her own body.  Wrong!

That’s how PP sold abortion to the masses, but that’s not their own agenda.

But is it possible take these issues separate from their original purposes?

Short answer:  That depends.  The purpose of this [adapted] article is meant only to illustrate the importance of carefully examining every issue right down to the rock bottom.   We must do this because there are people out there actively attempting to deceive us and manipulate us.  We can take nothing for granted.  If we fail to examine the issue to that level, we risk rendering ourselves nothing less than one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots.’

Let me give one more illustration from the Jaffe Memo. Not listed above, but in the memo itself, was this population control measure:  “Encourage increased homosexuality.”

If you check the newspaper and talk to the man on the street, homosexuality reduces to whether or not people have the right to ‘love’ whomever they please, and receive society’s stamp of approval in every instance.   It is put forward as such a basic human right, that to speak against it is to be regarded as a hate-monger.  In fact, it is the case that the world’s ‘hate crimes’ legislation almost exclusively targets those who are opposed to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  Those who stand in the way of people ‘loving’ each other in whatever manner must be folks of the lowest possible quality- equivalent, of course, to the Nazis.  And we all know what to do with such hate-mongerers;  outlaw their hate-speech and put them in prison, and some would go further- all in the name of tolerance, of course.

But the Jaffe Memo raises a very distinct possibility:  the push to normalize homosexuality was never about ‘equal rights’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘free and unrestrained sexual contact between consensual adults’ but about controlling the world’s population.

That would mean the fact that we’re even discussing the acceptability of gay marriage in our society is the result of a manipulation on a grand scale.   We may wonder:  if people are born gay, then should not there have been huge numbers of gay people for thousands of years constantly and consistently, so that there would not be any social mores against them to be overcome?  It should have been normal a long time ago.  Isn’t it interesting that their numbers have increased so rapidly just in the last fifty years?

The Jaffe Memo is just one example of the sort of thing that would lead a reasonable person to ask:  perhaps people are not born gay at all, but rather are made gay, by constant and consistent social engineering and normalization of behaviors that were heretofore- for perfectly good reasons- considered abnormal?

There are indisputable biological facts about men and women that suggest that homosexual behavior is wrong- or at minimum, not the sort of thing we should be mainstreaming and condoning as a society.

Unless, of course, it is precisely those biological facts that you are trying to get around.  Hence, the elitist liberal’s hard work of manipulating the masses to push their agenda without the masses knowing the real reasons for it.  If they did, they would not stand for it.  Since they didn’t, they’ve accepted it, hook, line, and sinker.

It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it.  If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort:  directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.

In light of this extensive manipulation, I feel compelled to argue that in our day and age, religion and politics must absolutely be mixed.  Before you leap to conclusions, you best hear me out.   I’ll post a link to it as soon as I have it ready.

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life. He is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries]

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "Implications of the Jaffe Memo for Christians in Society"

Notify of
avatar
Walter Schneider
Guest
About Godwin’s Law, why is it necessary to make any references at all to naziism or Hitler. The atrocities committed by Hitler and his Nazis were almost negligibly insignificant when compared to others committed by their contemporaries and promoted or imposed by totalitarian regimes. Why not simply look closer to home? –quote– Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, proposed an “American Baby Code (ABC),” which included the following articles; “Article 3. A marriage shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood. Article 4. No woman shall have the legal… Read more »
Walter Schneider
Guest
Anthony, thanks for responding. I owe you an apology for making it look as if I was critical of what you had written. I should have been more clear on why I focused on Godwin’s Law. The only excuse I can offer is that I wrote my comment after an almost sleepless night and did not think clearly. I will do better now. You commentary is right on the mark, and I fully agree with it. The reference to Godwin’s Law is still somewhat objectionable, from the perspective of anyone who suffered directly from the ideology promoted and imposed by… Read more »
wpDiscuz