Racist Anti-Abortion Insert in Daily Texan


Cross-posted from How to Have Sex in Texas.

Another semester, another 12 page, full color insert in the Daily Texan from the Human Life Alliance, the same organization that published almost the exact same supplement last spring semester with a pretty white girl on the cover.

This time, presumably in coordination with all the other anti-abortion groups in America, they’re focusing on black and brown people, and how Planned Parenthood is trying to kill them all by setting up clinics in their neighborhoods. Or something. One of the advisors to the Human Life Alliance is Dr. Alveda King, a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a vehement anti-abortion activist.

The content on the inside is the same as last year, with the usual: hooking up is bad for girls (but dudebros, don’t you worry about it), abortion causes breast cancer, abortion is reproductive racism, birth control doesn’t work and is probably really abortion, abortion makes rape worse, and so on.

But the real focus is a vague concept of “injustice.” The center article’s headline is “Social justice begins in the womb.” No mention, of course, of the injustices faced by women who have unplanned pregnancies and carry to term–disappearing social services, housing discrimination, lack of affordable childcare so they can work, etc etc. But the important thing, ladies, is that social justice begins in the womb–and ends as soon as you come out of it.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • catseye71352

    What was this paper THINKING about when they allowed this bit of drivel to be circulated?

  • crowepps

    Study after study has warned about the perils of inadequately providing for the future of Texas children. The latest, “A Report on the Bottom Line: Conditions for Children and the Texas of Tomorrow,” was released today by Garcia’s organization.

     

    The bi-annual Texas legislative session opened this month to news of an estimated $27 billion budget shortfall. But even before legislators took their seats in the capitol, Texas lagged every other state in per-capita spending. Before considering budget-cutting proposals, Texas also ranked 50th among states in health care coverage for children, mental health services for children with diagnosed challenges, preventing childhood homelessness, preventing childhood food insecurity, and preventing obesity among adolescent girls, according to the report.

    The cumulative impact of previous budget cuts has put Texas children behind the rest of the nation. When compared to children in the rest of the U.S., a Texas child is 93 percent more likely not to have access to health care, 33 percent more likely not to receive mental health care services, 35 percent more likely to grow up poor, and 16 percent more likely to drop out of school. Given that Texas is not a poor state — its citizens’ median wealth ranks 27th out of 50 — the dire status of its children is all the more startling.

    Texas ranks third among the seven worst states in overall child well-being, according to the advocacy organization Every Child Matters; the other six states are the nation’s poorest.

    In the area of child protection — a fundamental measurement of child well-being — Texas ranks last again. In the last decade, more children in Texas than in any other state have died as a result of abuse or neglect. The state invests far less in prevention than it does in child welfare services, which are provided after the abuse or neglect has been identified.

    Sadly — and more expensively in the long run — budget funds for prevention programs are often the first to be cut when money is tight. According to Texans Care, the Texas Legislature is considering a proposed 84 percent cut in this area, even though there is mounting evidence that investment in child abuse prevention and early intervention programs creates significant savings to taxpayers.

    http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/texas-children-canaries-in-the-coal-mine-27640/

  • churchmouse

    It starts at the top…and the top is Sanger herself, who hated blacks. She attended and spoke at KKK womans meetings. There is enough evidence in her books and speeches to say this is fact.

    Today most abortions are done to black women. 78% of all PP clinics are in neighborhoods are basically black and poor neighborhoods.

    Minorities, poor, handicapped, non while people were slugs to Sanger. She wanted a pure society one that was WHITE. Margaret Sanger INSPIRED HITLER, if that tells you anything and the connections between their philopshophies is obvious. He attacked and killed out of the womb…she took care of inside the womb.

    Today blacks would be the majority race in America…unfortunately because PP targets blacks…that is not the case.

    Sanger called blacks….UNDESIRABLES,

    “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
    Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

    “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
    Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

    “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
    Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

    “Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
    Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

     

    “The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
    Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

     

    Read about Sanger and the Negro project.

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

     

    Maafa21

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/movies/2718-maafa-21-exposes-black-genocide

  • ldan

    They were thinking that they were getting paid, I expect. It’s an insert, so I expect they paid for it just like any other advertiser.

  • ldan

    Hon, you’re getting more incoherent every day. You might want a break.

     

    Sanger’s eugenicist beliefs may be odious. I don’t really care since she’s dead and none of us are holding those beliefs up as something to work off of. (at least none of us on this board so far as I’ve seen. There are plenty of white supremacists who might go for that.) To be honest, after Crowepps post elsewhere, I’m more inclined to think that she’s being taken out of context and held beliefs that were privileged and problematic without being, as you would paint her, second only to Hitler.

     

    Her championing of birth control on the other hand, we’re all for. Unlike some, I feel no need to toss the baby with the bathwater and dump birth control just because some early proponents held views I disagree with.

     

    Minority populations in general carry more pregnancies to term as well as having more abortions. Why? Because they have more pregnancies overall. There is zero conspiracy here to reduce minority populations through abortion access. Bark up a tree that actually has some squirrels in it, please.

  • crowepps

    Your mania about Sanger is the equivalent of insisting that because Alexander Graham Bell thought the deaf were unfit, AT&T hates the disabled. 

     

    Sanger was one of many, MANY Americans who thought that eugenics was the ‘scientific’ way to improve society.  As it turned out, eugenics was a bad idea, easily corrupted into coercion, and she was wrong right along with all the rest of those who promoted it.  That has nothing to do with the present day services provided by Planned Parenthood exclusively to women who COME IN AND ASK FOR THEM.

  • colleen

    It’s always so sad when republicans try to pretend that they care about justice for people of color.

  • rebellious-grrl

    While I am no history expert on Sanger I think it’s clear that there is revisionist history going on by the antis. Through this revisionist history the antis have portrayed her as a eugenicist and a racist. By doing this they think they can discredit her work and thus the pro-choice movement.

    I can’t quote the entire article “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” by Charles Valanza, here are a few quotes from it.

    “In reconstructing the political and social environment of the years between 1916 (when Margaret Sanger’s first birth control clinic was opened in Brooklyn and promptly closed by the police) and the early 1940s, it is important to remember that the ability to control one’s fertility was a conspicuous example of the egregious disparity between the “haves” and have-nots.”

    The basic concept of the eugenics movement in the 1920s and 1930s was that a better breed of humans would be created if the “fit” had more children and the “unfit” had fewer. This concept influenced a broad spectrum of thought, but there was little consensus on the definitions of fit and unfit.”

    …………
    As a result Sanger had to confront the eugenics movement and the possibility of compromise. But, charges that Sanger’s motives for promoting birth control were eugenic are unfounded. Her dissent from eugenics was made clear early on, in one of her most important works, ‘Pivot of Civilization.’ ….

    Many writers have relied on out-of-context quotations from this work to substantiate their claims that Sanger was a eugenicist. Later in the book, (Pivot of Civilization) Sanger said, ‘In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of “fit” and “unfit”.  Who is to decide this question?”

    Sanger acknowledged the middle-class bias in this thought.

    Here are some truths about Sanger (quoted from PP Affiliates of New Jersey)

    • established the principles that a woman’s right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights; that every person should be able to decide when or whether to have a child; that every child should be wanted and loved; and that women are entitled to sexual pleasure and fulfillment just as men are
    • brought about the reversal of federal and state “Comstock laws” that prohibited publication and distribution of information about sex, sexuality, contraception, and human reproduction
    • helped establish the contemporary American model for the protection of civil rights through nonviolent civil disobedience — a model that later propelled the civil rights, anti-war, women’s rights, and AIDS-action movements
    • created access to birth control for low-income, minority, and immigrant women
    • expanded the American concept of volunteerism and grassroots organizing by setting up a network of volunteer-driven family planning centers across the U.S………………….

    Charges of racism against Sanger are most often made by anti-choice activists who are unfamiliar with the history of the African-American community or with Margaret Sanger’s collegial relationship with that community’s leaders. The tangled fabric of lies and manipulation woven by anti-choice activists around the issues of class, race, and family planning continues to be embroidered today, more than three-quarters of a century after the family planning movement began.

    I think a greater examination of Sanger’s work is needed to dispel the revisionist history of the antis.

  • plume-assassine

    I agree, and it’s a joke, because the truth is that they are so eager to USE minority people and victimized groups as a front for a fetal separtist, anti-woman agenda. I mean, there are plenty of conservative “Libertarians” who honestly believe that Affirmative Action is… “”reverse racism”” against white people. You have people like Rand Paul… who doesn’t see anything wrong with the return of Jim Crow style laws, allowing businesses to racially discriminate. You have the Glenn Becks who use race as a tool to whip up fear among middle-aged white men… claiming that the President is a racist,  socialist Muslim. And of course, how many conservatives do you know who support welfare and housing initiatives by the government and other programs that usually benefit Black and Latino populations? Why should we believe any of these raving lunatics care about people of color?!

  • plume-assassine

    Oh, and of course, we can’t forget the “Pro-Life Freedom Ride”… which consisted mostly of white people.

    http://grittv.org/2010/10/14/grittv-digs-conspiracy-tactics-part-one/

  • churchmouse

    And of course you deny who the real Sanger was….the racist, the white supremasist. As you said shes dead…LOL….

    Why don’t you step out of your pro-abortive box and research something about what we are talking about….anything.

    You can’t address what Sanger is about because it was horrendous. Yea she was about birth control..but why?

    The “why” is the real Sanger.

     

     

     

     

  • churchmouse

    You do not have to be an expert on Sanger to know what she said. Go buy her books and read them. No one has stated anything that she didn’t say. You pro-aborts are delusional. You can’t just accept the facts for what they are.

     The FACT is by dear that she was a eugenicist and a racist

    You gave a quote from a book that was NOT WRITTEN BY SANGER. I gave books and page numbers.

    We did not write history…we report and read it.

    You are just like the bozos who say none of our Founding fathers were Christian that they all were atheist.

     

  • plume-assassine

    Churchmouse, How old are you…. really? 12? Are you home-schooled? These are serious questions, by the way! Here are some must-reads for you in continuing your education, easily found by doing some quick research online:

    Dr. Martin Luther King’s speech, entitled “Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern.”

    “…Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern…”

    http://www.birthcontrolwatch.org/blog/2009/01/martin-luther-king-jr-and-margaret.html

     

    Total fertility rate of Latino Americans: 3.0

    Total fertility rate of Black/African Americans: 2.2

    Total fertility rate of white Americans: 2.1

    http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/fertilityrate.htm

     

    Population projections:

    Non-Hispanic Whites are projected to no longer make up the majority of the population by 2042, but will remain the largest race. In 2050 they will compose 46.3% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. The report foresees the Hispanic or Latino population rising from 16% today to 30% by 2050, the African American percentage barely rising from 12.9% to 13.0%, and Asian Americans upping their 4.6% share to 7.8%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Population#Projections

    http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

     

    An explanation of why the African American percentage will “barely rise from 12.9% to 13.0%”

    Infant mortality among African Americans in 2000 occurred at a rate of 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. This is more than twice the national average of 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/amh/factsheets/infant.htm

    Also read “Persistent Peril: Why African American babies have the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world” by Ziba Kashef, ColorLines,RaceWire (http://www.arc.org/racewire/030210z_kashef.html)

  • churchmouse

    Why do you think she wanted birth control so badly?

    The goal was to make a purer society…and blacks and the poor and handicapped were just a few that she thought should be eliminated.

  • ldan

    And I care about Sanger one way or the other, why?

     

    You’re the one who somehow thinks smearing Sanger makes the slightest difference with regard to birth control and abortion. I don’t think I know anyone who came to be pro-choice through reading Sanger’s work or otherwise digging into the work of that generation’s feminists. We’re pretty much all about how it affects the lives of women here and now.

     

    My point was that I really don’t care about Sanger. I care about the lasting legacy her work gave us (hint…it’s not White Supremacy. I don’t see her being lionized by that crowd.). See the part there where I don’t care that Edison was an ass but still like and use light bulbs? My use of light bulbs has as much to do with Edison’s personality and personal beliefs as my support of women’s rights has to do with Sanger’s personality and beliefs.

     

    There are several posters here who are better historians than I who have already eviscerated your take on Sanger. So even if I did care, I don’t need to put up the defense there.

     

    I notice you haven’t had much of a comeback to those posts, instead focusing on mine, which didn’t bother backing up Sanger in the first place. hmmm.

  • ack

    I’ve refrained from commenting on your posts because you have yet to present even one original thought or argument.

     

    But historically, our “Founding Fathers” may have identified as Christian, but they felt strongly about the fact that religion shouldn’t play into the formation of the country. That was sort of the point.

  • churchmouse

    What does age have to do with this? How old are you?

     I am 55 years old.

    Here are a few sites you should read.

    Blacks are now just becoming aware of the Sanger, PP connection.

     http://www.infowars.com/pastor-exposes-how-abortion-industry-was-founded-by-nazi-eugenicist-now-lauded-by-liberals/

    Martin L. Kings niece is against abortion and she is now standing up against all of this.

     

  • churchmouse

    You have refrained…yet you comment.

    I have provided facts and where I got the facts. If you dont comment then I guess maybe you cant shoot them down.

    It is hard for any pro-choicer/abort, to comment about Sanger and what she stood for…so I can see where you are coming from.

    Everything about our nation at that time was Christian.

     

     

     

     

  • churchmouse

    Oh I can’t wait to comment on this one.

    Let me enlighten you a bit.

    It’s not the Republican party that has always taken Blacks for granted.  All one needs to do is to look at the civil rights record of both parties.

     

    http://www.brookesnews.com/030502gopblacks.html

     

    http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200502180737.asp

     

    And against Democrats, Republicans……….

     

    In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”

    In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”

    February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

    February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

    January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

    May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas’s black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended “separate but equal” classrooms.

    September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

          May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

         

    July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill’s passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

    True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona’s National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

    June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    The Republican party also is the home of numerous “firsts.” Among them:

    Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.

    August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America’s first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

    October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, “White women may receive attentions from Negro men.” As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: “The Choice Is Yours.”

    GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.

    November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

    President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

    President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

     

     

    So it seems that it was Republicans who fought to end slavery, while the Democrats fought for States rights and keeping slavery alive. It was the Democrats who fought FOR segregation and as a percentage more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

     

    I think it was Wallace a Democratic leader in the 60’swho was credited with saying, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

     

    Hmmmm the history that isn’t taught in our schools.

     

    It was J. Edgar Hoover head of the FBI who wiretapped MLK. Who gave him permission? Robert Kennedy, a Democrat.

     

    It was Truman, a democrat who called fellow Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, “That damned n—– preacher.”

     

    David G. McCollough, Truman (1992), page 576.

     

    And it was Lyndon Johnson a Democrat who said, “I talk everything over with my wife…of course…I have a N—– maid, and I talk my problems over with her too.”

     

    Robert A. Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The means of Ascent (1990), page 70.

     

    Now I am sure there are racist politicians on both sides, but to say Republicans are all racist and that the party is racist simply is a lie. IMO bases on all the information I have ever read aobut his issue it’s the Republicans who care least about color of skin. Sanger certainly cared about skin….now we have PP.

     

    I can say this……I don’t think a former KKK member has ever been elected to a high office in the Republican party.

     

    Want more?

     

  • plume-assassine

    Aha! That one got you to respond, didn’t it? (Although, honestly, I did think you were a lot younger because your comments often sound incoherent and seriously lacking in knowledge, like something from a homeschooled teenager who just discovered the internet and is now obsessed with conspiracy theories.) If you are so interested in research and science, then it’s bizarre that you haven’t responded to any of the points in my other comments.

     

    I’ve seen and read tons of “abortion is genocide” web sites. They are racist and assume that Black women are ignorant and don’t deserve to decide when or whether to have children. It’s unfortunate that Alveda King is involved in this, because MLK and his wife were both pro-choice. She does not carry on their legacy. Interesting enough, if you look around at all of the “abortion = genocide” web sites, they are almost all run by white men. Priests for Life being the most visible.

    The question is, have you read any of the opposing evidence or views? I posted a link to a documentary below, on GritTV, called Conspiracy Tactics, which exposes how the anti-choice movement tries to co-opt the Civil Rights Movement in order to subjugate Black women and their bodily autonomy.

     

    also: http://www.sistersong.net/ – Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective!

  • arekushieru

    You OBviously didn’t read my post, about Sanger.  Of course, probably as many others are beginning to guess, you are simply a troll, which is why you repeat the same talking points over and over without actually adDRESsing our well-thought-out replies or you are just so ignorant that you have no way of defending your views from facts.  If you don’t want us to continue to believe so, address them, which is what ANY mature 55 year-old *would* do.

  • arekushieru

    Yet, if we DO comment, you ignore our posts.  Yup, sounds like a troll to me. 

    It ISn’t hard, because we’ve alREADy commented.  You just refuse to see it, probably because you have no evidence. 

    So?  That wasn’t her POINT.  And, if your reading comprehension was any good, you would have known that. 

    Now, address the comments or be reported. 

  • arekushieru

    I’ve already addressed this, too.  Now, actually read it.

  • plume-assassine

    Everything about our nation at that time was Christian.

    Were the founding fathers all atheists? No. Christians? Still no. Deists and skeptics? Yes.

     

    Thomas Jefferson:

    “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

     

    “Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
    man…Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
    teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
    first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus.”

    “The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
    enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
    contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact,
    constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

    John Adams:

    “The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
    absurdity.”

    Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states
    “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
    Christian religion.”

    Thomas Paine:

     “Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse
    than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to
    massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not
    dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book
    (the Bible).”

    “It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
    against the evils of the Bible.”

    James Madison:
    “What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
    civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
    political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
    the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
    have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
    instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.”

    “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

    And I have plenty more where that came from….

  • ldan

    She’s been obvious as a troll for a while now. At this point I figure the answers are more about providing information for anyone else who finds a given article and comment thread, etc. I’ve certainly learned a lot from the posters here.

     

    Heck, I now know way more about Margaret Sanger than I did, and may get around to doing some more reading on that score. All because a troll felt the need to toss her into the argument. (just to be clear, I learned a great deal from the other posters and a handful of quotes from the troll)

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, I just get really annoyed when someone keeps displaying such ignorance, over and over, again and it keeps clogging up the Talk Back feed.  I’m ready to have her GONE.  We can keep posting information about Margaret Sanger, w/o the troll, after all.  If she continues, I AM going to report her….

  • plume-assassine

    I agree, L-dan, the trolling has been obvious from day 1. Even if she (or he?) is incapable of responding, I still think it’s necessary to dissect the claims and myths for anyone else who drops by and wants to educate themselves on the topic. That’s the only reason I reply.

  • plume-assassine

    I reported her twice. Once, for making an offensive, NO content misogynist comment about women and their legs, and the second time for posting a pro-prison rape/pro-murder comment in the article about Dr. Tiller. (That was, fortunately, removed.)

  • ldan

    True, the clogging gets annoying, and *is* mostly due to her skipping around and posting the same, or very similar, screeds in response to various replies, even after they’ve been picked apart.

     

    Now I sort of want to see an article series on common anti-choice revisionist history and how it’s back-asswards.

  • ldan

    I for one greatly appreciate your replies, which have been extremely informative. I’m bookmarking this article for the links, wonderful quotes by the founders, etc.

     

    And, noticing your note above. I’m slightly amazed she’s still on after the content of the removed post you mention. The blatant misogyny had already painted her as a nasty piece of work, but yike. Is it an ‘x warnings and you’re out’ policy allowing her to stick around so long then?

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, I usually use the reporting button as a last resort, which is just before I’m at the point where I’ve repeated the same things numerous times, in response to such ignorance.  At least, in those cases where there is even the tiniest chance that there is something I can ‘sharpen my claws’ on.

  • plume-assassine

    Thanks a bunch. I love science and history, both subjects that are best viewed through a very nuanced lense. I know I’ve bookmarked a lot of articles on this site, too, both because of the info in the article, as well as the conversations in the comments section. ( Oh, and I really appreciate your comments, too, especially the responses that dissect the “concepts” of fetal personhood/right to life. )

     

    Admittedly, I’m amazed that he/she is still here, too. I am very tolerant of the anti’s presence here on this site, and avoid reporting them, as long as they make a serious effort to engage in conversation and rational debate, and keep the sexist remarks to themselves. Churchmouse has failed all of the above…

  • ldan

    *eyeroll* That one could take a bit and I’m headed to bed so I’ll poke at it tomorrow.

     

    Short version: Do you think any of us here are unaware that Lincoln was a Republican and what that means as far as which side of the war Republicans were backing? There has a been a tidal shift such that Lincoln’s views wouldn’t fit terribly well in the current Republican party. Data from the 1800’s isn’t very relevant to how we view the party today. As the song goes (with very great license since my Heinz-57 ancestry is predominantly northern European) “what have you done for me lately?”

     

    But the current Republican party? Seeing is believing, and the party is overwhelmingly white. You won’t find a legitimate poll (or convention floor photo) that says otherwise. Their voting record within my voting lifetime has spoken quite clearly for them on civil rights issues.

  • rebellious-grrl

    So I’m a delusional bozo? Do your insults ever stop? What I see, you can’t get your point across by logic so your through out an insult and hope it sticks. That’s really sad. Your desperation is showing that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

    Here’s a link to the article by Charles Valenza,

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/2135230

  • crowepps

    In particular Haym Salomon, without whom the Revolution would have never succeeded.

     

    http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=24280

     

  • crowepps

    She wanted birth control because

    1  Her mother died at the end of her 12th pregnancy

    2  As a nurse she treated many women who died from pregnancy

    3  As a nurse she treated many women who died from illegal abortions

    4  As a nurse her patients BEGGED HER to tell them the ‘secret’ of how they could prevent pregnancy since their husbands were legally entitled to and did force sex on them.

     

    If you want to stop making a fool out of youself, read LONG EXCERPTS FROM her autobiography or other writings, instead of just the extremely misleading  cherry-picked quotes from ProLife websites.

  • churchmouse

    Well what happened did happen……..ignoring the factual information I set forth here….and the dismal record of the Democrats as far as civl rights go.

    Conservativism does not equal racism and the Republican Party is the one who is not racist. History attests to this fact. 

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091002679_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2010091201877

     

    Let us never forget that Republicans are the ones who fought to end slavery while the Democrats fought for States Rights and keeping slavery alive. Even after slavery it was the Democrats who fought for segregation and as a percentage more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did DEMOCRATS. I wonder if that is taught in our schools? Not as long as the NEA is control or brainwashing our kids.

     

    Wallace was a racist and a DEMOCRAT.

    In 1954 Orville Faubus attempted to stop desegregation in a public school in Little Rock.

     He was a racist and a Democrat.

     It was Eisenhower who sent in police to enforce the rule.

     He was a Republican.

     J. Edgar Hoover the head of the FBI received permission to wiretap Martin L King Jr.

     Robert F Kennedy gave Hoover permission.

     He was a DEMOCRAT.

     

    President Harry Truman once called fellow Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, “That damned nigger preacher.”

    He was a Democrat.

     

    Lyndon Johnson said, “I talk everything over with (my wife),” continuing,” Of course…I have a nigger maid, and I talk my problems over with her too.”

     He was a Democrat.

     

     

     

  • churchmouse

    no comment? lol

  • plume-assassine

    It’s not so much Republican vs. Democrat as it is North vs. South. Traditionally, the north has been more liberal on social and economic issues — the political party is irrelevant. The south has traditionally been averse to change and racist. Historically, southerners were mostly Democrats — today they are mostly Republicans. Are you aware that the political parties have shifted ideologies since the 60’s (possibly even earlier, during New Deal era)?

     

    Gallup: Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious

    Why did the Republicans and Democrats essentially swap ideologies during the twentieth century? opinion essay

     You might also want to read up on Southern Democrats

     

    Now that that’s out of the way, could you stop de-railing this thread with your BS and stick to the topic? kthx

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Number one, to claim MLK was pro-choice and is revisionist history at it’s worst. Abortion was illegal during his day, a Baptist minister and the pro-life/pro-choice monikers did not exist. To assume MLK would have supported that which was illegal, especially when you take into account that not once did he ever mention abortion, is ridiculous. And don’t give me ‘family planning’ crap. There is no plausible reason to believe he was talking about something illegal (abortion) and not something legal (contraceptives). Even moreso when you consider the fact that in this day
    and age when abortion is legal the majority of peopl don’t associate abortion to family planning.

    Number two, if you want to ponder something, then ponder this. Blacks as a whole are more disapproving of abortion than the are approving of it, and are far less approving of abortion than Whites. In fact, Blacks as a whole are far closer to the views of the Republican party than they are the Democratic party when it comes to abortion. Yet, for some odd reason, the biggest supporters of abortion in the Black community are Whites, and they will even go so far as to dismiss the views of anti-abortion Blacks, of which there are far more than pro-choice Blacks or Whites, claiming that comparing the Civil Rights movement to the pro-life movement is some sort of White conspiracy against Blacks. What sense does that make? It doesn’t make any.

    The bottom line is that the majority of Blacks in the U.S. would agree with MLK’s niece, and not because some Catholic priest pursuaded them to think that way.

  • plume-assassine

     To assume MLK would have supported that which was illegal

    What makes you think that he would not support something illegal, since he was well-known for civil disobedience?

     

    the majority of peopl don’t associate abortion to family planning.

    Abortion involves one’s decision on when or whether to have children. How does that not relate to family planning? Really, I’m curious.

     

     Blacks as a whole are more disapproving of abortion than the are approving of it, and are far less approving of abortion than Whites.

    Sources? thanks.

     

    In fact, Blacks as a whole are far closer to the views of the Republican party than they are the Democratic party when it comes to abortion.

    Funny, because in another thread, I think you mentioned that Black Americans are more likely to be liberal Democrats. Gallup also shows this. Also, by and large they voted for Barack Obama, who is pro-choice.

     

    the biggest supporters of abortion in the Black community are Whites

     

    ORLY? Something tells me that you might’ve pulled this one from your ass. Actually, what I’ve noticed is that the majority of forced birthers pushing the “abortion is genocide” line are white men. You should watch the documentary in the link I provided in another comment.

     

     and they will even go so far as to dismiss the views of anti-abortion Blacks  

    For the record, I don’t dismiss the views of Black anti-choicers. I think they are legit, and that they believe in what they’re saying, but I seriously doubt that there are more Black anti-choicers than pro-choicers. (see above)

    comparing the Civil Rights movement to the pro-life movement is some sort of White conspiracy against Blacks. What sense does that make? It doesn’t make any.

    Actually, I think it makes a lot more sense than claiming that embryos and fetuses are an oppressed class of people that need liberation from the uterus. Or claiming that Black women are moral children, being duped by eeeeevil Planned Parenthood into aborting wanted pregnancies. If elective abortion was a civil rights issue, you would think that the NAACP would have said something about it, but they refuse to.

  • crowepps

    Even moreso when you consider the fact that in this day and age when abortion is legal the majority of peopl don’t associate abortion to family planning.

    Do you recally believe that “the majority of people” don’t grasp that the whole purpose of contraceptives is “family planning”?  Do you really believe that “the majority of people” don’t understand that the very NAME Planned Parenthood means “family planning”?  Really?

     

    I’m tore between being appalled by the stupidity of “the majority of people” or appalled that you believe “the majority of people” is you and the other ten-percenters in your bubble.  The majority of people do NOT have a black and white view of abortion, or anything else, but instead struggle with actual reality and how to cope.