Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist
On April 26, 2013, President Barack Obama did something equally extraordinary. He became the first president to address a Planned Parenthood conference. Planned Parenthood is the foremost provider of abortions in the United States. In his speech, Mr Obama celebrated the “quality healthcare to women” that this organization purportedly provides without once mentioning the service for which they are best known – abortion.
President Obama also lauded the organization for its near century of service since “the first health clinic of what later would become Planned Parenthood opened its doors to women in Brooklyn.” Curiously, he neglected to say much else about the origins of the group, except that “for nearly a century now, one core principle has guided everything all of you do – that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health. It’s a simple principle.”
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The real founding principle behind the group from which Planned Parenthood sprang was purely eugenicist, deriving from Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” Perhaps it is best to let founder Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) speak in her own words at length (so as to avoid their being taken out of context).
In Women and the New Race (1920), she wrote that
The purpose in promoting birth control, she added in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921, was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” How can this be done? Among other things, she explained in Women and the New Race, “[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”
The only way to do this was to have fewer children from the “unfit.” Who were the unfit? One can guess the answer from where Margaret Sanger placed her clinics – in poor neighborhoods. Who lived there? Blacks, East Europeans, and shanty Irish, among whom were my grandparents. The solution to poverty was to get rid of the poor. In case anyone missed the point, she said, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Of course, Mr Obama did not come from a large family, but one wonders from the circumstances of his birth what Margaret Sanger would have thought about bringing the unborn Obama to term? One can only be grateful that his mother did not consider herself part of a breeding program to create a “new race.” However, it is puzzling that he chose to celebrate a group whose origins are so explicitly steeped in eugenics.
This makes all the more remarkable the kind of criticism he leveled at the new restrictions recently placed on abortions by several states, including Kansas and North Dakota. President Obama said that “after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.” But Planned Parenthood’s ideas turn back the clock far earlier than the 1950s. In fact, they go back almost a full century before that and have their genesis in Darwin’s work, the full title of which is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. These ideas, with a little help from Frederich Nietzsche, reached their fruition in Nazi Germany.
That makes the 1950s look rather good. In fact, in comparison to today, 1950s America sported intact families, low crime rates, almost no pornography or drugs, and an extremely low divorce rate. Rather than denigrating it, Mr Obama should be celebrating these aspects of that fortunate decade. Of course, the 1950s did not allow what Mr Obama tells Planned Parenthood is “your right to choose.” This is the popular euphemism for abortion, employed by people who might otherwise squirm at Margaret Sanger’s admonition to “kill it.”
Therefore, the way Mr Obama disguises the issue is by cloaking it in the rhetoric of healthcare and human rights. He objects to “the government injecting [interjecting?] itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.” Abraham Lincoln, whom Mr Obama purports to admire, would have had a good laugh at this. It is straight proslavery language. It would be like objecting in the 1850s to the government interjecting itself between a man and his slave. After all, it’s his property, just as the Dred Scott decision said. After all, it’s not a “person,” as Roe v. Wade said. However, if the government can’t protect innocent human life, what can it do?
Well, it can provide free contraceptives. Thanks to Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, the president said, “most insurance plans are now covering the cost of contraceptive care, so that a working mom doesn’t have to put off the care she needs just so she can pay her bills on time.” What could he possibly be talking about? Without insurance, one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives costs around $9. For this, we have a government?
President Obama, Margaret Sanger would be proud of you. Abraham Lincoln would not.
Since you are here…
…we’d like to have one more word with you. We are excited to report that Aleteia’s readership is growing at a rapid rate, world-wide! Our team proves its mission every day by providing high-quality content that informs and inspires a Christian life. But quality journalism has a cost and it’s more than ads can cover. We want our articles to be accessible to everyone, free of charge, but we need your help. To continue our efforts to nourish and inspire our Catholic family, your support is invaluable. Become an Aleteia Patron today for as little as $3 a month. May we count on you?