Abortion – A Liberal Cause?
by Jefferis Kent Peterson
Abortion has been numbered among the liberal causes of modern politics. Abortion is identified with women’s rights just as the Civil Rights Movement was identified with equal rights for African Americans and other minorities. But is abortion really a liberal cause? A careful examination of the history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent defender of a woman’s right to choose. The founders of the movement were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor; especially Blacks, Jews, Slavs, and Italians. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid. Today, most liberals would be shocked to know of this racist heritage. Not only is the founding of the abortion rights movement anti-liberal, but it may have been an attempt to promote racial genocide.
The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926. Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the “Negro Project,” that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:
“[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. “Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease, increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.” The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, “an ever widening margin of biological waste.” Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or “human waste,” as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor by having them give birth to those “stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race” Therefore, she believed that the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: “More [children] from the fit, less from the unfit.”
No modern day liberal would dare question the need for some form of government aid to the poor. But Margaret Sanger wanted more for the privileged and less for the poor. How did someone who was so obviously biased and lacking in compassion become the heroine of today’s liberals? It is a strange reversal of political direction. It is as if the Democratic Party suddenly turned around and supported David Duke for Supreme Court Justice.
Margaret Sanger also continued to advocate for her racial prejudices in her magazine, Birth Control Review. In six successive issues of that magazine, she advocated limiting the racial quotas of immigration of “Slavs, Hebrews, and Latins,” because of their lower intelligence! Although Ms. Sanger was the editor of the magazine, she shared its pages with the racist co-founders of the American Birth Control League. Board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the racist book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy , which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review. Co-founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference, and he advocated preserving the purity of “Yankee stock” through limiting the births of non-Whites.
Margaret Sanger was also strongly anti-Semitic. She started a similar birth control organization with a man named Henry Pratt Fairchild, who wrote The Melting Pot Mistake, in which he accused “the Jews” of diluting the true American stock. In his book, Race and Nationality, (1947), Fairchild blamed anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in part on “the Jews.”.
Finally, Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of abortion rights during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WWII in order to disguise her racist past. Today, her organization, Planned Parenthood, is still in the forefront of advocating abortion as a means of eliminating the unwanted and “unfit.” Not only does the organization perform thousands abortions each year, it also receives 100’s of millions of tax dollars each year through Federal and State Governments. And rather than being in the forefront of a woman’s right to choose, International Planned Parenthood is a primary advocate for the Chinese Government’s policy of forcing women to have abortions against their will, and it also advocates for the sterilization of Third World non-Whites across the globe. It seems that Planned Parenthood is “pro-choice” when trying to impress the U.S. media, but anti-choice in the actual implementation of its world-wide agenda.
But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, “As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg.”
One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems. Don’t help the poor, just eliminate them.
- Emily Taft Douglas, Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y., 1970, p. 192.
- Margaret Sanger, letter to Clarence Gamble, Oct. 19,1939; Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College.
- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, Brentano’s, N.Y., 1922, p.108.
- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, p.134.
- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, pp. 116-117.
- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, p.104 & 179.
- Birth Control Review article: “Racial Quotas in Immigration,” Margaret Sanger, editor, Aug. 1920, pp. 9-10. Article continues in next 5 issues.
- Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, Grossman, N.Y., 1976, p. 283.
- Birth Control Review, Margaret Sanger, editor, Oct. 1920.
- Gordon, Woman’s Body, p. 283.
- Fairchild, The Melting Pot Mistake, 1926, pp. 212 ff.
- Fairchild, Race and Nationality, 1947, pp. 137-161, esp. p.147.
- Gordon, Woman’s Body, p. 347.
- Based on 1984 figures compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Issues in Brief, 4:1 (March, 1984).
- Planned Parenthood Review, 5:1 (Winter 1984/85) & 2:4 (Winter 1982), p. 16. Report of the Working Group on the Promotion of Family Planning as a Basic Human Right, International Planned Parenthood Federation, London, 1984, pp. 21-23.
- Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.
The pro-choice view of human life…
“A fetus is not a separate individual – it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely…” — Joyce Arthur, Founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
“If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host. Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?” — Shane Krouse, MSU State News columnist
The Nazi German State’s view of human life…
“The Jew was always only a parasite in the body of other peoples.” — Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 419
“I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.” — Fritz Klein, Nazi Physician
The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.
Arms, legs, and chests come out of the forceps. It’s not a sight for everybody.
— Dr. William Benbow Thompson, The Crime of Being Alive: Abortion, Euthanasia, Infanticide by Melody Green and Sharon Bennett, p. 3
This is the uncomfortable truth that many people refuse to speak, even those within the pro-life community. They have bought into the politically correct thinking that a mother who pays an abortionist to kill her child or swallows drugs to poison them is somehow the victim. Although statistics indicate that 64% of mothers claim to have been coerced into aborting their child, one simple fact destroys this idea: could they have been coerced into killing their newborn? The answer is no. They only seek to kill their children in the womb because they can’t be charged for murder, at least not yet.
The irony is that pro-life people know that prenatal children are no less valuable than any other child, yet many claim that a mother who kills her child in the womb is somehow the victim, yet if she killed that same child minutes after birth, she’s a criminal. It’s time to stop pretending and tell the truth far and wide. No matter what age your child is or where they are located when you kill them, you are not the victim, they are.
I can remember going over and looking at the baby when we were done with the surgery and the baby was still alive. You could see the chest was moving and the heart was beating, and the baby would try to take a little breath, and it really hurt inside, and it began to educate me as to what abortion really was.
— Dr. David Brewer
… Several of us sit in the cafeteria around a luncheon table, eating overdone, tasteless stew. “What do you think this is made of?” Someone asks. “Venison,” I say. “Pigeon,” says Betsy. “Don’t be silly,” says one of the counselors “there is a hell of a lot cheaper meat to be found around here.” All of us laugh, guffaw, splutter, and slap each other on the arms. It is the funniest thing we have heard in years…
“Get a hold of yourself, ladies,” Rachel says. “This is unseemly.” She is right, of course, but all of us laugh again.
“I think it’s a Greek dish,” says Teresa, laughing so hard that tears begin to roll down her face and we can barely understand her. “It’s fetustu.” There is no containing any of us now. “There is mincemeat pie for dessert,” someone shouts. “And that isn’t tomato juice you’re drinking,” adds somebody else. Most of us are doubled over. The air is filled with the shrieks, and gasps, and gurgles. My sides begin to ache.
— Magda Denes, author of In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital
No more posts.