When an organization makes billions of dollars killing babies in the womb, it is clearly a bloodthirsty organization. And when a disproportionate number of those babies are black and Hispanic, it is clearly a racist organization.

All this is self-evident when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but recent events – the firing of Planned Parenthood’s president and a blatantly racist tweet – underscore just how deeply Planned Parenthood is a bloodthirsty and racist organization.

First there was the unexpected firing of president Leana Wen.

Her primarily failing, it appears, was that she did not have the cold-blooded killer instinct necessary to make abortion the priority of Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps it was her training as a medical doctor.

Perhaps it was a trace of the image of God that still pervaded her humanity, as much as she was still an abortion advocate.

Whatever the underlying causes may be, the broad strokes are clear. As noted by Alexandra Desanctis on National Review, “The organization has ousted its president, apparently for being insufficiently committed to pro-abortion advocacy.”

Indeed, “Planned Parenthood has long sought to downplay its commitment to abortion, calling itself a health-care organization and spreading the lie that abortion is only 3 percent of its business, even as its clinics perform between one-third and half of all abortions in the U.S. annually. The group’s leadership evidently believes this political moment demands more aggressive advocacy.

“And Wen wasn’t up to the task.”

More bluntly, cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg put it like this: “What they are saying is this: ‘You are not blood-thirsty enough! You are not meeting your quotas! More babies MUST DIE!’ That is the mindset of PP. They are after blood – and money. That is their core business. That is why they exist.”

And he suggested that Planned Parenthood should run an ad that sounded something like this: “Wanted, an experienced baby killer who has no qualms about taking human life, nor about selling body parts of babies to others for profit. It is preferred that you resonate with past such ministries, such as the Nazi extermination camps. Having no heart and no conscience is also essential. Those who think that the vulnerable and defenceless should be our priority need not apply.”

Do you think he was exaggerating? I do not.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood’s racism, there is a spirited debate concerning the connection between Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, and eugenics. Sanger’s conservative critics are sure that she wanted to reduce the number of black Americans (among other races and ethnicities), if not exterminate them entirely. Her defenders deny this passionately, also claiming that her interest in eugenics was not racial.

Yet even the left-leaning Time Magazine admitted in 2016 that Sanger did “make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, ‘the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.’” (Time also cited her defenders who claimed that she “uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles.”)

And the very left-leaning Snopes.com, in an article devoted to debunking a quote attributed to Sanger, uncovered this hardly flattering quote from a 1923 New York Times article. She wrote: “Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” (Snopes’ emphasis.)

To my liberal, pro-abortion friends: Are you sure you want to defend Sanger against charges of racism?

But let’s not worry about 1923. Let’s look at the present, as in July 19, 2019, when Planned Parenthood tweeted,

’Black women are sexy and sexual entities, independent of anyone else’s ideas of what that means.’ For #SummerOfSex, our partnership with @WearYourVoice, @GloriaAlamrew talks about creating space for Black girls to understand their sexuality.

In one short tweet, Planned Parenthood’s motives are revealed for the world to see.

Bound4Life, a pro-life organization, noted that, “Black non-Hispanic women have the highest abortion ratio. Black women’s abortion ratio has reached 444 abortions per 1,000 live births, while non-Hispanic white women’s abortion ratio is 124 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

Apparently, however, this is not enough. More black women need to have sex. More black women need to have unwanted pregnancies. More black women need to have abortions.

This, to me, is all part of the “Jezebelic” attack on our nation. It is an attack we must resist with prayer, with truth, and with compassion. May Planned Parenthood be exposed.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

Anyone who missed our introductory article in this series click here. The full series is found here.

What the heck is hebephilia? At times it can be difficult to keep over 500 paraphilias straight, since so many of them run together. Heaven forbid that we confuse any of this — the spelling and/or the age brackets.

A recent post at BarbWire included this line:

Pedophilia…also spelled paedophilia; often confused with hebephilia, ephebophilia, and pederasty.

The efforts to break down common sense moral barriers is being chronicled on this website, and in an article published at BarbWire, “Promoting Pedophilia,” contributor Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Andrew Gilligan has written an important piece looking very closely at the attempt to make paedophilia fully normal and acceptable. He begins:

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Was this statement from some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties era of abusive celebrities or the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Was it made by an anonymous commenter on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made last July. It was made as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organizers, to key experts at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Muehlenberg also notes this:

Says Gilligan, “After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated.”

That sure sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Let’s get to our paraphilias for today — today we’re lopping a few together for the sake of time.

These definitions are from our old friends at Wikipedia*:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents who are 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19), and differs from pedophilia,which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria).

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys.

Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) “love of boys”, a compound derived from παῖς (pais) “child, boy” and ἐραστής (erastēs) “lover”.

It’s who they are, right? It’s about love, isn’t it?

That’s enough for today. As promised, click here to read through our important list of questions. Just fill in the blanks with today’s paraphilias and put on your thinking cap.

In the meantime, join us next when we’ll take a look at another paraphilia. If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

* Author’s note: The above definitions are now 3 years old — if you’d like to compare the 2013 versions with the 2017, I encourage you to do so. Wikipedia, with its Leftist bent, is always trying to refine and lessen the ridiculousness of all of the paraphilia’s definitions.

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

It is worth restating my premise for these articles: The letters “LGBT” don’t really end with the letter “T,” and all the letters that follow deserve an equal footing with the first four. Thus, expect increasing irrationality and craziness from the radical political leftists in the months and years ahead.

Many fiscal conservatives consider themselves “enlightened” and thus look down on anyone concerned about those pesky and backward “social issues.” They can consider this another wake up call. The breakdown of the family and an increasingly divided society resulting from identity politics means your efforts to restore limited government (even a little bit) are doomed to fail.

You can’t tear up the social fabric and expect a lean government. You can’t have one kind of society and another kind of government. Here’s more bad news: you cannot separate the economic issues from the social issues.

Last November Daniel Payne posted a piece at The Federalist titled, “Why Liberals’ Coming Fight Over Identity Politics Will Be Ugly.” Here was the introductory sentence: “The more practical wing of the Democratic Party and the more manic, single-minded constituency largely comprised of young liberals are in for a giant fight.”

Payne writes:

The tried-and-true formula of liberal success served reasonably well throughout the young twenty-first century and quite well throughout much of the second half of the twentieth. Yet this boiling stew of identity politics centering on race, sex, and sexual orientation failed the Democrats at precisely the moment it should have been their Excalibur.

“There is good reason for the Left to consider an alternative way to do politics,” Payne writes, and suggests that the Leftists discard “identity politics for something better.”

And what might that be? A package of policy proposals guaranteed to work? Like $20 trillion in federal debt? A war on poverty that hasn’t worked? Obamacare and other entitlement programs that are not structured properly? A K-12 and higher education system that is both inefficient and ineffective?

Payne defines identity politics just as I do in this series:

This will be a problem for Democrats looking to soften the party’s approach to identity issues. On questions of “identity,” or what is often broadly termed “social issues,” younger voters are far more liberal than their older counterparts.

Payne continues:

Consider, for instance, the millennial position on LGBT rights. Data suggest that overwhelming majorities of young voters favor “LGBT nondiscrimination protections,” while nearly three-quarters of Millennials favor re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples. Half of the same demographic believes “gender isn’t limited to male and female.”

Yep. The same kids that think Bernie Sanders was onto something are also confused about biology. That’s fixable. It calls for conservatives of all stripes to start fighting and winning the information war. Learning is a lifetime activity and the Millennial generation will require more continuing education than most.

You can read the rest of Daniel Payne’s article here. He touches on other areas of Leftist and Millennial generation ignorance.

Now to our paraphilia of the day: Bestiality/Zoophilia. Sorry, but it is a paraphilia. Are the Millennials ready to embrace this or are they backward bigots? Here’s Wikipedia‘s opening note:

For other uses, see Zoophilia (disambiguation).

“Bestiality” redirects here. For other uses, see Bestiality (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Zoophily.

Certainly none of us want to confuse it with Zoophily.

Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality is cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals. The terms are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, in most countries, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

One reader brought a 2012 article to my attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — call it intolerance on my part if you’d like.

The following passage is from the book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality by Bill Muehlenberg:

The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with three per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it: “What’s wrong with a little bestiality?”

Enough said.

To our basic and important question of the day: Should a person who is morally opposed to Bestiality/Zoophilia behavior be allowed to have a show on HGTV?

Up next: Normalizing Deviance & Sadomasochism.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

The performance was stunning, as New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard absolutely smoked the competition, beating her nearest competitor, a Samoan woman, by nearly 20 kilograms. The only problem is that Laurel is a biological male, born Gavin, which is why a number of the competitors felt the competition was unfair.

But of course it’s unfair. Hubbard is a male, not a female, and even after months of hormone treatments, he still has unfair advantages over the other women, who sacrificed for years to make it to this elite level, only to lose to a man. How is that right?

As one woman tweeted in response to this news, “Imagine training for this your whole life, as a woman, only to have a known leader in men’s weightlifting take your title.”

When “Equality” Isn’t Fair

Gavin Hubbard had “previously competed at a national level in men’s weightlifting,” making it all the more absurd that he would now be competing against women, which is why his presence was “met with criticism from Australian competitors who believe a transgender athlete in the female weightlifting category was not an equal playing field.”

Not an equal playing field indeed — no more than it was an equal playing field when a female high school wrestler taking testosterone defeated all the other girls she wrestled against (she’s on hormone treatments as part of her “transitioning” to male) and no more than it was an equal playing field when a male-to-female mixed martial artist manhandled (literally) her female opponents.

After the wrestling competition, Patti Overstreet, the mother of another wrestler, said, “She’s standing there holding her head high like she’s the winner. She’s not winning. She’s cheating. It’s not equal. It’s never going to be equal.”

In response to this, cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg wrote, “Nope, it sure ain’t equality, and it sure never will be. Trying to treat unequal things equally will always result in blatant, appalling inequality. And in the case of sports, it will result in more women being taken to hospital — if not the morgue.”

When it comes to the weightlifting competition, one of the other lifters said, “We all deserve to be on an even playing field. It’s difficult when you believe that you’re not. If it’s not even, why are we doing the sport?”

Exactly? Why compete at all? Why have men compete against men and women compete against women? Why have weight classes? Why not just throw everyone into the same competition and have the world’s strongest (or fastest) human — of either sex, in any weight class, at any distance, in any event? Why not blur all distinctions, if a man can now compete side by side with women?

Ridiculously, Phil Gifford, described as a prominent sports writer, said “Hubbard had every right to compete with the women after passing ‘straightforward’ hormone regulations.”

Specifically, he argued, “It’s testosterone levels which is a much more scientific way of measuring male gender, female gender than anything else that is currently known. And Lauren has passed all of those tests over the last 12 months.”

So, then, a man who had lowered testosterone levels but all the other physical advantages a male would have over other women should be allowed to compete with the ladies? Just a glance at the pictures in the news report, in which Hubbard dwarfs his competitors, would tell you that something is not fair here.

When the World Revolves Around Revolving Genders

But no, the whole world must revolve around the perceptions of those who identify as transgender, regardless of how it hurts others, regardless of how it inconveniences others, regardless of what new inequities it causes. As one trans activist asked me after a lengthy twitter interaction, “So where are we supposed to go to the bathroom?” — meaning that the social issue that mattered was the convenience of trans individuals. Any consideration of the needs of others was immaterial.

Not surprisingly, David Mills recently shared this report from a distressed mother who encountered a man in the ladies’ room at Disneyland: “He wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug … untouchable … doing absolutely nothing.”

As described by Kristin Quintrail, this man “did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles and vagina clear as day.”

As Mills explains, “The man, apparently a fairly large man, wasn’t a man ‘transitioning’ to try to be a woman. The ‘very progressive’ Quintrail would have been fine with that. He was a predator. His way of being a predator was to transgress a boundary — the women’s room door — so that he could intimidate women and their children.”

So, this was apparently a heterosexual predator, not a transgender male-to-female, yet none of the women had the courage to ask him to leave, fearing if they did “he might respond by claiming to identify as a woman.”

As some of us have warned for some time now, and as an increasing number of cases confirms as a real danger, when the law says that you can use the bathroom of your perceived gender, that opens the door to abuses such as this. After all, if the only criterion is who I perceive myself to be, who can argue with it?

Quintrail rightly exclaimed at the end of her blog article, “Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison. … I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when there’s but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children’s genitals.”

And the science needs to be better than the “science” being used in Olympic sports worldwide, which allowed for the totally unfair results in the recent, aforementioned weightlifting competition.

Time to Say “Enough”

Speaking of unfair, Neil Munro reported last week that, “Two women were kicked out of a homeless shelter to make room for a man because he said he is a transgender woman, according to a Canadian news report.

“The women objected when they were told they would have to share a bedroom and live in the shelter with the man, and so ‘both were asked to leave the shelter for good,’ said the TV reporter.”

One of the women, named Tracey, said, “I was uncomfortable with my roommate being transgender. He wants to become a woman, I mean that is his choice but when a man comes into a women’s shelter who still has a penis and genitals, he has more rights than we do.”

And that says it all: This man who identifies as a woman has more rights than the other women, and they have to leave to make room for him.

Can you join me in saying “Enough!”

Let’s continue to look for ways to help those struggling with gender identity confusion while protecting the rights of the rest of society. If enough of us raise our voices, positive change will come.

This article was originally posted at The Stream.

Of these two, which headline about the same “study” do you guess was seen by more people?:

1. Children with same-sex parents happier and healthier than those from traditional families, study shows

2. Is Same-Sex Parenting Better for Kids? The New Australian Study Can’t Tell Us

BarbWire, the conservative news website, is posting an excerpt from #2, which is an article by Mark Regnerus published at the Public Discourse website. But the liberal press went gaga over this junk science news item and headlines like #1 were a lot easier to find. BarbWire contributor Bill Muehlenberg, who lives in Australia, also addresses this controversy on BarbWire today.

If too many Americans remain low information voters it’s not for a lack of good information — the problem is one or reach. Those of us who know how the political left and the liberal media lie must continue to reach more of our fellow citizens with the truth. We must fight harder in the information war.

On this topic of same-sex parenting, by the way, on the web page where the #2 article is posted are found these important articles — they’re all well worth your time and need wide dissemination:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim
By Ana Samuel

Mark Regnerus and the Storm over the New Family Structures Study
By Matthew J. Franck

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus
By Matthew J. Franck

A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
By Mark Regnerus

Here are two more articles at the Public Discourse website written by BarbWire contributor Robert Oscar Lopez:

Same-Sex Parenting: Child Abuse?
Single-parenting and divorce have always been understood as a breakdown of the married mom and dad ideal, but the demand to view same-sex parenting as “normal” imposes a silence on children about the wound caused by the loss of one parent or the other.

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

It’s the same on every single issue — conservatives have plenty of ammo — they need only use it more effectively.