creating a new battlefront (prolife propaganda)

7/31/2019 Creating a New Battlefront (Prolife Propaganda)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creating-a-new-battlefront-prolife-propaganda 1/14

Special ReportsWinter 2012 Life Decisions International vol. xv • no. 1

CREATING A NEW BATTLEFRONTDeath-Makers Concerned By Activities Of New Pro-Life Organization

by Douglas R. Scott, Jr.

Life Decisions International has been “Challenging the Culture of

Death” for 20 years. This edition of Special Reports looks at the found-

ing of LDI and the Corporate Funding Project. It is taken primarily from

Chapter 13 (“A Project of David”) of Bad Choices: A Look Inside Planned

Parenthood , by Douglas R. Scott, which was released 1992. On LDI’s 20th

Anniversary, join us in taking a look back. (The text herein is presented as written 20 years ago. Updates have been made only where deemed critical. Editing may have been necessary due to space limitations.)

or centuries, large organizations and powerful

individuals have battled those of smaller stature. The same is true of those involved in the abortion

issue. Economic boycotts, campaigns of disinformation,

and other strategies have been used not simply to gain

advantage in order to increase one’s own position, but to

decrease that of one’s foe.

One might think an attack against a Goliath

like Planned Parenthood would be futile; a

waste of both time and money. On the

other hand, a Goliath might think itself so

big and powerful that it is immune to the

attacks of smaller (poorer) groups. If Goli-

ath is focusing on attacks from larger ene-

mies, an opportunity could exist for the creation of a new,

unexpected battlefront. One of the most successful methods

used by abortion foes to strike at Planned Parenthood is an

economic boycott of corporations that fund the empire.

Corporate giving comes in four forms: 1) direct gifts; 2)

gifts made through a foundation that is funded by a corpo-

ration (most common); 3) in-kind gifts (products or services

that advance the work of Planned Parenthood and usually

have a monetary value; and 4) matching gifts (the corpora-tion gives one dollar to a charitable group for every dollar

donated by an employee of the company). Planned Parent-

hood receives millions of dollars from private foundations

not related to a corporation. It is not known exactly how

much money it gets from corporations.

Some of the world’s best known corporations contribute to

Planned Parenthood, but few people are aware of which

ones do so. Corporations want the general public to be

aware of their community involvement, but not necessarily

all of it. But activist organizations are beginning to take a

deeper look into donations made by businesses—large and

small. Consequently, some corporate officials are bein

publicly scolded for their philanthropic choices. As a re

sult, corporations will increasingly seek to fund causes tha

do not invite controversy—or they will try to increase th

level of secrecy surrounding such decisions.

Initial InterestInitial InterestInitial InterestInitial Interest

While

executive

director

of

Human

Life

of

Washingto(HLW), the state’s largest organization opposed to abor

tion, I was surprised to learn the state affiliate of the Na

tional Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action Leagu

(NARAL) was receiving support from several local busi

nesses. In its newsletter, the group listed the names of busi

nesses that had donated money, goods, or services for it

annual fundraising auction. HLW reprinted the list in it

own newsletter, Human Life News.

The reaction in Seattle—a beautiful city, but one wher

most people support abortion—was interesting. (Thre

years

before

the

U.S.

Supreme

Court’s

infamous

decisioin Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Washington became th

only state to liberalize its abortion laws by a direct vote o

the people.) On September 18, 1986, The Seattle Time

published an editorial titled, “Taking the Low Road,” i

which it argued that launching a boycott against the busi

nesses that had supported NARAL was unconscionable. I

insinuated that even alluding to a boycott was tantamoun

to a threat. In reality, a boycott had not been called and, a

the time, never even considered. Human Life News ha

simply reprinted the information NARAL had made public

HLW took the position that peopl

had a right to know. It also said th

newspaper had failed to print a

editorial against the animal rights, labor, civil rights, an

environmental defense movements for “resorting” to eco

nomic boycotts, which HLW had not even done.

In 1987 I learned that a well-known large corporation wa

funding Planned Parenthood. It seemed logical that if on

was supporting the controversial group others were doin

so as well—quietly.

In 1988, shortly after going to work as vice president fo

public policy at the Christian Action Council, efforts to ex



Winter 2012 Special Reports

pose corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood became

of increasing interest to me. Why should corporations be al-lowed to support the nation’s number one abortion provider

without being questioned? Should abortion foes be made

aware of which corporations support Planned Parenthood

and asked to do something about it?

Campaign BeginsCampaign BeginsCampaign BeginsCampaign Begins

The Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began in 1988 with a

letter sent to approximately one dozen corporations which

simply inquired as to whether they supported Planned Par-enthood. Of the responses received, almost all were in the

affirmative.

Once confirmed as a Planned Parenthood donor, corporate

officials received information about the group, particularly

with regard to its role in the abortion industry. Corporate

leaders were asked to stop supporting Planned Parenthood.

After a reasonable amount of time, a letter-writing cam-paign was launched. Some corporate leaders agreed to end

support of Planned Parenthood soon after they began re-ceiving letters from pro-life activists.

An article titled, “Planned Parenthood

Didn’t Plan on This: Abortion Foes

Are Attacking the Agency’s Corporate Sponsors,” publish-ed by BusinessWeek on July 3, 1989, reported that some

corporations supporting Planned Parenthood had come

under fire from some of the most active pro-life groups. One of the primary strategies of the CFP has always been to

convince organizations that oppose abortion to inform their

respective supporters of the letter-writing campaign. The

first to sign on were the American Life League, Ad Hoc

Committee in Defense of Life, Focus on the Family, and

Concerned Women for America. Their active and selfless

participation proved invaluable to the success of the Pro- ject.

“Inundated by letters and calls from vocal, well-organized

abortion foes,” BusinessWeek reported, “several compa-nies have cut off contributions to Planned Parenthood.”

One corporate leader was quoted as saying that, “As long as

Planned Parenthood supports abortion, we won’t support them, because the country is too torn up about it right now.”

Another corporate official told the magazine no chief exec-utive officer is “comfortable with letters saying: ‘You’re

murdering babies.’”

Some corporate leaders quoted in the article said they had

no intention of ending support of Planned Parenthood. A

spokesman for one company said the three Planned Parent-hood affiliates it supports “meet a vital need in helping to

minimize the problem of teen pregnancy through educa-tion.” A spokesman for another company said Planned Par-enthood had “done an excellent job of helping low income

women achieve self-sufficiency by controlling their reproductive choices.”

Peter T. Wilderotter, then-vice president for resources, athe Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFAaccused corporate leaders who yielded to the pressure oabortion foes of “corporate cowardice.” Alyce FayWattleton, then-PPFA’s president, said she expected mos

corporations to continue supporting the group.

Many corporations attempted to justify support of PlanneParenthood by saying funds were restricted for specifipurposes, such as “education.” But this allows unrestrictePlanned Parenthood funds to be released for abortion anabortion advocacy. Moreover, Planned Parenthood’s branof “education” has come into serious question.

An outline for a workshop held at PPFA’s annual meetinin 1990 noted that, “Pharmaceutical companies and corporate America in general, are afraid of the anti-choice movement.” If this were true it is clear that pro-life activistcould come together to change corporate philanthropy.

SSSSuccessuccessuccessuccess

Efforts to end corporate funding of Planned Parenthoohave seen considerable success. The decision by AmericaTelephone and Telegraph (AT&T) to drop its support waclearly the most impressive victory and, moreover, it convinced other corporate leaders to take the same action.

AT&T’s decision shocked and motivatePPFA into a counterattack. Wattleton, thmost effective and articulate—and arguablthe most attractive—president in PPFA history, appeared on NBC’s “Today” and th“CBS Morning News” to blame the CFP fopressuring AT&T to end support for hegroup. Project leaders and representative

from PPFA and AT&T were interviewed on the “CBS Evening News,” “MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour,” “ABC WorlNews Tonight,” as well as several radio stations and newspapers. “NBC Nightly News” interviewed an anti-abortioleader who had actually opposed the CFP and USA Toda

spoke with a person who had openly criticized it. Yet thes

individuals were quick to make themselves available to talabout the success of the CFP rather than direct news outletto the people who actually worked on the Project

PPFA’s counterattack began in earnest on April 9, 1990The group attacked AT&T in a full-page advertisement iseveral of the nation’s most prominent newspapers. The awas headlined, “Caving In to Extremists, AT&T Hangs UOn Planned Parenthood”:

In March, AT&T announced it was cutting off twenty-five years of philanthropic support to Planned Parenthood.

WattletonWattletonWattletonWattleton waswaswaswas

PPFAPPFAPPFAPPFA presidentpresidentpresidentpresident fromfromfromfrom 1978197819781978----1992.1992.1992.1992.




For the record, AT&T’s annual grant was devoted to preventing teen

pregnancy.

It did not pay for abortion services.

Nor did it aid Planned Parenthood’s efforts to protect the health of women by keeping abortion safe and legal.

In fact, AT&T was helping us avert abortion by teaching teenagers

how to avoid unintended pregnancies.

Yet AT&T caved in to anti-choice extremists, just weeks before the

annual meeting at which the question was to be openly discussed

and voted on by shareholders.

And decided to leave teens at risk.

The free exchange of information is basic to AT&T’s communications

business.

By catering to a close-minded minority intolerant of differing ideas, AT&T is working against its own best interests.

It only encourages those who use bullying tactics to stop women of all ages from getting the information they need to make their own per-sonal, private decisions.

The saddest part of this shameful episode is that AT&T’s action has

only made abortions more likely.

Indeed, in a panic to distance itself from Planned Parenthood, AT&T

has sent a message that education and family planning—the only

safe and sure ways to reduce abortion—are unworthy of support.

That’s precisely what the anti-choice extremists want. To see their threats succeed. To silence discussion. To take away all our choices, one by one.

This time, family planning was the target.

But what’s next on their hit list? And who will have the integrity to

stand fast?

We urge you to send a message back by mailing the coupons below.

AT&T advertises itself as “the right choice.”

It’s time to remind the company what the word really means.

One coupon in the advertisement was to be sent to AT&T in

protest of its decision. A second coupon was to be sent to

Planned Parenthood, along with a donation of cash, AT&T

stock, and/or proxy votes for a shareholders’ meeting.

A response is warranted. According

to Planned Parenthood, the people

behind the call for AT&T to end

funding of its agenda were an “intol-erant” small group of “anti-choice

zealots” who represent a “closed-minded minority.” Name-calling is

infantile but a common tactic used by

Planned Parenthood. (One of my

favorite bumper-stickers reads, “Call me an extremist if you want; I just

don’t like killing babies.”) We did not respond in kind.

While AT&T grants did not directly support Planned

Parenthood’s multi-million dollar abortion business, they

did release unrestricted funds that could be used for abor-

tion-related activities. AT&T had also funded PlanneParenthood programs related to the “prevention” of teepregnancy, yet the problem continued to get worse.

There is one aspect of corporate donations going to PlanneParenthood that is far more valuable than any dollar amounreceived by the group. Grants legitimize Planned Parenhood by essentially saying the corporation endorses th

group and its mission. In other words, it gives PlanneParenthood a corporate “stamp of approval.”

What if we changed thscenario. A corporatiomakes a donation to thKu Klux Klan to suppoa verified nonracist reading program open to achildren. A corporate official justifies the decsion to fund the Klan b

saying, “We’re restricting our dollars to the reading program. We are not taking a stand in favor of racism.” Woulthis explanation satisfy anyone? Absolutely not—anrightly so. If a corporation gives money or product to aorganization it is effectively endorsing the group’s entiragenda—even parts it does not specifically fund.

A commentary in the Milwaukee Journal on May 4, 199said the AT&T grants ($50,000 per year for a quartecentury) were “small potatoes” to Planned Parenthood sthe loss of funding should not really concern the groupTitled, “Companies Can’t Duck Crossfire From Abortion

the commentary suggested that the true purpose behinPPFA’s massive advertising campaign was “propagandmileage.” This may be true, but it was also to scare othecorporate leaders so they did not follow AT&T’s lead.

Wattleton defended PPFA’s decision to bite the hand thahad fed it during her interview with the NonProfit Times:

There was no other option to take—and let me explain to you why. We had been in conversation with AT&T for a number of months—as

a matter of fact, more than a year, about the concerns they had about the opposition…We urged them to let us work together to generate

expressions of support, the likes of which you saw in Dayton Hudson

[now Target] from people who would gladly step up and say, “Abso-lutely not, do not give in.”

AT&T refused to accept that offer of partnership in confronting this

problem. We said to them, “you can’t avoid this by de-funding. This is

an issue that will not go away—it will only give life and strength to

people who think that they can push you around when you don’t reach out into the broad reservoir of public goodwill for what you were

doing.”

Surprisingly, in the article, titled, “Planned ParenthooChief Says Many Economic Boycotts Are Backfiring,Wattleton admitted she could not think of “any situation i

PlannedPlannedPlannedPlanned ParenthoodParenthoodParenthoodParenthood founderfounderfounderfounder MargaretMargaretMargaretMargaret

SangerSangerSangerSanger addressesaddressesaddressesaddresses thethethethe WomenWomenWomenWomen KnightsKnightsKnightsKnights of of of of thethethethe KuKuKuKu KluxKluxKluxKlux KlanKlanKlanKlan inininin SilverSilverSilverSilver Lake,Lake,Lake,Lake, N.J.N.J.N.J.N.J.




which corporations want to be involved in what they see as

controversy.” However, she believed the manner in which

AT&T “handled this particular situation is evidence of their lack of ability to even understand controversy, let alone handle controversy.” In other words, Wattleton con-ceded that AT&T made a wise business decision, but it should have been better handled. Agreed.

Congress entered the fray. Led by

Barbara Levy Boxer, D-Calif. (now in the U.S. Senate), mem-bers backing Planned Parenthood

pressured AT&T to reverse its de-cision. Members opposed to the

group, led by Rep. Robert K. Dornan, R-Calif. (no longer in

Congress), thanked the Company for cutting off funding.

Despite PPFA’s expensive and explosive ad campaign, which was bolstered by the group’s friends in the media

and appearances on many television and radio programs,

AT&T held firm. Its spokesmen were eloquent in explain-ing the company’s position.

Shortly after the appearance of PPFA’s full-page ads, AT&T shareholders took up the issue of funding abortion

advocacy groups at their annual meeting. The resolution

under consideration asked that the company no longer fund

groups involved in abortion. I urged that the resolution be

withdrawn and thanks be given to AT&T, but the sponsor

refused to do so, but my suggestion was based on a strategy

that would have undercut the plans of abortion proponents.

While

the

resolution

received

only

about

five

percent

of

the

vote, it needed just three percent to automatically qualify

for the next year’s ballot. The defeat of the resolution was

painted by advocates of abortion as a loss for abortion foes

and left some people believing AT&T funding of Planned

Parenthood would be resumed. The fact was that getting

five percent of the vote on any resolution opposed by cor-porate leaders is virtually impossible. Funding for Planned

Parenthood was not resumed.

In 1991 AT&T shareholders had two opposing resolutions

to consider. One was the anti-abortion resolution which had

qualified

to

reappear

on

the

ballot.

The

other,

sponsored

by

Planned Parenthood supporters, sought a reversal of the

March 1990 decision to end funding to the group. AT&T

management recommended that both resolutions be voted

down. The pro-life resolution failed to garner enough votes

to qualify for the 1992 ballot. Like the pro-life measure one

year earlier, the pro-abortion resolution qualified to reap-pear. However, at the 1992 meeting, shareholders refused

to require the company to restore its contribution to Plan-ned Parenthood, but once again it garnered enough votes to

be considered at the following year’s meeting. In 1993 the

measure failed to pass and did not get enough votes to breconsidered.

Shareholders at several other corporations were expected tface similar resolutions at their respective meetings. Corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb had already dealt witthis issue.

Convincing AT&T to end funding of Planned Parenthooled several writers not associated with anti-abortion groupto mention the CFP. Alan J. Miller, author of Socially Re

sponsible Investing: How to Invest With Your Conscience

wrote about the success:

Through it all, the company held firm. Robert E. Allen, chairman and

chief executive officer, explained the company’s position: “Much to

our regret, Planned Parenthood has raised the level of their political advocacy with respect to abortion…Our contribution to a specific

segment of Planned Parenthood has become tainted and tarnished

with a number of our constituencies because their actions were in-terpreted as being in favor of a pro-abortion stance. This is not an iss-ue on which this corporation ought to come down either one way or

another.”

What all of this means is that if you truly do see yourself as a socially

responsible investor and you believe that generous charitable contri-butions by corporations are desirable, you still shouldn’t just settle for investing in the stocks of those companies that contribute a lot and let it go at that. It really is incumbent upon you to try to determine what it is that they are contributing to, so that you can be sure that the chari-ties being supported are ones that you want to support too.

While the principle articulated by Miller is generally true, is particularly so for Christians. Paul McGuire, author oWho Will Rule the Future?, wrote about the power peoplhave to impact corporate philanthropy:

Many people look at the mega-corporations and big business and

throw up their hands in resignation. Some of these corporate giants

are unwittingly helping to establish a New World Order. However, as

the Bible tells us “giants can be slain.” Christians, like their spiritual predecessor King David, can slay the “Goliaths” of our day. One per-son or a small group of people can change the direction of massive

conglomerates.

McGuire specifically cited the CFP as an example.

The success with AT&T was repeated witseveral other corporations. More importantly

state

and

local

pro-life

organizations

began

promoting the CFP. Smaller companies had beeinvestigated and targeted on local and regiona

levels, which gave these groups a more direct and personafocus. For example, Wisconsin Right to Life challengebusinesses that donated to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. The effort was quite successful. As on the national/international levels, Planned Parenthood whined to anyone ithe media who would listen, saying Wisconsin Right tLife’s use of an economic boycott was unfair and illegitimate. The title of an article published by the Milwauke

BoxerBoxerBoxerBoxer DornanDornanDornanDornan




Sentinel on October 13, 1990, “Planned Parenthood Says

Donors ‘Attacked,’” sounds like a kid complaining about being outwitted by a smaller child.

Local efforts are critical to the success of the CFP. It is not enough to stop support to Planned Parenthood provided by

major corporations when smaller companies are doing so. While the scope of the CFP has been limited to corpora-

tions which cross state lines, a local, state, and regional

attack is essential and should be an ongoing activity for all organizations seeking to limit the influence currently en- joyed by Planned Parenthood.

Some Canadian organizations have been helpful in this

area. Canadian divisions of corporate supporters of Planned

Parenthood were claiming to be completely independent of their American counterparts. But pro-life groups delivered

a clear message to the corporate leaders based in their beau-tiful country. “Until you convince your U.S.-based parent

company to stop supporting Planned Parenthood, we will

not support you.” Absolutely brilliant.

Official International BoycottOfficial International BoycottOfficial International BoycottOfficial International Boycott

In August 1990 virtually every nationwide

organization opposed to Planned Parent-hood agreed to participate in a Washington, D.C., press conference during which the

corporations were urged to end funding of the abortion-committing group. All identi-fied corporations had been told that an offi-cial boycott would be announced at the press

conference. On the same day, I appeared on “CBS This Morning” where the list of corporate supporters of Planned

Parenthood was released to the public. A Planned Parent-hood spokesman refused to appear opposite me. CBS re-sorted to asking an expert in corporate finance to take the

opposing position. His primary point was that polls show a

call for a boycott only serves to make anti-abortion people

less supportive overall.

The “expert’s” argument was nonsensical. First, polls have

shown no such thing. Second, no one would become “less

anti-abortion” (more pro-abortion) because of a strategic

decision made by a pro-life organization. After all, if a

person could change his or her mind on such an important issue so easily, we would not exactly be talking about a true

pro-life supporter in the first place.

In December 1990 PPFA published an article in INsider , its

internal newsletter, erroneously implying that AT&T began

donating to the group in 1984. In reality the Company had

funded the group since the mid-1960s. PPFA also said

AT&T was the “target” of a boycott. Not true. The corpora-tion changed its philanthropic practice five months before a

boycott was instituted. The media helped PPFA spread thiinaccuracy by writing that AT&T ended contributions because, as the Milwaukee Journal put it, the Company wa“facing a threatened boycott.”

Planned Parenthood adopted an interestinstrategy which consisted of getting an unchallenged point of view in front of the public. I

April 1990, at the insistence of Planned Parenthood, PPFA’s Wattleton and AT&T’Marilyn Laurie of the AT&T Foundatiowere interviewed separately on a networ

morning news program.

In late 1990 New York City-based WWOR-TV, which icarried by many cable companies nationwide, attempted tset up a debate between a Planned Parenthood spokesmaand me. The station asked Planned Parenthood officials athe national and affiliate levels to appear but all refusedThey would agree to an interview, but not with someon

from the opposing side present—someone who could chalenge them on the spot. Not wanting to feature the antiPlanned Parenthood side alone and unwilling to do separatinterviews, the station scrapped the idea. (Surely the oucome PPFA leaders were counting on.)

Not long after the AT&T controversy began to subside, thDayton Hudson Corporation [now Target Corporation] announced it would end support of Planned Parenthood, busoon reversed itself. The reversal came about because leadership of the Dayton Hudson Foundation was made up ozealous Planned Parenthood supporters. But the Founda

tion falsely claimed the reversal was due to public pressureWattleton backed the Foundation’s bogus explanation in ainterview with the NonProfit Times:

“Well, I think there was just overwhelming public outrage. People

were returning merchandise, I understand, they were cutting up their credit cards—it was an economic decision…And I think that they

came to see that there was much broader and greater support that was willing to express rage for the work that Planned Parenthood

had been doing than against what we are doing.”

The decision by the Dayton Hudson Foundation to stofunding of Planned Parenthood was clearly a ruse. Its rever

sal was not a response to “public outrage” but was part othe plan from the start. The hoax was designed to convincthe steadily increasing number of corporations that hastopped funding Planned Parenthood to reverse their decsions as well. The ploy was unsuccessful. Dayton Hudsoeventually agreed to permanently end support of PlanneParenthood when corporate officials intervened in the public debacle created by Foundation leaders.

On October 29, 1991, the Wall Street Journal published aarticle titled “Forbes 400 Are Paupers When It Comes t

TheTheTheThe “CBS “CBS “CBS “CBS ThisThisThisThis

Morning” Morning” Morning” Morning” interinterinterinter----viewviewviewview wwwwasasasas donedonedonedone bybybyby

PaulaPaulaPaulaPaula Zahn.Zahn.Zahn.Zahn.

LaurieLaurieLaurieLaurie servedservedservedserved

AT&TAT&TAT&TAT&T well.well.well.well.




Public Policy,” in which it was reported that Planned Par-enthood is a favorite cause of the “upper-class” spouses of corporate leaders. “It’s amazing how few of them are con-servatives,” said George Gilder, who wrote an introductory

essay to the 1991 “Forbes 400” list. This led to support for

Planned Parenthood through the corporate structure.

An economic boycott of corporate supporters of Planned

Parenthood did not begin until it was announced at the August 1990 press conference. Emphasis was given to the

American Express Company due to its consistent giving

pattern.

The call for a boycott was addressed on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Robert K. Dornan, R-Calif. “Mr. Speaker, my American Express card grows ra-dioactive in my pocket as it does every time I read that they

give money to Planned Parenthood,” he said. American

Express responded:

Amex, which admits to receiving “several thousand letters from con-cerned card members and clients,” is worried about…efforts, which

included getting “Christian owned-and-operated companies” to re- fuse to honor the Amex credit card (and those of other financial pow-ers which fund Planned Parenthood.) The company’s managers and

“800” phone operators have been briefed on how to answer—pro-lifers and “downplay”…complaints about the Planned Parenthood

funding policy.

American Express is no longer a boycott target.

Differing StrategiesDiffering StrategiesDiffering StrategiesDiffering Strategies

While Life Decisions International (LDI) is the recognized

leader in fighting corporate support of Planned Parenthood, the AT&T success led other anti-Planned Parenthood or-ganizations, some of which had called the Project a “waste

of time,” to take an interest, particularly after it made head-lines. On August 13, 1989, Newsday printed an article

titled, “Companies in Abortion Crossfire,” which pointed

to differences in strategy emerging from the various groups.

With the number of groups involved in

the CFP rapidly expanding, disagree-ments emerged over how to proceed.

Some wanted to expand the boycott to include corporations

that advertise on abortion-related television programs. Others wanted to target only one or two corporations for a

more concentrated boycott. Some thought a boycott could

be an effective tool against offending corporations. Others

believed it would have limited impact and, therefore, is

more of a symbolic and moral action. In an effort to avoid

problems that would arise from changing its approach, LDI continued to manage the CFP while taking into considera-tion the suggestions of pro-life leaders. Nevertheless, some

anti-abortion groups chose to end the united front and di-minish our effectiveness by going their own way.

While a handful of anti-abortion leaders have actually trieto undermine the CFP, most continue to value the experience and wisdom in LDI’s approach. For example, StoPlanned Parenthood (STOPP) sees LDI as the only legitimate source on such matters. “There are many lists of corporate supporters of PP and abortion,” the effective grousaid in its newsletter. “STOPP recognizes the LDI list as th‘official’ list of PP supporters.”

One large anti-abortion group was hesitant to endorse thCFP because its leader argued that a single product of onsubsidiary of a corporate supporter of Planned Parenthooshould be targeted for a boycott. He said the approacwould allow corporate leaders to see the damage pro-lifactivists could do to corporations that fund Planned Parenthood and this revelation would cause them to stop givingThe suggestion was given serious consideration but rejeced for three reasons: 1) Why should the other offendincorporations be left unchallenged?; 2) How would it look tcorporate leaders if the “wrong” product was selected an

the parent company never changed its philanthropic practices?; and 3) How could anyone argue with success?

At the other extreme the Saint Antoninus Institute insistthat offending corporate chief executive officers be made tsign a “Pro-Life Principles of Corporate Conduct” statement before being dropped from its list of boycott targetOne “principle” required that corporations not fund abortion advocacy groups in the future and that current commitments immediately cease. It also had a provision wit

which LDI could not agree:

Should the corporation, or the corporation-sponsored foundation, have funded such organizations in the past, whether knowingly or not, its chief administrator will donate corporate funds, in the amount of the total sum of the different previous donations to pro-abortion

organizations (in constant dollars), to any legitimate pro-life organi-zations of his choice…

No chief executive will ever agree to sign such a statemenNo chief executive will ever agree to pay “reparations” fopast philanthropic giving. In some cases doing so woulamount to many millions of dollars. Moreover, requirinrestitution could be seen as extortion—from a moral perspective and maybe from a legal one as well. It is important to get corporations to stop doing evil. Getting them tmake up for past activities is far too much to expect anchief executive to swallow.

Boycott Efficacy Boycott Efficacy Boycott Efficacy Boycott Efficacy

Do boycotts work? Is an economic boycott an appropriatway to impact philanthropic policy? The answers depenon whom you ask. Call for a boycott against something wcare about and you are a terrorist. Call for a boycott agains




something we loathe and you are behaving in the tradition

of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Caesar Chavez.

Many people view economic

boycotts as a strategy owned

by liberals. But the use of boy-cotts by such groups as the

American Life League, Amer-

ican Family Association, and Christian Leaders for Respon-sible Television have demon-strated a willingness by those

considered to be on the politi-cal right to take a page out of the “how to impact policy”

strategy manual of those on the political left.

The Green Consumer Supermarket Guide promotes the

purchase of environmentally friendly products. The author, Joel Makower, has a strong opinion about the efficacy of economic boycotts:

Let’s start with the basics: Every time you open your wallet, you cast a vote “for” or “against” the environment.

This is more powerful than you might imagine. First and foremost, the

marketplace—whether the supermarket, hardware store, or appli-ance showroom—is not a democracy. It doesn’t take 51 percent of people “voting” in any one direction to affect environmental change. Far from it. In fact, a relative handful of shoppers can send shock

waves through an industry simply by making good, “green” choices.

The Guide noted that three major corporations agreed to

sell only “dolphin-safe” tuna. When executives announced

the policy shift in April 1990, they did not say it was based

on concern for the environment or dolphins. They attribut-ed the decision to “consumer pressure”:

What’s amazing about all this is that it was a relatively small number of consumers who were “pressuring” the tuna companies—probably

less than a million active individuals, according to some reports. That’s less than 1 percent of the American marketplace. In fact, dur-ing the twelve months preceding the tuna companies’ announce-ment, tuna sales had barely changed . As so the “votes” of a very

small number of individuals revolutionized an entire industry.

According to the Guide, consumer pressure also convinced

McDonald’s to use paper rather than polystyrene foam

hamburger boxes. In fact, sales of McDonald’s products

had been rising before the announcement was made. The

president of McDonald’s did not say the company’s deci-sion was made because there was something wrong with

using the boxes, but because McDonald’s customers just did not “feel good” about using them.

IN Fashion agreed that economic boycotts are not such a

radical idea in an article published in its Fall 1992 edition:

Most people associate the word “boycott” with ‘60s radicals. But boy-cotting is a well-respected, effective and legal means of nonviolent protest, as well as a vehicle of change. Boycotts of companies with

investments in South Africa led many corporations to divest. Con-sumer-led product boycotts influenced Avon and others to halt ani-mal testing…

Another article in the same issue of IN Fashion, titled, “ThPower of the Purse,” encouraged people to be aware of thimportance of what they purchase:

Most times we go into a restaurant or store, we’re in a hurry, looking

to find what we came for, pay the piper, and head for the door. But next time, hold back the cash until you’ve checked out your purchase.

What you buy and where you buy it has a direct effect on the environ-ment and its inhabitants…Every time you buy something, you are

essentially voting for the way a company does business. And you are

voting with dollars—a language that companies definitely under-stand.

In January 1992 the NonProfit Times cited a public opiniopoll conducted by the Barna Research Group (BRG), whicshowed that 67 percent of the American people disagree

with the statement that boycotts “don’t really accomplisanything.” Only 30 percent believed boycotts are ineffec

tive while three percent were not sure. BRG estimated tha just in the month preceding the survey 25 million Americans had boycotted something.

Rabid NARAL called the CFP “marginally successfulwhich is high praise when considering the source. NARAL

News published the list of targeted corporations asking supporters to do what they could to counter the Project.

It is clear the CFP will have a limited impact on PlanneParenthood’s nearly $450 million [now over $1 billion] annual budget. However, this is not just about money. It con

cerns moral involvement—an unholy and avoidable alliance with the abortion industry. Every time a company endsupport for Planned Parenthood, it represents a relativelsmall loss of dollars to the group but a big slap at the publiimage. When Pioneer Hi-Bred International withdrewfunding from Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa thgroup’s director, Jill June, mentioned the Project’s greateimpact. “It’s beyond monetary value,” June told the Associated Press in a story released on March 25, 1992, “it’much greater than that.”

Extortion?Extortion?Extortion?Extortion?

Several corporate officials expressed concerabout how Planned Parenthood would react they decided to stop funding the group. ThChronicle of Philanthropy reported tha“Some grant makers who are anxious to entheir long-time support for Planned Parenhood say they fear reprisals if they do so.” Th

newspaper quoted a corporate leader:

“For us to publicly withdraw our support from Planned Parenthood at this point would be suicide. If we make a mistake, we’re going to rise

“Boycotts don’t work.” Someone “Boycotts don’t work.” Someone “Boycotts don’t work.” Someone “Boycotts don’t work.” Someone

forgot to tforgot to tforgot to tforgot to tell this brave womanell this brave womanell this brave womanell this brave woman!!!!

IsIsIsIs “Dr. “Dr. “Dr. “Dr. Evil” Evil” Evil” Evil” aaaa

consultantconsultantconsultantconsultant totototoPlannedPlannedPlannedPlanned

ParenthoodParenthoodParenthoodParenthood????




into the sights of Faye’s [Wattleton’s] 48-inch guns. She will use AT&T mercilessly. We can’t be next. We’d be in a worse position.”

Another grant-maker expressed the same concern:

“None of us can afford what Planned Parenthood is going to do to us [if funding is withdrawn]. The worst of all things is to antagonize them. I don’t know how much heat our business people can take. Faye has maneuvered beautifully to take advantage of our moral cowardice.”

On May 1, 1990, in an article titled, “Corporate Giving Under Siege,”

the Chronicle of Philanthropy re-

ported that the National Organiza-

tion for Women (NOW) had started

a boycott against a large pizza chain

because the company’s chief execu-

tive donated to a campaign to stop

state funding of abortion in Michi-

gan. LDI called the action “illegitimate” because the dona-

tion was made out of the executive’s own pocket; neither

corporate funds nor the corporate name were attached. The

CFP applies only to those that fund Planned Parenthood

with corporate dollars in the name of the corporation or

related entity.

Project Management Project Management Project Management Project Management

LDI’s primary goal is to decrease the influence Planned

Parenthood now has throughout the world. This includes

not only opposing its funding but also its controversial

programs. LDI has developed brochures and other helpful

literature that educated people about the true agenda of Planned Parenthood.

LDI had an immediate impact. A remarkable fundraising

letter from the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, dated April 26, 1993, included some words about LDI:

As I was about to mail this, one of our corporate sponsors sent me a copy of a letter they had just received from “Life Decisions Interna-tional.”

I felt ill when I read it.

I also know that other corporate donors have been approached in this manner.

I have reprinted the letter verbatim (with the corporate name blocked out for confidentiality). It’s something you should read for yourself.

This letter will give you a clear idea of the pressure that is being applied to those who support us.

It’s harrassment [sic]! And it is not to be tolerated!

Planned Parenthood needs your help today to fight these fanatics. Please respond as soon as possible to my letter. Thank-you.

What kind of letter could cause people to feel sick? What kind of letter could be labeled “harassment?” The text of

LDI’s March 12, 1993 letter to corporations follows:

Two month ago, we wrote to request information about the philan-thropic practices of the Multimedia Design Group Inc. [MDG]. We

have not received a response. However, we have been able to con-firm that…[MDG] has indeed supported Planned Parenthood.

Since you have been unwilling to respond to our inquiry and since we have been able to confirm that support has been given to Planned Parenthood, we will place…[MDG] on our international boycott list on April 1, 1993.

There are two ways to join the other 27 corporations that have been removed from The Boycott List : 1) Disqualify Planned Parenthood

from future funding; or 2) End support of Planned Parenthood for at least five years (if support is resumed, the corporation will be returnedto The Boycott List ). We do not make statements to the general pub-lic regarding corporations removed from the list in order to protect them from extortionist-like threats from supporters of Planned Parent-hood’s agenda.

Regardless of the personal views held by employees of…[MDG] it is not in the company’s best interest to become embroiled in the most heated and controversial issue of our time—abortion. As the world’s leading advocate of legal abortion, Planned Parenthood has become one of the most controversial organizations in the world. We urge your corporation to refrain from supporting such organizations. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Not to be outdone by their counterparts u

north, PPFA wrote about LDI in its INside

newsletter. The piece was titled, “Oppositio

Update: Life Decisions International: How

Politics and Religion Intersect in the Fa

Right.” Riddled with inaccuracies, the autho

drew some interesting conclusions about thi

threat to Planned Parenthood’s existence

Referred to as the “recent creation of professional ant

Planned Parenthood organizer Douglas R. Scott Jr.,” LDI’

“announced sole purpose” is to “organize against Planne

Parenthood and cut off funding from corporate, foundationand individual donors.” LDI’s leadership “reveals the ex

tensive ties between anti-choice and right-wing ringleader

who have created overlapping spheres of politics and rel

gion.” Furthermore, the list of LDI’s board of director

“reads like a ‘who’s who’ in the anti-choice movement.”

Support vs. OppositionSupport vs. OppositionSupport vs. OppositionSupport vs. Opposition

While the vast majority of dedicated and far-thinking pro

life activists see the wisdom and strategic importance of th

CFP, there are a few who not only do not support it. Som

are even doing all they can to undermine it.

I believe these attacks are based on one or more of severa

possible factors: 1) The critic dislikes boycott leaders on

personal level and this overrides what is good for the cause

2) The critic or someone close to the critic is associated wit

a boycott target; 3) Participation in the boycott would cos

the critic money and/or time; 4) The critic is ignorant abou

boycotts; 5) The critic is simply weak; or 6) The critic i

knowledgeable about boycotts but has a heartfelt differenc

of opinion regarding how the CFP should be administered

(Number 6 is rarely involved.) Only Planned Parenthood i

TROUBLEMAKER: TROUBLEMAKER: TROUBLEMAKER: TROUBLEMAKER:

LDI CoLDI CoLDI CoLDI Co----FounderFounderFounderFounder

Patricia PitkusPatricia PitkusPatricia PitkusPatricia PitkusBainbridgeBainbridgeBainbridgeBainbridge



Winter 2012 Special Reports Page 1

In a letter to pro-life activists who expressed concern over

the unholy alliance, Blanton/Harrell’s Jennifer Cooke said

Smith and Grant were “aware of Dayton/Hudson’s one-year $18,000 donation to Planned Parenthood.” This rhet-oric and explanation came directly from Dayton Hudson

Corporation literature, which Blanton/Harrell Inc., sent along with its letter. The explanation is a half-truth, which

was brought to the attention of Blanton/Harrell Inc., when

it first began spreading the disinformation. The donation is

indeed a “one-year” gift, but has been routinely renewed

for many years. In fact, by 1994 the Dayton Hudson Corp-oration had given nearly $200,000 to Planned Parenthood.

Blanton/Harrell refused to include this fact in its form letter

to pro-life activists.

Officials of the Dayton Hudson Corporation claimed the

grant made to Planned Parenthood of Minnesota “is the

only Planned Parenthood grant that the Foundation has

made.” But they should insert after the words “this year”

after the word “made.” Corporation officials also wrote that

the company “has never given to the Planned Parenthood

Federation of America.” It is odd that this statement would

be made since LDI has never said the grants were made to

PPFA. Yet Dayton Hudson makes the statement of fact as

though it matters; it does not. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota is a PPFA affiliate and, naturally as such, their

goals are identical.

In the literature sent to pro-life

activists by Blanton/Harrell, titled

“We Listen,” Dayton Hudson said

it was not taking a position on

abortion. Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge, executive director of LDI, responded by saying, “You cannot support Planned

Parenthood and claim to be neutral on abortion any more

than you can support the National Organization for Women

and claim to be neutral on radical feminism or the Ku Klux

Klan and claim to be neutral on racism.”

The most disturbing part of the statement made by the

Dayton Hudson Corporation was the implication that the

grant was made only one time and will not be renewed. As

noted above, this is simply untrue. If the corporation is

proud of its grants, why does it neglect to state its historic

support of Planned Parenthood, the connection between

Dayton Hudson Corporation officials, Planned Parenthood

and its agenda, and the future of that relationship?

Blanton/Harrell Inc. even attempted to separate Target

Stores from the Dayton Hudson Corporation. At the time

the Corporation was the parent company of Target Stores

and the tie was not indirect. In fact, it could not be more

direct. While an official of Target Stores Inc. may not fund

Planned Parenthood, the corporation with which they are

linked is a strong supporter—corporately, philosophically

and otherwise. Any attempt to separate the Dayton HudsoCorporation and Target Stores is misleading as they aressentially one entity.

Blanton/Harrell argued that Dayton Hudson earmarked itgrants for “educational” purposes only. As noted above“earmarking” funds is useless because it merely means unrestricted dollars are used for abortion-related activity. It i

a matter of paperwork and bookkeeping. Besides, DaytoHudson Corporation officials have made it clear that thestrongly support Planned Parenthood’s agenda and practices. The funds given by the Corporation help to brinPlanned Parenthood and its failed programs to schoolthroughout Minnesota.

While an international boycott of the Dayton HudsoCorporation continued, the connection with well-knowChristian artists is clear and possibly not coincidentaDayton Hudson may have specifically sought out Christiaartists in an effort to circumvent the boycott.

It is not known whether Smith or Grant were given aopportunity to review the information provided by LDI oif Blanton/Harrell, which likely reaps significant financiabenefit from its business relationship with Target, only fethe artists the Dayton Hudson Corporation position.

In March 1993 LDI contacted Blanton/Harrell once agaito address this matter. On April 5, 1993, LDI received

hostile and rude telephone call from a Blanton/Harrell executive who scoffed at the idea that LDI would actually assomeone as important as Grant and Smith to respond to thstated concerns. Unwilling to let Bainbridge get in mor

than a few words, he said LDI would hear from their lawyeand abruptly hung up.

James Randolph Smith, Blanton/Harrell’s lawyer, sent letter to LDI just five working days after the phone calDated April 13, 1993, the letter was sent via certified mail:

I have been requested by my client, Blanton-Harrell, Inc., to respond

to your letter dated March 25, 1992 [sic—1993] regarding Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith. My clients requested that I convey their re-spect for your rights and your views. However when the exercise of your rights and the holding of your views can harm or damage my

clients, they have a problem with that.

The context of your letter characterizing all of this as a major battle or dispute in which my clients are actively holding views contrary to

yours and intentionally working against you and your organization

are inaccurate and preposterous. Furthermore, your statement, among others, that “you [Blanton/Harrell] continue to spread incom-plete and inaccurate information when you have been presented with

the facts” is ludicrous and dishonest. Your letter is even more absurd

in light of the fact that Amy Grant is a mother of three and Michael W. Smith is a father of five.

Be advised that your direct and veiled threats to harm and damage

the name and reputation of Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith have

now been documented by your letter. This letter shall serve as notice




to you and your organization that any further activity, written, verbal or otherwise, that would result in or, in fact, does result in the misrepre-sentation, misstatement, casting in a false or inaccurate light, threat-ening or actually undertaking activities against Amy Grant or Michael W. Smith, or damaging their names and reputations will be pursued

to the fullest extent under the law as directed by my clients. This letter is being written as a matter of courtesy rather than pursuant to any

requirement to do so. This letter is without prejudice to, or waiver of, the exercise of any and all rights, defenses and remedies, whether at

law, in equity or otherwise, all of which rights, defenses and remedies

are hereby expressly reserved.

The letter was sent “as a matter of courtesy”?

Actually it was sent as a horribly unsuccessful and amateurish attempt to intimidate. It seems

to me that an attorney with even an ounce of in-tegrity would have told his clients they have no

legal or moral ground on which to stand. But maybe this

highly paid lawyer either feared doing so or he figured it would be easy to frighten us into no longer telling the truth. Whatever the case, Smith and Blanton/Harrell should be

ashamed of themselves. Of course, the fact that the manage-ment company defended Planned Parenthood and Dayton

Hudson’s association with the group should have brought 100 times more shame, but it obviously did not do so.

LDI responded to Smith’s letter:

We are in receipt of your letter…We regret you have chosen to deal with this matter by displaying such an attitude—even attempting to

intimidate us. We believe your approach is wholly improper and quite

surprising, especially when one considers the clients represented by

Blanton/Harrell Inc.

Let [us] say from the outset that we wrote…Blanton/Harrell Inc., as a

courtesy due to the many inquiries we have received about this mat-ter. Several people have asked our advice on picketing Mr.…Smith’s

and Ms.…Grant’s concerts and boycotting their products. We have

consistently advised that such actions would be inappropriate at this

time—primarily because, as Christians, we must first contact the per-sons involved and attempt to resolve this matter.

[Our] first contact…regarded Ms. Grant and occurred more than one

year ago. Your client chose not to respond to [our] letter, which clari-fied our position and corrected inaccuracies being disseminated. Since Mr. Smith joined Ms. Grant in a relationship with the Dayton

Hudson Corporation …, we have received an increasing number of calls. Our [most recent] letter…was a further attempt to clarify the is-sue and point out the inaccuracies she continues to disseminate…

At no time have we stated or even suggested that Mr. Smith or Ms. Grant are not personally opposed to abortion. In fact, we have not even addressed the matter as this is not the issue. Therefore, your statement…is erroneous. We neither said nor implied Mr. Smith and

Ms. Grant personally support abortion or are intentionally working

against us. In fact, we sought to determine whether they have been

given all of the pertinent information regarding this matter because

we cannot believe they would choose to be associated with Dayton

Hudson if they had been fully informed.

We believe Dayton Hudson/Target Stores may be purposefully seek-ing out Christian artists in an attempt to diffuse the impact of our boy-cott against its stores. Several callers to our office have questioned

the validity of the information we have disseminated or thought Day-ton Hudson must have changed its philanthropic practices because

they believe neither Mr. Smith nor Ms. Grant would associate them-selves with a company that supports Planned Parenthood.

The statement in our…letter that Blanton/Harrell Inc…continues “to

spread incomplete and inaccurate information when you [they] have

been presented with the facts” stands unanswered…The letter spe-cifically pointed out the incomplete and inaccurate information being

disseminated. Rather than factually and specifically addressing these

points, you choose to rely on name-calling and intimidation. Who is

really being dishonest here? We fully stand by every point made in

our letter.

You write that our letter “is even more absurd in light of the fact that Amy Grant is a mother of three and Michael W. Smith is a father of five.” This observation of biological and familial fact…is absolutely

irrelevant. The issue here is their association with a corporation that supports Planned Parenthood—the nation’s leading abortion advo-cacy organization. Mr. Smith and Ms. Grant may do business with

any corporation they wish, but we intend to let pro-life/pro-family

people throughout the world know of the involvement and, yes, we

intend to question it.

Our letter…includes no “direct and veiled threats to harm and dam-age the name and reputation of Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith.” Are we to assume you believe the dissemination of factual informa-tion regarding the nature of their association with Target Stores would

do such “harm and damage?” If so, we are not the problem. Indeed, it is…[LDI] and our efforts that are being harmed by the actions of Blan-ton/Harrell Inc., and/or its clients. We can as-sure you that anything

said or written about your clients by persons associated with this

organization will be done carefully, accurately and deliberately…

Should you decide to take legal action, we are confident the Christian

community, the courts, and, more importantly, the Lord, will side with

us. However, our prayer is that you and those you claim to represent will choose a more biblical approach. In any event, we feel morally

bound to pursue this matter.

If you and/or your clients would like to start from scratch, so this situa-tion may be handled in a professional and biblical manner, we are

willing to do so. The decision is yours…

Dan Harrell, Grant’s brother-in-law and coowner of Blanton/Harrell Inc., defended thtie between Target Stores and his clients. Aarticle published in the May 7, 1994 edition oWorld reported that Harrell said he would nofeel differently about the alliance even if Tar

get Stores were donating funds directly to Planned Parent

hood rather than through its parent company. “It’s legal fopeople to have abortions,” he said. Harrell even defendePlanned Parenthood itself, saying, “I’m sure there are sompositive elements about what they are doing. It’s not mposition to judge.” Yet Harrell was willing to judge LDleaders when he described them as “weird lunatics whosobnoxious behavior is repulsive.” Harrell also said peopllike LDI leaders are “more immoral than the immoralitthey accuse us of.” Harrell wants to grade on a curve, eveif he has to classify just the questioning of his company a“immoral act” to do so.

J.R.J.R.J.R.J.R. SmithSmithSmithSmith

HarrellHarrellHarrellHarrell




In the winter of 1994 it was announced that Amy Grant would host the 1994 Dove Awards, which are presented to

Christian artists by the Gospel Music Association (GMA). Target Stores signed on as the lead national sponsor.

GMA steadfastly defended the sponsorship by Target

Stores by using the same rhetoric employed by the Dayton

Hudson Corporation and Grant’s management agency. The

text of letters between LDI and GMA were remarkably similar to those between LDI and Blanton/Harrell. As with

the agency, LDI did not receive a response to its letter re-sponding to GMA’s imitative position. The awards pro-gram was held in Nashville, Tenn., on April 28, 1994, and

was aired live on The Family Channel.

It eventually became clear that Grant was aware of the

controversy but had chosen to continue the relationship

with Target Stores. It is not known whether Smith, who not only endorsed Target Stores but also appeared at selected

store grand openings, was ever told of the situation.

The strategy of both GMA and Blanton/Harrell Inc. was

one of ridicule and name-calling. Both referred to LDI and

its leaders in the same terms used by Planned Parenthood

apologists. It is stunning that such an attitude and behaviorcould come from people who identify themselves as fol-lowers of Jesus Christ.

As columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “If we truly

don’t care about such things, we are unindicted

co-conspirators in the general culture decline.”

However, regarding the controversy involving

Blanton/Harrell and the Dayton Hudson Corpo-ration, Thomas took a different approach, which

he expressed in an interview with World :

[W]hile LDI and other boycott-minded organizations have “legitimate

concerns,” Christians sometimes have knee-jerk reactions to such

controversies. The lesson to corporate America is going to be, “Well, we are not going to get involved in anything they are involved in. And

I think that hurts our own opportunities to expand our witness and

especially our message of truth.”

Thomas said, “When Amy Grant is taking corporate sponsorship, I think it’s like Billy Graham said when he first started going into East-ern Europe. Someone asked him, “Mr. Graham, don’t you think that they are using you?’ And his response was great. He said, “Yes, but

I’m using them too.’”

Thomas’ double standard was not as ridiculous as his

comparing the goals of Billy Graham to those of Grant. One would surely like to think Graham went to Eastern

Europe not for personal gain or to advance his organization

but to further the Kingdom of God. The tie between Target

Stores and Blanton/Harrell Inc.’s clients has nothing to do

with expanding a witness or attempting to change Dayton

Hudson Corporation’s philanthropic practice. The problem

is not that Grant has a relationship with a corporation. The

problem is that she has forged an unholy alliance fopersonal gain and not to advance the Kingdom of God.

Bainbridge gave her view in an April 1994 memo to World

Two letters from Blanton/Harrell say that Amy Grant/Michael W. Smith “in no way support Planned Parenthood.” One would think if this were the case, given the controversy, the Christian community

would see a statement of the sort, “while we deplore the philosophies

and actions of Planned Parenthood, we have entered into a relation-ship with some of its supporters in an attempt to lovingly demonstrate

why this financial support does not benefit the family…

We understand that in his presentation to the GMA, Cal Thomas

talked about his new CNBC TV show and how—rather than be self-righteous—he would attempt to form relationships with individuals

like Geraldo [Rivera] and Phil Donahue. We, too, believe this lauda-ble. Would Cal Thomas, however, make commercials endorsing the

“Geraldo” or “Donahue” show ? In other words, would he give his

stamp of approval to the anti-family content of these shows?

Writers of the National & International Religion Repor

( NIRR) were apparently unhappy with some people whboycott corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood. Theespecially dislike the Corporate Funding Project and LDReferring to the boycott of the Dayton Hudson Corporatioin his article, “Decade of Volatility: Ten Powerful TrendFacing the Church,” Leith Anderson wrote, “Planned Parenthood is one of the nation’s primary providers of abortioservices.” (Actually, Planned Parenthood is the leadinprovider of abortions.)

“Even though the $18,000 was a comparatively smaamount and designated for non-abortion programs,” th NIRR article continued, “all money given to Planned Parenthood was considered by pro-life leaders to be directly oindirectly supporting abortions.” This is true, but the authors apparently do not grasp the concept of fungibility.

Are we to say, “Well, that company only gives a ‘tinyamount of money to a group that kills hundreds of thousands of preborn babies every year. That’s okay; it’s noenough to force me to care.” Just what amount would it takto concern such a person? The answer would vary.

What if we changethe characters? “Thcompany gives just

tiny amount of money every year to

group that kills JewThat’s okay; it’s noenough to force m

to care.” Far too many people fail to realize that everpreborn baby is just as human and valuable as every Jewisperson. Their guts understandably and appropriatelwrench when they think of Jews in a concentration camfacing death by poison gas and then callously tossed into

crematorium. But what kind of visceral reaction do the

ThomasThomasThomasThomas

WAITING WAITING WAITING WAITING FOR FOR FOR FOR THE THE THE THE “DOCTOR” “DOCTOR” “DOCTOR” “DOCTOR” :::: Jews;Jews;Jews;Jews; prebornprebornprebornpreborn babybabybabybaby




have when thinking of preborn babies facing death by

Jacquemier's Decapitator and then callously tossed into a

garbage disposal. None. The obvious and critically impor-tant question is, “Why?”

Regarding Dayton Hudson’s announcement that it would

stop funding Planned Parenthood, which as previously

noted was quickly reversed, NIRR said “neutrality may be

an impossibility.” This is the same rhetoric used by those

who support the donations to Planned Parenthood. It is im-possible to claim neutrality while funding Planned Parent-hood. Neutrality comes when neither side is funded.

“The debate moves into the church when members quiz one

another on their shopping habits,” the writers complained. “Many pro-lifers insist that…Dayton Hudson stores be

boycotted—because shopping at any of them is indirectly

supporting Planned Parenthood. Joining such a boycott be-comes a practical test of commitment and even of fellow-ship among church members.”

While no church should become divided over this matter

and people should always be treated with respect, the fact remains that the Dayton Hudson Corporation supported

Planned Parenthood. If abortion foes supported the corpo-ration there would have been no reason for its leaders to

reconsider such support.

As previously noted, one of the most difficult parts of the CFP was convincing Christian

radio stations to participate. Yet some tele-vangelists were also unwilling to help. Morris

Cerullo

World

Evangelism

continued

a

busi-ness relationship with a boycott target despite

being given all pertinent information about the tie between

the company and Planned Parenthood. (This particular

boycott target also funded several other groups Christians

would find objectionable, but nothing was enough to con-vince Cerullo to do the right thing. The evangelist either did

not care or was concerned that taking action would result in

a decrease in donations.)

Compare the Cerullo response to that of the Center for Reclaiming America (CRA). LDI had asked CRA to pro-

mote

the

boycott.

In

response,

CRA

came

out

with

a

poc-ket-size card that listed the names of the most well-known

but stubborn boycott targets. So far, so good, but then CRA

wrote a letter to be sent to supporters stating that CRA had

just come up with the idea of a boycott. While LDI could go

along with giving credit for the entire Project to CRA, a

“deal breaker” soon followed. CRA wanted to keep secret that fact that Disney was a boycott target because a related

television ministry was doing business with Disney-owned

ABC stations. LDI refused to go along with the deception

and the relationship with CRA came to an end.

CommitmentCommitmentCommitmentCommitment

The pro-life movement will succeed only to the extent prolife people are willing to be inconvenienced. In fact, I havnot even considered the Project to be much of an inconvenience. It is a matter of the heart and will. I believe excusefor ignoring the Project are either based on ignorance of economic boycotts or reflective of the degree of commitmen

of the person using the excuse.

The boycott should last as long as corporations are fundinPlanned Parenthood. If this takes until Judgment Day, so bit. Corporate leaders are hoping abortion foes will eventually get tired, bored and give up. They are wrong. Even if nother corporation were to change its policy, at least thewill be supporting Planned Parenthood without pro-lifpeople contributing to it.

In an article titled, “Abortion Battle EnterWorkplace,” published on August 13, 1993the Rockford Register reported that Cincinna

businessman Bill Molloy, president of Mohawk Machinery Inc., had written to 20 of hi

company’s suppliers asking whether they back the pro- oanti-abortion position. “We only want to do business witcompanies that share our ‘respect for life’ beliefs,” Mollotold the reporter. Suppliers supporting abortion and thosthat refused to answer lost Molloy’s business. Naturally, spokesman for the Cincinnati chapter of NOW found thapproach appalling. Wise or unwise, fair or unfair, appalling or laudable, at least Malloy demonstrated a desire to acon a deeply-held belief.

One editorial on the CFP was printed in the newsletter of local anti-abortion organization:

Do the excuses you offer for not familiarizing yourself with The Boy- cott List and not purchasing the products/services listed accurately

reflect your pro-life stance?

James 4:17 says: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do

and doesn’t do it, sins.” I pray that you will give serious prayer and

thoughtful consideration to what I have shared. God Bless You!

Hundreds of letters have been received by LDI regardinthe Corporate Funding Project. Most requested additionainformation and sought advice on how to do a better jo

urging corporations to stop supporting Planned Parenhood. While many people seem to have a different opinioas to how the Project should be managed and while sombelieve it is their duty to tell me what a waste of time thebelieve the effort is, I occasionally receive letters that dminish the impact of criticism and destructive comments.

The following letter, dated June 21, 1991, was sent to LDby a woman from Winnipeg, Manitoba:

[R]egarding the writing of my second letter to each corporation, I handwrote the first letter, having been advised that a handwritten

CerulloCerulloCerulloCerullo

MolloyMolloyMolloyMolloy



letter gets prompt attention and is often seen by the CEO of the com-pany rather than being handled by a less significant department. However, I have sustained nerve damage in my right hand and it takes me two hours to handwrite a two page letter. Based on your vast experience in dealing with these corporations in trying to con-vince them to stop funding PP, do you feel a second letter from me, typed, might get less attention and have less of an impact on the

company? If a typed letter will have little effect on the stand of the

company, I will handwrite them. I feel I could send letters on a more

regular basis…if I could type them…I am at present writing to 10

corporations asking them to reconsider contributing to PP.

A March 30, 1992 letter came from a woman in Town-send, Tenn.:

I have not found it easy [to boycott the products]…I personally love…[two restaurants on the list]. However, I love children more.

Thank you for this opportunity to make a difference.

Two words come to mind—godly commitment.

In an August 8, 1990, article published in the New York

Times titled, “Abortion Foes Urge Boycott of Planned Par-enthood Donors,” David J. Andrews, then-PPFA’s execu-tive vice president, said he did not believe many corpora-tions would end support of his group. Despite Andrews’ prediction, by June 1994, at least 29 major corporations had

permanently ended support of Planned Parenthood. This

number does not include those that ended support without openly stating that Planned Parenthood will receive no

future funding, nor does it include corporations that will never start supporting the group because of the controversy

that doing so will create.

Consider

the

commitment

of

those

who

are

involved

in

boycotts for other causes. Queer Nation, a militant homo-sexual rights group, organized a boycott against Cracker

Barrel because of their policy against hiring homosexuals. The issue was addressed in a segment that aired on the

ABC News magazine “20/20” on November 29, 1991. At the conclusion of the report, host Barbara Walters said, “I…

think I might be able to find another restaurant to go to if I

were in that area.” Tom Jarriel, the “20/20” correspondent

who worked on the piece, responded, “As a consumer that is certainly your right.”

Homosexual groups have targeted Florida orange juice because the

Florida Citrus Commission (FCC)hired conservative radio and tele-

vision commentator Rush Limbaugh to pitch its product on

his program. Jonathan Bauer, who leads a homosexual group in Arizona, spearheaded the boycott. “While the

commission may find it easy to swallow Limbaugh, we as

consumers find Florida orange juice leaves a bitter, homo-phobic, un-American taste in our mouths,” Bauer said. He

believes the boycott would not significantly harm the Com-

mission, but it would “at least make them aware of how wfeel.” In a piece titled, “Group Plans Week-Long CitruBoycott,” TWN reported that several bars with a largelhomosexual clientele agreed to support the boycott by refusing to serve Florida orange juice, choosing instead tpour it down the drain. “In choosing to spend $1 million tadvertise on Rush’s show, the Florida Citrus Commissioexplicitly endorses Limbaugh’s anti-gay political views.”

While corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood woulnot care for the conclusions drawn by Bauer, it is clear thaif abortion foes were as committed to the cause as othegroups, things would change even more rapidly. The FCCLimbaugh relationship soon ended, though the Commission claimed it had nothing to do with the boycott.

The Future The Future The Future The Future

The Corporate Funding Project should continue as long ait takes to achieve the goal—ending corporate involvemenwith Planned Parenthood. Leaders of Planned Parenthoopredict their opponents will eventually grow weary of thboycott and call it off. They must be shown that abortiofoes are committed to do what it takes to end abortion anPlanned Parenthood’s role in it.

There is one other aspect of this Project that opponents oabortion should consider. No corporate leader wants picketers outside his or her place of business with signs reading“This establishment supports abortion providers so pleasdon’t support it!” If picketing is used along with the boycoand the introduction of stockholder resolutions, it is just matter of time before the battle will be won.

While the CFP has seen considerable success, there are stimany abortion foes who do not care what they buy. As dedicated as they may appear, many people involved in civdisobedience are among the biggest patrons of corporatsupporters of Planned Parenthood. This Project calls for

private, moral witness against abortion. Acts of civil disobedience are a public witness. While this carries a degree osacrifice, it also brings praise from like-minded peopleBoycotting corporations does not do so. Everyone shoulboycott corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood because it is the right thing to do, even though participant

will not make the evening news or receive recognition anpraise from others.

Food for thought.

– Douglas R. Scott, Jr. is president of Life Decisions Internationa

Special Reports , an official periodical of Life Decisions International (LDI), is pulished four times per year. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect thviews of every LDI Partner or members of its Board of Directors/Advisors or staff. Thpublication may be copied or quoted so long as appropriate citation(s) are includeWrite : P.O. Box 439, Front Royal, VA 22630-0009 (USA). Phone: (540) 631-038Many past editions of Special Reports are available on LDI’s website (fightpp.org).

© 2012 Life Decisions International

creating a new battlefront (prolife propaganda)

Documents