Does MSNBC just work for Planned Parenthood now? That’s what any objective viewer would think if they watched anchor Ayman Mohyeldin’s Monday interview with the abortion mill’s CEO Alexis McGill Johnson. Not only did the segment promote the 2020 campaign agenda of the eugenicist organization, it worried the Supreme Court wasn’t reliable enough in providing legal victories to the pro-abortion group.
In the midst of celebrating the high court overturning abortion regulations in Louisiana, Mohyeldin eagerly brought on Johnson and asked: “How big of a ruling is it for your organization and other advocates this morning?” Johnson was thrilled that her barbaric organization could continue the mass murder of unborn children unabated: “Well, look, today, we are breathing a sigh of relief, quite frankly. Abortion access is protected in Louisiana, for now.”
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
It’s important to remember that Planned Parenthood was founded on the horrific principles of racism and eugenics in the early 20th Century, values preached by its repugnant founder, Margaret Sander. Read below to get the facts about the roots of this extreme organization:
Planned Parenthood – Founded on Racism and Eugenics
As much as the liberal media work with Planned Parenthood to promote abortion across the United States, there are several abhorrent facts about the organization that reporters don’t want the public to know. The Media Research Center is committed to telling the truth about the left, unlike the compliant press that push its extreme views.
– Planned Parenthood was founded by enthusiastic eugenicist Margaret Sanger in 1916. Sanger’s racist views were well-established, declaring that “minorities (including most of America’s immigrants) are inferior in the human race, as are the physically and mentally handicapped.”
– In a speech to the New History Society in 1932, Sanger called for “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”
– In a article for American Weekly in 1934, Sanger proposed an “American Baby Code…to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”
Later in that same article, she demanded: “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.”
– During a 1957 interview with journalist Mike Wallace, Sanger claimed the “greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being, practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when they’re born.”
– Despite Sanger’s repugnant views, Planned Parenthood still refers to their founder as “a woman of heroic accomplishments.” They only gently discuss her “complex and imperfect” legacy.
– Repeated investigations by The Center for Medical Progress have found that Planned Parenthood has trafficked in aborted baby body parts for money.
– In a June 18, 2020 open letter to Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, past and current employees accused the organization of being “steeped in white supremacy.”
– Despite all of these facts, the media routinely advocate on behalf of an organization that was founded upon the principle of exterminating “inferior” and “unfit” children from minority communities.
Continuing his friendly chat with Johnson, Mohyeldin actually fretted that the Supreme Court wasn’t doing enough to aide Planned Parenthood in its effort to kill unborn babies: “You know, what do you hope this means, though, for the future of Roe vs. Wade and reproductive rights in this country?…the legal decision for this decision may not necessarily give reproductive rights advocates a lot of confidence about this court going forward.”
Johnson warned:
Yeah. I mean, look, and as I said, we are in the process of planning because we believe that, in essence, we will need to stay vigilant, given the makeup of the court. That this case, while it respects precedent in this case, may not – may not create future opportunities for us to see Roe stand in other cases….This is a victory for today, but not – certainly we can’t stop the fight.
Mohyeldin then urged Planned Parenthood to exploit the issue to help Democrats in the 2020 election:
As you outlined, this obviously puts the spotlight on the elections in November and what’s at stake in terms of Supreme Court nominees and justices. What type of urgency does this add to the issue and to the question of reproductive and abortion rights for the election? Should it become front and center in the debate of 2020?
Completely ignoring the racist foundation of her own group, Johnson argued:
Obviously these elections need to be energizing. A multitude of issues, they intersect. Reproductive rights, racial justice, immigrant justice, all of these issues are coming together in a really critical way. And so, you know, using our voice at this time is going to be more important than ever.
Completely censored from the discussion was any mention of pro-life reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. In a statement release Monday, Susan B. Anthony List declared its “bitter disappointment” with the decision and how “Today’s ruling reinforces just how important Supreme Court judges are to advancing the pro-life cause.”
The pro-abortion segment was brought to viewers by Advance Auto Parts (company info is linked, let them know what you think of them sponsoring this content).
Here is a full transcript of the June 29 segment:
11:05 AM ET
AYMAN MOHYELDIN: Let me bring in Alexis McGill Johnson, she is the president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Alexis, thank you so much for joining us this hour. How big of a ruling is it for your organization and other advocates this morning?
ALEXIS MCGILL JOHNSON: Well, look, today, we are breathing a sigh of relief, quite frankly. Abortion access is protected in Louisiana, for now. And it is clear that the Supreme Court did send a message, a very clear message to politicians across the country, to stop trying to take away access to safe and legal abortion. I think that the case for many of my partners out there, Center for Reproductive Rights, who beautifully argued this case – I mean, quite frankly, it was so poetic to watch Julie Rikelman in the chambers – you know, have to all be celebrating right now because respect of precedent is a major deal. The fact that Roberts was willing to respect precedent in this case is significant.
MOHYELDIN: How – I think people might be watching this and wondering, how does this decision help women seeking abortions in states other than Louisiana?
JOHNSON: Well, the concern was if they tried to let the law stand, that state legislatures across the country would understand that this was one of the ways in which they might proactively push their agenda, restricting access to abortion. So what we anticipated was to see similar bans, knowing that the Supreme Court had okayed it, to ripple across the country. And so, it is critically important for us now that we actually have this reprieve, but also know that there are still many other cases winding their way up through an increasingly conservative court. Senator McConnell and the Trump administration just confirmed their 200th conservative judge over the weekend. And they continue to be very actively anti-abortion. And so we know that’s what we’re worried about and we’ll continue to be fighting for.
MOHYELDIN: Yeah, and so let me ask about that specifically. You know, what do you hope this means, though, for the future of Roe vs. Wade and reproductive rights in this country? Because as we are hearing there from both Pete Williams and Melissa, the legal decision for this decision may not necessarily give reproductive rights advocates a lot of confidence about this court going forward.
JOHNSON: Yeah. I mean, look, and as I said, we are in the process of planning because we believe that, in essence, we will need to stay vigilant, given the makeup of the court. That this case, while it respects precedent in this case, may not – may not create future opportunities for us to see Roe stand in other cases. And so, you know, Roberts, I think, was clear. He was respecting the precedent of uphold women’s health. And yet, as other cases come to the fore, we will have to stay vigilant. This is a victory for today, but not – certainly we can’t stop the fight.
MOHYELDIN: As you outlined, this obviously puts the spotlight on the elections in November and what’s at stake in terms of Supreme Court nominees and justices. What type of urgency does this add to the issue and to the question of reproductive and abortion rights for the election? Should it become front and center in the debate of 2020?
JOHNSON: Absolutely. Look, I think that whoever is able to name the next Supreme Court justice, you know, has an opportunity to either create a more conservative court or create one that’s more in line with mainstream Americans. 77% of Americans believe Roe should be the law of the land, that is mainstream. There is no state in this country where people don’t respect Roe as a precedent and believe that the law should stand.
So, you know, it will matter. Obviously these elections need to be energizing. A multitude of issues, they intersect. Reproductive rights, racial justice, immigrant justice, all of these issues are coming together in a really critical way. And so, you know, using our voice at this time is going to be more important than ever.
MOHYELDIN: Alright, Alexis McGill Johnson, thank you so much for joining us this morning, I appreciate your insights.
JOHNSON: Thanks for having me.
LifeNews.com Note: Kyle Drennen is an MRC News Analyst and a graduate of Providence College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science. This was originally posted on the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters.
