Liberal eugenics

Can you imagine the outrage if a conservative made this statement to the New York Times:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,” [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Why, what group of people might Justice Ginsburg have been speaking of? I don’t know for sure, but most likely it wasn’t rich white folks.

And that’s the dark heart of the pro-choice movement. It was born from a racist worldview, it provided a pseudoscientific cover for the Nazis, and today it’s barely covered with a thin veneer of liberal concern for “a woman’s right to choose”.

As Jonah Goldberg notes, not 20 years ago the co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case wrote to President Clinton about the urgency of getting RU-486, the “morning after” pill, to market:

“[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. … Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.”
[…]
“For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.”

There’s the money quote. Leaves little doubt as to the demographic target of government funded “reproductive health” services.

But it isn’t the fear of crime that drives this movement; no, we’re to believe that we need to off our offspring to save the entire freaking planet.

So believes President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, or at least he did some 30 years ago. In 1977, Holdren co-authored Ecoscience, in which he suggested:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Now, this doesn’t mean that we’ll soon find Fertility Police operating under the aegis of Homeland Security, nor does it necessarily mean that John Holdren is a bad scientist. It does, however, raise valid questions about the sort of advice he’s giving the president, and whether the president’s push for climate change legislation is somehow rooted in the belief that there are just too damn many of us sucking up oxygen and belching out carbon.

It is interesting that Holdren’s eugenic beliefs have stirred almost no notice whatsoever from the major media. Just imagine the response from progressives if, say, Justice Antonin Scalia had written a book advocating “coercive fertility control” of people who “contribute to social deterioration”! Scalia would be portrayed as Hitler’s second coming faster than you can Tweet.

Yet when progressives talk about “reproductive choice”, well, that’s guaranteed in the Constitution somewhere, isn’t it? And when wealthy progressives like David Rockefeller, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey get together to discuss population control, well, that’s rooted in their concern for the poor people of the Third World who have too many children to improve their economic or educational standing.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with making sure that us Caucasians, who don’t make enough babies these days to even sustain our numbers, aren’t overrun by people of color — right?

Wrong. It’s social Darwinism. And the fittest intend to survive by using the power of government to ensure that they never lose control to the mob — even if that means literally policing the size of our families.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


UA-2941127-3