Archive for the ‘Margert Sanger’ Category


Double Standards

September 10, 2017

There abounds a huge double standard by the democrats when it comes to GOP nominees, two democrat senators blasted two judicial nominees for their catholic faith. The U.S. Constitution bars a religious test of anyone entering into an appointed position or elected position. The Democratic Party views anyone with a solid religious conviction that is not the same as theirs to be unfit for any office.

The democratic senators on the judicial committee used every minute to attack Trumps judicial nominees for their religion, and they both are stellar nominees in their own right, and one gave the democratic senators a schooling on issues that conflicted with their personal beliefs and that is the recusal step in any case that is brought before them.

We are told that Nominees by Clinton and Obama are above the recusal step even if they have a direct impact as to how a court case will end. The latest is the appointment of special prosecutor mueller, he should have declined the appointment due to the direct involvement of one party namely James Comey that he has been friends with for decades. The apppintments of lawyers that mueller has selected should also be stepping down due to conflicts of party affiliations.

It is time to start holding all democrats to the same standards that they try to impose upon anyone who is not a liberal progressive democrat. It’s time we solidly judge them for their politics and stop the destruction of America. Far to long have they used the phrases “its for the children”,”they want to take away your social security”, “they want to kick your grandparents to the streets”,”they want to starve the children”, those are just a few phrases they have kept repeating since the 1970’s.

There are over 50 federal jobs programs in every state, that are not needed because its is a private industry issue not a federal govt issue. Just as the minimum wage law is not needed, it is just a federal program that creates an incentive for people to rely on the largesse of the federal government. I am in a state where the minimum wage is almost double the federal minimum wage law.

The double standard is so apparent, they are directly implying that average person is not as intelligent as they are and that is why they deem themselves smarter than the average person who needs to be told how to do everything from where to live, what to eat, where to work, where they can go to school. Take congresswoman Maxine Waters, prime example of living proof of double standards she does not live in the district she represents, she lives in a multi-million dollar house while the average person in the district she represents has a home that is less than 80,000 at best.

The media also helps in furthering the double standards by refusing to investigate anyone who has the Letter D behind their names if they are elected, the media will only investigate them if they can no longer be useful. Another double standard is Hillary Clinton, she has broken so many federal laws, yet they refuse to even think she has done anything wrong.

A huge double standard is the difference between President Trump and, former President Clinton. President Trump only spoke crudely of treating women being caught on video tape intentionally to try and ruin his life, versus former President Clinton who has been a serial sexual deviant and rapist since he was 18 and a Rhodes scholar. Former President Clinton has been a frequent flyer on the Lolita express owned by a convicted pedophile and a frequent visitor to said pedophiles island, where as President Trump has not and will not go near the convicted pedophile.


Southern Poverty Law Center

August 26, 2017

After reading multiple websites and reading information on how the southern poverty law center came into being, I have come to the conclusion the real and true nature of the SPLC aka southern poverty law center real intentions are and what they do so as to keep the DNC and demcorats such as harry Reid and shummer and Nancy pelosi hands clean from contact but they are indirectly giving monies and blueprint on what to do each month.

The SPLC is the clearing house for information and directive control of the KKK, black lives matter movement, neo-nazis and the white supremacists by directing them where to demonstrate and to cause as much mayhem even violent acts to intimidate the elected GOP memebers in Congress. Every time the SPLC speak or issue a new map listing groups they disagree politically there is a demonstration planned knowing full well that violence will occur even some will be deadly expressly for that purpose at times.

Take Charlottesville as the most recent example of demonstrations and violence, first the person who filed the paperwork for the protest march is in fact one of the leaders that created the occupy Wall Street movement that failed. The ALT-right groups are actually groups created and funded by the SPLC and George Soros. The SPLC gives the groups their orders indirectly thru back channels.

The SPLC should be considered a home grown terrorist hate group because if you even disagree with any of their political views you are deemed full of hate and will be destroyed for not acknowledging that their way of thinking is the only what to think, any opposing views are not tolerated by the group. GuideStar what use too be a legit organization that listed charities that used most of the money they received for its purpose versus charities that had very high overhead costs.

The SPLC funnels money to the extremist groups so that they can continue to spread the hate of the left and the Democratic Party. It’s sad to note but nobody has taken the time to tie the SPLC to the attacks that the SPLC has sued and the number of cases they have won. It’s too convenient that to have such a nearly perfect case of winning suits in the manner they have goes against all probabilities. Yes the KKK did attack and burn down the original SPLC building but the coincidences to me are hard to ignore, since the SPLC pays the KKK and other extremist groups. These are just my opinions but somebody needs to investigate the real nature and purpose of the SPLC.

The SPLC does not allow opinions differing from theirs if you do you are a racist, a homophobe, misogynist, anything to intimidate a person to back down from their personal beliefs. I know that I will be attacked because of this post but what can they do, when they malign people and groups already for not accepting only their view of the world. Currently the SPLC is attacking President Trump for the pardon of former sheriff Arpiao of Arizona based on a falsehood they wish to perpetrate upon the American citizens.

First and foremost illegal immigrants do not have they same civil rights as American citizens and LEGAL immigrants have, illegal immigrants are granted the most basic rights which are to be treated fairly when arrested, and basic medical needs or food. ILLEGAL immigrants are not entitled to a free education, citizenship does not happen if you are born here unless one parent is already an American citizen, so there is no such thing as anchor babies to begin with, as the SPLC wants people to believe.

Checking a persons immigration status is not illegal to do, only when obama was in office, La Raza and the SPLC are assisting the Democratic Party in creating the next voting block of American citizens who in fact would really become 2nd class citizen with no opportunity to advance or get an education to help them achieve independence from govt handouts. The democrats see the ILLEGAL immigrants only purpose is to keep them in power politically.

The SPLC and La Raza put the rights of ILLEGALs higher than the civil rights of American citizens and LEGAL immigrants. If you are in America illegally then you only have basic rights and nothing more, American citizens and LEGAL immigrants have the same basic civil rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution where as ILLEGALs only have basic rights that are less than American civil rights.

I stated before it’s time someone really investigated the SPLC and its ties to the groups that protest and violently demonstrate. There are no conservative groups or individuals that give money to groups such as the KKK ever. The media should also be included in being investigated for helping assist the SPLC.

This post is just my opinion, but if someone wants to do the investigating, I say go for it one hundred percent.



August 25, 2017

The Democratic Party has now begun the whitewashing of the parties real history, they are trying to erase the real confederacy connection that the party has.

The democrats are going to have to purge all members of the house and senate members from the time of the confederacy. They will have to purge the awarding of the Margaret Sanger award, and the fullbright scholarship.

They will need to rename buildings named in honor of former demcorats, the party as a whole will have to renounce their creation of the KKK and the continued control of the organization as well.

The Civil war was not originally about slavery but excessive taxation by the federal government at the time. In Lincolns own papers it shows where he ordered the navy to fire upon fort Sumter the tax fort in Charlestown bay. Freeing the slaves was a means to end the war faster than to let it continue for years. What most people do not realize is that the emancipation proclamation only covered the southern states in the confederacy that was fighting against the union army.

It wasn’t until 1869 that congress freed the slaves that were slaves in the northern states, the main reason for the delay was”good help is hard to find”.

The media also needs to be held accountable for their actions as well, for lying about the connections of the person who was the organizer for the Charlottesville protest march is actually a founder of the occupy wall street protest. They now have people from their own party organizing protest marches for people with conservative views, so they can accuse conservatives creating a hostile environment that allows the taking and erasing of their true history.

Currently the entire media both print and television are helping the Democratic Party and its elected members whitewash their real history by implicating that the neo-nazis, white supremacists,and the KKK are all socialist progressive based. The KKK was created by the democrats during the reconcruction era and have continued to fund it thru the likes of George Soros, and other multimillionaires within the Democratic Party ranks. If they want to totally white wash their history then they need to renounce Margaret Sanger, Al Gore Sr, formers senators Fulbright and the scholarship, and senator Byrd as well.

They need every democrat whose family even remotely is tied to slavery and or rascism, to resign.they also need to admit they blocked the real end to slavery for four more years after the end of the civil war. Slavery was still allowed in the northern states for four years after the civil war ended on the basis of “good help was hard to find”.


ObamaCare The Law That Is Racist

October 13, 2013

I woke up sometime during the night because mother nature has deemed me old enough to have a time clock alarm in my bladder thank you mother nature.

The title says it all and I wrote down what it means and by federal law this program must end……….

The Affordable Patient Health Care Act aka obamacare comes right to the point of being racist and discriminatory in the same breath first time that congress has allowed and even voted on a bill that lets the federal govt to use discrimination and be racist legally at the same time.

This law discriminates against you because of your age!

This law discriminates against you because of your sexual preference!

This law discriminates against you based on your skin color!

This law discriminates against you because of your gender as well!

This law discriminates against you if you are not muslim!

This Law also discriminates against couples who are married………..

talking about racism this law was written and aimed at illegals to begin with because the democratic party needs a new group to enslave and they will be worshiped for it.

If you are an American Citizen already you are punished by the law….

Exceptions to this are in you are black, gay, lesbian, perpetual pro amnesty, muslim, pro baby death (planned parenthood actually admitted they are for this), if you are getting govt subsidies and are willing to live according to the rules that the federal govt sets forth for you to live on govt handouts then you will not be punished by the law.

Soon this law will encumber if a person will be selected by the govt to go onto a college education provided by the state, The U.K. is a great example of how the govt selects who gets into college.

Prove me wrong with verifiable proof that obamacare is not based on racism and discriminatory acts built into the law by the democratic party

This law also does what the democrats have been trying to do by re-enslaving the very people who were freed by President Abraham Lincoln, plus it shreds the constitution by letting the HHS Dept do what

they have been unable to do and that is bypass the constitution and the rule of law………….


C.L. Bryant Speaks The Truth…………..

October 31, 2011


Okay I will try and repost this for some reason my last posting of these two movie trailers have vanished

The gentleman in the movie called runaway slave is C.L. Bryant he was a former NAACP chapter president

who woke up and just saw exactly what the democratic party was doing to all blacks and people of color

to keep them in their place aka the plantation, for the past 35 years the democrats have as Mr Bryant put

it have the blacks trained in economic slavery and set up to fail once they get you into the govt system…………..



July 20, 2011

The tax kikes that Obama wants is just what is going to happen but far worse, the bush tax rates will roll back to clinton era tax rates and then the Hidden taxes kick in and those are the Obama Care taxes aka the IMT.

Individual Mandate Tax are as follows:

1 Adult        2 Adults          3+ Adults
2014      1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190   1% AGI/$285

2015   2% AGI/$325  2% AGI/$650   2% AGI/$975

2016 +  2.5% AGI/$695  2.5% AGI/$1390  2.5% AGI/$2085

this doesn’t include Employer tax Mandates:
Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of all individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income his increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).

  Capital Gains Dividends Other

2010-2012              15%                       15%                  35%

2013+ (current law)      23.8%                        43.4%                43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)     23.8%                    23.8%                43.4%

Illegal aliens do not have to pay any taxes under Obamacare

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes
First $200,000                          All Remaining Wages
($250,000 Married)                   Employer/Employee

Current Law              1.45%/1.45%                               1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed                   2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike   1.45%/1.45%                                 1.45%/2.35%
2.9% self-employed                 3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011)
this means that health savings accounts are a thing of the past and so are flexible spending account, and are health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed



February 19, 2007

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

This is courtesy of the Author




About The Author

Mike Perry is a free-lance writer and historian.



We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved for us.


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


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


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


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


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


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.




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


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.