October 27, 2021

The Hidden Politics of Abortion: Genetic Modification

images-17For all the concern expressed over the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, we still don’t see the forest for the trees in one major area: that abortion is part of a dangerous global picture—the selective genetic engineering of human beings.

This radical dysfunction is fueled by politically contrived demands for unfettered access to abortion, more specifically, in having us view the mechanical or chemical termination of a pregnancy as a women’s right and, in this country, a constitutional right.

In 2013, genetic researcher Robert Sparrow of Australia wrote that “… in the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to create viable human gametes from human stem cells.” The abstract for the paper discusses how technology could make “in vitro eugenics” possible. If such conjecture becomes reality, then government administered health care and research functions will have great latitude over the genetic traits of future generations and will gain the ability to wield tremendous political power through social transmutation. (Consider that Planned Parenthood claims ignorance as to the use of the human fetus parts it sells.)

People who think this could never happen probably are unaware of California’s “Sterilization Act of 1909,” which Germany used as the basis for the Third Reich’s own such law in 1933 to deal with “the unfit.” (This part of California’s “trendy” history is not taught today.) And how many people know that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld compulsory sterilization laws in 1927 in Buck v. Bell by an 8-1 margin? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion. (The sole dissenter on the court, Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic, did not write a dissenting opinion.) Holmes even went so far as to state that compulsory sterilization was a way to “build a race.” He also noted that achievers were called upon to improve society and, conversely, the less able should not burden society. More than 30 states would enact sterilization laws and 60,000 U.S. citizens were sterilized by 1950.

America’s descent in to the use of such eugenics-inspired reproductive procedures as sterilization, abortion and selective breeding accelerated following women’s suffrage in 1920, as did the politically instigated use of psychiatry and psychology that included insane asylums, electroshock therapy and lobotomy procedures. These are hallmarks of Marxist influence. Yet most young women today are taught Margaret Sanger is an American icon.

Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood) and supported Marxist-originated eugenics based on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Karl Marx, at his burial in 1883, was praised as the “Darwin of political evolution” by Friedrich Engels, author of the highly influential Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1888) and co-author with Marx of The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). Sanger also was an avid supporter of both Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan in the 1930s; and her husband, Bill, was an outright socialist. (She had numerous affairs, including one with H.G. Wells, the British writer best known for his science fiction novels that became Hollywood films. He’s the guy who encouraged people to become “enlightened Nazis.” Wells also coined the phrase “liberal fascism,” selected by Jonah Goldberg as the title of his best-selling book published in 2007 by Doubleday.)

When Sanger was suggested for inclusion in a proposed federally funded women’s history museum in 2014, some lawmakers objected. Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp stated Sanger’s “racist, pro-eugenics and anti-Catholic platform should not be given tribute of any kind—not a single dime of money, nor any Congressional seal of approval.” Huelskamp said his opposition to honoring Sanger was “about honoring the dignity of life in this country, not promoters of abortion, supporters of Hitler eugenics and other assaults on human rights.” In today’s political climate, she made the cut nonetheless.

Nearly all these associations lead back to Democrats, worthy of note in this context because Democrats passed the affordable healthcare act—and without the support of a single Republican. Democrats used questionable parliamentary procedures and unethical political maneuvering, including some bizarre Senatorial elections leading up to that session of Congress. Yet no major media outlet produced a single program about eugenics’ dark past, and how it might relate to renewed government control of the U.S. health care system. (Shouldn’t 60 Minutes have provided at least one segment on the subject? After all, the program has a sterling reputation for unparalleled investigative reporting.)

Republicans passed a bill in 1997 that would have greatly limited the use of despicable late-term abortions, but President Bill Clinton vetoed the measure. Those who think he did so because he saw the procedure as a woman’s right, should think again.