In the 1950s, Planned Parenthood Called Abortion Killing

When Roe v. Wade passed, legalizing abortion in America, the procedure was supposed to be rare and used only in extreme cases. Today, many modern women view it as a form of birth control --- and there's no bigger enabler than Planned Parenthood. Twenty years before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion, Planned Parenthood had a much different message about abortion.

RELATED: Planned Parenthood Once Told the Truth About Abortion

A 1952 pamphlet from Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed the true nature of abortion.

"'Is abortion birth control?' Here's the answer from Planned Parenthood: 'Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation . . . it kills the life of a baby, after it has begun,'" Glenn read Wednesday on radio.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: The story on Planned Parenthood. Maybe I have it printed too. Story on Planned Parenthood is truly amazing because Planned Parenthood, they won't admit that their own children, after they're born, are children. Here it is. Here it is. I have it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay? So they won't admit that their own children are children.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Earlier this week, the Founder of President of Culture for Life in Africa uncovered a 1952 pamphlet from Planned Parenthood Federation of America that reveals the abortion provider hasn't always been so deceptive about the nature of abortion and the risks involved with terminating pregnancy. This is from the Resurgent.

In the pamphlet, the topic of birth control is discussed in a question-and-answer format. After defining birth control as a safe and simple way to plan for your children and to have them when you want them, the question is asked, "Is birth control -- is abortion birth control?"

Here's the answer from Planned Parenthood: Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. Quoting, it kills the life of a baby, after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So when you want children, you cannot have them. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. Abortion kills life.


PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Is that a problem for anyone? Now --

PAT: It doesn't even seem to be a problem for Planned Parenthood. And it's their pamphlet, showing the contradiction between they once thought and now.

GLENN: There is such a disconnect in what -- where we are headed.

For instance, look at the -- look at the uterine bag that is being developed by scientists to keep premature babies alive.

Well, once it's viable, one place it's viable, you're not supposed to be able to kill it. But as long as it's not viable -- well, we're going to get to the point where that egg, once fertilized -- and that egg even not fertilized can be fertilized in the lab and the baby grown from start to finish, most likely in a bag.

When we get there, is it life?

STU: Right. Because, I mean, science continually moves this line up. Roe vs. Wade tried to make a line of viability. And science has improved upon it already.

GLENN: Our Founders -- our Founders all wrote about abortion. There are many documents about abortion and how abortion is wrong and illegal and you go to jail after the quickening. Well, what's the quickening? The quickening is that moment when you know that there's life in you. You didn't necessarily know that there was life until the baby moved. As soon as the baby moves, that's when our Founders said, well, that's when you know it's a baby. So anybody that harms that baby in any way, that baby's life is protected from the moment of the quickening. Well, we know now a lot earlier. And we can save the baby a lot earlier.

We're now advocating for murder of children, according to their own -- their own pamphlet, it kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It kills the life of the baby after it has begun.

Now, tell me in 1956, they'll say, "Well, that was an old pamphlet." Have we discovered that that tissue is not a baby?

STU: No.

GLENN: Have we -- have we developed things that show that that -- that 15-week-old thing inside of you is not a baby? No, we found just the opposite.

PAT: We found the opposite, yeah.

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?