“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”-“A Plan for Peace” by Margaret Sanger published in Birth Control Review, April 1932
Forty-one years ago today, the Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v. Wade which gave women the right to end the lives of their unborn children. The legacy of that decision is 55 million lives that have gone un-lived. Since common sense and my faith tell me that the greatest resource any society has for survival is more people, this isn’t a happy anniversary.
The words above came from the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States, which in fiscal year 2012 received $542 million from taxpayers. Using public funds to aid in the snuffing out of our posterity–who according to The Declaration of Independence, also have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”– makes as much sense as spending taxpayer funds to burn our food supply for fuel (ethanol).
But that’s the kind of “logic” and “compassion” you can expect from a progressive and the organization that was supposed to help poor women gain the knowledge and resources they needed to plan the size of their families in an effort to eliminate poverty, disease and other social ills. That sounds like a very noble idea, but if you go deeper into Sanger’s life and her other writings, you find something else. She was an elitist–definitely a complicated person who, while maybe not overtly endorsing eugenics, she had some twisted ideas on how to win people to her side in the contraceptive debate of her time. She was big on believing that overpopulation led to all of the world’s troubles. So, even as she claimed to be working for the welfare of women, she was also blaming them for all the problems because they were having too many kids.
She even proposed that Congress get more involved in controlling population—the progressives answer to everything! She thought it would be a good idea to appoint a “Parliament of Population” which would, among other things, give “the whole dysgenic population” the choice between segregation and sterilization.” Congress would put those choosing segregation on farms where they “would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives”. [Emphasis mine]
Who exactly would be “dysgenic”? In her own words:
“The first step would thus be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics. The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.”
Margaret Sanger was much like the organization she founded. She worked for things that appear to be good, but there’s a thread of something sinister running through her mindset. Planned Parenthood, while it does provide some health care services for women, has a nice little “side business” in abortion that rakes in millions for them each year.
The frightening thing about Sanger and others like her is that her hit list, as described above could include lots of people. Who gets to decide who’s a moron or a mental defective? Could those with differing political or religious beliefs than those in power be defined that way? Progressives always use the word “moral” when making their arguments, as if they and they alone are capable of deciding who or what is or isn’t moral, and who should or shouldn’t be allowed to live as a free person. It was true then. It’s true now.