The Strange World of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review: Part II

Origins of the Pro-Abortion Slogans.

Most of us have heard all of the tired old pro-abortion slogans many times.  When we hear people start to chant them again, we usually roll our eyes and think “I’d sure give a lot to hear something original!”

It turns out that these pro-abortion slogans are even more unoriginal and unimaginative than we thought.

Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson recounts how he spent his time plotting the future course of the pro-abortion movement with NARAL co-founder Larry Lader:

“Women must have control over their own bodies.”

“Safe and legal abortion is every woman’s right.”

“Who decides?  You decide!”

“Freedom of choice ― a basic American right.”

I remember laughing when we made those slogans up.  We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion.  They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.[lxxii]

But history reveals that it was not Nathanson and Lader who created the modern-day pro-abortion slogans.  This dubious honor must go to Margaret Sanger and other writers for The Birth Control Review.

Woman’s Body, Woman’s Choice

The precursor of this slogan first appeared in the October 1928 Birth Control Review, when the Editor claimed that “When women are in full control of their own bodies, then the world will honor motherhood and will learn that it is worth while to do everything possible to make it safe and desirable.”[lxxiii]  Three years later, Maynard Shipley said “One can say of him [author George Ryley Scott] that he is sincere, forthright, and unafraid; that he is a thorough believer in birth control, and also in legalized abortion ― in other words, over a woman’s right to possession and use of her own body.”[lxxiv]  Magnus Hirschfield wrote that “… For we have here merely the question of a woman’s rights over her own body.  Moreover, experience shows that when proper methods are not available wrong and harmful ones are resorted to.”[lxxv]  This slogan soon caught on and became very popular among writers for The Birth Control Review.

Every Child a Wanted Child

This hideous slogan, which reduces children to the status of appliances, was first used by Mary Knoblauch in the April 1919 issue of The Birth Control Review.  She said, “The first right a child should have, and since he can’t protest, we should insist upon it for him, is that of being wanted.”[lxxvi]  Margaret Sanger echoed, “The first right of the child is to be wanted ― to be desired with an intensity of love that gives it its title to being and joyful impulse to live.”[lxxvii]  Ella K. Dearborn said, “It is an injustice to both parents and child to bring an unwelcome baby into the world.”[lxxviii]

This “better off dead” slogan is still very popular among pro-abortionists today in their attempts to portray themselves as kind, child-loving people.

Children by Choice, Not by Chance

This slogan first appeared in the May 1927 edition of The Birth Control Review.  Louis Mann wrote that “Religion … believes in cosmos, not chaos, in choice not chance, in free will, not fatalism.  It must, therefore, believe in children by choice rather than by chance.”[lxxix]  Harry Fosdick claimed that “The tragedy of unplanned parenthood our children’s children will look back upon as utterly inhuman.  It is just as much a man’s problem as it is a woman’s to see that this inhumanity is done away and that voluntary parenthood is established as the normal functioning of family life.”[lxxx] Similar slogans appeared throughout the magazine’s entire run.

Freedom of Choice

Although Nathanson and Lader claimed credit for the star-spangled “freedom of choice” slogan, Margaret Sanger used it a half-century before NARAL was organized.  She said that “Woman must have her freedom ― the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have . . . . That right to decide imposes upon her the duty of clearing the way to knowledge by which she may make and carry out the decision.”[lxxxi]

No Mandatory Motherhood!”

The “No mandatory motherhood!” slogan is a favorite of the most extreme feminists.  Margaret Sanger first used it when she claimed that “My interest is to see American womanhood freed from forced maternity”[lxxxii] and “Women clamor for deliverance from compulsory motherhood.”[lxxxiii]  She also claimed that “The church has been powerless and the champions of worn out moral creeds find themselves trying in vain to force all women to become mothers against their wills.”[lxxxiv]  Ella Dearborn later wrote in The Birth Control Review that “Forced motherhood and unwelcome children are pitiful and heartbreaking.”[lxxxv]

Safe, Legal and Rare

Even this slogan, which helped Bill Clinton get elected to the Presidency, was first used in The Birth Control Review.  John Vaughn stressed that “The bringing about of an abortion should never be necessary; can never be moral; and must rarely be legal. … I say again, abortion should never be necessary, can never be moral, and must rarely be legal.”[lxxxvi]

It is interesting now that as the extreme pro-abortion crowd has become politically empowered, they now demand that abortion be considered good, and no longer claim that they want it to be rare. Some have actually said that they want more, not fewer, abortions, and the hundreds of women who have been killed by negligent and incompetent abortionists show that the self-described “feminists” certainly do not care about the safety and health of women.

Not the Church, Not the State!”

As we have previously seen, the birth controllers and eugenicists who wrote for The Birth Control Review correctly recognized that the Catholic Church was their greatest enemy.  Therefore, they did their best to shame and sideline the Church and Her spokesmen.

The “Church and State” slogan is derived from a 1931 argument by Kate Gartz:  “The church and the state must keep their hands off these most personal affairs.”[lxxxvii]

Later the same year, Clarence Little launched an attack on priests specifically when he wrote that “This hierarchy of celibate priests is as unqualified to give advice on matters dealing with the physiology of reproduction as their complete inexperience can make them.”[lxxxviii]  Of course, a priest who has counseled hundreds of couples anticipating matrimony or experiencing marital difficulties probably knows much more about marriage and reproduction in general than the average married person, just as a mechanic usually knows much more about a car than the person who owns and drives it.

Women will Get Abortions Whether it is Legal or Not

Nathanson and Lader said that “We fabricated the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.  The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200‑250 annually.  The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”[lxxxix]

This detestable play for public sympathy actually originated in the pages of The Birth Control Review.  Writers often fabricated numbers for the United States, but often mentioned other nations as well.  One writer from Sanger’s German affiliate wrote that “[In Germany] according to very conservative estimates, there are about one million abortion cases a year.  Considering the fact that tens of thousands of women die [annually] because of these illegal operations, very often performed by quacks and midwives, it becomes evident to the sensible that more light must be cast on the subject.”[xc]  Another writer claimed that 4,300 women committed suicide in Germany each year due to unwanted pregnancies, and thousands more died of illegal abortions.[xci]  As always, the authors offered no documentation or references to back up these “statistics.”

And they still don’t.

Conclusion.  The most popular pro-abortion slogans first appeared in The Birth Control Review in one form or another, only in those days they were in support of contraception.  This demonstrates yet again both the link between birth control and abortion, and that the pro-abortion movement has no imagination.  As we have previously seen, not one of the “pro-choice” slogans has any scientific, theological or moral basis.  They are designed to get people to accept abortion without thinking.

This is one of the reasons that the final victory of the pro-life movement is inevitable.  Truth always wins out in the end.  We have to get people to think.  Sometimes this task may seem well-nigh impossible, but if we all get involved, we will hasten the final victory of the Culture of Life.

The False Promises of The Birth Control Review.

Just like the Devil, the Culture of Death always promises us the moon and the stars, but delivers nothing but death and destruction.

The year after Roe v. Wade, NARAL claimed that “Legal abortion will result in a reduction in welfare rolls.  Legal abortion will decrease the number of illegitimate births … Legal abortion will decrease the number of unwanted children, battered children, child abuse cases, and possibly subsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of social ills believed to be associated with neglectful parenthood.”[xcii]

Here NARAL was echoing many the promises made in The Birth Control Review:  “Birth Control properly established would go further to eliminate poverty, sickness, insanity, crime, with all that these scourges imply than any other remedy proposed.”[xciii]  S. Adolphus Knopf enthusiastically predicted that “What would be gained if we followed the example of Holland, where birth control has been officially sanctioned for over fifty years?  There would be fewer marital maladjustments, fewer divorces, less illegitimacy, less prostitution; syphilis and crime would be diminished.  … There would be decided physical, material, moral and even spiritual progress …”[xciv]

Others made even more extravagant promises.  Holmes Alexander said “As I understand it, the final goal of birth control is, by limiting reproduction, to improve the race, to promote individual and domestic happiness, and to curtail such scourges as war, famine, insanity, poverty, unemployment, and congenital crime.”[xcv]

We all know how a hundred years of empty promises by the Culture of Death have turned out.  We have more illegitimacy, crime, war, famine, unemployment, mental problems and divorce than ever before, in addition to a host of problems Sanger and her companions never dreamed of.

Let us examine some of the more specific promises made by the birth controllers that never came true …

The First Promise:  An End to Abortion

The most popular prediction made in The Birth Control Review was that the widespread use of contraception would completely end the practice of abortion, whether legal or illegal.

Margaret Sanger’s group frequently emphasized its official position on abortion:  “The American Birth Control League is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to any but therapeutic abortion.  Abortion is dangerous, physically and psychically.  Universal knowledge of Birth Control would reduce it to a minimum.”[xcvi]

Sanger claimed that “Anyone who knows anything about either birth control or abortion knows that scientific birth control methods would do away with abortions which occur in appalling numbers in America every year.”[xcvii]  She also said that “A knowledge of Birth Control, which is denied to the women of Austria, would, of course, wipe out the practice of abortion.”[xcviii]

Sanger’s claim was backed up by a glittering galaxy of the leading physicians of the day.  Ella Dearborn, M.D., said that “Abortion, however, must not be confused with Birth Control, which employs contraceptives and thus does away with the demand for abortion.”[xcix]  Rachelle Yarros, M.D., claimed that “Not only has Birth Control nothing in common with Abortion but is a weapon of the greatest value in fighting this evil.  With its help we may hope to limit and, I trust, eradicate this criminal practice.”[c]  Not to be outdone, Nadina R. Kavinoky, M.D. wrote that “Present scientific knowledge of birth control has reached such a stage that abortion is entirely unnecessary and the abortion rate is mute evidence of the neglect of society to care for its mothers. … The application of our present knowledge of birth control methods can practically eliminate abortions.”[ci]  Many other doctors, including the famous William J. Robinson,[cii] C.V. Roman,[ciii] Hannah Stone[civ] and Alice Hamilton[cv] made exactly the same claim.

But long experience has shown us that no country has legalized abortion without first “softening up” society with years of contraception, which frequently fails and leads to an inevitable demand for illegal abortion.  Of course, the pro-abortionists, who caused the problem in the first place, then demand the “solution” of legalized abortion.

We have witnessed the Culture of Death manufacturing one crisis after another in order to pave the way for social change.  This tactic was effective nearly a century ago, as writers for The Birth Control Review grossly exaggerated the numbers of abortions taking place in the United States.  Alexander M. Campbell predicted that “The increase of criminal abortion, which may be conservatively estimated at two million a year in America, would be materially reduced if contraceptive measures were scientifically administered.”[cvi]

Of course, some writers took the opportunity to criticize their opponents.  One said that “The real friends of abortion are ignorance of and opposition to wise, humane scientific contraception.”[cvii]  Dr. Ira Wile proclaimed that “Every intelligent person knows that contraception is opposed to abortion.”[cviii]  Sexologist Havelock Ellis used a slogan that pro-abortionists still frequently use in various forms today:  “There cannot be any doubt about it, just as all those who work for birth control are diminishing the frequency of abortion, so every attempt to discourage birth control promotes abortion.”[cix]

History has shown us how the “birth control does away with abortion” prediction has fared.  The United States has been saturated by every kind of birth control for half a century, and we have suffered nearly sixty million abortions.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are two million contraceptive failures each year, and nearly two-thirds of women getting abortions were using contraception when they got pregnant.[cx]

It seems that the fatal error of the “experts” in The Birth Control Review was not just naiveté about human nature, but the assumption that science would soon deliver an infallible means of birth control ― and that everyone would use it.

The Second Promise:  Worldwide Famine

Many writers for The Birth Control Review predicted that millions of people would starve if birth control were not immediately adopted all over the world.

In 1920, the self-described “expert upon the population situation” R.C. Martens predicted that

Within the next few months millions of human beings, mostly Europeans, will starve to death.  Food to meet the needs of the Earths’ population is lacking and cannot be produced in time to avoid the great crash ― the crash which will, as its chief incident, cost uncounted millions of lives, and bring in the train of that disaster no one knows what governmental and social changes.[cxi]

       Oxford Professor and Director of the Natural History Museum Sir Ray Lankester did not shrink from using apocalyptic imagery:

If man continues to act in the reckless way which has characterized his behavior hitherto, he will multiply to such an enormous extent that only a few kinds of animals and plants which serve him as food and fuel will be left on the face of the globe.  He will have converted the gracious earth, once teeming with innumerable, incomparably beautiful varieties of life, into a desert, or, at best, a vast agricultural domain abandoned to the production of food‑stuffs for the hungry millions, which, like maggots consuming a carcass, or the irrepressible swarms of the locust, incessantly devour and multiply.[cxii]

Famed science fiction author H.G. Wells almost matched Lankester in vivid imagery:  “The world is already too full … Unless a solution is found, life will come to mean a world without animals, for we shall not be able to support even squirrels.  There will be no open country, no streams, cataracts, and woods, no independent travel ― and still the increase will continue.”[cxiii]

The writers for The Birth Control Review could not seem to make up their minds about future population numbers.   In 1930, Warren Thompson and P.K. Whelpton said that the world population would collapse to a mere 185 million by the year 2000,[cxiv] and Raymond Pearl predicted that the population of the United States would be about 197 million by the year 2100[cxv] (its current population is 320 million).  On the other hand, H.G. Duncan predicted that there would be 75 trillion people on the earth by the year 3000, for a population density of 551,000 people per square mile (one person for every 50 square feet of land area!)[cxvi]

Paul Ehrlich of The Population Bomb infamy might have received his inspiration from Frank Hankins, who claimed that “With an increase of fifty per cent in agricultural efficiency and a utilization of all tillable areas America can raise food for only 208 million people.”[cxvii]

Whether the prediction was people teeming on the earth like ants or a sudden collapse and starvation of 90 percent of the world’s population, the solution proffered was always Birth Control.

Instead of famine, we have problems with widespread obesity.  Instead of people with standing room only on the earth, the United Nations now predicts that the world population will peak at about 8.3 billion and will then begin to decline.[cxviii]

We have seen that the writers for The Birth Control Review were wildly inaccurate in their predictions that contraception would decisively end abortion, and that billions would die of starvation if birth control were not universally adopted by the people of the world in the 1930s.  Contributors to Sanger’s journal made many other predictions that turned out to be entirely wrong.

However, one writer did make a prediction that must inevitably come true.

Prediction:  An End to War

The Birth Control Review began its publication run as World War I was winding down, and Margaret Sanger knew that most people were sick of fighting.  She took advantage of this by promising that birth control would bring to an end to the conflicts that plagued the world.  She said “There are still some of us who believe birth control to be a fundamental solution to the problems of poverty, prostitution, child labor, and even war itself.”[cxix]  In the same issue, Wesley Frost stated that “Only limitation of births will prevent future European wars … If people could be made to comprehend that it was the overcrowding of European nations, except France, that caused this war, birth control would become a patriotic duty and an unwritten policy.”[cxx]

This theme was interwoven throughout the 24-year run of The Birth Control Review.  Edward Ross summed up the view of many contributors by saying that “There are good reasons for believing that the real enemy of the dove of peace is not the eagle of pride nor the vulture of greed, but the Stork.”[cxxi]

In reality, none of the major conflicts of the Twentieth Century were caused by overpopulation.  After all, most European nations had already adopted widespread birth control by the 1930s, and this fact did nothing to avert World War II.

Prediction:  An End to Prostitution

Margaret Sanger asserted that “Birth Control will prevent prostitution, because young people will be able to marry early and wait until their incomes are sufficient before having children, and wives will be freed from the haunting fear of pregnancy which hovers over a woman from month to month and frequently drives husbands to prostitutes.”[cxxii]  One editorial predicted that “Birth Control will attack the institution of prostitution and increase the stability of the family,”[cxxiii] and another claimed that “Our remedy for prostitution is to encourage early marriage by spreading the knowledge that couples can avoid having any more children than they are able to do justice to.”[cxxiv]

As we have seen, the famous William J. Robinson, M.D., predicted that birth control would lead to an end of abortion.  He also thought that “It is my well considered opinion that with the further spread of prevenceptive knowledge and with divorce becoming easier, the number of marriages will go on increasing. … And this will do away, to a great extent, if not with promiscuity, certainly with commercialized prostitution.”[cxxv]

Writers for The Birth Control Review were so ignorant of human nature that they believed that the widespread availability of contraception would even lead to a decrease in extramarital sex.  Reverend Harry Fosdick maintained that “The idea that the mere removal of the dread of conception is going to let loose a flood of iniquity is, I suspect, a misapprehension of the facts.  Children of this new generation who have been trained in a code of honor involving the existence and the right use of Birth Control will be less likely even than their mid‑Victorian parents to treat the matter lightly or to be beguiled by fools.”[cxxvi]

Not surprisingly, some women writers were knowledgeable enough about human nature to accurately predict what would happen if birth control became freely available.  Gertrude Doniger said that “This new animal who swears, crosses her legs, dresses unconventionally and indulges in what were formerly masculine vices, is paradoxically a serf to her new sexual freedom.  Under her new regime she has freed herself from fecundity only to indulge her exhibitionistic and narcissistic tendencies and carries her infantile demands into maturity …”[cxxvii]

Prediction:  An End to Crime

One of the assumptions made by the eugenicists who wrote for The Birth Control Review was that most crime was committed by “the lower classes.”  Therefore, it seemed logical that getting lower-class women on birth control would reduce crime.

Montgomery Mulford wrote that “The theory of birth control makes no extravagant claims; but I am of the belief that the acceptance of birth control by society, and its frank teaching, can help diminish criminal activity!”[cxxviii]  Another writer thought that “Birth Control is a proper procedure, which is, perhaps, able to create a balance between the fit and the unfit.  Its practice would go far toward a solution of the crime problem of today.”[cxxix]  Dr. Ira Wile, who made many different predictions regarding birth control, said that “Contraception among all classes of the community would undoubtedly lead to a decrease in delinquency and crime.”[cxxx]

This is an attitude that unfortunately persists today.  As we have seen in a previous article in this series, it is not abortion that has caused the steep drop in violent crime in America over the past two decades, but a host of unrelated influences.[cxxxi]

Prediction:  Utopia

According to many writers for The Birth Control Review, the universal adoption of contraception would without doubt lead to a paradise on Earth.  Racist and eugenicist Julian Huxley, founder of the World Wildlife Fund, thought that “Many of you will remember reading Mr. J.B.S.  Haldane’s brilliant little book Daedalus, in which he envisaged the future of the human race many centuries hence when eugenics would really be eugenics and all breeding of new human beings would be done entirely in incubators.  That may seem fantastic, but in these [birth control] researches we have at any rate the first step towards its possible realization.”[cxxxii] Dr. William F. Ogburn added “Possibly babies will be supplied according to the laws of supply and demand which control the amounts of other products, such as potatoes.”[cxxxiii]

Finally, C.V. Drysdale expressed the vision that all eugenicists hold dear:

When all nations follow the same course, and especially eliminate their undesirable types by fostering Birth Control, restrictions of all kinds will relax and gradually disappear, international intercourse shall be welcomed, we shall be citizens of the world as well as of our respective nations, international war will be unnecessary and unthinkable, and we shall all be able to combine as one human family and empire to subdue the destructive forces of Nature.[cxxxiv]

Prediction:  Catholic Church Surrender

The most compelling evidence that Margaret Sanger and her fellow writers did not comprehend the nature of their most implacable enemy was their belief that the Catholic Church would eventually surrender in the battle over birth control.

  1. Boyd Barrett confidently predicted that “Under pressure of the public opinion and moral sense of the Church’s children, and also under pressure of reason, the [Roman Catholic] Church will change her position in regard to Birth Control.”[cxxxv]

Just like today’s quisling groups like Call to Action and Catholics for [a Free] Choice, some writers said that Church teaching should simply conform to current thinking.  Robert N. Ford held that “If one’s religion does not coincide with or include this highly moral code of Birth Control, then perhaps we should re‑interpret the Bible, the Talmud, the Koran and other holy writ to include it.  A critical review of religious evolution shows that man has been quite proficient in adopting religions to his needs, and certainly Birth Control is becoming a pressing need.”[cxxxvi]

Sanger occasionally allowed her opponents to write for The Birth Control Review, perhaps to give her readers insight into the thinking of those who opposed contraception.  On such occasions, these writer’s predictions turned out to be very accurate indeed.

The best of these was penned by the famous social reformer Father John A. Ryan, who stirringly wrote that

We give this challenge to the proponents of birth control.  We [Roman Catholics] too, are of yesterday, but we shall be the America of tomorrow; we shall be the majority.  We shall occupy and dominate every sphere of activity; the farm, the factory, the counting house, the schools, the professions, the press, the legislature.  We shall dominate because we shall have the numbers and the intelligence, and above all, the moral strength to struggle, to endure, to persevere.  To you we shall leave the gods and goddesses which you have made to your image and likeness, the divinities of ease, of enjoyment, of mediocrity.  We shall leave you the comforts of decadence and the sentence of extinction.[cxxxvii]

Although scandals and indifference have rocked the Catholic Church throughout Her history, we have two unbeatable allies in this fight:  God and demographics.  Father Ryan saw the truth more than eight decades ago; we have only to fulfill his prophecy.  But this will require us to treasure our fertility as Jesus Christ intended us to.

Only time will tell if we are up to the task.

Conclusions

When confronted with some of the more offensive racist, eugenicist and anti-religious material in The Birth Control Review, pro‑abortionists — particularly Planned Parenthood employees — tend to respond with three standard objections.

Objection #1.  The most common objection is that “The material is taken out of context.”

The Birth Control Review enjoyed a 24‑year run, from 1917 and 1940, and accounted for 5,631 pages and 4.3 million words of text, a large volume of information by any standard.  If this material included two, three, or even a dozen or so questionable or offensive quotes, Planned Parenthood defenders would have a point if they stated that “the material was taken out of context.”  However, the pages of The Birth Control Review are saturated with noxious ideas and statements ― eugenic, racist, anti‑immigrant, anti‑Catholic, and so on.  The “out of context” defense is completely unpersuasive because the many repugnant ideas in Margaret Sanger’s journal are the context!

Pro-abortionists have a habit of smearing pro‑life organizations with labels such as “anti‑Semitic” and “racist,” often using a single quote by a spokesperson that is decades old.  So why the loud protest from the champions of “choice,” who think they can get people to ignore the hundreds of bizarre and extreme quotes written by the founder of Planned Parenthood and her fellow writers?

Objection #2.  The second objection is that “Most of the material in The Birth Control Review was not written by Margaret Sanger.”  This is certainly true, but irrelevant.  Sanger wrote a relatively small portion of the total volume of information contained in her journal, yet she still managed to provide several dozen quotes that demand very close scrutiny.  For example, she wrote frequently about negative eugenics, including her infamous “Plan for Peace.”  She also edited The Birth Control Review from its founding to 1928, and was an officer of the American Birth Control League throughout its entire run, which means that she is responsible for its contents.

Consider this:  If an American Nazi or well-known racist was allowed to print an article in a pro‑life newsletter, the pro‑abortionists would never let us forget it.  They would not only smear the pro‑life organization that published the offending article, they would relentlessly tar and feather the entire pro‑life movement as “Nazis” and “racists.”

We are merely holding Planned Parenthood to the same standard.  The Birth Control Review is larded with articles written by such ‘luminaries’ as Lothrop Stoddard, American Birth Control League board member and author of the book The Rising Tide of Color against White World‑Supremacy, and Ernst Rudin, Adolf Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene ― the organization behind the master plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

We can thus say with certainty that Planned Parenthood honors a person (Margaret Sanger) who not only supported actual Nazis and racists, but gave them a widespread platform from which to spread their poison.

Some of the more interesting characters who wrote for the Birth Control Review include the following people.  Note the common twin threads of a seething hatred of the Catholic Church and a fundamental belief that non-White races are inferior.  If Planned Parenthood has ever disavowed the statements or philosophies of any of these people, we don’t know about it.

  • Havelock Ellis, president of the Galton Institute, who once said that “The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.”[cxxxviii]
  • Norman Himes, who believed that Catholic “stock” was inferior to that of Unitarians, Universalists and Freethinkers.[cxxxix]  Himes also believed that all rights (including the right to life) are bestowed by the State and can be revoked at any time.[cxl]
  • Julian Sorell Huxley was President of the English Eugenics Society and founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).  He was a hard-core racist who wrote that “The negro mind is as different from the white mind as the negro from the white body.   … You have only to go to a nigger camp-meeting to see the African mind in operation — the shrieks, the dancing and yelling and sweating, the surrender to the most violent emotion, the ecstatic blending of the soul of the Congo with the practice of the Salvation Army.”[cxli]
  • Elmer Pendell, who wrote in his 1951 book Population on the Loose that “The Catholics are promulgating a breeding program to gain political control in the United States.  In the poorer countries, they favor war as a method of keeping population and resources in balance.  In these poor countries, the denser population is denser because the dumber Catholics and dumber others are having so many dumb children — so the major influence of the Catholic’s campaign against birth control is that they trade away their smart Catholics and get dumb ones.”
  • George Bernard Shaw, Socialist economist and playwright, who wrote that “There is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenics religion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations.”[cxlii]  He also supported the mass murder of people who did not “pull their weight” in society; “Are you pulling your weight in the social boat?  Are you giving more trouble than you are worth?  Have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and “liquidate” persons who could not answer them satisfactorily.”[cxliii]
  • Marie Carmichael Stopes, one of whose husbands described her as was “supersexed to a degree which was almost pathological.”  She was President of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress.  Marie Stopes International, an organization founded in the 1970s by pornographers, is so bad it makes the Planned Parenthood Federation of America look like a bunch of do-gooders by comparison.
  • H.G. Wells, famous science fiction writer and avid anti-Catholic bigot, who raved that “Rome is the source and center of Fascism … Why do we not bomb Rome?  Why do we allow these open and declared antagonists of democratic freedom to entertain their Shinto allies and organize a pseudo-Catholic destruction of democratic freedom?”[cxliv]

Objection #3.  The final objection Planned Parenthood defenders usually present is that “The Birth Control Review does not reflect our current thinking.”  They allege that Margaret Sanger lived a long time ago, and that her thoughts and writings are not representative of the philosophy of today’s “new, improved” Planned Parenthood.  As former PPFA President Faye Wattleton so lamely asserted, “No one can really interpret what Sanger meant because she’s dead.”[cxlv]

Sorry, Faye.  Sanger’s thinking was clear and explicit.

No Planned Parenthood spokesperson ― at any level ― has ever disavowed Margaret Sanger.  In fact, Planned Parenthood gives its Margaret Sanger Award annually to the person that it perceives as most advancing the cause of “reproductive rights” during the previous year.

Without a doubt, Planned Parenthood still warmly embraces its founder.

Wattleton said that “I believe Margaret Sanger would have been proud of us today if she had seen the directions that we have most recently in this organization taken.”[cxlvi]  She also said that “As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and 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.”[cxlvii]

Wattleton’s successor, Gloria Feldt, praised Sanger to the skies:  “I can’t think of anyone who has made a greater contribution to the lives of women, children and families ― of all races ― than Margaret Sanger.  You have to look at [her] life to see she had a desire to help the poor and the downtrodden of any race.”[cxlviii]

Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger, was President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood of New York City, the largest PPFA affiliate in the United States.  He said that “I intend to be out on the front lines of our issues.  That is why I’m here … Right now, we have three [abortion] clinics in this city and I want ten more.  We currently have a small storefront office in central Harlem, and it is my first priority to see if we can transform that into a[n abortion] clinic … With all her success, my grandmother left some unfinished business, and I intend to finish it.”[cxlix]

In fact, Planned Parenthood adores Sanger so much they even had a “photo album” devoted to her life on its Web site until recently.

In conclusion, an organization does not honor a person with photo albums, fawning articles, and attempts at canonization unless it embraces that person’s philosophies:  In Sanger’s case, eugenics, free love, and anti‑Catholic and anti‑immigrant bigotry.

Endnotes

[l] H.J. Muller.  Review of the book Human Heredity, by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz.  Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 1 (January 1933), page 20.

[li] Paul A. Lombardo. ““The American Breed:”  Nazi Eugenics and the Origins of the Pioneer Fund.”  Albany Law Review, Volume 65, Number 3, page 822.

[lii] Harry H. Laughlin.  “Eugenical Aspects of Legal Sterilization.”  The Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 4 (April 1933), page 87.

[liii] Julian Huxley.  “Towards a Higher Civilization.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 12 (December 1930), pages 342 to 345.

[liv] Atheist and liberal Julian Sorell Huxley, the first Director‑General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and President of the English Eugenics Society.  He also founded the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and was a member of both the Euthanasia Society and the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA).  “America Revisited III.  The Negro Problem.”  The Spectator, November 29, 1924.  Downloaded from Mark Burdman.  “Eugenics:  Ideology of Genocide.”  Downloaded from http://www.bosnet.org/archive/bosnet.w3archive/ 9407/msg00211.html on March 5, 2002 (no longer available).

[lv]  Lothrop Stoddard, Ph.D.  The Rising Tide of Color against White World‑Supremacy [New York City:  Charles Scribner’s Sons], 1921.  Reprinted in 1971 by Negro Universities Press, Westport, Connecticut, pages i, 8, 9, 90, 231, 298, 301, 302, 308, and 309 in the reprinted version [NOTE:  Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger’s lovers, enthusiastically endorsed Stoddard’s book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World‑Supremacy in Sanger’s magazine The Birth Control Review (Havelock Ellis.  “The World’s Racial Problems.”  Birth Control Review, October 1920, page 16).  In this book (introduced by fellow racist/eugenicist Madison Grant), Stoddard demonstrates beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt the intimate connections between abortion, eugenics and goal‑oriented racism].

[lvi] Lothrop Stoddard.  “Population Problems in Asia.”  Birth Control Review, Volume V, Number 12 (December 1921), page 11.

[lvii] Malcolm H. Bissell.  Review of J.B.S. Haldane’s book Daedalus or Icarus:  Is Science to Be Man’s Servant or His Master?  Birth Control Review, Volume VIII, Number 10 (October 1924), pages 277 and 279.

[lviii] Major Leonard Darwin, Hibbert Journal of January 1930, quoted in Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 4 (April 1930), page 112.

[lix] H.J. Muller.  Review of the book Human Heredity, by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz.  Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 1 (January 1933), page 20.

[lx] Review of E.M. East’s book Heredity and Human Affairs, by L.C. Dunn.  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 11 (November 1930), page 326.

[lxi] Elmer A. Carter.  “Eugenics for The Negro.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XVI, Number 6 (June 1932, the “Negro Number”), page 169.

[lxii] Walter Terpenning.  “God’s Chillun.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XVI, Number 6 (June 1932, the “Negro Number”), pages 171 and 172.

[lxiii] “Puerto Rico:  Old Woman in a Shoe.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 5 (New Series, January 1937), page 6.

[lxiv] Edward M. East.  “The Fascisti on Birth Control; An Italian Problem:  Reply to Count Cippico.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IX, Number 9 (September 1925), pages 245 and 246.

[lxv] Rev. T.V. Jakimowitz.  “A Priest on Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 3 (March 1920), page 12.

[lxvi] Bianca Van Beuren.  “The Women of the South.”  Birth Control Review, Volume II, Numbers 2 and 3 (February‑March 1918), page 7.

[lxvii] John Galsworthy.  Maid in Waiting.  Quoted in Birth Control Review, Volume XVI, Number 3 (March 1932), page 87.

[lxviii] Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood of New York City, quoted in “Another Sanger Leads Planned Parenthood.”  The New York Times, January 23, 1991, page B2.

[lxix] For references and calculations, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-06-B.XLS, “Lynchings in the United States, by Year and Race, 1882-1964.”

[lxx] For references and calculations, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-19-04.XLS, “Analysis of United States Abortion Statistics, 1967-2013.”

[lxxi] Excerpt from the transcript of the address given by Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), at a luncheon in St. Louis, Missouri, on February 5, 1979.

[lxxii] Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., quoted in “‘Pro‑Choice’ Co‑Founder Rips Abortion Industry.”  Whistleblower Magazine [WorldNetDaily], December 20, 2002.

[lxxiii] Editor, Birth Control Review, Volume XII, Number 10 (October 1928), page 283.

[lxxiv] Maynard Shipley.  Review of George Ryley Scott’s book Marry or BurnBirth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 7 (July 1931), page 215.

[lxxv] Magnus Hirschfield, M.D.  “My Views on Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 11 (November 1931), pages 309 and 310.

[lxxvi] Mary Knoblauch.  “Editorial Comment.”  Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 4 (April 1919), page 2.

[lxxvii] Margaret Sanger.  “Woman, Morality and Birth Control” in “Still Another Reason for Birth Control ― The Right of the Child to be Welcome.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (March 1929), page 67.

[lxxviii] Ella K. Dearborn.  “Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XII, Number 3 (March 1928), page 88.

[lxxix] Dr. Louis L. Mann.  “Religion and Birth Control” in “Varied and Powerful Testimony.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XI, Number 1 (May 1927), pages 141 and 142.

[lxxx] Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick.  Birth Control Review, Volume XXIV, Number 1 (New Series, November 1939), page 17.

[lxxxi] Margaret Sanger, “A Parent’s Problem or Woman’s.”  Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 3 (March 1919), page 7.

[lxxxii] Margaret Sanger.  “How Shall We Change The Law?”  Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 7 (July 1919), page 8.

[lxxxiii] Margaret Sanger.  “Women and Birth Control:  Our Neighbors Say.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (July 1929), page 204.

[lxxxiv] Margaret Sanger.  “Birth Control or Abortion?”  Birth Control Review, Volume II, Number 11 (November 1918), page 3.

[lxxxv]  Ella K. Dearborn.  “Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XII, Number 3 (March 1928), page 88.

[lxxxvi] John C. Vaughn.  “Birth Control Not Abortion:  An Address before the American Birth Control Conference.”  Birth Control Review, Volume VI, Number 9 (September 1922), page 183.  Vaughn repeated this slogan many times in Sanger’s journal; later, he wrote that “The bringing about of an abortion should never be necessary, can never be moral; and should rarely be legal” [John C. Vaughn, M.D.  “The Curse of Abortion.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (November 1929), page 307].

[lxxxvii] Kate Crane Gartz, California.  Letter to the Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4 (April 1931), pages 126 and 127.

[lxxxviii] Clarence C. Little.  “Can One Be Christian and Free?”  Scribner’s, October 1931.  Quoted in Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 11 (November 1931), page 312.

[lxxxix] Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., quoted in “‘Pro‑Choice’ Co‑Founder Rips Abortion Industry.”  Whistleblower Magazine [WorldNetDaily], December 20, 2002.

[xc] Robert Strohmeyer, German Birth Control League, quoted in “News Notes.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 7 (July 1930), page 217.

[xci] “… it is known that in Germany … a considerable number of the 4,300 cases of suicide by women which occur annually is due to unwanted pregnancies; and that thousands of women perish yearly from the consequences of abortion” [“An International Report.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 3 (March 1931), page 95].

[xcii] Looseleaf booklet entitled “Organizing for Action.”  Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019.  51 pages, 1974.  See especially the chapter written by Emily C. Moore, Ph.D., entitled “The Major Issues and the Argumentation in the Abortion Debate,” pages 33 to 43.

[xciii] “Birth Control:  Is It Moral?  Dr Ernest H. Gruening’s Answers to Mrs. Sanger’s Four Questions.”  Birth Control Review, Volume VI, Number 7 (July 1922), page 133.

[xciv] S. Adolphus Knopf, M.D.  “Birth Control in Tuberculosis and Other Serious Diseases.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 12 (December 1931), pages 343 and 344.

[xcv] Holmes Alexander.  “The Case for Legislation.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 2 (February 1933), page 46.

[xcvi] “The Answer Box.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 12 (December 1930), page 366.  Another “official” claim by the American Birth Control League was “IS BIRTH CONTROL ABORTION?  Birth Control is not abortion.  Abortion is that taking of life after conception; Birth Control is the prevention of conception.  Birth Control is the great preventive of abortion” [“Birth Control Primer.”  Birth Control Review, Volume X, Number 1 (January 1926), page 3.  Repeated with the same title in Birth Control Review, Volume XI, Number 1 (January 1927), page 3].

[xcvii] Margaret Sanger.  “Are Birth Control Methods Injurious?”  Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 1 (January 1919), pages 3 and 4.  An identical quote appeared in Margaret Sanger.  “Ten Good Reasons for Birth Control ― The Abolition of Abortion and Infanticide.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (January 1929), page 3.

[xcviii] Margaret Sanger.  “Preparing for the World Crisis.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 4 (April 1920), page 8.

[xcix] Editor’s footnote to Ella K. Dearborn, M.D.  “Birth Control and a Bugaboo.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 5 (May 1920), page 14.

[c] Rachelle Yarros, M.D.  “Ten Good Reasons for Birth Control ― The Abolition of Abortion and Infanticide.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (January 1929), page 3.  The same quote appeared in Rachelle Yarros, M.D.  “The Curse of Abortion.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (November 1929), page 307 and in Rachelle S. Yarros, M.D.  “Abortion.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 9 (September 1931), page 254.

[ci] Nadina R. Kavinoky, M.D.  “A Program for Family Health” (Excerpts from a paper presented at the Third Pan‑Pacific Women’s Conference, Honolulu, August 1934).  Birth Control Review, Volume II, Number 3 (New Series, December 1934), page 4.

[cii] “There is one measure and only one which will positively do away with the evil of abortion, and that is teaching people how to avoid conception” [William J. Robinson, M.D.  “The Curse of Abortion.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (November 1929), page 307].

[ciii] “The opponents of birth control assert that if contraceptive knowledge becomes general, it will be abused.  This is a truism that should be accepted without argument.  Let us grant this point to the reactionaries, and ask who will commit the offense?  There is but one answer:  Those who now resort to abortion, infanticide and desertion will be the only offenders.  These crimes will disappear ipso facto, with contraceptive knowledge” [C.V. Roman, M.D., Nashville, Tennessee.  Letter to the Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4 (April 1931), page 127].

[civ] “Attention is also given to the subject of abortion.  Reports are submitted of its increasing prevalence and of its dangers, and the means of combating this growing and preventable evil are considered.  “The spread of contraceptive knowledge,” reads another resolution, “is the best means of reducing the present high incidence of abortions”” [Hannah M. Stone, M.D.  “The 7th International [Birth Control] Conference.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 11 (November 1930), page 318].

[cv] “Thoughtful people who have studied the subject have pointed out over and over again that information with regard to Birth Control, dispensed by competent and high‑minded physicians, would be the most powerful means of decreasing the number of abortions” [Alice Hamilton, M.D.  “The Curse of Abortion.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (November 1929), page 307].

[cvi] Dr. Alexander M. Campbell.  “Michigan State Medical Society Accepts Report of Study Committee.”  Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 1 (New Series, October 1933), page 2.

[cvii] George Bedbourough.  Review of Edward Roberts Moore, M.D.’s book The Case against Birth ControlBirth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 11 (November 1931), pages 326 and 327.  Another quote held that “Unscrupulous opponents denounce birth control as a thinly‑veiled crusade for abortion.  Such an accusation betrays simple ignorance” [“The New England Conference on Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 11 (November 1931), page 320].

[cviii] Ira S. Wile, M.D.  “Contraception and Public Health.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 1 (January 1931), page 8.

[cix] Havelock Ellis.  “Birth Control in Relation to Morality and Eugenics.”  Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 2 (February 1919), pages 7 and 9.

[cx] For calculations and references, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org and ask for Excel spreadsheet F-19-04.XLS, “Analysis of United States Abortion Statistics, 1967-Date.”

[cxi] R.C. Martens.  “The Coming Crash.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 1 (January 1920), page 5.

[cxii] Sir Edwin Ray Lankester Birth Control Review, Volume XII, Number 4 (April 1928), page 111.

[cxiii] “H.G. Wells Speaks on Birth Control.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 11 (November 1931), page 317.

[cxiv] Warren S. Thompson and P.K. Whelpton.  “A Nation of Elders in the Making.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 6 (June 1930), page 178.

[cxv] Robert N. Ford.  “Birth Control:  A Remedy or a Palliative.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 7 (July 1930), pages 206 and 207.

[cxvi] “The author estimates that there are now 2000 million people in the world and, at the present rate of increase, there will be 8000 million in the year of 2070 and 75,000,000 million in 3000 A.D. … Professor Wilkinson is not concerned with population problems beyond 150 years from now, and thinks it is indeed fortunate that none of us will be living in 3000 A.D.” [H.G. Duncan.  Review of H.L. Wilkinson’s book The World’s Population Problems and a White AustraliaBirth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 10 (October 1931), page 290].

[cxvii] Frank H. Hankins, Ph.D.  “Does America Have Too Many Children?”  Birth Control Review, Volume X, Number 2 (February 1926), page 60.

[cxviii] United Nations Population Information Network at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/ panel_population.htm, September 3, 2014.  The low variant is always used because it has consistently been the most historically accurate of the United Nations population predictions.

[cxix] Margaret Sanger.  “Editorial.”  Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 12 (December 1917), page 16.

[cxx] A Statement by Wesley Frost, former Consul at Queenstown Ireland.  “The Jostling Hordes.”  Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 12 (December 1917), page 15.

[cxxi] Edward Alsworth Ross.  “Birth Control the Ultimate Salvation of Mankind ― A Few Facts Gathered from ‘Standing Room Only,'”  Birth Control Review, Volume XI, Number 1 (November 1927), page 283.

[cxxii] Margaret Sanger.  “More Reasons for Birth Control ― The Promotion of Morality.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (February 1929), page 35.

[cxxiii] “More Reasons for Birth Control ― The Promotion of Morality.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIII, Number 1 (February 1929), page 35.

[cxxiv] Editorial.  “Birth Control ― The Cure For War.”  Birth Control Review, Volume II, Number 11 (November 1918), page 12.

[cxxv] William J. Robinson, M.D.  “The Future of Marriage.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 7 (July 1931), page 211.

[cxxvi] Statement of Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, Minister of the Riverside Church, New York City.  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 5 (May 1930), page 132.

[cxxvii] Gertrude Doniger.  Review of Samuel D. Schmalhausen’s book Our Changing Human NatureBirth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 3 (March 1931), page 88.

[cxxviii] Montgomery Mulford.  “Birth Control Lessens Crime.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 10 (October 1931), page 293.

[cxxix] “News Notes:  California.”  Birth Control Review, Volume IX, Number 9 (September 1925), page 264.

[cxxx] Ira S. Wile, M.D.  “Birth Control as Social Service.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 7 (July 1930), page 201.

[cxxxi] See Brian Clowes.  “Does Abortion Reduce Crime?”  The Wanderer, October 25, 2012.

[cxxxii] Julian Huxley.  “Towards a Higher Civilization.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 12 (December 1930), pages 342 to 345.

[cxxxiii] Dr. William F. Ogburn, University of Chicago and President of the American Statistical Association, quoted in “News Notes.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4 (April 1931), page 124.

[cxxxiv] C.V. Drysdale.  “Peace and Population Growth.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 11 (November 1930), pages 320 and 321.

[cxxxv] E. Boyd Barrett.  “The Perversion of a Natural Faculty.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 5 (May 1930), page 151.

[cxxxvi] Robert N. Ford.  “Birth Control:  A Remedy or a Palliative.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XIV, Number 7 (July 1930), page 206.

[cxxxvii] Dr. John A. Ryan, quoted in Leon F. Whitney.  “Religion and the Birth Rate.”  Birth Control Review, Volume XVI, Number 4 (April 1932), page 101.

[cxxxviii] Havelock Ellis quote from Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon [New York City:  St. Martin’s Press], 1984.

[cxxxix] Norman E. Himes.  Medical History of Contraception [Baltimore: Schocker paperback edition], 1970, page 413.  The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) reprinted this book in 1965 with an introduction by Alan Guttmacher, M.D.  The entire quote was “Are Catholic stocks in the United States, taken as a whole, genetically inferior to such no-Catholic libertarian stocks as Unitarians and Universalists, Ethical Culturists, Freethinkers?  Inferior to non-Catholic stocks in general?  No one really knows.  One is entitled to his hunches, however, and my guess is that the answer will someday be made in the affirmative … and if the supposed differentials in net productivity are also genuine, the situation is anti-social, perhaps gravely so.”

[cxl] “All the rights we have are those granted to us by society. Certainly there is no natural right to spawn defective children who must be supported by others through taxation or charity. The crisis in this instance is the enormous expense to the state of the care of the defective classes and the contamination of the biological stock which results from their reproduction. … While sterilization is no substitute for segregation, it is also true that segregation is no substitute for sterilization. They must go hand in hand.
“Ever since the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany an objection that has frequently been raised against eugenical sterilization is that a voluntary sterilization program may turn into a compulsory one. Some thoughtful people sincerely fear this. But the history of eugenical sterilization in the United States and in other democratic countries offers little warrant for the contention. This is the old fallacy of ultimate danger; that if we take step A, it would lead to step B; that if we take step B. it may lead to step C, and so forth without end. The evidence now available shows that even in Nazi Germany, where there is a great deal of compulsion that would not be tolerated by citizens who believe in democracy, there has been as yet no attempt to sterilize any special racial group …
“Most of the objections to eugenical sterilization are based upon unfounded fears, insufficient knowledge, or faulty reasoning. None of the objections has substantial merit. They are comparable to the arguments made ten years ago against birth control, even by some supposedly will-informed individuals, that birth-control devices caused sterility, necessarily led to immorality, would cause ‘race suicide,’ were unreliable, etc.
“… we do not need the defective classes. They are already an excessive burden upon the State. A few special students of the problem even believe that our society is undergoing a “moronization” process; that the intelligence level of the American people is declining because the gifted have few children and the stupid many … Probably it will take society a span of years to learn how to use it [eugenic sterilization] properly as a weapon for its own improvement …” [Norman E. Hines, Ph.D. Practical Birth-Control Methods [New York City: Viking Press], 1946 [NOTE:  Notice the author’s representation and summation of classic eugenicist theories, which, despite their antique quaintness, are still deadly poisonous to this day; that all rights are bestowed by the State alone, even to the granting (or withholding) of the right to life to handicapped persons; that “defectives” are expensive and “contaminate the biological stock,” and therefore society does not need “the defective classes;” that the slippery slope theory (here called the “ultimate danger fallacy”) has no merit, and, in fact, all anti-eugenicist arguments are baseless and originate from ignorance; and that birth control methods are reliable, do not cause physical damage, do not lead to immorality, and may one day be compulsory].

[cxli] Julian Huxley.  “America Revisited III:  The Negro Problem.”  The Spectator, November 29, 1924.  The entire quote was “The negro mind is as different from the white mind as the negro from the white body.  The typical negro servant, for instance, is wonderful with children, for the reason that she really enjoys doing the things that children do. … You have only to go to a nigger camp-meeting to see the African mind in operation — the shrieks, the dancing and yelling and sweating, the surrender to the most violent emotion, the ecstatic blending of the soul of the Congo with the practice of the Salvation Army.  … [intermarriage between the] negro and Caucasian type … gives rise to all sorts of disharmonious organisms. … The American negro is making trouble because of the American white blood that is in him.”

[cxlii] George Bernard Shaw, quoted in Mark Haller.  Eugenics [New Jersey:  Rutgers Press], 1963, page 19.

[cxliii] Preface to George Bernard Shaw ‘s play “On the Rocks.”

[cxliv] H.G. Wells.  Crux Ansata:  An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church (reprinted by Prometheus Press, 1991, page 1).

[cxlv] Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).  Quoted in the New York City Tribune, February 23, 1988, page 1.  Also quoted in Judie Brown.  “The Wattleton‑Sanger Tradition:  Deception.”  ALL About Issues, May 1988, pages 18 and 19.

[cxlvi] Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, at PPFA’s annual luncheon in St. Louis, on May 2, 1979.

[cxlvii] Excerpt from the transcript of the address given by Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, at a luncheon in St. Louis, Missouri, on February 5, 1979.

[cxlviii] Gloria Feldt, President and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) from 1996 to 2005 and former President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, quoted in the Phoenix Gazette, September 12, 1991.

[cxlix] Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander C. Sanger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood of New York City, quoted in “Another Sanger Leads Planned Parenthood.”  The New York Times, January 23, 1991, page B2.

 

One thought on “The Strange World of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review: Part II

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *