To the Rockefellers, socialism is not a system for redistributing wealth—especially not for redistributing their wealth—but a system to control people and competitors. Socialism puts power in the hands of the government. And since the Rockefellers control the government, government control means Rockefeller control. You may not know this, but you can be sure they do! When the Rockefellers join the UN’s World Population Conference in calling for the promotion “of a new economic order by eradicating the cause of world poverty, by ensuring the equitable distribution of the world resources, by eliminating the injustices of existing world trade systems and exploitation perpetuated by capitalistic corporations,” something smells as fishy as an unwashed tuna boat. Curbing population growth is just part of the Rockefeller war on the American family. According to John H. Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and one of America’s foremost promoters of the slaughter of the unborn, the goal of the foundation is to achieve the capacity in America for 1.8 million abortions every year.
THE POPULATION COUNCIL would produce developments that would transform the course of human history. It would give rise to the U.S. government’s endorsement of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), the legalization of abortion, the so-called Green Revolution, the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and the pseudoscience of climate change. It would initiate international summits that would call for the imposition of international laws regarding the environment. It would extend the control of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund so that the planet’s natural resources could be plundered by the money cartel. It would persuade the great mass of mankind that life on planet Earth was coming to an end, and in this way, it would set the stage for Armageddon.
In 1957, JDR III’s Population Council, Laurance Rockefeller’s Conservation Foundation and Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood set up an ad hoc committee at the United Nations to study the “population crisis.” The committee mapped out a full population control program in a study entitled “Population: An International Dilemma.” The study maintained that population growth, in rich nations as well as poor, posed a dire threat to political and economic stability and could only be resolved by a policy of Zero Population Growth.1 Individuals would no longer be subjected to enforced sterilization in the age of eugenics. Rather, they would be conditioned to sterilize themselves.
One year later, the American Law Institute, a Rockefeller creation, placed the mother’s well-being ahead of the fetus when it proposed that abortion be made legal for reasons including the mental or physical health of the mother, pregnancy due to rape and incest, and fetal deformity.2
In 1959, JDR III was appointed to the Committee on Foreign Assistance by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The membership of this Committee included William Draper, who had been a partner in Dillon, Read & Company, a firm that underwrote foreign bonds and arranged funding for the Rockefeller oil industry; Hugh Moore, who had worked with Sanger to create the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and John J. McCloy, the chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.3 The first breakthrough toward making population control official government policy was the Committee’s issuance of The Draper Report.
This report maintained that population growth was cancelling economic gains in less developed countries, thereby necessitating the union of financial foreign aid with family planning, fertility control research, and the formation of national population plans. The report was met by such a storm of protest from the National Catholic Welfare Conference that President Eisenhower made an abrupt about-face and refrained from endorsing it. Speaking to a Newsweek correspondent, Eisenhower said: “I can’t imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or government activity or function or responsibility…. This government will not, as long as I am here, have a positive policy doctrine in its program that has to do with this problem of birth control. That’s not our business.”4
Nevertheless, the report represented the first government document to take a stance on the birth control, and it received the ringing endorsement of liberal Protestant groups, including the Unitarian Fellowship, and such influential U.S. senators as Hubert Humphrey (D–MN), Stuart Symington (D–MO), and Adlai Stevenson (D–IL).5
The Draper Report became the rallying cry for the population movement. Millions were raised for Planned Parenthood’s World Population Emergency Campaign and the Victor Fund Drive.6 Full-page ads now appeared in leading newspapers throughout the country, touting the idea of Zero Population Growth. In October, 1959, Arthur Krock published a column entitled “The Most Dangerous Bomb of All” in the New York Times. He wrote: “In the rush of the great nations to produce nuclear weapons capable of agonizing mass destruction, and now to find means to turn them into the utilities of peace, their Governments have paid small attention to the limitation of a more dangerous instrument for the destruction of civilization that is swiftly being assembled. The social scientists have called this weapon ‘the population bomb.’” Krock concluded his column by warning of the emergence of a world inhabited “by billions of half-alive, starving peasants, condemned to short, miserable lives of hatred and hunger.”7
The great leap forward for the U.S. official endorsement of birth control came with the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Estelle Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. Charles Lee Buxton, a physician at the New Haven Planned Parenthood clinic, had been arrested for giving birth control information to married couples. This violated the Comstock Act of 1873, which defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit and made it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.8 The case against Griswold and Buxton was compounded by a state law in Connecticut that made it possible for married couples to be arrested for using condoms in the privacy of their own bedrooms.9
The great leap forward for the U.S. official endorsement of birth control came with the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut.
The Supreme Court ruled that married couples possessed the right to use birth control, and that the Connecticut law violated the “right to marital privacy.” Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention “privacy,” Justice William O. Douglas wrote that for the majority, the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”10 Justice Arthur Goldberg issued a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling.11
The decision emboldened the proponents of Zero Population Growth. Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), at the 20th-anniversary celebration of the United Nations in San Francisco (June 25, 1965), said: “Let us in all our lands—including this land—face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying populations and seek the answers to this most profound challenge to the future of all the world. Let us act on the fact that less than five dollars invested in population control is worth a hundred dollars invested in economic growth.”12
In November 1965, the official endorsement of birth control by the U.S. government was made when President Johnson convoked the White House Conference on International Cooperation. Chaired by JDR III and William Draper, the Conference concluded that the matter of overpopulation had become so great that the specter of starvation now loomed over planet Earth.13 The members urged LBJ to extend birth control assistance throughout the world as an addendum to foreign aid.14 Impressed by the “public support” for the recommendations of the Conference, Johnson persuaded Congress to support his “New Look” in international affairs, which permitted him to judge a nation’s “self-help” in population planning as a criterion for giving Food for Peace aid. The “New Look” combined population control with agricultural development, international education, encouragement of private overseas investment, and multilateral institution building. Separate legislation allowed the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to initiate a birth control program for domestic consumption.15 The stage was set for the Rockefellers to control the world’s population.
In 1966, Lawrence Lader’s book Abortion, which would be cited by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, was published by Bobbs-Merrill. In the book, Lader said: “The frightening mathematics of population growth overwhelms piecemeal solutions and timidity. No government, particularly of an underdeveloped nation, can solve a population crisis without combining legalized abortion with a permanent, intensive contraception campaign.” He maintained that legalized abortion was the only solution. “The ultimate reality,” Lader wrote, “[is] that only legalized abortion can cut to the core of the problem …. We have reached the point where warnings are no substitute for a decisive population policy … As a result of the baby boom after World War II, and a sharp increase in the number of women of procreative age, the U.S. population should double in the next forty or fifty years.”16 Lader had served on the board of directors of the New York–based Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA), which was funded by members of the Rockefeller family.17
From 1965 to 1968, the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures held 41 days of hearings on legislation to reorganize the Department of State and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The transcripts, in 18 bound volumes titled “Population Crisis,” contained the testimony of 120 witnesses who spoke in favor of population control, and one or two witnesses who spoke against it. Almost all of the witnesses who advocated population control were employed by or affiliated with Rockefeller-funded universities or organizations, including the Rockefeller Institute, the Brookings Institution, the National Council of Churches, and the Population Council. At the hearings, future president George Herbert Walker Bush, then a congressman from Texas, said: “I think there is some feeling among some of the more militant civil rights people that any effort in Planned Parenthood is going to try to breed the Negro out of existence, which is absolutely ridiculous.” JDR III, in his testimony, said: “If this simple device [IUD] continues to justify expectations, it will represent a major breakthrough in population control, and might even change the history of the world.”
On April 25, 1967, Colorado governor John A. Love signed the first American Law Institute model abortion law in the United States, allowing abortion in cases of permanent mental or physical disability of either the child or mother or in cases of rape or incest. Love said: “The new law does several things. First it extends beyond the possible death of the woman or her serious physical injury to include mental impairment of a serious and permanent nature when verified by a psychiatrist. It also extends to cases in which it is likely that the child would have a grave and permanent physical deformity or mental retardation. Finally it extends to certain cases of rape and incest…. The bill itself is completely permissive, not requiring any hospital, doctor, nurse, potential mother or any other person to act in any way to terminate a pregnancy at any time.”18
Ronald Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, in 1967, legalizing abortion for women whose mental or physical health would be impaired by pregnancy, or whose pregnancies were the result of rape or incest.
Ronald Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, in 1967, legalizing abortion for women whose mental or physical health would be impaired by pregnancy or whose pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. The same year, the Republican strongholds of North Carolina and Colorado made it easier for women to obtain abortions. In 1970, New York, under Governor Nelson Rockefeller, eliminated all restrictions on women seeking to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks’ gestation.19
On March 16, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon appointed JDR III as the chairman of the newly created Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. In accepting the appointment, Rockefeller said: “The average citizen doesn’t appreciate the social and economic implications of population growth and what it does to the quality of all our lives. Rather than think of population control as a negative thing, we should see that it can be enriching.”20
Within months, the Commission recommended that “present state laws restricting abortion be liberalized along the lines of the New York State Statute, such abortions to be performed on request by duly licensed physicians under conditions of medical safety.”21 The Commission also suggested that “federal, state, and local governments make funds available to support abortion services.”22
In the summer of 1971, New York City opened its first abortion clinic, which would serve as the prototype of other clinics throughout the country. The facility was designed to perform more than 10,000 abortions a year with funds provided, in many cases, by Medicaid. The funding for the abortion mill came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.23
On January 23, 1973, the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade by a 7–2 decision upheld the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies. The majority, led by Justice Harry Andrew Blackmun, determined that a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion involved the question of whether the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The justices answered this question by asserting that the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of … liberty … without due process of law,” protected a fundamental right to privacy.” The Justices explained this position as follows:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.”24
After considerable discussion of the law’s historical lack of recognition of rights of a fetus, the justices further concluded “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” The right of a woman to choose to have an abortion fell within this fundamental right to privacy, and was protected by the Constitution.25
Now, by order of the Supreme Court, states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortions could only be regulated when related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus could only be enacted in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.26
In 1964, only two abortions per 10,000 live births took place in the United States. By 1974, that number had increased by over 140 percent, resulting in 284 abortions per 10,000 live births.27 The total number of abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2014 was estimated at 56.5 million.28
Mainline Protestant churches weakened their stance against abortion after Roe v. Wade passed. As soon as the ruling was made, the United Methodist Church (UMC) began to support a woman’s choice to abort under safe medical procedures. Over the next 40 years, the UMC continued to debate and reconsider their position on abortion. In 2018, the denomination proposed to amend their mission statement, to “recognize tragic conflicts of life that might justify abortion.” Rather than using the word abortion, the UMC substituted the term “reproductive health.” Additionally, the statement no longer discusses the sanctity of preborn life or the alarming recent increase in abortions.29
Similarly, the United Church of Christ (UCC) adopted the expression “reproductive justice” to describe its support of a woman’s right to have an abortion. In 2016, UCC activists applauded the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deny Texas limitations to abortion that would have shut down nearly 80 percent of abortion clinics in the state. The UCC Reverend Dr. John Dorhauer commended the ruling as follows: “As a longtime advocate for women’s reproductive health, and now as the general minister and president of a denomination whose longstanding support for the same is deep and rich, I celebrate this decision. I recognize it as a crucial victory in the ongoing battle to protect a woman’s Constitutional right to maintain control of her body and her reproductive health.”30
Three years prior to Roe v. Wade, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) published a study that described abortion as being a helpful aid for unwanted pregnancies; phrases such as “personal choice” and “responsible decision” regarding abortion began to appear in ecclesiastical reports. In the early 1980s, Presbyterians approved a policy that asserted that abortion was a “stewardship responsibility.”31
In 2012, a survey of Jewish values released by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) recorded the opinions of American Jews on a wide variety of political, religious, and economic issues. According to the survey, 93 percent of all American Jews support some manner of legalized abortion. Ninety-five percent of Jewish Democrats support abortion; 77 percent of Jewish Republicans also favor legalized abortion in almost all cases. These large percentages far exceed the rate of any other group studied.32
Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has maintained one of the strongest antiabortion stances, opposing the procedure under nearly all circumstances. Abortion is considered a sin, meriting excommunication, and pro-choice stances are rejected in many traditional Catholic communities. A large percentage of ordinary churchgoers and church officials, however, are willing to accept a more permissive attitude toward abortion. In the United States, many priests have been granted authority to give absolution, an act once reserved solely for bishops. Nearly half of the Catholics in America believe abortion should be legal in all or nearly all cases, according to data from a 2014 Pew Research Center study.33
On January 22, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), an alarming piece of legislation, pushing the “abortion envelope” even further than Roe v. Wade. The RHA allows for the following:
The new law states: “The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion.” The term “fundamental right” bears special significance in the philosophy of law. Naming abortion as “a fundamental right” could nullify an individual’s right of conscience or religious freedom. This new protocol could be used as a tool to stifle pro-life and religious groups and to coerce physicians and health professionals to execute abortions despite their personal beliefs.35
Shortly after the RHA bill was passed, abortion supporters in Virginia, Vermont, and Rhode Island began promoting comparable legislation. Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia declared that he would pass a bill that allows abortion even during the actual process of childbirth. By 2019, the following states had removed all gestational limits on abortion: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York, along with Washington, D.C.36
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), an alarming piece of legislation, pushing the “abortion envelope” even further than Roe v. Wade. “Andrew Cuomo 2014” by Diana Robinson is licensed under CC BY 2.0
According to the Family Research Council, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the primary supplier of abortions in the U.S. From 2011–2017, Planned Parenthood committed more than 2.2 million abortions, and is responsible for over 30 percent of all abortions performed in the United States. Additionally, between 2011 and 2017, Planned Parenthood gave out an average of 1.79 million emergency contraception kits annually. Emergency contraception, such as Plan B, can kill a human embryo if fertilization has already occurred.37
In 2015, David Daleiden released videos showing Planned Parenthood executives discussing fees for human fetal tissue and organs. By setting up a fictitious biomedical research company called Biomax Procurement Services, Daleiden and his associate, Sandra Merritt, posed as representatives of Biomax and secretly recorded a number of conversations.38
In the first interview, Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” In the second video, Dr. Mary Gatter, who has served as a medical director for the organization’s Los Angeles and Pasadena affiliates, jested: “I want a Lamborghini” as she haggled the optimum remuneration for dead baby parts.39
In a subsequent video, Holly O’Donnell, a former employee of StemExpress, recalled the remarks of her supervisor regarding a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at a Planned Parenthood in San Jose, California: “You want to see something kind of cool?” O’Donnell recalled being asked by her supervisor, “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here; and I’m looking at this fetus; and its heart is beating; and I don’t know what to think.”40 She also said that she was once asked to pierce through a baby’s face in order to remove the brain—while the infant’s heart was still pulsing.41
StemExpress is a biospecimen medical company, that used to work closely with Planned Parenthood. O’Donnell worked as a StemExpress procurement technician inside some of the biggest Planned Parenthood centers in Northern California. Her job was to draw blood and dissect organs from aborted fetuses, which StemExpress then shipped to research customers across the country. O’Donnell explained the close coordination between the two organizations:42
At the beginning of the day, we would let them know what we were looking for…. We’d open up the Task Page, which, it shows you what the researchers want, how many specimens they want for that day or that week. We’d go to the head nurse, let the nurses know, hey this is what I’m looking for today. They’d give you a sheet of the appointments, which women were coming in, and it would tell you how many patients, what time they were coming in, their name, and if they knew how far along they were.43
O’Donnell said StemExpress staff, who worked inside Planned Parenthood clinics, were given bonuses for fetal body parts in “really high demand.” More money was given for brains or livers, for example, as opposed to blood samples. She explained that different body parts were separated into different categories with corresponding pay.44
Documents released by U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives reveal one in five abortion clinics, whether they were affiliated with Planned Parenthood or other abortion centers, were selling the body parts of aborted babies when David Daleiden began his investigation.45 But the documents and the news investigations failed to state that the activities of Planned Parenthood had been funded by the Rockefellers.
1 Steve Weissman, “Why the Population Bomb Is a Rockefeller Baby,” Ramparts, Eco-Catastrophe, 1970, https://pulsemedia.org/2009/10/03/why-the-population-bomb-is-a-rockefeller-baby/, accessed March 13, 2019.
2 “Abortion History Timeline,” National Right to Life, https://nrlc.org/archive/abortion/facts/abortiontimeline.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
3 International Press Service, “How Rockefeller Nurtured and Controlled the ZPG Plan for Depopulation,” Executive Intelligence Review, July 22, 1974, https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1974/eirv01n12-19740722/eirv01n12-19740722.pdf, accessed March 13, 2019.
4 Dwight David Eisenhower, quoted in Donald T. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 44.
5 Ibid.
6 Michael Barker, “The Original Population Bomb,” Swans Commentary, November 7, 2011, http://www.swans.com/library/art17/barker92.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
7 Arthur Krock, quoted in Michelle Goldberg, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World (New York; Penguin, 2009), p. 49.
8 “Anthony Comstock’s ‘Chastity Laws,’” American Experience, PBS, n.d, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-anthony-comstocks-chastity-laws/, accessed March 13, 2019.
9 Ibid.
10 James Petersen, The Century of Sex (New York: Grove Press, 1999), p. 298.
11 Ibid.
12 Lyndon Baines Johnson, quoted in Roger C. Avery, “Lowering the Boom,” Humanist 26, no. 1 (January 1966), https://search.proquest.com/openview/e8aea55eab2a592a92504804f95694ad/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1817324, accessed March 13, 2019.
13 International Press Service, “How Rockefeller Nurtured and Controlled the ZPG for Depopulation.”
14 Steve Weissman, “Why the Population Bomb Is a Rockefeller Baby,” Rampart, 1970, Eco-Catastrophe, 1970, https://pulsemedia.org/2009/10/03/why-the-population-bomb-is-a-rockefeller-baby, accessed March 13, 2019.
15 Ibid.
16 Lawrence Lader, Abortion (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), pp. 142–43.
17 Rebecca Messall, “The Long Road of Eugenics: From Rockefeller to Roe v. Wade,” Human Life Review, October 11, 2005, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MessallEugenics.php, accessed March 13, 2019.
18 John Love, quoted in “Colorado Gov. John Love Signs First Liberalized Abortion Law: 45 Years Ago Today,” Colorado Right to Life, April 25, 2007, http://coloradortl.org/node/325, accessed March 13, 2019.
19 Sue Halpern, “How Republicans Became Anti-Choice,” New York Review of Books, November 8, 2018, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/how-republicans-became-anti-choice/, accessed March 13, 2019.
20 John D. Rockefeller III, quoted in Gary Allen, The Rockefeller File (Seal Beach, California: ’76 Press, 1976), p. 135.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., p. 136.
24 “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),” Justia, U.S. Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/, accessed March 13, 2019.
25 Ibid.
26 “Roe v. Wade (1973),” THE SUPREME COURT, Thirteen/WNET New York, 2007, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/print/landmark_roe.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
27 William Robert Johnston, “United States Abortion Rates (1960–2013)” http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
28 “Abortion Statistics,” American Life League, https://www.all.org/learn/abortion/abortion-statistics/, accessed March 13, 2019.
29 Katie Anderson, “United Methodist Church New Belief: ‘We Support Legal Access to Abortion,’” Human Defense, August 30, 2018, https://humandefense.com/united-methodist-church-proposes-new-belief-we-support-legal-access-to-abortion/, accessed March 13, 2019.
30 Ernest L. Ohlhoff, “Abortion: Where Do the Churches Stand?’” Pregnant Pause, September 2000, http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur.htm, accessed March 13, 2019.
31 “Abortion/Reproductive Choice Issues,” Presbyterian Church U.S.A./Presbyterian Mission, February 23, 2016, https://www.presbyterianmission.org/blog/2016/02/23/abortion-issues-2/, accessed March 13, 2019.
32 Roger Price, “The Curious Consensus of Jews on Abortion,” Judaism and Science, January 10, 2013, https://www.judaismandscience.com/the-curious-consensus-of-jews-on-abortion/, accessed March 13, 2019.
33 Weston Williams, “Has Pope Francis Softened the Catholic Stance on Abortion?” Christian Science Monitor, November 21, 2016, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2016/1121/Has-Pope-Francis-softened-the-Catholic-stance-on-abortion, accessed March 13, 2019.
34 “Cuomo, Hillary Clinton Push to Expand Late-Term Abortion in New York with State Legislature,” Texas Right to Life, January 17, 2019, https://www.texasrighttolife.com/cuomo-hillary-clinton-push-to-expand-late-term-abortion-in-new-york-with-state-legislature/, accessed March 13, 2019.
35 Ibid.
36 Melissa Barnhart, “7 States Already Allow Abortion up to Birth—Not Just New York,” Christian Post, January 30, 2019, https://www.christianpost.com/news/7-states-already-allow-abortion-upto-birth-not-just-new-york.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
37 “The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death—2019 Edition,” Family Research Council, https://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-real-planned-parenthood-leading-the-culture-of-death-2015-edition, accessed March 13, 2019.
38 Matt Hamilton, “Two Anti-Abortion Activists behind Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Charged with 15 Felonies,” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2017, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-planned-parenthood-charges-activists-20170328-story.html, accessed March 13, 2019.
39 Steven Ertelt, “New Documents Prove Planned Parenthood Illegally Profited from Selling Aborted Baby Parts,” Lifenews.com, April 20, 2016, https://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/20/new-documents-prove-planned-parenthood-illegally-profited-from-selling-aborted-baby-parts/, accessed March 13, 2019.
40 Ibid.
41 Jeremy Breningstall, Elizabeth D. Herman, and Paige St. John, “How Anti-Abortion Activists Used Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos to Further a Political Cause,” Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2016, http://graphics.latimes.com/planned-parenthood-videos/, accessed March 13, 2019.
42 Dorothy Cummings McLean, “Appalling New Video Shows Planned Parenthood Gave Patient Info to Baby Parts Harvesters,” Life Site, November 1, 2017, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-video-planned-parenthood-gave-out-patient-info-to-baby-parts-harvesters, accessed March 13, 2019.
43 Ibid.
44 “StemExpress Whistleblower Says Company Paid Bonuses for Organs That Were in ‘Really High Demand,’” TheBlaze, November 14, 2017, https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/1/stemexpress-whistleblower-says-company-paid-bonuses-for-organs-that-were-in-really-high-demand, accessed March 13, 2019.
45 Breningstall, Herman, and St. John, “How Anti-Abortion Activists Used Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos to Further a Political Cause.”