Planned Parenthood is all About Sex

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has just released a document that espouses a right to sexual pleasure. I have asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, who has been fighting Planned Parenthood for over 25 years, to comment on this document as today’s guest commentator. Here is what Jim had to say:

In talks around the world over the last 25 years, I have always emphasized that Margaret Sanger’s founding of Planned Parenthood was based on three underlying philosophies: uninhibited sexual activity to achieve unlimited sexual pleasure; birth control, including abortion, to achieve universal small family size; and eugenics to achieve a human race devoid of any dysgenic stock.

In recent weeks, an event took place that was clearly calculated to advance the first of these above-listed philosophies, thus revealing that it is very much alive and well in Planned Parenthood today.
That event is the International Planned Parenthood Federation‘s release of a document the news media is referring to as “the world’s first declaration of sexual rights.” Specifically, the Inter Press Service reported the following on June 10, 2009:

In an effort to promote the free enjoyment of human sexuality, separate from reproduction, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) launched the world’s first declaration of sexual rights in the Argentine capital on Wednesday.

“We want states to commit themselves to protecting these rights, and for the United Nations to adopt them in future meetings,” Carmen Barroso, IPPF regional director for the Western hemisphere, told IPS.

“Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration,” the result of two years’ work by a multi-disciplinary team, proposes that “sexuality is an essential part of our humanity,” and that its free expression “is a component of human rights.” The Declaration espouses “the entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction.”

So, here you have Planned Parenthood clearly stating what we have known to be its intent since its beginning: that the act of sex, in and of itself, without regard for its procreative powers, should be recognized as a “right to pleasure.” IPPF elaborates on this in its 29-page document, Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration,  when it states in Principle 4,

Sexuality is not merely a vehicle for individuals to satisfy their reproductive interests. The entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction, and reproduction independent of sexuality should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement.

All persons are entitled to the conditions that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality. Pleasure is based on individual and relational autonomy, for which the existence of public policies on sexuality education, health services, freedom from coercion and violence, as well as the development of a field of ethics on issues of justice, equality and liberty must be ensured. Given that pleasure is an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to experience it must not be denied to anyone.

It is clear, then, that Planned Parenthood believes that due to the stage it has reached in its own development and the world’s current moral climate, the time is right to brazenly proclaim this “right” to sexual pleasure as a goal for everyone. Of course, in typical fashion, Planned Parenthood doesn’t see these rights as being just for mature adults. The IPS article quoted above also contains the following:

[IPPF’s] Barroso,  an expert on sexual and reproductive health, said human rights in general gained ground in the mid-20th century, and expanded in the 1990s with the recognition of children’s rights. In the mid-1990s, the U.N. affirmed reproductive rights, “but sexuality was tagged on as an afterthought,” she said.

“People talked about sexual and reproductive rights, but in fact they meant reproductive rights only,” she said. In 1995 at the World Conference on Women in Beijing, sexual rights were introduced in the negative, as “women’s right not to suffer harm, violence or coercion” in sexual intercourse, she said.

“It was a step forward, but no one talked about the positive right to sexual pleasure, which is only now beginning to be discussed,” she said. “That’s why the IPPF is offering this Declaration as a tool for progress toward a specific concept of sexual rights.”

The Declaration also recognises the sexual rights of persons under 18, who need individual protection based on the idea of their “evolving capacity to exercise rights on their own behalf.” According to this idea, parental authority eases off as young people progressively gain in decision-making autonomy.

In addition, the Declaration says that “all persons are entitled to the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality.”

In this document, Planned Parenthood takes the position that young children have the so-called right to sexual pleasure  when it says this:

IPPF understands that the rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen, as a matter of international and national law, sometimes differ from the rights of adults. These differences relate to all aspects of human rights but require particular approaches in regard to sexual rights. IPPF begins from the premise that persons under eighteen are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance.

Under Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that the direction and guidance provided by parents or others with responsibility for the child must take into account the capacities of the child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf. The concept of evolving capacity of children requires a balance between recognizing children as active agents in their own lives entitled to be respected as citizens, as people and as rights-bearers with increasing autonomy, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their vulnerability.

The concept recognizes that the levels of protection from participation in activities likely to cause children harm will diminish in accordance with their evolving capacity. In addition, the principle of evolving capacity combines respect for children, their dignity and entitlement to protection from all forms of harm, while also acknowledging the value of their own contribution towards their protection. Societies must create environments in which children can achieve their optimal capacities and where greater respect is given to their potential for participation in, and responsibility for, decision-making in their own lives.

Several key principles govern the interrelationship between children’s rights and other interests. Among these are: the view of persons under 18 as rights holders; the best interests of the child; the evolving capacities of the child; non-discrimination; and the responsibility for ensuring conditions for thriving. In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.

The key to understanding all this bureaucrat-speak is the last sentence. Let’s restate that line and add some emphasis in the form of underlining:

In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.

What this means is that your child will not be safe from this ideology. For example, if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to impose on his or her life, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated in the area of attaining sexual pleasure. It means that that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.

Perhaps a final quote from the main IPPF document will drive this point home. Planned Parenthood says,

All persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, which encompasses the opportunity for individuals to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality, to choose their sexual partners, to seek to experience their full sexual potential and pleasure, within a framework of nondiscrimination and with due regard to the rights of others and to the evolving capacity of children.

With this latest document, Planned Parenthood has declared war on our children and on traditional God-given morality. It is doing everything it can to get government approval for leading our children into lives of sexual sin. We must recognize this for what it is: an all-out effort to steal the souls of our children and lead them into lifestyles that will end with an eternity in hell.

We dare not be silent.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com Arkanabar Ilarsadin

    How is it that every other sexual creature known has that capacity in order to reproduce, but our use of that capacity MUST be separated from reproduction?

  • Bruce Roeder

    Hmm. This is a sick misunderstanding of the natural law.

    I submit all persons are entitled to experience and enjoy EATING independent of NUTRITION.

    Eating is not merely a vehicle for individuals to satisfy their nutritional interests. The entitlement to experience and enjoy eating independent of nutrition, and nutrition independent of eating should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement.

    I understand that the rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen, as a matter of international and national law, sometimes differ from the rights of adults. These differences relate to all aspects of human rights but require particular approaches in regard to eating rights. I begin from the premise that persons under eighteen are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance. Once they are full grown, their nutritional needs become subordinate to their desire – nay, their right for the pleasures of eating.

    And so on.

    But, of course we can all see that as a stupid, false rationalization of what we rightly label a disorder, a selfish twisting of the natural design of eating, which has two aspects — the aspect of nutrition and the aspect of pleasure.

    If we can see it with eating, why can’t we see it with sexuality?

  • http://catholichawk.com PrairieHawk

    The very words “Planned PARENTHOOD” imply that parenthood is a consequence of sexual activity. Are they going to rename themselves “Planned Licentious Pleasure”?

MENU