The conservative minded have been claiming for decades that sex education essentially markets sexual activity to the students in the classroom. The argument is that when children are taught ‘how to’ in a manner they’re told is ‘safe’ it encourages the behavior. Pro-abortion choice advocates and activists have at the same time claimed more education reduces unwanted pregnancies and thus abortion — as if they’re concerned with that. Well, a former abortion clinic owner, yes owner, admits that, yes, sex education is part of the plan to increase the demand for abortion.
(Life Site News) — “How do you sell an abortion? In the US it’s very simple: You do it through sex education,” former abortion clinic owner Carol Everett told participants at the Rose Dinner following the National March for Life on Thursday in Ottawa.
Everett, who ran a chain of four abortion clinics in Texas from 1977-1983 — where an estimated 35,000 unborn children were aborted before her dramatic conversion and departure from the industry — told about 430 participants at the dinner that she had a goal of becoming a millionaire by selling abortions to teenage girls.
“We had a goal of 3-5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18, because we all work on a straight commission inside the abortion industry,” she said. With every customer, Everett became a little richer.
But in order to reach her financial goal, Everett said she first had to create a “market for abortions.” That meant convincing young people from the earliest age possible to see sexuality in an entirely different way than previous generations.
“We started in kindergarten. In kindergarten you put the children in a circle and you go around the room and you ask them all the same question: ‘What do your parents call your private parts?’”
“You know and I know that every family in this room has a different name for the private parts. So by the time you reach the third or fourth child it is clear to those children that parents simply do not know what they have. But we did. We said: ‘Boys this is what you have and girls this is what you have and don’t be ashamed of your private parts.’”
Everett explained how sex education at the earliest ages aimed at eroding in the children what she called “natural modesty.” Everything was calculated to “separate the children from their values and their parents.”
By third grade, children were shown explicit ‘how to’ diagrams of intercourse. By fourth grade, children were encouraged to masturbate, either alone or in groups of the same sex.
It was during the fifth and sixth grade that Everett herself supplied the missing link between sex-ed and abortion.
“My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on. How do you do that? You give them a low dose birth control pill that, in order to provide any level of protection, has to be taken accurately at the same time every single day. And you know and I know, there’s not a teen in the world who does everything the same time every day.”
Everett said that a girl on the pill who thought she was ‘safe’ typically had sex more frequently than those not on the pill.
“That pill did not work, and we could accomplish our goal of 3-5 abortions between the ages of 13 and 18,” she said.
Everett said that if the sex-education was done correctly, then when the girl becomes pregnant, she believes she has only one real choice.
This is coming from someone in the industry. In fact, it seems to be the most common kind of admission form former abortion clinic employees and administrators who have a pro-life conversion. I would have a difficult time believing they’re all just fabricating the same lie against the abortion industry, especially given the nefarious practices caught on camera at Planned Parenthoods across the country.
It makes sense. Teach kids how to have sex. Teach them that it can be done safely and without the punishment of a baby. Teach them there is a way to choose to get out of that punishment.
Sifting Reality 
Get ’em when they’re young. Not a new tactic for the left. Separating them from their parents is classic leftist strategy for indoctrinating them in alternative points of view. What better place than in the schools where they become captive audiences.
John,
I don’t know about others, but I was never encouraged to masturbate either alone or as part of a group activity. There were no “jerkin’ circles” taught to us, and my very first experience with sex ed was in the 8th grade. It didn’t teach any of that. So, is she talking about something that actually took place, or a plan she and her anti-life buddies cooked up?
T
It’s a more recent curriculum. Probably within the last 5-10 years. I went through it in 8th grade too, but I’ve been seeing news stories of outraged parents complaining about these very things.
John,
I hadn’t heard it included group masturbation or that masturbation was ever encouraged.
The story says…
told about 430 participants at the dinner that she had a goal of becoming a millionaire by selling abortions to teenage girls.
My understanding is that this lady, who claims SHE was greedy enough to do anything – including some awful things – to get rich, is now on the book-sellilng, pro-life speech market making her money that way. Now, she is continuing to have money pour in by telling pro-lifers that her sort of greed and evil was/is common to other health care/abortion providers.
And maybe so, but just a thought: IF she was greedy enough to do what she claims she did, is she also greedy enough to make up fake stories to then “sell” to pro-lifer organizations? That is, how do you know – as a self-confessed liar and unscrupulous person – she’s being honest now?
I know nothing about her, but sometimes, when some one has some pretty hard-to-believe claims that they’re making without any evidence other than “It’s what I would do…” sometimes, you have to question the source.
Outside of her testimony to her willingness to do degrading, despicable things like lie and cheat and cause harm for profit, is there any evidence that this sort of behavior is normative in her field? Or maybe, it was just her?
Just a question worth considering.
For what it’s worth, I agree that her self-confessed behavior and greed is despicable and ugly.
~Dan
Dan
So your response is that she’s probably lying.
She admits she was in it for the money. She outlines her plans to get as many girls in for abortions as possible. She isn’t pointing fingers at anyone but herself and the industry.
I’m not surprised that you come to the defense of abortion providers, by the way.
John,
I actually had the same thought as Dan. I am not saying she’s lying, but I do think her story should be taken with a grain of salt. She is an admitted liar and money-whore. She may have changed, but who really knows what’s in a person’s heart? Not us.
John, if I’d wanted to say, “She’s probably lying,” I could and would have said that. I did not mean that, did not say that. I said that you have to take into account that she is a self-professed liar who will say and do anything to make money, according to her.
I have ZERO idea if she’s lying this time.
John…
She isn’t pointing fingers at anyone but herself and the industry.
And, as far as her pointing fingers at HERSELF, I have no problem with that. Confession is good for the soul. But, as you acknowledge, she didn’t stop there. She’s pointing fingers at other people, accusing people of horrible crimes with evil motives, and she’s doing so without any evidence.
Those are powerful charges and, if she can back them up, very condemning. But, if she can’t back them up, they’re just empty and horrible slander and unsupported gossip.
John…
I’m not surprised that you come to the defense of abortion providers
Factually speaking, I have not offered a single word of defense for health agencies that provide abortion services. Nor have I condemned them. Nor have I condemned this woman.
I just point out that she’s made serious charges against other people and done so while making a profit and enjoying her own sort of celebrity and done so with no evidence to back up the claims. If she can’t back the charges up, that is at best, ugly gossip and at worst criminal slander.
If she can support the charges, she should. If she can’t, she should stick to confessing for herself.
That’s what I’m saying. Just to clarify, because you clearly did not understand my words.
~Dan
Look, I agree that your skepticism is warranted. But I don’t need this woman to tell me that many in the abortion industry are pure evil, and Cecile Richards tops the list in my mind.
I don’t personally know many (if any) who help provide abortions, nor do I know of many substantiated stories of evil, so I’m not in a position to say that they are evil. What this woman did, if true, was clearly wrong, I’ll say that.
I don’t know Cecile Richards.
I would say that there are people everywhere who make bad decisions – in churches, in hospitals, on police forces, in military forces and, I’m sure, in offices where they provide abortions. I know of no evidence to suggest that those who help with abortions are specifically and especially evil, as compared to the average Dan or Terrance.
~Dan
I don’t know about Dan, but I’m guessing Terrance doesn’t take part in helping with abortions. So, as regards that particular issue, Terrance isn’t evil. Taking innocent lives for money, which is what your abortion provider does, is indeed evil, especially given the specific lives taken in a typical abortion.
I’d suggest that when abortion providers cover up things like statutory rape and child prostitution that probably would constitute evil. But the videos of those exact things happening just isn’t convincing enough for Dan.
Yes, Craig. I stand FULLY in support of cover ups of rape and child prostitution.
That’s believable.
And you wonder why people have a hard time taking you seriously. When you make comments like this, you just undermine yourselves.
~Dan
He asks because planned parenthood is notorious for covering up underage sex and incest.
So Dan, a little sarcasm just went right over your head. The fact is that the reports of hiding sexual abuse and statutory rape are plentiful, not to mention the Gosnell thing, yet your side takes their money, fights against holding these facilities to the same standards as other medical facilities, while you personally mouth the lame partisan talking points and equivocate.
Dan,
Abortion itself, if elective, is evil. It’s an objective truth. And you don’t know Cecile Richards? Um, the head of Planned Parenthood, daughter of former Texas Gub’ner Ann “Big Head” Richards?
I’m not really all that into the abortion issue, other than I think it’s not gov’t’s business what medical procedures people have or saying what end of life decisions families decide to make.
So if you want to shoot your son dead, that’s none of the government’s business?
And your claim that elective abortion is evil is an objective truth is, itself, a subjective opinion. One I used to hold, myself, so that’s how I know it’s subjective.
Dan
So murder is subjective now?
Shooting someone is not a medical decision. Abortion is not murder. Murder has a legal definition.
By using that approach, we could say, “So bombing someone in wartime is murder, which is illegal, right?” but you would reject that claim because murder has a definition.
~Dan
Dan
You only want to use technical definitions when it suits you. Water boarding was not torture when it was implemented by definition, so then when we water boarded terrorists under the Bush admin, they weren’t being tortured, correct?
“Shooting someone is not a medical decision. Abortion is not murder. Murder has a legal definition.”
You’re hiding behind legalities here. When we say abortion is murder, we are referring to the fact that the vast majority are for reasons not having to do with self-defense. We are keeping in mind the fact that the unborn are human beings endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. We are keeping in mind that when two people engage in the very act designed to invite new life into existence, that new life is equal to the two people who invited it into existence. There are medical reasons for abortion that are legitimate. 99% of abortions do not meet the standard of having “legitimate” reasons. Thus, they are by definition, murders. They are unjustified terminations of human life. Pregnancy is not a disease and the unborn are not tumors.
For every reason given for abortion that does not include the life of the mother being threatened by carrying the pregnancy to term, the same reasons justify the taking of one’s two year old by the logic of the abortion defender, including those who regard all abortions as merely a “medical procedure”.
“By using that approach, we could say, “So bombing someone in wartime is murder, which is illegal, right?” but you would reject that claim because murder has a definition.”
Depends on who’s doing the bombing, Dan, and why. Honorable people know that killing in wartime is not murder. Honorable people know that sometimes in war, non-combatants lose their lives. Also not murder. But targeting non-combatants specifically is murder. Though you like to pretend that’s a common practice of the American military, honorable people know that’s rubbish.
Honorable people also focus on the topic at hand and they don’t try to make irrational parallels to alter the positions of opponents.
“I’m not really all that into the abortion issue, other than I think it’s not gov’t’s business what medical procedures people have or saying what end of life decisions families decide to make.”
“And your claim that elective abortion is evil is an objective truth is, itself, a subjective opinion. One I used to hold, myself, so that’s how I know it’s subjective.”
“Shooting someone is not a medical decision. Abortion is not murder. Murder has a legal definition.”
Wow.
Dan, aside from having a legal definition, does murder have a moral definition?
I also find it suspect that you claim to be a pacifist because killing is immoral regardless of any legal definitions, yet you don’t condemn abortion because it’s a personal medical decision even though it kills a human being.
John…
aside from having a legal definition, does murder have a moral definition?
Probably not one we can agree upon. From a moral point of view, I don’t think, for instance, suicide counts as murder, I think it is its own separate thing, just as many conservatives think bombing children in wartime is its own separate thing.
From a moral point of view, I would define murder is the unjustified taking of another’s life. Or maybe that IS a definition we could agree upon, we’d just disagree upon what constitutes “justified” and not.
~Dan
And for you a mother not wanting to be a mother is a justified reason, but not committing atrocities against people. Yep, perfectly consistent.
“Probably not one we can agree upon.”
Not so hard unless one is trying to support the legality of abortion. For example, the targeting bombing of children is murder. The collateral deaths of children in wartime due to bombings is not, unless the bomber is the aggressor and not the defender. Another way of looking at it is if there is a shoot-out between a criminal and a cop. If the cop accidentally hits a bystander, it is an accidental homicide. If the criminal accidentally hits a bystander, it is a criminal act. In both cases, the bystander died as a result of criminal activity. The cop isn’t held responsible or liable, but the criminal is.
See Dan? Not so hard. But then, acknowledging the ease with which honorable people can distinguish between accidental, intentional, justified or unjustified makes things harder for one who believes he has no say in whether or not our laws should allow abortion and for what reasons.
Dan,
How many times must it be explained to you? Elective abortion is no more of a medical procedure than slipping on a condom. It is a form of birth control. It is an act akin to murder, and where I come from, murder is murder whether legally defined as such or not. It doesn’t matter if it takes place in a hospital, clinic, or dark alley. It doesn’t matter if the weapon of choice is a scalpel, a pair of scissors, a gun, a suction tube, or a chemical concoction. It doesn’t matter if the killer is wearing a pair of jeans, or a white coat and scrubs. Murder is murder, and abortion is an act akin to murder.