The Rebranding of Abortion Inc.

“Brand resistance” is a fact of life in the world of commerce and marketing. The resistance might be sane and logical – you’re not going to buy a car if it has a reputation for the wheels falling off – or it might be plain idiotic, like the objection you may remember to Coon Cheese as “racist” when the name came from the product’s inventor. It might be pure opportunistic attention-seeking as happened in Melbourne a year or so ago when a tiresome leftist pipsqueak, “music critic” for the dreary Saturday Paper, attacked “Colonial” as a name for beer.

The response can vary too. Coon caved in, or said it would, giving the troublemaker cause to gloat and anyone not infected with the current pandemic of wokery a reason never again to purchase anything made by its craven owners, the Canadian company Saputo. Colonial sensibly waited and, denied the oxygen of apologies, the row fizzled out. But when some time ago the late Colonel Sanders’ successors found their “Kentucky fried” chicken under attack by health cranks they simply dropped the name and reverted to the initials. “KFC” remains as fried as ever, but its consumers, no longer reminded of that, need not feel like dietary miscreants.

Up there with the Colonel and Saputo and other multinationals is the international “pro-choice” or abortion industry. Foeticide, a by-product of toxic feminism aggressively pushed by the UN, “aid” agencies and hard-left ideologues such as Daniel Andrews in Victoria, makes fortunes for its “providers”, and as in any other multi-million-dollar business, abortionists are alert to their brand image. They could just call themselves “Abortions R Us” but they don’t; a name like “Planned Parenthood” sounds much nicer, and in the case of this big US aborter comes with a reassuring motto to soften the image, “Better Health. Stronger Future”.

In reality Planned Parenthood is not that nice, and has been accused of running a gruesome trade in body parts “harvested”, i.e. sliced off the foetuses it has aborted. Its history is pretty unsavoury too. It was founded in 1948 by “sex educator” Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) who was keen to see “the poor”, i.e. mainly blacks, limit their offspring, as she demurely put it, to the number they could afford. One gathers that if the number were zero that would have been fine by her. She regarded blacks as inferior to whites – BLM’s attitude in reverse. She showed great enthusiasm for eugenics too, and was always happy to help society improve itself by “the elimination of the unfit”. How that hasn’t had her crucified by the ferociously PC “people with disability” lobby is a mystery. Instead Planned Parenthood, in the United States, is a valued contributor to the progressive program for “social justice”. In the last full year before the pandemic, Planned Parenthood destroyed 350,000 foetuses. That’s about 1,000 potential human beings a day denied the opportunity to be born. In a society concerned about human rights, how do we categorise that? Isn’t it a form of genocide?

A forerunner of Margaret was Marie Stopes, whose debut into the lucrative world of “women’s health” took the form of a “family planning” clinic she opened in London in 1925. Its successor, Marie Stopes International, now has 600 abortion mills in 37 countries – many of them, naturally – in Africa. Its website is replete with smiling photographs of happy women, all radiating gratitude at the assistance afforded them in matters of “health” by Marie’s dedicated successors. Head office is a place of smiles too, now that President Biden, as keen an enthusiast for abortion as any when he can remember what it is, has generously reversed Donald Trump’s withdrawal of American subsidies to international abortionists, which left Marie Stopes International, it complains, with “a funding gap of $50 million”. Happy days are here again in the abortion world.

Indeed, subsidies or no subsidies, business hasn’t stopped booming. The “Global Impact” page on the Marie Stopes website wasn’t working when I checked, but reliable sources put the total of abortions it carries out all over the world in the millions.

Naturally, the heirs to Marie’s mantle don’t present abortions in such stark terms, but dress it up as “empowering” women to take control of their lives. “Every day,” their website piously announces, “our teams around the world meet thousands of women… our mission is to ensure every single one of them has the knowledge, tools and power to build the life they want.” (Perhaps that ungrammatical “they” instead of “she” is to avoid the ire of pronoun fascists, since according to current “gender” doctrine there is no reason why “men” can’t have abortions. I wonder how many of those Marie Stopes has on its books.)

And talking of “the life they want”, Marie did not approve of inter-racial marriage, so let’s hope none of the abortionists “meeting thousands of women” in Africa finds romance and dreams of wedding bells.

Marie, like Margaret, wanted to get rid of the unfit and recommended compulsory sterilisation as the most effective way. Otherwise – she didn’t mince her words – we’d have to put up with an “ever increasing stock of degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced who will devastate social customs… like the parasite upon a healthy tree.” Is that what Julie Mundy, “chair” of Marie Stopes International Australia, describes as Marie’s “socially innovative and courageous approach”?

It is no surprise that Marie, like Margaret, was a devoted fan of Hitler and his über-determined efforts towards the elimination of the unfit. If she was just a little bit envious at his greater achievements in this regard she never said so, and, having poetic aspirations, generously encouraged his efforts in verse, writing at the height of the Holocaust.

Catholics and Prussians,
The Jews and the Russians
All are a curse
Or something worse

But back to brand images. After years of pushing contraception and abortions in the name of a misanthropic poetaster, Marie Stopes International has realised that their foundress is no one to brag about. To shed the association but keep the substance they’ve come up with the brilliant idea that Marie Stopes International should follow the Colonel Sanders technique of brand refreshment and switch to initials. Henceforth its MSI Reproductive Choices.

Choices? Well, as I said, not for everyone, but what’s that compared with the prosperous future awaiting the rebranded MSI and all the other peddlers of secular “social justice” in the “Great Reset” the globalist élites are cooking up to keep us in place, and of which population control, in every sense, including lockdowns, is an essential element. In that chilling new world, with the G7 and sinister Klaus Schwab and George Soros pulling the strings, “empowerment” will be only for the few.

27 thoughts on “The Rebranding of Abortion Inc.

  • Daffy says:

    When I reset my phone, it goes back to the factory settings. So, I suppose that when we ‘reset’ the world we go back to unregulated markets, invisibly small government, and kings getting their heads knocked off.

    Sounds good to me.

  • maxpart27 says:

    The Earth has a human plague currently with governments not doing anything about it. There are just too many humans being born. Any group helping women control their contribution to the increase gets my vote.

  • DougD says:

    Why then is there this frantic push for everyone to get the Covid vaccine? Wouldn’t it be better for governments just to let the virus rip?

  • STD says:

    Maxpart27.” There are just too many humans being born”.
    Can you give me the evidence for that comment, and comparatively from the standpoint of protein equivalence. I’m not sure of the mass value ,but I think Greg Williams can furnish you with the volume numbers as regarding human protein .
    I take it you reserve your right for the right to life ( living) but consider others as less worthy, and as such surplus to your ideological requirements.
    However you are half right ,there is a plague afoot ,it is called the ideology of death. Thankyou.

  • maxpart27 says:

    STD – You should not think getting down to 2 billion happens tonight. I have it happening by 4576.

  • Gordon Cheyne says:

    No matter how much you denigrate Margaret Sanger, the concept that “the poor”, i.e. mainly blacks, limit their offspring, as she demurely put it, to the number they could afford, remains with us.
    Even the UNFPA describes Family Planning as “the most cost-effective technology we have for the reduction of poverty”
    Just provide the 300 million women who have no access to family planning with what they need, and the requirement for abortion disappears.
    Abortion is only the failure to provide family planning.to those who need it.
    Once the mother is able to limit the number of children she can nurture, she can contribute to the family economy, and have a chance of getting out of poverty.
    If there ever were a “win-win” situation, this is it!

  • STD says:

    Ah ,Gordon, clarification is needed , do you mean material or spiritual poverty- which is better?

  • gary@erko says:

    Planning to create a person seems like a real weird idea. Before the “my body, my choice” was grabbed as the base paradigm that no-one else is permitted to approach like secret women’s business, how did this “planning” idea get past the pub test. I wasn’t planned. I was an accidental byproduct of love and cherished as a reminder of that love for the rest of my parent’s lives.

  • Macspee says:

    In an overpopulated world it is a curious fact that every person in the world could be fitted into Texas with 100 sq feet each and more if go up a few storeys. Might be a bit of a problem for greenies having to live with all those people they hate.

  • Greg Williams says:


    The average weight of a human being is about 66 kg. Given the density of a human being is about the same as that of water, we can assume the average volume of a human being is about 66 litres. If you multiply those 66 000 cubic centimetres by the planet’s human population, i.e. 7.5 billion, and convert the result to cubic kilometres, you get 0.459 cubic kilometres. So the entire human population of the planet could be packed into a box 1 kilometre long, 1 kilometre wide, and about 500 metres high. We are about 0.01 percent of the biomass of the planet, or, 1/10 000th. The usable atmosphere of the planet is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometres, which means we humans are about one eight billionth of the size of the atmosphere. We are not a disease on this planet, but more like a spot of acne, and, given our miniscule size in relation to the planet itself, all things that grow and the atmosphere, have little capacity to control anything at all.

  • Monagle says:

    Today, I attended a funeral for a baby who died about mid term. It was very moving to see the tiny white coffin in the arms of her father with her mother and sisters weeping together surrounded by loving friends – as many as were permitted. The hospital staff had showed great sensitivity with my friends as the still born was delivered and mourned. A few weeks before the staff of the same hospital were insistent that abortion was the best solution. Can not the rationalists see any contradiction?

  • maxpart27 says:

    Greg Williams – It is nothing to do with volume; it is about resources. We are here for billions of years. The lifestyle we like requires digging up lots of the rocks which means more humans = less time before all minerals gone. Robots will take over work. Sending them off to Mars or asteroids is feasible for more minerals. They can also grow crops. Crops need land which is where other species live. However if all humans have our lifestyle and human numbers are not limited other species become extinct. We separated from plants 1.5 billion years ago. In that time in the future we will have the same relevance to humans as a cabbage has to us. We are insignificant but our numbers make us a BIG problem.

  • STD says:

    Maxpart27 , it has everything to do with volume, specifically in relation to capacity – that by the way is the sum of your argument.
    By the way capacity is the maximum amount that a vessel (ark) can contain.
    In a biblical perspective God actually tells us that he will provide the means to cope. Philippians 4:19 , paraphrased, ‘Want not ( do not worry)I will provide what is needed’.By the way faith is not only a better way to live ,it is an interesting way of living- far better than socially engineered death, abortion, euthanasia et al.
    Yes , yes I realise I am a religious nut job.
    PS, truth matters , and it lays at the very heart of living and for that matter life, well according to the abstract figure- being God- and this accords nicely with the abstract nature of truth that is embedded in the life of the mind- I am speaking here about the truth in sciences ,mathematics, physics and chemistry- all having abstract natures- trees , mountains , people and animals all have physical form that we can see , touch and smell- a paradoxical disposition in comparison to the abstract form of mathematics that underpins the physics and chemistry that allow us to grasp the truthful nature of all matter.
    According to Jesus of Nazareth, (time and place)the loaves and fishes parable, gives us a willed solution to your ‘too many people” problem. Essentially if we share what we have ( the human/ humane heart) there will be more than enough and some to go around- even again – be kind ,share living!
    The heart by its very nature breathes( sustains) life, into man- a head disconnected from the / his heart ( it’s true nature) delivers death in ♠️,just ask Judas Iscariot.

  • STD says:

    Thanks Greg, that was somewhat of a hospital pass on my part.

  • maxpart27 says:

    STD – I outlaw religion in 2733.

  • STD says:

    Maxpart27 I take it by inference ,that you are a law under yourself- a dictator in charge of a dictatorship – touché to you too.

  • Lo says:

    Thank you Gordon Cheyne if by Family Planning you mean contraception. No woman wants to have, or wants to need to have an abortion but finding you are pregnant is, for some women, at some time, one of the most frightening feelings of powerlessness you could ever imagine.

  • STD says:

    If you do not want to get pregnant or be on the receiving end of feeling powerless, abstain from doing from what ever it is that makes you feel that way?
    We all need to take responsibility for our own stupidity, ie if I sign up to go to war I will run the very real risk of being killed .
    Take a leaf out of the WW1 generation – these were not soft Lilly’s – but hard and practical no nonsense truthful men and very practical women, who incidentally didn’t flinch at hard and dirty work.

  • STD says:

    Maxpart27…….. man you are.
    long range forecasting, similar to climate loonacy- a manifesto of utopian dung.

  • Geoffrey Luck says:

    I suspect the author of this article doesn’t come from the time of Marie Stopes and her considerable influence on Australian women. When I was growing up in the ’30s and ’40s our home library had copies of Stopes’ two books – Ideal Marriage and Planned Parenthood. At the time they were probably the only works available on family planning, but they also engendered a sound Christian respect in the marriage relationship. This, remember, was a time when conjugal rights were a dominant belief and the mutuality of love was scarcely emphasised. Abortion didn’t figure in those early works; I believe the Stopes name was captured and misused by the right to choose campaigners.

  • whitelaughter says:

    And lo, the nutters come out of the woodworks…
    No, there are not too many people on the planet.

    Other than OZ, Africa has the *lowest* population density of any occupied continent. *That* is why they have famines – there aren’t enough people to build the roads, rail lines, power lines, harbours and airfields you need to move resources in.

    The population doubles every century; the tripling in the 20thC was a one off caused by massive increases in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the size of the economy doubles every 20 years. We will never run out of resources, because resources aren’t things in the ground, they are things made by people.

    But if you want to reduce the population, what a deal the euthanasia crowd have for you!

  • simonbenson65 says:

    The moment a child is conceived it is a person, or, as philosophers put it, ‘ontologically’ human. Even embryologist agree on that. That human’s DNA is unique and separate from their parents’. The fledgling life is on any view a human life. It’s a little difficult then to see how an argument about “choice” comes into it. That logic is equivalent to saying murder is ok provided the location of the life you are killing authorises it. The location of a human life in utero can never justify murder. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up or rebrand it, abortion is killing an innocent human life. In an age when the left are obsessed with the rights of those without a voice, it is hard to think of a more voiceless people group whose rights are more trammelled than the unborn human. Pro-choice advocates care more about veal calves and rainforests than the rights of the unborn human.

  • STD says:

    So right, simonbenson65. And that voice – the parliamentary voice – would be effective if we elect politicians of good character, ethical people that actually have a moral compass. Get rid of all the back to front people on both sides of politics- all the nutters that advocate causes contrary to logic .

  • Bernie Masters says:

    If you believe in private property rights as a fundamental principle of our modern Western society, then the right of a person to determine what happens to his or her body in turn becomes the most fundamental and important property right. While I personally would prefer that abortion not be needed or wanted by women, nonetheless I fully accept that they have a right to determine what happens to their own bodies – the ultimate private property so to speak.

  • STD says:

    Therefore I would imagine your inference being, Bernie, that what these women do with their bodies is actually a factored form of physical self harm, therefore by my reckoning a psychological problem.. as simonbenson65 alluded too, the actual destruction that occurs is that of somebody else’s DNA, therefore it is premeditated murder that takes place in grounds of the uterus- time and place both known to the accomplices and the murderer.

  • STD says:

    Could it be that if the body is considered property and has property rights, that an unborn baby is actually trespassing on those rights. My question is ,does trespassing justify murder? Is the woman’s life in danger from every overpowered aborted baby?
    ABORTION- pick on someone your own size I say!
    In the words of Weary Dunlop” a frightfully dreadful BUSINESS” ( war, al la hatred).

Leave a Reply