Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[koshergrl]

"I
saw a sickly baby in the arms of a terrified woman whose drunken
husband had thrown the wailing, naked infant into the snow,” she
recounts, and “I remember having keen sympathy with that man!” His
wife had given birth to eleven children, six of them living, and the last
“evidently had eczema” and “whined night and day,” so the situation was
just “too much” for the father, and “out of the door into the snow the
nuisance went!”

- Progressive Hero Margaret Stanger

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK

Provide it then.

All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up

From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]

She gave one lecture on birth control. So?

Hardly "speeches"

The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this. They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion. Her cause was solely birth control. So, that's one obvious lie.

The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie. There is nothing in her comments to support that.

Was she racist? Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.

Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]
​

So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods? She wasn't anti-abortion. She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros. What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.

She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!

Her motivation was to free up black women for sex without consequences, so they could be readily available for sex, yet still work..and at the same time, reduce the black population.

Is she still your hero?

Source?

"Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” - Margaret Stanger, Coyote's hero

Margaret Sanger, My Fight for Birth Control 1 (New York NY: Farrar & Rinehart,
1931), pp. 12-13. This work will be cited in the text hereafter as MF.
2 Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York NY: Truth Publishing
Co., 1920), p. 63. This work will be cited in the text hereafter as WNR.
3 Ironically, the “educated classes” were the ones who patronized the ABCL
bureau, according to David M. Kennedy, Birth Control in America: The Career
of Margaret Sanger (New Haven CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1971), p. 182.
4 Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective, edited
Michael W. Perry (Seattle WA: Inkling

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf

 

[g5000]

PP already makes millions each year performing abortions. They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.

In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims. They do abortions. If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.

Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses. Not surprising. They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.

If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them. They would have been investigated and shut down years ago. Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda. As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population. I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.

Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts

Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?

You must have voices in your head. Nowhere in that video does Sanger say the goal of PP is to exterminate blacks.

My god, you are stupid.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY WATCHING THE VIDEO?

 

[koshergrl]

"
Sanger repeatedly

browbeats the woman who wants a large family by telling her that she is
reducing herself to a “brood animal” and a “breeding machine,” engaging
in “the most immoral practice of the day,” and doing an “injury to
society.” If the woman is working-class, she should consider that “Every
jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feeble
minded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wageworkers,”

and if she is rich, that it is “immoral” for her to have a large
family and halt her “self-development” (WNR 2, 53, 57-58, 63-64, 68)."

Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic 9 Legacy: The Control of Female
Fertility (Jefferson NC: McFarland and Company, 2005), pp. 12-3, 16, 71, 187.
10 Pivot of Civilization, p. 187. Michael Perry notes the implication of infanticide

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf
here.
11 Franks, Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy, pp. 47-50.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.

Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.

I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.

Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.

If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.

I like Walker. I may vote for the man.

I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either

Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".

Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.

He also side stepped the "evolution" issue, which I could not even imagine as an issue, during a BBC interview.

He's sticking to his guns on saying nothing about that, and they're not dead skunk issues for Democrats. The Democrats won, and conitnue to win on them.

The only thing Scott has as a vulnerability, is how crappy the economy is in Wisconsin. One could argue we're only looking at the short term drawback for austerity, without the long term goal in mind, but most voters don't think that much

 

[g5000]

"Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” - Margaret Stanger, Coyote's hero

Once again, you assholes take a quote out of context in a deliberate lie of omission. And Sanger never wrote or said those words.

Will you fucking idiots PLEASE stop publicly demonstrating your stupidity?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own. If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.

Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for? Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops. Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.

 

[g5000]

Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own. If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.

All those quotes are bullshit taken out of context and some which were not even said by Sanger.

If you have to manufacture bullshit to make a point, then your philosophy is utterly bankrupt. Your belief system is resting on quicksand.

And I am saying this to you idiots as a pro-lifer. Stop destroying the pro-life movement with your retarded bullshit. Rather than stain the whole pro-life movement as a pack of morons, just stay out of the conversation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own. If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.

Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for? Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops. Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.

I think the difference is that no one has found these quotes and the ones who claimed they have found it is keeping the source and links a secret. So like, first we have to start with actual quotes and not interpretations

 

[Bonzi]

PP already makes millions each year performing abortions. They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.

In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims. They do abortions. If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.

Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses. Not surprising. They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.

If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them. They would have been investigated and shut down years ago. Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda. As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population. I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.

Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts

I don't know if this is true or not, but it's time to make killing human life illegal.

Now.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.

Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.

I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.

Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.

If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.

I like Walker. I may vote for the man.

I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either

Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".

Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.

The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past. Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them. Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues? He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children. Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.

What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."

Of course those ultrasounds are Draconian. They have no medical neccessity. They are meant to show pictures to the mother to guilt her into keeping an unwanted fetus.

 

[Asclepias]

PP already makes millions each year performing abortions. They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.

In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims. They do abortions. If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.

Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses. Not surprising. They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.

If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them. They would have been investigated and shut down years ago. Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda. As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population. I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.

Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts

Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?

What a hatchet job by Mike Wallace.

She said nothing about Black people in that interview.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Planned Parenthood has responded:

The abortion giant released a statement from a top official defending Nucatola and its practice of selling body parts of aborted babies, which it calls “tissue.” Here is the Planned Parenthood press release:

Statement from Eric Ferraro, Vice President of Communications, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

“A well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.”

Of course there is still this elephant in the room.....

However, federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Also Gov. Jindal will launch and investigation.

Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Hot Air

 

[toxicmedia]

It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.

Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.

I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.

Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.

If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.

I like Walker. I may vote for the man.

I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either

Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".

Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.

The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past. Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them. Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues? He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children. Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.

What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."

That was one of the provisions. The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure. There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion. There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None. It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion. It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure. As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men? What a moronic example. And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread. I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state. I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.

I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue

 

[The Irish Ram]

Chapter 6 of her book:
Woman and the NEW RACE:
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics. But large families aren't genetic.
Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.

 

[Asclepias]

Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own. If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.

Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for? Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops. Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.

Thats another claim I heard but I cant find the quote anywhere. Where is the proof? She was a known eugenicist but being one doesnt automatically make you a racist. Can anyone show me quotes and not hearsay?

 

[Asclepias]

Chapter 6 of her book:
Woman and the NEW RACE:
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics. But large families aren't genetic.
Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.

Everyone already knows she was a eugenicist. I cant find proof she was a racist.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Facebook is now blocking the video....so much for non bias, promoting an agenda and the media. They got PP and they got them good. Shut them down

howertonjosh‏@howertonjosh
Facebook blocked @drmoore's (accurate) post about #PlannedParenthood's top doctor selling parts of infant corpses

 

[g5000]

Chapter 6 of her book:
Woman and the NEW RACE:
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics. But large families aren't genetic.
Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.

Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.

That quote is not in there.

Try again.

 

[The Irish Ram]

in context:

Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," 27 Mar 1934.

Typed draft article. Source: American Weekly, Mar. 27, 1934 , Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B .

Because only a partial copy of the printed article was found in Sanger's papers, the editors have used the complete typed draft in its place.

America Needs a Code for Babies
A Plea for Equal Distribution of Births by Margaret Sanger
It has been officially reported that six million children in the United States are being supported by public relief funds. This tragic indictment of our social system indicates, among other things, that there has been an overproduction of babies, or, at least, an improper distribution of them, so that the couples who have the most babies are the very ones who are least able to take care of them.

While the N.R.A. strives through its many codes to increase employment and thus to raise the purchasing power of the people in general, it does not provide for lightening the burden of the parents by reducing the number of mouths that each wage-earner must feed or which the public must feed for him. While the N. R. A. has ↑as↓ its emblem the blue eagle, I am afraid that the six million pauperized children have as their emblem a stork that has the blues. America needs a baby code!! And I want to make a few suggestions that might be considered in the formulation of such a code:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

The results desired are obviously selective births. By this I mean a selection based on the prospects for a successful and happy babyhood, childhood, and eventual citizenship. It would be an eminent gain for society if the number of births could vary in direct ratio to prospects for adequate care of children.

The development of latent powers and the mastery over nature are responsible for whatever advances man has made away from his primordial states of states of animalism and savagery. Out of an initial stage of ignorance as to what caused births, through a prolonged stage of superstition regarding these phenomenon, the race has advanced into scientific knowledge of how to control births in other ways than by abstinence from natural living. But this knowledge is not universal. A fortunate few who have it who have it are indifferent about sharing it with others, and there are large groups who deliberately and energetically strive to prevent its spread. It is this condition, doubtless more than any other factor, which has produced the six million children who are public charges.

More than one million women have written me, some of them tragic, pitiful letters, asking for advice on how to prevent unwanted additions to families already too large. According to our present Federal laws it is forbidden to convey the desired information either through the mails or by common carriers. Some of these women are tuberculosis, some have heart trouble, some have no means of support. Others have equally valid reasons for wanting to know the technique of prevention, but if a physician were to write a letter, even to one of his own patients, giving advice where to go for contraceptive instruction, and were to mail that letter, he could be sent to the penitentiary for doing so.

A fight to remove such restrictions is being conducted by the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, of which I am president. Bills are now pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives , which, if passed, will permit the use of the mails and common carriers for contraceptive information and supplies intended for use by licensed physicians, chartered medical colleges, licensed hospitals and clinics, and by druggists in legitimate prescription business.

An extremely important factor in regulating population growth is education. Of no less importance is technical assistance. To meet these needs an extension of birth control clinics is necessary. At present there are in the United States about 157 birth control clinics, some of them restricted as to the help they may give. We need thousands of clinics, with greatly enlarged scope of activity. For this reason I suggest the following as the next article of the proposed Baby Code:

Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of city, county, or state health departments, or under the support of charity, or as non-profit self-sustaining agencies, subject to inspection and control by public authorities.

The important function of birth control clinics may in the future include advice for those who wish to have children as well as for those seeking a limitation. I do not mean to imply that clinical or medical advice can at present be as effective in birth promotion as it is in birth control, but nevertheless I feel that the advance of physiology, biology, and medicine may add notably to effectiveness in dealing with those who are barren and the sterile through functional disorders so that such persons may become parents when they want to do so. At any rate, I want to make the point that the tragedy of the babies is not so much that the grand total is too large, but that there are too many in families that do not want them, cannot take care of them, and should not have them.

If education, technical assistance, and public opinion fail to limit the number of babies within certain groups of the population to the country’s capacity for taking care of them, then it may be advisable to adopt more drastic procedure. I hesitate to suggest when this might be, because so many of us Americans are afraid of any new forms of “regimentation.” It will probably always be said that sex relations and parenthood are matters too intimate for any interference by public authorities. Of course, there is already a considerable amount of interference, or, if you prefer the term, regulation through marriage and divorce laws. I wonder if it will also become necessary to establish a system of birth permits. At present a marriage license is a birth permit, as well a a permit for a man and a woman to maintain a common household. Suppose, for purposes of discussion of something that may not prove to be practicable, we add the following clauses to the proposed Baby Code:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion let the clauses stand. Suppose that we had such regulations, and suppose that couples went ahead and had children without permits and regardless of the law. Well, we should be no worse off in the matter of births than we are now. Certainly the regulations would not increase the production of children in the wrong families; the tendency would be the other way. However, a general respect for the law regarding birth permits might be fostered by punishing transgressors. Society could not very well put a couple into jail for having a baby without permission; and in the case of paupers a fine could not be collected. How then should the guilty be punished? By blacklisting? By depravation of certain civil rights, such as the right to vote? If punishment is not practicable, perhaps we can go the other way around and consider awards. If it is wise to pay farmers for not raising cotton or wheat, it may be equally wise to pay certain couples for not having children.

Considering this question leads us inevitably to the question of quotas. What is social planning without a quota? But a little thinking soon reveals the difficulty of establishing any numerical quota for births. It does not seem feasible to fix a given number of births as desirable for a county, or any other political division, during a particular year. Variations of birth rate within social classes might not affect the total number and yet might in one county improve the situation and in another make it worse. But perhaps something might be done by seeking a definite ratio between the birth rate and an index of child welfare, this index to be the opposite of what we may call child illfare. I suggest the following clause:

Article 7. Every country shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. Whenever the county records for any given year show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county concerned shall be taxed by the state according to the degree of the variation. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the state within the given county either in giving financial support to birth control clinics or in other ways calculated to improve the situation involved.

Assuming that the social workers and statisticians would not have serious difficulty in devising and keeping up an index of child welfare, the proposed scheme would, I think, be effective. The main result would be the creation of a strong community sentiment in favor of helping those couples who wish to prevent conception because they foresee that the children if born would be doomed to suffering. For the couples who are not willing to cooperate moral pressure would be brought to bear.

Finally we have the problem of how to stop reproduction by those who are recognised as biologically unfit, or who have inheritable diseases. According to the report of experts made at the famous White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, there were in 1930 more than 10,000,000 handicapped children in the United States. This total included those improperly nourished, the tuberculous, those with weak or damaged hearts, the crippled, blind, and deaf, those with defective speech, and the mentally retarded, delinquent, and dependent. A large proportion of these were doomed before they were born. Now that they are here we must take care of them, at enormous cost. Billions of dollars must be raised ever year by taxation or charitable contribution to pay for the treatment and care of individuals who have been handicapped for birth.

Many groups of the socially unfit, as for example the feeble-minded and the criminal, are not sufficiently susceptible to education or the moral pressure of the community. For such people sterilization is indicated. Some states already have sterilization laws, and others should adopt similar measures. While there must be ample safeguards in administering such laws so that the rights of the individual are considered, the paramount need is to protect society as a whole. Sterilization would go far in reducing human misery, not to speak of the financial saving in the upkeep of the unfit offspring. Therefore I suggest the following clause in the Baby Code:

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over this problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

This is the great day of social planning. We have come to believe in planning the production and distribution of goods. We plan methods of governing cities, states, and the nation. We plan jobs, and leisure-time activities, and vacations. We plan almost everything, big and little, except families. It can scarcely do any harm and it may do a vast amount of good to engage in thoughtful, planning of our population, a population with a still larger percentage of happy families.

Subject Terms:

• "unfit" to reproduce, descriptions of
• birth control, clinics and leagues
• birth control, laws and legislation, Federal
• child welfare
• children, unwanted
• conferences, White House Conference on Child health and Protection, 1930
• family size, class-based
• mentally disabled and diseased, birth control and
• physically disabled and diseased
• population, birth control and
• population growth, regulation of
• sterilization, methods
• sterilization, MS on

Copyright 2003. Margaret Sanger Project