Archive for February, 2007

h1

THE SHERIFF OF NOTTINGHAM POSSE

February 24, 2007

sheriffweb.jpg
Anzelc, Tom (DFL)
Atkins, Joe (DFL)
Benson, John (DFL)
Bigham, Karla (DFL)
Bly, David (DFL)
Brown, Robin (DFL)
Brynaert, Kathy (DFL)
Bunn, Julie (DFL)
Carlson, Lyndon (DFL)
Clark, Karen (DFL)
Davnie, Jim (DFL)
Dill, David (DFL)
Dittrich, Denise (DFL)
Dominguez, Augustine “Willie” (DFL)
Doty, Al (DFL)
Eken, Kent (DFL)
Faust, Tim (DFL)
Fritz, Patti (DFL)
Gardner, Paul (DFL)
Greiling, Mindy (DFL)
Hansen, Rick (DFL)
Hausman, Alice (DFL)
Haws, Larry (DFL)
Hilstrom, Debra (DFL)
Hilty, Bill (DFL)
Hornstein, Frank (DFL)
Hortman, Melissa (DFL)
Hosch, Larry (DFL)
Huntley, Thomas (DFL)
Jaros, Mike (DFL)
Johnson, Sheldon (DFL)
Juhnke, Al (DFL)
Kahn, Phyllis (DFL)
Kalin, Jeremy (DFL)
Kelliher, Margaret Anderson (DFL)
Knuth, Kate (DFL)
Koenen, Lyle (DFL)
Kranz, Scott (DFL)
Laine, Carolyn (DFL)
Lenczewski, Ann (DFL)
Lesch, John (DFL)
Liebling, Tina (DFL)
Lieder, Bernard (DFL)
Lillie, Leon (DFL)
Loeffler, Diane (DFL)
Madore, Shelley (DFL)
Mahoney, Tim (DFL)
Mariani, Carlos (DFL)
Marquart, Paul (DFL)
Masin, Sandra (DFL)
Moe, Frank (DFL)
Morgan, Will (DFL)
Morrow, Terry (DFL)
Mullery, Joe (DFL)
Murphy, Erin (DFL)
Murphy, Mary (DFL)
Nelson, Michael V. (DFL)
Norton, Kim (DFL)
Olin, Dave (DFL)
Otremba, Mary Ellen (DFL)
Paymar, Michael (DFL)
Pelowski Jr., Gene (DFL)
Peterson, Aaron (DFL)
Peterson, Sandra (DFL)
Poppe, Jeanne (DFL)
Rukavina, Tom (DFL)
Ruud, Maria (DFL)
Sailer, Brita (DFL)
Scalze, Bev (DFL)
Sertich, Anthony “Tony” (DFL)
Simon, Steve (DFL)
Slawik, Nora (DFL)
Slocum, Linda (DFL)
Solberg, Loren (DFL)
Swails, Marsha (DFL)
Thao, Cy (DFL)
Thissen, Paul (DFL)
Tillberry, Tom (DFL)
Tschumper, Ken (DFL)
Wagenius, Jean (DFL)
Walker, Neva (DFL)
Ward, John (DFL)
Welti, Andy (DFL)
Winkler, Ryan (DFL)
Wollschlager, Sandy (DFL)

    The above mentioned elected house members are full fledged members for the Sheriff of Nottingham Posse who’s sole existence is to steal from the taxpayers at any cost to line their pockets at taxpayer expense by doing backdoor pay raises called per diems they are of the Minnesota house who follow in the footsteps of the elite guard of the sheriff of nottingham aka the minnesota senate, please contact me, if you agree that we need to have a recall election of both the house and senate members.  I will be updating this and adding to this when i get all the names of the minnesota senators who voted for the backdoor pay raise

    Advertisements
    h1

    DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND WHOM THEY SLEEP WITH

    February 19, 2007

    This is the true belief of the Demorcratic party on minorities!

    This is courtesy of the Author

    THE HISTORY OF

    PLANNED PARENTHOOD

    
    

    BY
    MIKE PERRY

    About The Author

    Mike Perry is a free-lance writer and historian.

    THE HISTORY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

     

    We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved for us.
    –DR. ALAN GUTTMACHER, PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, 1962-74.

     

    Planned Parenthood is powerful. It has the enthusiastic support of
    influential organizations and extensive connections inside the government. It
    invariably gets favorable coverage in the news media and each year it
    receives large sums of money from taxes and community charities. Yet the
    public knows nothing about its history. This silence has a reason.

     

    Rooted in Fear

     

    In the years after World War I, a number of competing organizations formed
    to promote birth control. The most controversial of these was the American
    Birth Control League (ABCL). In 1933, Eleanor Dwight Jones, the President of
    ABCL, described the organization’s founders as “a devoted group of liberals
    and feminists led by Margaret Sanger.”[1]

     

    These organizations arose out of the fears of America’s affluent, educated
    elite. To have more money and time for themselves, they were having fewer
    children. As a result they were alarmed by the high birth rates of poor and
    working-class people.[2] They considered the prolific poor, as Sanger put it,
    “the most far reaching peril to the future of civilization.”[3]

     

    Two Movements

     

    Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the
    nation a “race” that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the
    “fit” (the affluent) above that of the “unfit” (the poor). They differed
    only in whose birth rate they wanted to change.

     

    The eugenicists warned of “race suicide” if the nation’s dominant group,
    educated people of Northern European descent, did not increase its birthrate.
    President Theodore Roosevelt expressed their view in March 1905 when he
    attacked women who used birth control as “criminal against the race.”[4]
    This group wanted more children from the “fit.”

     

    The other movement, birth controllers, was more attractive to feminists such
    as Margaret Sanger.[5] It did not demand that affluent women abandon careers
    for large families. It planned to achieve race building by forcing down the
    birth rate of the “unfit.” In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger summarized
    the differences between the two movements:

     

    Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
    built upon sands…The eugenicists wanted to shift the
    birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
    to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
    sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit.”[6]

     

    To stop this “multiplication,” Sanger could be harsh. Her book The Pivot of
    Civilization has a chapter called “The Cruelty of Charity.” In it she blasts
    as “insidiously injurious” programs to provide “medical and nursing
    facilities to slum mothers.” Such programs “facilitate the function of
    maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” Sanger believed
    that a poor woman who died in childbirth gave other poor women more incentive
    to visit her conveniently located birth control clinics.[7]

     

    Problems Develop

     

    For a time the birth control movement had the radical but trendy image often
    used by the elite to disguise its selfish agenda. It successfully conveyed
    the impression that birth control clinics were for the poor rather than
    directed at them. Their opponents were branded as religious reactionaries.
    By the late 1930s, however, the birth control movement faced serious problems.

     

    First, worried about the political impact of high minority birth rates, they
    targeted inner-cities with birth control clinics. Today, that population is
    primarily black and Hispanic. In that era, however, it was made up of Eastern
    European Jews and Southern European Catholics. Birth controllers considered
    them a threat to democracy. (This is the source of Planned Parenthood’s
    present-day anti-Catholic bigotry.) Instead, Jews and Catholics used the
    opportunities America offered to become politically powerful. Opposition to
    birth controllers by orthodox Jews and Catholics was not just theological. It
    countered a veiled but vicious bigotry.

     

    Second, the birth controllers equated “unfit” with poor. With a
    characteristic lack of compassion, they saw the Great Depression as an
    opportunity to promote birth control under the guise of reducing welfare
    costs.[8] The Depression, however, had another result. The millions of
    ordinary Americans thrown into poverty by unemployment resented suggestions
    that because they were now as poor as inner-city immigrants, they were
    “unfit” to have children. Potential support for birth control shrank rather
    than grew.[9]

     

    Third, in the late 1930s people noticed similarities between the arguments of
    eugenicists, birth controllers and Nazis. All talked of race building and all
    divided humanity into the fit and the unfit. All even saw the fit as
    primarily of Northern European stock.[10]

     

    Nazism and the birth control movement had one major difference. The Nazis
    used both positive and negative approaches. They encouraged “Aryan” births
    with financial rewards while legalizing sterilization (1933) and abortion for
    Jews and the genetically unfit (1935). After occupying Eastern Europe, Nazi
    Germany eagerly provided Slavs with legal abortions.” Sanger objected to
    measures encouraging births, but neither she nor the birth-control movement
    as a whole ever found “it necessary to denounce fascist ‘negative-eugenics’
    policies.”[12] In fact, as late as November of 1939 (two months after Germany
    began World War II by invading Poland) Birth Control Review was still
    commending the Nazi birth control program and noting that, in comparison to
    that of the Italians, “The German program has been much more carefully worked
    out. The need for quality as well as quantity is recognized.”[13]

     

    Eugenicists went even further in their praise. They were openly enthusiastic
    about what the Nazis were doing. At the World Population Congress held in
    Berlin during the summer of 1935 Dr. Clarence Campbell, president of the
    American Eugenics Research Association, gave what Time magazine termed a
    “warm, approving speech” in support of Nazi policies. His speech went on to
    criticize those with sentimental and religious views of marriage while
    claiming his view was that of “enlightened minds.”[14]

     

    Race Building

     

    By the late 1930s, growing public hostility meant eugenicists and birth
    control groups could no longer afford to compete for the dwindling funds from
    foundations and wealthy donors. As Gordon notes, “In 1938 rivalry in the
    birth control movement was ended with the reunification of Sanger’s friends
    and enemies in the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).”[15]

     

    In January 1940 the BCFA held its annual meeting in New York City. The title
    of the symposium, “Race Building in a Democracy,” showed little had changed.
    The same title was given to a luncheon speech by Henry Fairchild, president
    of the American Eugenics Society.

     

    At that meeting, the eugenics movement, tainted by public hostility to their
    Nazi-like ideologies, united with the birth controllers. In his speech Dr.
    Fairchild noted, “One of the outstanding features of the present conference
    is…that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now
    come together as almost indistinguishable.”[16]

     

    Planned Parenthood was the product of that union. The luncheon at which Dr.
    Fairchild spoke also began the 1940 fund drive for “The Citizens Committee
    for Planned Parenthood.” Birth Control Review noted that the two events would
    give “an unusually comprehensive portrayal of the Federation of today and
    tomorrow.”[l7]

     

    A New Name

     

    The birth control leaders realized that more than a new organization was
    needed. A new image had to replace the tainted one. To create that new image,
    Sanger, now their Honorary Chairman, hired D. Kenneth Rose as public
    relations consultant.[l8] Rose recommended that they drop “birth control”
    from their name and use “planned parenthood” instead. Sanger objected, but
    “In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood
    Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control
    organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late
    1960s.”[l9]

     

    New language came with the new name. Old arguments based on heredity and
    racial stock disappeared, tainted by their association with Nazism. The new
    rhetoric focused on the environment, and birth control clinics became family
    planning centers. But the movement’s basic tactic, using poverty to force the
    poor to have fewer children, remained unchanged. Gordon explains:

     

    Furthermore, in its new emphasis on health, Planned
    Parenthood continued its eugenic traditions. Class, or
    income level, now replaced “stock” as the determining
    criteria, but many planned-parenthood arguments rested
    on the assumption that the children of the poor would
    be less healthy than the children of the rich; and since
    they did not suggest that better nutrition or medical
    care could change these health destinies, their arguments
    continued to reinforce hereditarian views.[20]

     

    Sanger herself felt that these changes made no difference in the
    organization’s basic purpose and shared that conviction in a 1948
    conversation with a colleague, Mariann Olden. During the 1930s, Olden had
    been chairman of the social hygiene department of the Princeton branch of
    the National League of Women Voters. In 1943 she founded an organization
    dedicated to the forced sterilization of the “unfit.”

     

    Before World War II, groups promoting sterilization and immigration
    restriction had an agenda much like that of birth controllers. Because,
    of their efforts, laws permitting the forced sterilization of people judged
    “unfit” were passed in some 37 states. In its never overturned 1927 Buck v.
    Bell decision the Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional.
    Conservative Protestants had joined Catholics in fighting such laws and in
    bringing a legal challenge before the Court. At the time of the decision,
    Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, author of the Court’s opinion, wrote the
    British socialist, Harold Laski, that “the religious were all astir” about
    the case. In his reply, Laski told Holmes, “Sterilize all the unfit, among
    whom I include all fundamentalists.”[21]

     

    After the war many of the sterilization groups, including that founded by
    Olden, changed their stress from eugenic to voluntary sterilization. Olden,
    however, remaind committed to the original objective and its rabid religious
    bigotry. As a result, in 1948 she was forced to leave the organization. She
    described the difference between her situation and that of Margaret Sanger
    this way:

     

    Margaret Sanger had gracefully allowed herself to
    be removed from all guidance over her Birth Control
    organization. Unlike me, she did not have to fear the
    reversal of the basic policy toward the organized
    opposition nor the much greater evil of abandoning the
    primary objective, which in our case was to obtain the
    passage of sterilization legislature. I realized that to
    most people it would be a temptation to take the easier
    course of sponsoring merely voluntary sterilization, a
    progam I felt would be dysgenic.[22]

     

    In short, Margaret Sanger herself believed that the organization she had
    founded had not altered its “primary objective”-stopping the “multiplication
    of the unfit.”

     

    Shifting Targets

     

    Revealingly, the public relations consultant who recommended the name change
    was not the first to suggest “Planned Parenthood” as a name. The suggestion
    came in a 1938 letter from Dr. Lydia DeVilbiss, a Florida physician, birth
    controller and racist. Choosing a name suggested by an open racist
    illustrates once again that the new name didn’t mean a new agenda.[23]

     

    Dr. DeVilbiss’ influence also reflects a new priority. Racial minorities were
    now more threatening than immigrants. The reason is obvious. The same elitist
    fears that created the birth control movement also led to the restrictive
    1924 immigration laws. (Blocked from immigrating by elitist American
    anti-semitism, millions of Jews would die under the Nazis.)

     

    In its place came a new migration. The nation’s black population was on the
    move. At the turn of the century 90 percent of the nation’s blacks lived in
    the South. But racism, depression, and war industry brought them north, where
    they replaced immigrant Catholics and Jews in the ghettos. By the 1960s half
    the nation’s blacks would live outside the South. Similar conditions brought
    Hispanics to this country.

     

    Reaching these people with birth control required new tactics. As the 1940
    symposium title hints, “race building” in a democracy has to be subtle.
    Coercion cannot be overt. Deception must take the place of force. The victims
    must never know they are a target. A number of tactics were used to deceive
    the victims.

     

    Visible Blacks

     

    First, birth controllers hoped (correctly) that black leaders would be easier
    to manipulate than Catholic leaders had been. The movement planned to win
    black cooperation by placing blacks in highly visible positions. Sanger
    described this to Clarence Gamble in October 1939. In that letter she
    described how “colored Ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds”
    could be used and added ominously, “We do not want word to go out that we
    want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
    straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious
    members.”[24]

     

    Clarence Gamble advocated the same tactic in a private memo that year when he
    said, “There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it
    a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored think it run
    it as we appear to let south do the conference at Atlanta.”[25] Under this
    policy PPFA hired a full-time “Negro Consultant” in 1944.[26]

     

    Government Support

     

    Second, the movement realized its radical tactics had to be abandoned. For
    programs on the scale they required, government funding and influential
    contacts inside the medical and social welfare systems were needed. They had
    to work within rather than outside the system. In a March 1939 letter,
    Margaret Sanger explained this to Frank Boudreau, director of the Milbank
    Memorial Fund:

     

    …statisticians and population experts as well as
    members of the medical profession had courage to
    attack the basic problem at the roots: That is not asking
    or suggesting a cradle competition between the intelligent
    and the ignorant, but a drastic curtailment of the birth
    rate at the source of the unfit, the diseased and the
    incompetent…The birth control clinics all over the
    country are doing their utmost to reach the lower strata
    of our population, but as we must depend upon people
    coming to the Clinics, we must realize that there are
    hundreds of thousands of women who never leave their
    own vicinity…but the way to approach these people
    is through the social workers, visiting nurses and
    midwives.[27]

     

    Liberal Alliance

     

    Third, in a move that would not bear full fruit until the drive for abortion
    legalization in the late 1960s, Planned Parenthood began developing the
    political alliances necessary for government funding and legal change. In the
    South, birth control officials found they merely had to show local officials
    the difference between black and white birth rates to win enthusiastic
    support. Beginning with North Carolina in 1937, seven Southern states
    pioneered government-funded family planning.[28]

     

    Political support was also growing outside the South. The motivation for this
    can be seen in the different attitudes toward birth control held by the two
    Roosevelts (distant cousins) who have been President. In 1905 Theodore
    Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, alarmed feminists by blasting birth
    control as “criminal against the race.” Almost exactly forty years later, in
    March of 1945, Franklin Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, expressed a far
    different view, though one with the same goal in mind. The historian
    Christopher Thorne described it this way:

     

    Subjects to do with breeding and race seem, indeed, to
    have held a certain fascination for the President…
    Roosevelt felt it in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing
    with Puerto Rico’s excessive birth rate by employing,
    in his own words, “the methods which Hitler used
    effectively.” He said to Charles Taussig and William
    Hassett, as the former recorded it, “that it is all very
    simple and painless. You have people pass through a
    narrow passage and then there is a brrrrr of an electrical
    apparatus. They stay there for twenty seconds and from
    then on they are sterile.”[29]

     

    The Stage Is Set

     

    The stage was set for a new strategy. Support from the wealthy and powerful
    was assured. As in the days of Moses and the Pharaoh, such people were eager
    to curtail the birth rates of the poor and socially troublesome.

     

    The cooperation of the news media could be counted on. Given the large
    minority populations of most big cities, journalists who never exposed the
    ugly anti-immigrant bigotry of the earlier “race building” birth controllers
    could be relied on to keep silent about Planned Parenthood’s new agenda and
    particularly its impact on black and Hispanic families.

     

    As it had been for decades, feminist support was unwavering. Like Sanger,
    their leaders had no desire to lay aside well-paying careers for a cradle
    competition with poor women. They would provide the all-important illusion
    that the agenda was for all women, not directed at some for the benefit of
    others.

     

    Like Franklin Roosevelt, liberals were little troubled by the parallels with
    Nazism. In the fight for tax-funded family planning, liberals quietly
    followed in the footsteps of Southern racists, and were motivated by much the
    same reasons.

     

    Getting the black elite to cooperate was critical for, as Sanger noted, the
    suspicion of a major target group had to be allayed. Legalized discrimination
    in their favor, well-paying careers, and political support would win many to
    the liberal cause. The black male elite, with its chronic womanizing, was
    quick to see the personal advantages of abortion legalization. Nor was
    bigotry absent. Many in the black elite view the black underclass much as
    the white elite does the white poor. Margaret Sanger, for all her hatred of
    immigrants and Catholics, had an Irish immigrant father and a Catholic mother.

     

    The Play Begins

     

    The play began in earnest during the 1960s and was motivated by several
    factors. First, the civil rights movement eliminated the worst aspects of
    Southern racism. The Northern liberal elite supported civil rights, in part,
    to reduce the pressures driving blacks northward. (As a number of blacks have
    noted, liberals never displayed much enthusiasm for combating Northern
    racism.) This paralleled the post-World War I tactic of restricting
    immigration and then forcing down birth rates. In a 1926 speech at Vassar,
    Sanger spoke of that very tactic when she said that the nation needed to
    follow the “drastic immigration laws” of 1924 with methods “to cut down on
    the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home.”[30]

     

    Second, during the fifties Planned Parenthood had purred contentedly at the
    high birth rate of white suburbia. Its eugenic (“more from the fit”) side
    was in control. But after the advent of the birth control pill in 1960,
    middle-class birth rates plummeted. As a result, the birth rates of racial
    (black and Hispanic) and religious (conservative Catholic and Protestant)
    minorities became disproportionately high.

     

    The “less from the unfit” side of Planned Parenthood again became dominant.
    In the latter half of the 1960s, Planned Parenthood and similar groups spent
    millions of dollars promoting the idea that the U.S. was in the midst of a
    dangerous population explosion. The idea was so absurd it could be disproved
    in five minutes at any public library. Caught up in the hysteria, however,
    the nation’s news media never questioned why groups were warning of a
    “population bomb” in the midst of plummeting birth rates.

     

    Among friends, Planned Parenthood officials described the real situation. On
    August 11, 1965, Dr. Robert Nelson, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of
    metropolitan Washington, spoke at the Senate “Baby Boom” hearings. He noted
    that in Washington, DC, “the less well-off economic section birth rate is
    29/1000 and going up; the rate of the economically more secure group is
    16/1000 and going down.”[31] (As if to underscore his point, the rioting in
    the Watts ghetto broke out that same day.) All the public warnings of a
    “population explosion” hid the real agenda, reducing the birth rates of
    socially troublesome groups. The problem was compounded by a third factor,
    the “sexual revolution” of the late 1960s. High rates of promiscuity meant
    still more troublesome births in both the white and black communities.[32]

     

    Inconsistency and hypocrisy make the real agenda clear to anyone willing to
    see. Mention abortion and liberals are eager to provide the poor with the
    same choice (abortion) as the rich. Mention education for that same child and
    liberals become openly hostile.

     

    Nor is that the only area where abortion supporters want more abortions
    rather than more choices. Over and over again, the “pro-choice” movement has
    opposed legal steps that would offer women the freedom to do something other
    than abort. Giving women accurate information, preventing young girls from
    being railroaded into abortions by strangers, regulations setting standards
    for abortion clinics-all have met with “pro-choice” opposition. What
    “pro-choicers” support is also revealing, including the coercive population
    programs of countries such as China.

     

    The last and most revealing example of the deep-seated hostility many
    abortion supporters feel is illustrated by their vocal opposition to “mixing
    religion and politics.” That attitude surfaced not with the rise of the “New
    Right” in the late 1970s but in the 1960s following the enormous success of
    the black pastor-led civil rights movement. A highly powerful and highly
    privileged group, abortion supporters fear any social change that might alter
    their advantaged circumstances. In their efforts to maintain the demographic
    status quo in spite of their low birth rate, Planned Parenthood is one of
    their most useful weapons. Christianity, on the other hand, is one of their
    most potent enemies.

     

    The original research for this article began during graduate work in
    Biomedical History at the University of Washington’s medical school.

     

    References

     

    1. Eleanor Dwight Jones, “To the Readers of Birth Control Review,” Birth
    Control Review, Vol. XVII, No. 7 (July, 1933).

     

    2. Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman, 1974,
    1976), 156-57. Gordon is a feminist and a strong abortion supporter.

     

    3. Sanger, Margaret, The Pivot of Civilization (Elmsford, NY: 1969 [reprint
    of the 1922 book]), 127.

     

    4. Gordon, 136. Nineteenth-century feminists were genuinely concerned about
    all women and, virtually without exception, opposed to legalized abortion.
    The “race suicide” conflict that Theodore Roosevelt and others created
    between affluent and poor women led many affluent feminists to adopt
    attitudes similar to those of Sanger. Vocal support for abortion, however,
    did not become a part of feminist dogma until the late 1960s. Abortion is
    not even mentioned Betty Friedan’s 1963 The Feminine Mystique.

     

    5. Gordon, 137, 157-8, 295-96, 327-28.

     

    6. Gordon, 287, 278-79.

     

    7. Sanger, Pivot, 114-115.

     

    8. Gordon, 304.

     

    9. Gordon, 302-03.

     

    10. Gordon, 303. Even today the organization treats “Aryan” Sweden as a model
    society even though its illegitimacy rate exceeds 50 per cent.

     

    11. M. W. Perry, “The Sound of the Machine,” The Freeman, Vol. 38, No. 7
    (July, 1988), 257f.

     

    12. Gordon, 351.

     

    13. Robert C. Cook, “Birth Rates in Fascist Countries,” Birth Control Review,
    Vol. XXIV, No. I (November 1939), 8.

     

    14. “Praise for Nazis,” Time (September 9, 1935), 20-21. Dr. Campbell was a
    fashionable Manhattan physician. Historically birth controllers alternate
    between arguments based on quality (1920s-30s) and quantity (the
    Malthusianism of the nineteenth century and today).

     

    15. Gordon, 341.

     

    16. Gordon, 290.

     

    17. “Annual Meeting” and “The 1940 Campaign, “Birth Control Review, Vol.
    XXIV, No. 2(December, 1939), 26.

     

    18. Gordon, 344.

     

    19. Gordon, 341. Sanger probably objected because she felt she had coined the
    expression “birth control.”

     

    20. Gordon, 352.

     

    21. Alan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
    Press, 1975), 316. The correspondence is from: Mark de Wolfe Howe, ed.,
    The Holmes-Laski Letters, Vol . II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
    Press, 1953), 939-941. Buck v. Bell has never been overturned and Justice
    Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade refers to it without criticism. Supporters of a
    Roe-like “right to privacy” seem little concerned about the fact that
    states can order a woman sterilized. A liberal law professor at the
    University of Washington became outraged when I suggested to him that
    someone needed to come up with a test case that would force the Supreme
    Court to rehear Buck.

     

    22. Olden, Mariann S., History of the Development of the First National
    Organization for Sterilization (No publisher, no date), 109.

     

    23. M. W. Perry, “How Planned Parenthood Got Its Name,” International Review
    of Natural Family Planning, Vol. X, No. 3 (Fall 1986), 234.

     

    24. Gordon, 332-33. Clarence Gamble is a Gamble of the Proctor and Gamble
    fortune-yet another hint of the enormous wealth that lies behind those
    who support Planned Parenthood and its agenda.

     

    25. Gordon, 333.

     

    26. Gordon, 353.

     

    27. Sanger to Frank G. Boudreau, March 12, 1939. Gordon, 359.

     

    28. Gordon, 329f. David M. Kennedy, Birth Control in America (New Haven, CT:
    Yale University Press, 1970), 258f.

     

    29. Thorne, Christopher, Allies of a Kind. (New York: Oxford University
    Press, 1978), 158-59. Before WWII, Charles W. Taussig had been FDR’s
    “personal representative” in the West Indies and “chairman of a
    presidential commission to study the natives in the Caribbean Islands.”
    Fulton Oursler, Jr., “Secret Treason,” American Heritage (December, 1991),
    55. Fortunately for the Puerto Ricans, FDR ‘s information about Nazi
    sterilization was flawed. For an accurate description of Nazi attempts at
    mass sterilization, see: Alexander, Leo. “Medical Science Under
    Dictatorship,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol . 241, No. 2
    (July 14, 1949), 41. For the medical report from the experiment see:
    Alexander Mitscherlich, Doctors of Infamy (Henry Schuman: New York, 1949)
    136-137. The report notes: “If persons are to be rendered permanently
    sterile, this can be accomplished only by X-ray dosages so high that
    castration with all its consequences results.” It concludes by noting:
    “It appears to be impossible to carry out such a program without the
    persons affected sooner or later ascertaining that they have been
    sterilized or castrated by means of X-rays.”

     

    30. “The Function of Sterilization,” delivered at Vassar College, August 5,
    1926. In Chase, Allan, The Legacy of Malthus, (New York: 1977), 658.

     

    31. Strickland, Stephen P., ed., Population Crisis (Washington, DC, 1974),
    74. These statistics, like all from Planned Parenthood, should be treated
    with skepticism. The birthrates of virtually all groups fell during the
    1960s. The fall was merely more rapid among the affluent, secular elite
    and thus altered only the relative birth rates. The same arguments apply
    to global policy. Virtually all the Western European countries fund
    domestic programs intended to increase their birth rate while funding
    international programs to lower the birth rates of non-Caucasians. A
    genuine concern for the environment would place great stress on forcing
    down the birth rates of the affluent members of wealthy countries and pay
    little attention to the limited environmental impact of the Third World
    poor.

     

    32. The bigotry that underlies support for Planned Parenthood is not the
    traditional and often irrational “skin color” racism. Its affluent
    supporters can easily afford to live in communities, belong to clubs, and
    send their children to schools separated from any racial or religious
    group they might dislike. What they are driven by is evil but quite
    rational. They dislike above all else the economic and social problems
    that disadvantaged groups create. This dislike ranges from white teenage
    girls and children with Down’s Syndrome to the world’s growing proportion
    of non-Caucasians.