“When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.
As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” “
Margaret Sanger was a mixed bag to say the least. She was apparently quite serious about her goal of "improving the race," and I believe there was a lot of what we'd consider to be racism today in her motivation. It's difficult to argue with the best facts and information you can get.
I disagree with birth control and Abortion both as means of achieving a better race, if only because I think you'd be hard pressed to define what a race is in the first place, at least if my understanding of modern anthropology is correct. I do agree that women ought to have free access to Abortion and to contraception, however, on demand. Just because Ms. Sanger seems to have been a racist, doesn't mean that some of the things she was saying and some of the conclusions people have come to building on her work are wrong.
We see evidence of trephining when we look at the skulls of some of our new stone age ancestors. I doubt that any of those holes chipped in any of those skulls were for the purpose of allowing any sort of sophisticated decompression work, slipping little pieces of teflon behind a place where a vein presses on a nerve, for example, to allow intractable pain to subside. Simply because Those neolithic folk were probably dealing with evil spirits more than anatomy doesn't mean that we've stopped drilling bore-holes in skulls; nor does it mean that our current reasons aren't good ones.
The inference the earlier posting would have us make, as it was made in the article by Ms. Malkin the posting seems inspired by, seems to be otherwise: That because Ms. Sanger was a racist, all her actions must necessarily be disposed of without discussion or examination as to their merit independent of that glaring flaw in their originator.
Despite the fact, for example, that Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, he was also one of the finest and most innovative of the Generals who fought in the Civil War. The one doesn't make the other go away; not in either direction.
Ms Malkin should, however, pay more attention to her facts. The Abortion Clinic in Philadelphia she speaks of deserves all the scorn she heaps upon it, but she allows the readers to believe that it was a legal clinic, and that it was performing legal abortion under legal conditions. In fact, it was performing illegal abortion in violation of Pennsylvania law and should have been closed down long before it was. I know of no prochoice agencies that would approve of abortions delivered under those conditions, by unlicensed providers, on third trimester pregnancies and on fetuses that were viable. Ms. Malkin implies that this is not the case, and should be ashamed of herself for doing so.