Via Catholic Culture comes this:
Journalists ignore Margaret Sanger’s eugenic theories
November 03, 2011When American presidential candidate Herman Cain denounced the eugenicist theories of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, liberal journalists rose to Sanger’s defense, claiming that Cain had distorted the record. Now Mollie Ziegler Hemingway of GetReligion observes that the journalists themselves were distorting the facts, concentrating on a single isolated statement rather than viewing the entire record of Sanger’s published works, which leave no doubt about her racism and the heavy influence of eugenic theory in her drive to cut down on births among the “lesser” races.
Fact checkers agree: Lay off Sanger’s eugenics! (GetReligion)
Loading ...
There is a lot of drivel written on the fact checker com box. One only needs to read Sanger’s writings, including her 1921 articles, to know she was for racial regeneration, she called eugenics.
Unbelievable. The farce that is the ‘fact-checking’ here merely underscores the pathology of the bias.
We should also understand how frightening this is. To be biased is not to be part of a conspiracy: it is to *truly believe* in a distorted–and in this case diabolical–world-view.
This is really screwed up. The good folks at GetReligion are doing great work.
For the record, for years in the State educational systems, as opposed to the Catholic schools, there has been an attempt to canonize Ms. Sanger. When I was working in curriculum, I saw a history book used in the lower grades of high school in several States with a two-page spread on Margaret Sanger. I wish I were exaggerating. When I looked for anything on Robert E. Lee, or Stonewall Jackson, I found one paragraph, very small, on Robert E. Lee and no mention of the great, albeit Confederate, General Jackson. This type of bias has been going on for a long time, as that history textbook for teens was written about 1999. There are two generations of students who have had Ms. Sanger’s sanitized life pushed down their little, immature throats.
Anyone can go to abortionists.com and read Sangers Baby Code. Herman was truthful regarding her. He is not truthful in other matters. (Seamus Oriley blog). He doesn’t convince me he is pro life himself – when he says the government should not be involved he is saying the government should not protect human life in the womb. The government should do three things – protect life, defend our borders and defend us against fraud. Herman doesn’t want to extend that duty to life in the womb.
Supertradmum- I believe you – California and Texas control government curricula
AnnAsher —
That’s not what Cain said. The interview was edited to remove a question.
The interviewer segued from abortion to adoption. Cain said that whether his granddaughter decided to keep her baby or place the child for adoption was her choice, the government should not get involved.
The source for the edited interview was Politico, which also started the non-story about ‘sexual harassment’. Consider the source.
Cain is solidly pro-life and has been for years. Somebody is scared to death of him and is floating these stories through Politico to try to peel away support.
Full disclosure: I’m from Cain’s home town and have followed his career since he unsuccessfully ran for the GA Senate against Isakson (who was my US rep before he ran for the Senate). Isakson is at best a lukewarm conservative, which is what you get when you let the media pick your candidate for you.
The interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes is still on Youtube. For all her faults, she was not one to hide herself much.
That’s U.S. Senate from GA, of course, not the GA State Senate.
It’s all right, Mr. Cain. No one ever believes me, either.
I think they figure if it were true, someone would have said something before now. Very Catch-a 22.
to me, the great irony is that Margaret Sanger, who originally founded planned parenthood to promote birth control, actually OPPOSED abortion because it was a taking of a life. You’ll never hear that mentioned by planned parenthood when they talk about their founder.
@mike_e,
Can you cite a source for Sanger’s opposition to abortion? It would be very handy to be able to quote her, with a source citation, at anyone who defends PP, but especially those who defend abortion, even in general. Thanks.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Here’s Sanger on abortion: http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html
Basically, she believed that abortion was a result of the unavailability of contraceptives; and that if contraceptives were cheap, morally acceptable and widespread, there would be no need for abortions.
Predictably, history proved her wrong.
“there would be no need for abortion” states that there is a need which makes a person pro-abortion.
More or less. She just believed that most abortions would’ve been unnecessary if the women had been able to prevent their pregnancies through contraception.
Obviously that’s hogwash. Ever since the 1960s, our society has had plenty of contraceptives and plenty of abortions, and no proof that the widespread availability of the former has reduced the incidence of the latter.
Nobody is flooding and “integrating” black nations and ONLY black nations with non-blacks and calling native blacks evil racists for opposing their replacement. This is happening in white nations and ONLY in white nations. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. Its genocide.
When I write complaint letters to companies that fund Planned Parenthood and advise them that I will no longer be purchasing their products, I always make sure to reference Sanger’s racist and eugenicist background. They probably think that I am a crackpot of some sort, but I don’t care.
There are quite a few candidates who became” pro-life” when they realized it was politically expedient to do so. Rick Santorum isn’t one of them. The “source” for Cain’s comments is actually a Rick Santorum ad that has been running in Pennsylvania. Santorum is solidly pro-life and always has been.
Defending Margaret Sanger would be akin, in my mind, to defending the “work” of Josef Mengele.
In a letter Margaret Sanger wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble (of Proctor & Gamble) on 10 December 1939 in regard to how negro ministers could help her eugenics cause (called The Negro Project) she stated:
“The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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 .”
There’s that tidbit and much more regarding Mrs. Sanger’s blatant plans of Malthusian Eugenics at Concerned Women for America’s website: http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466