Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Airline travel is up, but National Center Senior Fellow Horace Cooper warns that state-sponsored luxury carriers are exploiting an unfair financial advantage that could end up raising ticket prices for rich and poor Americans alike.
In a commentary published by The Western Journal, Horace notes that the recession that began in 2007 dealt a devastating blow to American airlines:
As you might imagine, the recession was a double whammy — it had a deleterious effect on the bottom line of the airline industry and for consumers, it reinforced a negative impression of flying.
As losses mounted, the industry was forced to adopt tightening measures affecting space, amenities and routes. Consequently, passengers with their own tighter budgets were faced with new fees, higher costs and more crowded planes.
This led to a vicious cycle. As more airlines cut back, more Americans showed a reduced willingness to fly. The real cause of the trouble — the spike in oil prices and the poor economy that hit almost simultaneously — was overlooked.
While the average American was thinking twice about traveling by air, Horace explains that a new class of luxury fliers who enjoyed a “hedonistic level of creature comforts” such as full bars, full beds, gourmet meals and even showers was created. While some of these travelers could easily foot the bill for such extravagances, a more important factor that benefits many of these airlines – including Eithad, Qatar and Emirates – over their competition is that they are state-owned and thus state-subsidized.
“These Gulf State carriers,” Horace writes, “are able to poach the best customers while marginalizing their competition — market-based airlines that must sink or swim based on the market.”
Profit-seeking airlines offer a mix of economy, premium economy, business and first-class flights on their planes. They make it possible for students, families on a budget as well as business and wealthy tourists to travel. It isn’t practical for the market-based airlines to cater solely to the wealthy. While first-class international ticket prices carry a higher profit share, the airlines must also have economy class fliers to achieve profitability.
Qatar and Emirates offer flights for economy passengers, but the subsidies these airlines receive mean that they can offer flights and services without regard to profitability and in the process cater to their affluent passengers in ways that are a significant challenge for their competitors.
American carriers, as airlines for people of all incomes, have made it possible for all Americans – white collar and blue collar – to travel all over the globe.
As fuel prices have undergone wild gyrations, the Middle East nation-state carriers have lavishly catered to affluent flyers and in the process placed significant economic pressures on the privately run airlines, particularly those based in the U.S.
While other airlines raised concerns about this unfair situation as early as 2015, Horace notes it was the Trump Administration that finally took the issue seriously. Agreements were struck with foreign governments to increase financial transparency and end some subsidies.
But Qatar recently bought an Italian carrier that it is rebranding as Air Italy. It plans for this airline to fly transcontinental routes into the United States. Horace notes: “While Qatar Airways agreed to limit flights between the U.S. and the EU, nothing in the agreement contemplated that Qatar might go out, acquire a carrier and make Europe-U.S. flights part of its regular operations.”
Since Air Italy as a carrier isn’t bound specifically by the most recent Qatari agreement, this “Italian airline” with subsidies from Qatar could replicate the luxury model of the Gulf carriers. Alternatively, it could simply adopt a predatory pricing strategy that dramatically captures existing EU to U.S. market share. The latter is the approach presently being undertaken, but if left unchallenged it remains to be seen which model will be adopted.
“To be clear,” Horace points out, “Air Italy should agree to be bound by the Qatari airline agreement… [N]ow isn’t the time to allow the international market to head back to the anti-competitive subsidy policies of yesterday.”
To read all of Horace’s Western Journal commentary – “Flying Shouldn’t Just Be a Privilege of the Ultra-Rich” – click here.
Maybe the Republicans in Virginia should have hired the Washington Post to argue for them before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court just ruled against the Republican-controlled House of Delegates in the legislative redistricting case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. The justices ruled against the delegates’ contention that they had standing to sue against court-mandated changes to their original plan. That plan was challenged as being racially discriminatory, even though the Obama Justice Department and the state’s Legislative Black Caucus both supported the map.
This ruling was on standing rather than about race. The more political cases involving redistricting that are being argued during this term – Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek – have yet to be decided.
What’s interesting is that the Post, seemingly without realizing it, stated the plain truth that gerrymandering is just part of politics unless the system is completely overhauled. And that’s not what the winners in this case really want.
Virginia’s liberal executive branch didn’t want to defend the case any longer, and this ruling said that was alright. Governor Ralph Northam said that “voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
But the Post made a very succinct observation. The article explained in paragraph three:
Democrats have been hoping that a wave of successes in recent Virginia elections will move them into control of the legislature for the first time since 1995. The party in charge in 2021 will oversee the next statewide redistricting effort, following next year’s census — potentially cementing an advantage in future elections.
Republicans appear to be at a disadvantage in the next election under the court-drawn redistricting. If the Democrats take over, they will control redistricting – and will likely redistrict, the Post points out, to their political advantage. Possibly by using race.
So the cycle begins anew, but with the other party drawing the lines.
Back in 2014, Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof “destroyed liberal radio host over genetically modified foods.” That’s how the headline read on YouTube. But not even the headline is left anymore. YouTube pulled the Danhof video appearance down.
When conservatives gained prowess in talk radio, liberals tried to stop them by demanding “equal time.” As the Fox News Channel dominates cable, the left seeks to silence it by attacking its hosts, advertisers and guests. Now the left is actively trying to pull conservative content off of social media.
When it’s a fair debate, the left loses. So the solution these days appears to be to just shut down the opposition. Free speech for me, but not for thee.
In this case, liberal talk radio host Thom Hartmann petitioned YouTube – a subsidiary of Google – to remove the old interview he did with Justin from the National Center’s YouTube page. Hartmann posts his shows on YouTube. And, in that particular case, Justin was live in the studio with him. Hartmann apparently didn’t want to share the show when the results didn’t serve his purposes.
This is the blog post that went along with the now-removed YouTube video:
Watch as Justin Danhof, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, takes on and soundly defeats liberal talk radio host Thom Hartmann on the issue of labeling genetically modified foods.
Justin cited settled science and the obvious intent of the organic food industry lobby to demonize GM foods, while Hartmann said he thinks groups such as the American Medical Association that find no harm in genetically modified products are corrupt.
Justin recently attended the annual shareholder meeting of General Mills, where the Free Enterprise Project helped decisively defeat a shareholder proposal to mandate the removal of all genetically modified products from its inventory.
Posting the clip should not have been considered a copyright violation. National Center media clips always contain an explanation of our legal use of the video. Here is how it reads on our most recently posted media appearance:
This short excerpt from the Fox News Channel program “The Ingraham Angle,” broadcast on 6/7/19 and featuring Project 21 Co-Chairman and National Center for Public Policy Research legal fellow Horace Cooper, has been posted under fair use guidelines for the purpose of non-profit, educational public debate by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a 501(c)(3) educational foundation under the Internal Revenue Code.
These video descriptions also contain links to the National Center’s web and social media sites to provide outlets for “more discussion” on the issues. But more discussion doesn’t seem to be what Hartmann and the left wants.
After all, Justin really did soundly destroy Hartmann in that interview!
Tomorrow happens to be the annual shareholder meeting of Alphabet – Google’s parent company. YouTube censorship should be a big issue; this past year has seen the platform demonetize, remove and set up strange new rules for content.
What happened to FEP is just one more example of the ongoing leftist campaign to squelch debate.
The “Hyde Amendment” – a long-honored, bipartisan federal provision keeping taxpayer dollars from funding abortions – is now one of the top targets of the left.
For more than 50 years, the Hyde Amendment has protected those who are morally and religiously opposed to abortion from having their hard-earned tax payments used to pay for a practice they find abhorrent. Specifically, it has been an accepted part of appropriations legislation for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services since 1980.
Now, the increasingly powerful elements of the extreme left are demonizing the Hyde Amendment. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez started a petition to repeal it on the assertion that it “disproportionately harms low-income Americans and people of color.” In the presidential race, Joe Biden – who has supported the Hyde Amendment throughout his long political career – suddenly changed his stance to promise he would work to repeal it.
When Terrell noted that blacks in states that recently enacted commonsense abortion regulation disproportionately sought abortions, Horace tried to find common ground with his combative counterpart:
Absolutely, Leo – you ought to be with me on this. You ought to be joining me in saying let’s not decimate minority communities.
Whether you’re poor or whether you’re rich, we absolutely shouldn’t go forward with Planned Parenthood’s mission… from the beginning, which was to purify the races in the United States.
Horace also sought to explain the practicality and the noncontroversial nature of the Hyde Amendment:
Setting aside the clear error of Roe v. Wade, we have reached a consensus that… our dollars – our own personal dollars – will not go to a cause that violates our conscience and violates our beliefs that it’s a human being.
That is something that is part of the mainstream.
And, speaking specifically about the Biden flip-flop, Horace added:
This abortion position is an extreme one that he is embracing. It’s not authentic. And it just is a sign of the changes to come… as he struggles to appease the radical American left.
In the second of a series of Daily Signal articles about the National Center’s conservative shareholder activism, Free Enterprise Project (FEP) Director Justin Danhof explained the advantage the left has created for itself in the politics of investing. He also showed where conservatives can catch up.
Justin said there are “super easy” ways for conservatives to get involved in the effort to bring businesses back to their free-market roots.
The article focused on FEP’s “True Board Diversity Policy” proposal that was considered this year by shareholders at Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Starbucks, Twitter and other companies. It will also be under consideration at the upcoming meeting of Salesforce investors on June 6.
FEP’s proposal asks companies to consider prospective board members with diverse political beliefs as a positive aspect in the recruitment process. Justin noted:
The stated goal of diversity is a good goal, because you want the board to avoid groupthink. You don’t want everyone marching off the ledge in lockstep. But the way companies go about it is all wrong because they are only looking at gender and race, and that’s sexist and racist. If the companies really support diversity in the truest sense of the word, they would support our proposal.
The FEP proposal is patterned after a proposal the left pushed last year that sought to promote board member recruitment in a manner that valued race and gender. FEP reverse-engineered the language to highlight a person’s mind over their physical characteristics. Justin added:
Just putting people on your board based on skin color or gender instead of their expertise is bad for business. This doesn’t serve the corporate interest… I also added in ideology as something to consider in this day and age when companies are very political and take a lot of political actions.
The article, written by Kevin Mooney, also went into the minutiae of the proposal process and the hurdles conservatives face in getting a proposal before shareholders. Despite the potential for far-reaching change, they are limited to just 500 words and bolstered by a supporting statement that is not much longer. The crafting of a proposal is a legal art, as Justin explained:
There are a number of reasons why a company can kick out your proposal. In fact, most of the time companies will fight like heck to get your proposal removed any way they can. The SEC will also look for reasons. So sometimes we have to make them sound a little more bland than we want.
Then, should a proposal be accepted and added to a company’s proxy statement, there is a struggle for shareholder approval. Proxy advisory services can have immense effect on how investors vote on key issues. And, because they are often far to the left, liberal shareholder activists heartily embrace them and profess their importance. Commenting on one service in particular, Institutional Shareholder Services (whose support for the race and gender diversity proposal led to Amazon accepting it just before their shareholder meeting), Justin said:
Institutional Shareholder Services leans dramatically to the left. But they are the most important proxy advisory service in America. The [Amazon] lawyer said to me that because ISS came out in favor of this diversity proposal based on race and gender, what else were they supposed to do? They felt like they had no choice. That’s how powerful just one proxy advisory service is, and conservatives need to develop their own.
Justin said a right-leaning proxy advisory service is essential over the long term for conservative-liberal parity in the shareholder activism process.
But conservatives can still be effective now, and Justin and FEP welcome new allies:
We need to get more conservatives involved, and what I tell people is to please copycat me and take a look at what we’re doing with the Free Enterprise Project.
If the left can do this, how hard can it be? They know how to push companies. But to file a resolution, all you need is $2,000 [worth] of a stock.
To read this whole article –” Conservative Shareholders Push Facebook to Achieve ‘True Diversity'” — in its entirety, click here.
The Daily Signal is the news service of The Heritage Foundation.
Conservatives are often encouraged to change the culture by becoming more of a part of it. Don’t like what’s on television? Develop conservative shows. Dismayed about the state of modern music? Write and produce your own songs.
The left understands the importance of influencing the culture. And that’s a big reason for the current state of our union. They have noticed that conservatives ARE venturing out more into the arts. So the left is putting up roadblocks to stop conservatives’ progress.
One recent example of the left’s attempt to stifle conservatives in the arts is the stonewalling of Phelim McAleer. A journalist who changed careers to become a filmmaker, he first became known for the 2009 documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong” that rebutted Al Gore’s climate-alarmist “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Last year, McAleer produced “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.” The title pretty much says it all. Gosnell was a purveyor of illegal abortions in horrific conditions with no respect for humanity. He is currently in prison for his crimes. This film chronicled the investigation, arrest and subsequent trial.
“Gosnell” had good crowdsourced funding, a seasoned screenwriter and bankable actors. Despite all that, there were efforts to suppress the movie. NPR and Facebook refused to run ads. Hyatt cancelled a screening of the movie in one of their hotels.
He is now trying the stage – and finding more leftist pushback.
In Washington, D.C., he had planned to produce “FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers” at the small Mead Theatre. The play is about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the philandering FBI agents who ignominiously ended their careers as possible Deep State operatives in an attempt to derail the Trump presidency. It is set to star Dean Cain (of television’s “The Adventures of Lois and Clark” and “Gosnell”) and Kristy Swanson (the original “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” from the movie).
But the play has been sidelined for now after the theater ownership group cancelled the play due to “threats of violence.” The media reported an alleged tweet complaining about the play that read, “lock the doors, and set the theater on fire.”
The theater owners told McAleer: “We have an institutional responsibility to protect the safety of our staff, patrons, rental guests and community. In the best interests of all involved, we must ask that you find another venue for your event.”
But McAleer contended:“This is censorship of facts that they want to keep hidden from the American people, and they are hiding behind ‘safety concerns’ in order to squash diversity of opinions in the theater.”
But the show will go on.
The script for “FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers” will still be read by the cast. It will still be performed by the cast – somewhere. It will be filmed, and the recording will be distributed. What was once set to be performed before 218 seats at the time for a short run will now be seen on the screens of millions of people and enjoyed long into the future.
McAleer succeeds again!
Conservatives ARE successfully engaging in the culture. Phelim McAleer is not the only one. Nina May of Renaissance Women Productions is making films such as “First Lady” and television shows such as “Daily Bread.” Pureflix is making – and now streaming through its own service – family-friendly and faith-oriented films such as “God’s Not Dead” and “Dancer and the Dame” with stars such as Billy Gardell, Kevin Sorbo and Della Reese.
Then there’s the case of Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla. They are putting together a documentary called “No Safe Spaces” about the threat to free speech on campuses and how “what’s happening on college campuses today is the bleeding edge of our cultural decline.” It’s to be released soon, but Facebook has made it harder to promote.
Students at Acton Academy – a charter school in Roseville, California – sought to earn credits toward an entrepreneurship requirement by holding an advance screening of “No Safe Spaces.” When they sought to advertise it on Facebook, however, they were blocked.
Why has Facebook placed a hold on Acton Academy ads for the documentary about free speech? Because the school won’t declare itself a political entity. Since Facebook has allegedly determined the content of the documentary to be related to “issues of national importance,” ad buyers are supposed to declare their political affiliation as a matter of compliance. But Acton Academy is not a political entity. School CEO Matt Beaudreau told The Hollywood Reporter:
They asked me a bunch of personal questions, then said I’d need to identify as a political entity, even though the ad doesn’t mention a party or a politician and takes no political stance whatsoever.
Noting that this makes one of the points of the documentary, Prager added:
Unlike liberals, who always valued and fought to protect free speech, leftists have never valued free speech. And the left controls the avenues of information on the Internet. That’s what this is about.
What to do? The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) is trying to help.
At Facebook’s May 30 annual meeting of shareholders, an FEP representative raised the Acton Academy issue directly with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg. Appearing uncomfortable having to answer the question about Acton Academy’s problem, Sandberg replied: “There’s no requirement for anyone on Facebook to affiliate with any political party at any time.” She also committed to “take a look” at the school’s issue.
Sandberg and others on the panel clearly did not want to take any follow-up questions about it, but were willing to accept a copy of The Hollywood Reporter article.
FEP had earlier made a presentation at the Facebook meeting regarding a proposal to help politically balance the company’s board of directors. Facebook opposed it, suggesting that any additional steps to keep the company in line are unnecessary. The Acton Academy issue is Facebook executives’ first chance after our proposal to show that they mean that they say.
Facebook can help conservatives contribute to the culture, not suppress it.
With colleges and universities in the midst of graduating their senior classes, many are holding segregated ceremonies.
According to a report by the Washington Examiner, over 75 schools are holding special commencement ceremonies for their black graduates.
Among the schools with separate ceremonies are Ivy League institutions such as Harvard and Yale as well as University of California Berkeley and Arizona State University.
Things like this are why there’s a rise in white nationalism. Race-exclusive clubs, ceremonies, societies and the elitism they bring hurt the true American spirit and create artificial divides in our culture.
Race is purely a sociological construct used to manipulate and divide the public. We are one people. Any other thought, belief, agenda or suggestion otherwise is evil, unscientific, decisive, un-American and wrong.
Earlier this month, someone smashed a hole in the statue of Hall that is outside the Hannibal Square Heritage Center in West Winter Park, Florida. Police are still looking for any information that may help lead to finding the responsible party.
McClendon spoke about the incident and Hall’s reaction to it in a previous blog post.
The artist, who made the statue from casts of Hall back in 2015, returned to repair the statue, strengthen it and give it a new paint to give it a “refreshed look.”
Here is a photo of Hall and Emery from a recent family reunion.
As long ago as 2013, the National Center – through its Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – has been making the point to Disney CEO Robert Iger that Disney’s ESPN sports channel is too political.
At the 2013 shareholder meeting, Iger addressed our concerns about left-wing media bias at ESPN and ABC, conceding that “we have been guilty of making mistakes… we have, at times, either presented the news in… a slightly inaccurate way through mistakes or in ways we weren’t necessarily proud of.” Shareholders cheered FEP’s question.
Yet Iger was less than accommodating in 2017 when FEP raised the ESPN bias issue again. At that point, he called the assertion “completely exaggerated.” But later that year, Iger personally intervened to lessen the punishment for ESPN host Jemele Hill after she called President Donald Trump and his supporters “white supremacists.”
(Project 21, on the other hand, strongly rebuked Hill’s comments.)
Now, James Pitaro, the president of ESPN, has changed the network’s tune – proving FEP right. While he has echoed Iger within the past year, calling claims that ESPN is too political a “false narrative,” he also seems to be guiding on-air personalities away from politics.
Pitaro admitted in a recent interview:
Without question our data tells us our fans do not want us to cover politics. My job is to provide clarity. I really believe that some of our talent was confused on what was expected of them. If you fast-forward to today, I don’t believe they are confused.
In a commentary published by Western Free Press, Jerome says ESPN seems to have “paid the cost of having an employee of theirs be so outspoken at such a frenzied time.” Assessing the situation, Jerome suggests Pitaro “has learned from the network’s previous mistakes and is bound not to repeat them.”
Noting that politics and sports are not often a winning combination, particularly in an era when there are so many viewing choices for consumers, Jerome writes:
[T]here are certain things that call for a zone of neutrality and inoffensive views being made, and sports commentary is that zone… The problem becomes when a certain view is continuously repeated without the opposing view ever being uttered or given the same amount of time on-air.
Jerome points out that people simply turning off the network appears to have had a profound impact on how ESPN is now dealing with political issues:
[S]ince the viewer has no real power to change television hosts, they can turn the channel off or cancel their subscription to the network. This was the case in previous years for ESPN as they lost a number of devoted followers.
Obviously, when you start losing money, it starts to be a conundrum of how much do you allow your employees (hosts or commentators in ESPN’s case) freedom when it comes to how vocal they can be with their political and social philosophies. As the old aphorism goes: “Money talks!”
To read all of Jerome’s commentary at Western Free Press – “ESPN President Statement Shows That He has Learned Something Valuable” – click here.
While the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take up a case involving a common sense “abortion control” that prohibited the termination of a baby based on its race, gender or perceived disability, Justice Clarence Thomas made a compelling argument that the Court can’t run from the issue forever.
Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network are praising Justice Thomas for his legal opinion that “abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation” and “we cannot avoid [the issue] forever.”
“Having created the constitutional right to an abortion,” Justice Thomas noted, “this court is dutybound to address its scope.”
One of the 57 recommendations in Project 21’s “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” is a ban on race-specific abortions.
Project 21 member Demetrius Minor lauds Justice Thomas for his defense of the unborn:
Justice Thomas is correct in his assertion that abortion cannot go ignored and unaddressed.
As a nation, we have a moral obligation to uphold a culture of life. To ignore the atrocities that the unborn child faces will forever paint a tainted picture of our country’s principles and values.
With Justice Thomas invoking the issue of eugenics in the abortion conversation, it forces us to evaluate this not just from a moral code of conduct, but the cultural implications that will impact future generations for years to come.
In the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the Court was asked to rule on provisions contained in a 2016 Indiana law designed to rein in extreme abortion practices. The justices ruled without formal oral argument. It overturned the lower court’s decision and allowed the reinstatement of a provision of the law that required aborted remains to be buried or cremated rather than simply thrown away or possibly even sold.
But the Court choose not to take up the provision that required doctors to inform those seeking abortions that, by the law, “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.” Situations that involved “lethal fetal abnormalities” were exempted from the Indiana law.
While Justice Thomas voted with the majority to not take up the case, he did issue a 20-page concurring opinion critical of such practices, in which he wrote:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex and disability discrimination.
So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.
Justice Thomas cited the fact that Planned Parenthood, the defendant in the case and a leading marketer of abortion in America, has had a series of leaders who professed eugenics – the idea that humanity can be improved through selective breeding. This includes founder Margaret Sanger, who once called black Americans living in New York City in the early 20thcentury “the degenerate and the defective.”
Reacting to the way the American abortion industry’s founders thought of Americans, and to Justice Thomas calling them out for it in his concurrence, Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington says:
Black women in America represent seven percent of the population but have 37 percent of the abortions. Justice Thomas connects the abortion giant Planned Parenthood and the eugenics movement by way of its founder, Margaret Sanger.
In essence, Justice Thomas makes it clear that abortion may already be the tool of choice for racists in America who seek to limit the black population.
Instead of seeing his opinion as a dodge or missed opportunity, the pro-life movement should read the roadmap laid out before us. Tell the truth about abortion and its primary purveyor – Planned Parenthood. Both exist to exterminate “human weeds”; thus abortion is completely unconstitutional.
Additionally, Justice Thomas reminded the Court that it “threw its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law.” Considering that factor, he added: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”
Project 21 released its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” in 2018 to “identif[y] key areas for reform… to remove barriers blocking blacks from reaching their full potential and ensuring the American dream is attainable for all.” In its section for “Strengthening Faith-Based Communities,” the Blueprint addresses race-based abortion in a manner similar to the Indiana law about which Justice Thomas wrote his concurrence. The Blueprint specifically recommends “[b]anning abortions performed exclusively on the basis of ethnicity of a fetus.”
Project 21 members have met with staff members at the White House and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promote the Blueprint and its specific recommendation about prohibiting race-specific abortions.
Project 21 member Donna Jackson, who was one of those who met with the HHS staff, says:
It is only fitting that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has risen to the occasion to discuss abortion, since he and other black Americans have been the primary targets of abortion rights advocates.
I believe he rightly pointed out the racist history of abortion and Planned Parenthood which still exists today. The organization no longer talks explicitly about reducing the numbers of “undesirables,” but the policy remains the same.
We have too readily become the disposable people of the liberal left with 78 percent of abortion clinics being located minority communities. I thank Justice Thomas for raising this important issue.