It is being reported that there is a shake-up going on within the Komen breast cancer advocacy organization, in the wake of the dust-up between it and Planned Parenthood and abortion rights advocates. As one might recall, in the wake of a Congressional investigation into the probability that Planned Parenthood was illegally siphoning off federal funding into its abortion operation, Komen announced that they would stop donating some if its funds to Parenthood. That set-off the abortion militants and their supporters in gender advocacy journalism. The boycott was short-lived because of all the instant “bad” publicity; a Komen-sponsored “run for the cure” in Seattle saw a drop-off in participation, but that only proved that many women see breast cancer (and women’s health in general) as less as a medical issue than as a political issue.
However, the real issue about the Komen-Planned Parenthood quarrel is the one abortion advocates do not wish to discuss, for obvious reasons. First of all, it stands to reason that Komen enjoys a general support amongst the population. I mean, while there are certainly grumblings that breast cancer receives too much attention, and far more research funding than any other form of cancer ($26,000-per death in 2006, compared to $2,000-per death for lung cancer), you will find considerably fewer people expressing reservations about it in principle. Such is not the case with abortion, and let’s be honest: Planned Parenthood does not have the greatest reputation. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a proponent of Nazi-style eugenics and “scientific” racism, and the horrifying fanaticism of her book “The Pivot of Civilization” rightly invites comparison to “Mein Kampf.” While we should all agree that birth control is necessary in our world today, few people would be so mendacious in justifying eugenics in this way:
“Birth Control affords an approach to the study of humanity because it cuts through the limitations of current methods. It is economic, biological, psychological and spiritual in its aspects. It awakens the vision of mankind moving and changing, of humanity growing and developing, coming to fruition, of a race creative, flowering into beautiful expression through talent and genius.”
However, Sanger soon abandoned such flowery “sentimentality” and revealed herself the cruel-minded fanatic she was in reality:
“The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.”
There is a lot more where this came from, but we won’t belabor the point. Suffice it to say that Sanger considered blacks in general to be part of her subgroup heading, only her plan was a bit more subtle than, say, Hitler’s “final solution”: She or her minions would insinuate themselves among black ministers, since they would more likely be “trusted” to carry out the “gospel” of elimination through “birth control.” I’m not saying that birth control is altogether bad; what I do say is that for Sanger, beyond the usual platitudes about “hunger” and “women’s rights,” her real agenda was decidedly on the sinister side. Thus it makes perfect sense why Texas would include Sanger in their new textbooks while excluding notable progressive figures in American history.
Since we’ve established Planned Parenthood’s roots, and why the organization might not be so popular as its members would like to think, the question then is: Did you know that when a guilt-trip was placed on you at the Safeway store, and you gave-up your change to Komen, some of your change was going to fund an abortion clinic? Would you feel less guilty about saying no if you did know this? This is the problem PP has. Komen isn’t the “problem”—PP’s reputation is. PP is trying to piggy-back on the general support of Komen and its agenda. If anyone should have a “problem” with what is happening here, it is all the people who thought they were donating to breast cancer research—and unwittingly “donating” to Planned Parenthood as well, which they might not otherwise do on principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment