On Another Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Four Issues to Consider (Part 2 of 2)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: January 17, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

On January 19, churches throughout our nation will commemorate yet another Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It has been over four decades since the infamous Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973). decision, which legalized abortion-on-demand throughout our society. Over the past four decades, both sides in the debate have had ample opportunity to present their side of the argument to the public on the foundational issue: When does life begin? Since most Americans are probably already well-versed on what both sides have to say on that important issue, this two part series briefly focuses on four issues that are less prominent in the abortion discussion. In the last installment, we noted Roe's lack of constitutional foundation and anti-democratic direction. In this installment, we focus upon two additional lesser discussed problems with Roe.

Third, the Roe decision is ultimately racist at its roots. America's current abortion-on-demand policies are sourced in the world view of Planned Parenthood. One need only examine the writings of this organization's founder, Margaret Sanger, in order to grasp the organization's racist origins:

Sanger published articles in her newsletter, the "Birth Control Review,” that depicted her opinions that certain groups of people...“never should have been born” and that birth control was intended to “create a race of thoroughbreds,” and ensure that society had “more children from the fit, less from the unfit” (See article here). Eugenics-advocate groups like the American Eugenics Society, of which Sanger was a listed member until 1956, suggested that the government should consider putting birth control chemicals in the food and water supplies in certain areas of the nation, specifically in urban areas that were dominated by minority groups. Sanger even suggested imposing a law that would disallow women from having children without first obtaining a permit from the government—a permit that would be good for only one baby—and if approved, the couple would receive an antidote to counter the effects of the involuntarily ingested birth control chemicals. The Planned Parenthood founder made her views even more blatantly obvious in a letter she wrote to a woman named Katherine Dexter McCormick in 1950, saying she thought that “…there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”

Furthermore, in order to counter leftist claims that Sanger was not a racist, Wesley J. Smith quotes several excerpts from Edwin Black's history of Eugenics entitled War Against the Weak.  In order to establish Black's objectivity as a historian, Smith notes that Black "is not a social conservative," does not believe that Sanger was "personally racist," and even "expresses great affinity for Planned Parenthood." However, on page 127, Black notes:

Sanger was an ardent, self-confessed eugenicist, and she would turn her otherwise noble birth control organizations into a tool for eugenics, which advocated mass sterilization of so-called defectives, mass incarceration of the unfit, and draconian immigration restrictions. Like other staunch eugenicists, Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior could multiply without competition from "the unfit."  She referred repeatedly to the lower classes and the unfit as "human waste" not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenics view that human "weeds" should be exterminated.

On page 133, Black further observes:
"Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement's most outspoken racists and white supremacists. Chief among them was Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Stoddard's book, devoted to the notion of a superior Nordic race, became eugenic gospel. It warned, "'Finally perish!' That is the exact alternative that confronts the white race...If white civilization goes down, the white race is irretrievably ruined. It will be swamped by the triumphant colored races, who will eliminate the white man by elimination or absorption...We now know that men are not and never will be equal."

On page 135, Black summarizes:
"Even though Sanger was not a racist or an anti-Semite herself, she openly welcomed the worst elements of both into the birth control movement. This provided legitimacy and greater currency for a eugenics movement that thrived by subverting progressive reforms to achieve its goals of Nordic racial superiority and ethnic banishment for everyone else."

Such a historical analysis causes Smith to conclude:
"...Sanger was a racist. And indeed, Sanger enabled racists. Sanger gave them respectability. Sanger befriended them. Sanger viewed them as valued colleagues. Her wicked social Darwinism would have had a devastating and disproportionate impact on minority communities. Oh, and as the above embed--a reading of her autobiography--proves, she spoke to the Ku Klux Klan, and looked forward to receiving more invitations to speaking in front of similar groups. Add it all up, and Sanger was R.A.C.I.S.T."

Given these racist underpinnings as well as the stated goal of Planned Parenthood's founder to reduce the population of the black race, (For further documentation of Sanger's racism, see The Truth About Margaret Sanger and Margaret Sanger) it is dismaying to watch African-Americans and other racial minorities overwhelmingly vote in favor of the Democratic Party and its candidates in virtually every election cycle.

According to Jamelle Bouie:
"At the moment, Democrats have a powerful hold on nonwhite voters. African Americans routinely vote Democratic by huge margins; 95 percent cast ballots for President Barack Obama, and on average 88 percent have voted for Democratic candidates since 1964, the year Lyndon Johnson guided the Civil Rights Act through Congress. Over the past decade, Latinos have also become a reliably Democratic constituency; 67 percent voted for Obama, and 60 percent supported Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections, when Republicans triumphed otherwise" (See article here).

Far more so than the Republican Party and platform, Planned Parenthood's abortion-on-demand policies wield virtually unlimited and unrestricted influence in the Democratic Party and platform. I contend, that as more of this sordid history becomes common knowledge, the Democratic Party will one day find itself in a position where it can no longer take the black vote for granted. Fourth, with the natural desire to see the Roe decision overturned given these aforementioned problems, it is tempting to place all of our hopes in the Republican Party. However, the Roe decision itself amply illustrates that salvation for the pro-life cause is not automatically found in the Republican Party. Justice Blackmun, the author of the decision, was a Republican Nixon appointee. Many falsely assume that having a Republican President automatically guarantees a conservative, constitutional Supreme Court that will be more interested in the framers’ founding vision for America rather than the shifting sands of politically correct thought. Here is a little historical perspective on this matter.

With a Democratic President there is zero chance of getting a Supreme Court conservative or originalist appointed to the bench. All of Clinton's (Breyer and Ginsburg) and Obama's (Sotomayor and Kagan) nominees have one thing in common: each of them could care less about what the Constitution actually says. During their confirmations they typically give long-winded discourses about empathy, compassion, and fairness, but say very little about the Constitution's original intent. Any future nominee whom Obama puts forward is virtually guaranteed to have this exact same mentality and philosophy. With a Republican President, you have at least one in two chances of getting an originalist nominated. Although Reagan nominated originalists Anthony Scalia and Robert Bork, he also nominated non-originalists Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. O' Connor was Reagan's first nominee since he was making good on a campaign promise to place the first woman on the High Court. Many believe that Bork would have sailed through the confirmation process had he rather than O'Connor been nominated by Reagan first. While G.H.W. Bush (America's 41st President) nominated originalist Clarence Thomas, he also nominated non-originalist David Souter. While the younger Bush nominated originalist Samuel Alito, he also nominated John Roberts, who was recently instrumental in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare to the strained incredulity of most High Court watchers.  In fact, such a split record has been a pattern of Republican Presidents for some time. While Richard Nixon gave us originalist William Rehnquist, he also gave us Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. While I am a registered Republican, in recent years, I have found myself quite disillusioned with my own party. I have had to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils" on more than one occasion.

I no longer see the Republican Party as the automatic remedy for the pro-life cause. However, I also recognize that having a Republican President provides at least a greater probability for the reversal of Roe in comparison to having a Democratic President in power. As we commemorate yet another Roe v. Wade anniversary, beyond the aspects of the issue that are already well-known, let's also focus on those other negative elements lurking beneath the surface. Among them we find the decision's lack of constitutional support, anti-democratic decision making, and subtle racism. My hope and prayer is that one day Roe v. Wade will be overturned thereby returning legal protection to the unborn. Its reversal will also slow down the progress of these other accompanying social evils. However, it must also be understood that correction of the Roe decision will not automatically be found in returning one party or the other to power.  On the other hand, it is possible to see Roe overturned in our lifetime, as we carefully scrutinize the philosophy and values of each candidate for elected office, regardless of party affiliation, and as we return to our civic responsibility of acting as salt and light in a fallen world.

(End of Series)