42 Years of Legal Abortion Eugenics

The purpose of Abortion: Eugenics

“At the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” –U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Nazi Germany

Let’s see, which “populations” do we not “want to have too many of”? Look for Planned Parenthood clinics and you’ll figure it out–they’re virtually all in inner-city communities of “color.”

ByFaithOnline has a good survey of abortion myths. Here is one that is especially important:

Myth No. 4: Abortion helps prevent crime and poverty

This is among the ugliest myths surrounding Roe, yet it is openly espoused by academics and tacitly embraced by other elites.

Trying to explain the drop in the national crime rate, one scholar argues, “The very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives.”

Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has exposed her own abortion-as-poverty-reduction views: “At the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. … Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Medicaid, it pays to recall, is a federal-state health-care program for the poor.

Whether knowingly or not, those who espouse abortion as a way to control poverty and crime, like some sort of demographic scythe, are echoing the likes of Margaret Sanger. Generally considered the founder of Planned Parenthood, Sanger believed in population control. Consider Sanger in her own words: She advocated a “rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted” and called for public policies to “cut down the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable.”

This worldview is not only sickening, but untrue. Even if we were to accept the callous premise of the abortion-as-poverty-reduction elites, the reality is that the U.S. poverty rate, after 27 years of abortion on demand, was exactly the same in 2000 as it was before Roe.

In fact, those who advocate abortion as a means to poverty and crime reduction have it precisely backwards. Growth and life — not constraint and abortion — are the best tools for fighting poverty. To overcome poverty, we need people — people to build and work and create and produce. And since broken homes, not poverty, serve as fuel for crime, public policies that bolster intact families — not abortion — are the best way to prevent crime.

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to attack real murderers of scores of blacks, they should oppose abortion. On a percentage basis, Blacks are “profiled” for execution more than people of any other skin color in America.

Why?

Well, as the “Progressive” Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: it’s because we “don’t want to have too many of” them, you know?!? Imagine the outrage if a Republican-appointee said something like that. But the Democratic house slaves know not to bite the Liberal hand that literally feeds them, even though it makes them dependent and in chains. And dead.