In this controversial speech, she credited her ability to abort her babies for her career's advancement. This speech started a discussion on the prevalence and acceptance of abortion in Hollywood. Michelle Williams is far from the first film star to have abortions or credit them as essential to her career. The very pro-abortion attitude within Hollywood is far from modern. Since its foundation, film stars have been sacrificing their children to help keep their careers afloat. This was far before abortion was legalized and accepted by the mainstream public.

 

In this conclusion to my series of articles on Margaret Sanger, I am going to be sharing the history of her eugenic views. As the last two installments have shown, Sanger was not racist and was against abortion and contraceptives that take place after fertilization. When people rightfully criticize her views on eugenics, the misconceptions about her other views often take the spotlight. For example, the mostly untrue statement, “Sanger supported eugenics, killing black babies through abortion.” Let’s take a look at what eugenics actually meant to her and a little about the movement her time.

A surprising friend of Sanger and fellow advocate of eugenics was Helen Keller. Although she is regarded positively and used in pro-life arguments, Keller supported child euthanasia. She used language such as “weeding of the human garden”. “It is the possibilities of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature.”1 She wasn’t alone in her views, In 1937 a US poll found that 45% of Americans supported euthanasia for “defective infants”. 2

One of her mentors, Alexander Graham Bell, who was also an advocate for the deaf was heavily involved in American eugenics. He helped organize the First International Conference on Eugenics in 1912 and was an honorary president of the next in 1921. Although he was against forced sterilization and believed that legislation wasn’t the proper way to enforce his views, he did not approve of deaf people marrying or socializing with each other. It is hard to imagine now, but he thought that his views would help deaf-mute people. 3

Theodore Roosevelt was also a eugenist, who fought against birth control. He believed that women who did not have children were traitors and failures. However, towards other classes of civilization, he had different views. “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them.”4

George Bernard Shaw, Nellie McClung and other members of the Famous Five, Winston Churchill and many other historical figures were eugenicists. Yet each of them is praised and regarded as good people. The history of eugenics is deep and very interesting (and disappointing) to study.

Sanger believed in eugenics, but there was a difference between her and other members of the group. While most thought that the “fit” population should have lots of children, Sanger thought that everyone should have fewer children, partly because of her of her concern for women’s health and also because of her views on over-population. This lead to some controversy against her within the movement.

She called the arguments of these “race suicide” alarmists, “sheer foolishness”. 5 She said that it was just as wrong for a rich, well-educated woman to have many children, one after the other, as it is for a poor person. Her concern was again with the health of the mother and child, as well as believing that unwilling mothers who had big families were “slaves” and their lives no longer independent.

However, Sanger did go further when talking about the “unfit”. “By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing.”6 She continued by explaining why she believed this. She spoke about miscarriages, dangerous pregnancies to both the unborn and mother. She discussed the passing down of diseases and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. She also wrote about crime, “insanity”, prostitution and child labour being caused by families that are larger than they can afford or genetically unhealthy.

She used the term 'human weeds', not only to describe those she considered unfit, but any baby that was not intentionally conceived. This term was very common among the eugenics movement in her day, as mentioned before it was used by Helen Keller. It seems to have been coined by botanists involved, such as Luther Burbank. Sanger also used the metaphor of breeding racehorses to talk about human populations, another very common comparison of the day, also used by Theodore Roosevelt who bred horses.

There is no doubt prejudice against those with diseases and disabilities woven throughout her writings and outlook. The idea of Fit vs. Unfit, a eugenic idea. She views them as deserving of fewer rights and a drag upon society and government. She never condones killing them or ending their lives after conception. Her outlook was certainly ableist. The way of thinking was a very slippery slope that led to the atrocities committed against groups of people in the United States and Nazi Germany, and can also be linked with euthanasia and abortion today.



STERILIZATION



In the United States, sterilization laws were put in place between 1907-1963 in over 30 states, and over 64,000 people were forcibly sterilized. Later on, Nazis would cite these programs during the Nuremberg trials as a defence of their behaviour.

A particular case involved Mrs. Cassidente of Denver, whose five children were “neglected and malnourished” and whose home was “filthy.” 7 In court, social workers tried to have her children removed from her custody. The judge gave her the option of removal or sterilization. Her husband agreed with sterilization but she did not. She was forcibly sterilized. Sanger commented on this, “In the case of Mrs. Cassidente, of Denver, one must remember that such cases are to be looked upon as one views a war measure in a great and trying emergency.” 8

Sanger seems to go back and forth on whether or not sterilization should be enforced. Sometimes she writes that no one should be forced, other times she changes her mind. In ‘The Pivot of Civilization’ she says, “Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous... when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.” 9

This is reflective of the laws of her time when people in mental institutions were forcibly sterilized. However, in an article she wrote on sterilization in 1951, she says “The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized.” 10 Rather, she wanted education and voluntary procedures.

Honestly, it is very confusing reading her views on sterilization. She admits that there are many concerns about how to implement a program. “In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of "fit" and "unfit." Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails.” 11

“As for the sterilization of habitual criminals, not merely must we know more of heredity and genetics in general, but also acquire more certainty of the justice of our laws and the honesty of their administration before we can make rulings of fitness or unfitness merely upon the basis of a respect for law.” 12

My conclusion from reading Sanger’s writings is that she supported voluntary sterilization, except in cases which she concluded were “grosser, more obvious, undeniably feeble-minded...” and must be forced. She recognized the prejudices and dangers in implementing programs of sterilization and urged caution, but also saw population control as an essential issue. While she believed it was ideal that people would voluntarily use birth control & sterilization, she thought in some cases it must be forced as if they were in ‘war’.

I found Sanger’s speech ‘The Children’s Article’ to be eye-opening into her outlook. It includes the weed analogy, touches on overpopulation, sterilization, eugenics and her ideas for who should and shouldn’t have children. It includes the following popular quote by her, “I would like to suggest Civil Service examinations for parenthood! Prospective parents after such an examination would be given a parenthood license, proving that they are physically and mentally fit to be the fathers and mothers of the next generation.” Sanger goes on to say that the examinations should be done by ‘unborn’ children, and an organization for the prevention of cruelty to unborn children should be formed. I am including a link to this in the bibliography! 13

As I’ve studied Margaret Sanger’s writings over the past year, I’ve learned a lot about her. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, spread many times unintentionally. If I wrote an article about how Sanger was racist, making up quotes and taking them out of context, very few would take the time to fact-check it. It would probably be accepted as truth, as I would have accepted it a year ago because of my preconceived ideas.

History is incredibly complicated. Many of those who we hail as heroes had racist and bigoted views. Many of those we curse as villains shared their wrong views with those we admire. Sanger does not seem like a hero or a villain to me. Her views were shaped by her childhood and experiences as a nurse, and she seemed like a very skeptical and pessimistic woman.

Sanger held views I disagree with, and it is valid to criticize her for what she said. She held outdated and wrong ideas. We can talk about her legacy – Planned Parenthood, how the organization has changed since her death, and which of her ideas it held on to. Sanger wrote enough to disprove or disagree with, there’s is no need or justification for untrue claims about her being racist, a Nazi, or an abortionist. It is never right to put words in someone’s mouth that they never said, in order to paint them in a bad light. We must be honest about history, both the good and bad aspects.

1. Helen Keller:  ‘Physicians Juries for Defective Babies’

http://eugenics.us/helen-keller-physicians-juries-for-defective-babies-article-in-the-new-republic-1915/217.htm

2. The Fortune Quarterly Survey: IX. Fortune, July 1937, pp. 96, 106.

3. ‘Why Helen Keller Believed In Eradicating People With Disabilities', by Katie Schuermann

Bell, Alexander Graham – Eugenics Archive

http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/512eed4734c5399e2c000001

4. ‘When America Believed in Eugenics’, by Victoria Brignell

https://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/disabled-america-immigration

5. ‘Woman and the New Race’, Chapter V

6. ‘Woman and the New Race’, Chapter VII

7. San Fransisco Call, Volume 110, Number 123, 28^th November 1921

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SFC19211128.2.248&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

8. Stop Perpetuating The Unfit By A National Policy on Limitation of Families, Margaret Sanger

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=306688.xml

9. ‘The Pivot of Civilization’, Chapter IV

10. ‘Sterilization: A modern Medical Program for Health & Human Welfare’, Margaret Sanger

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=239501.xml

11. ‘The Pivot of Civilization’, Chapter IV

12. ‘The Pivot of Civilization’, Chapter IX

13. ‘The Children’s Era’, Margaret Sanger

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=303355.xml

   
 Feminist will rant about how abortions are a woman's right, and how they empower women.

 Pro-choicer's will argue that abortions are choice - 'my body, my choice'.

 They're wrong. Abortions are neither pro-choice, pro-woman, or pro-human.

   Why are abortions anti-woman?

   In the year 2013 alone there were one million, three hundred and thirty thousand sex-selective abortions. That's 1,330,000 girls being aborted, just because they're girls. (Let's not forget in light of this, they're apparently still not considered babies when this is happening.) From 2000-2013, 24,000,000 girls were sex-selectively aborted. That is one sex-selective abortion happening every 18 seconds.
   This isn't just in second world countries, countries in Asia and India where there is a general stigma against girls. Studies have shown that the practice of sex-selective abortions has spread to the UK, Canada, and the USA.
 
   Besides the babies who are being killed during the abortions - many times because of their gender,  woman who have an abortion are also at risk. There are emotional side effects to abortion - according to americanpregnancy.org.

•     Depression
•     Suicidal Thoughts
•     Insomnia & Nightmares
•     Anxiety
•     Eating Disorders
•     Loss of Self-confidence
•     Anger
•     Guilt
•     Regret    

     "....flashbacks and feeling a need to replace the lost child as possible psychological consequences of having an abortion."

     Besides emotional and physiological side effects of abortions on women, there are physical effect.

  "Cervical damage from previously induced abortions increases the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and complications of labor during later pregnancies by 300 - 500 percent... When the risks of increased pregnancy loss are projected on the population as a whole, it is estimated that aborted women lose 100,000 "wanted" pregnancies each year because of latent abortion morbidity.The researchers found that, compared to women who carried to term, women who had aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die from natural causes, seven times more likely to die from suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents and fourteen times more likely to die from homicide." abortionfacts.com

       
   Despite what pro-choice advocates, and pro-choice feminists might say, abortions are not safe and easy for women. Teen Vogue describes the usual symptoms of abortion.

    "You can expect almost 3 solid days of pain. Likely worse than any period symptoms you’ve ever experienced. You’ll love it! It’s like 2 throbbing hot balls of lead are trying to escape your body, all while your stomach contracts over and over again. Huzzahhhhh!"

 
  Besides all the cases against women, stated above - there is yet another large crime against women that is committed by abortions.
   
   Planned Parenthood has been reported many times covering up sex trafficking, and under-age sex trafficking. The women who are having abortions have absolutely no choice in the whole matter. They must have an abortion - it's required. Perhaps they think they may find help from this horrible trap they are in, at the clinic. It doesn't happen that way. Instead the crimes are hidden up, and the women go back to enduring the horrible abuse they are faced with every day.

    Why are abortions not pro-choice? Even though they are anti-women, isn't that still their choice?
 
   Babies, or 'fetuses'/'tissue' as they are called by pro-choice advocates have no choice. You might think it doesn't matter, they aren't really people yet. This is not true. Here's the development of a baby from five - nineteen weeks into pregnancy.
 
  Five Weeks - into pregnancy, and your baby's heart has already started beating.  
  Six Weeks -  your baby's mouth, nose, brain, and intestines are beginning to take shape.
  Eight Weeks - your baby has begun to move around. It as developed feet and hands. Nerve cells are branching out. Its lungs have already begun to develop, and breathing tubes have extended from the throat to lungs.
   Ten Weeks - Your baby's nails have begun to form. Its limbs can bend. The most critical portion of development is completed.
    Eleven & Twelve Weeks - Your baby is pretty much fully formed. It can hiccup, kick, and stretch. Fingers have begun to open and close, toes can curl. Reflexes have already started kicking in - your baby can feel movement on your tummy. Its mouth has also begun to make sucking movements.
   Thirteen Weeks - Your baby has tiny fingerprints now. Veins and organs are visible through its skin.

Second Trimester

  Fourteen Weeks - Your baby is using its facial muscles! Its brain impulses have begun to fire up. Oh, and the kidneys are fully functioning.
  Fifteen Weeks - Your baby can sense light, and will move away from it. *Gender can now be told from ultrasounds. This is when many people have sex-selective abortions.*
  Seventeen Weeks - Your baby's skeleton is hardening to bone. Your baby can also move its joints.
  Nineteen Weeks - You baby can probably hear your voice now. Its smell, vision, and taste are also developing.

   Now, I just want to remind you. Don't be confused. This is still not considered a baby by pro-choice advocates. It's just a "fetus/tissue".

   Abortions are legal in Canada, up to birth. In the USA, most states consider abortion legal until the 24th week of pregnancy.
   As you can see, the baby are ready has developed feet, hands, legs, arms, nails, kidneys, intestines, fingerprints, and its heart is beating. The baby is developing its senses, and it can kick, hiccup, and stretch. It's nerve cells have branched out. This is a person. Even if it's currently living in its mother's body, it is its own person, and is not part of its mother's body. Yet it has no choice in the matter.
 
   Fathers very often do not have a choice in abortion. Although many, pressure their wives/girlfriends to have an abortion, others don't want it. But it doesn't matter. In most cases, they have no say.
 
   There is another crime against humanity that is brought about through abortion. Many babies who potentially could have a handicap are aborted. An example of this are down-syndrome children.

    In Iceland, 100% of babies diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. In Great Britain 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted. It is predicted that pretty soon down syndrome children will be extinct. This isn't because people won't be having babies with down syndrome, it's because they will be aborting them.

    "We have begun to see more and more young people with Down syndrome graduating from high schools, some going on to higher education and learning employable skills. There are accomplished musicians, artists, golfers, models, actors and public speakers, as well as good employees making significant contributions to their companies and communities. These are all role models for what can be done in spite of one extra chromosome." Karen Gaffney - A down-syndrome athlete.

     Just because these people will have some struggles in their lives, they are encouraged to be aborted. They can feel joy, love, sadness, and do so many things, yet they are deemed not precious enough to live. They have no choice.

  So no. Abortions are not pro-woman. They are not pro-choice. They are not creating better lives for anyone.
   
   I would like to note - if you've had an abortion, this does not mean you are a bad person. There is always hope. You can get support, help, and redemption.

   Sincerely,
     Rachel