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

 

There is no question that America was steeped in racism during Margaret Sanger’s lifetime; 1879-1966. From Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynchings, antisemitism, turning away Jewish refugees during WWII, Japanese internment camps, etc. 

It is no wonder that Margaret Sanger is classed as a racist. After I discovered that Sanger was anti-abortion I truly expected that to be the end of things I’d gotten wrong about her. There was no way that she wasn’t racist. After all, she wrote a book called “Women & The New Race”. But the more I read, the more I was convinced she was very progressive in this regard. 

When she traveled to Hawaii, she wrote about her experiences and pleasure at seeing the lack of racism. “What surprised and pleased me most was the complete absence of race prejudice. I looked out over faces, mostly American but with a liberal sprinkling of Chinese and Japanese in their native costumes and Hawaiians in bright Mother Hubbards. Honolulu was the only place I had found where, class for class, internationalism did exist.” 1

A quick scan of her writings and you will find that she uses the word race a lot. The betterment of the race, the cleansing of the race, etc. But in their context, and knowing her views on racism it is clear that she is talking about the human race. She said, “if 'unfit' refers to races or religions, then that is another matter which I frankly deplore."2 She didn’t regard the white race as superior or speak about people of colour as lesser. She had plenty to say about the conditions of poor classes of whites and did not discriminate between races. 

Sanger worked on the Negro Project, which is pointed at as an attempt to eliminate the African-American population. There were certainly people who wanted that, as Sanger later relates in an interview. “When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes... That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.” 3

Sanger wrote about the problems among the African-American community, “Last year 40,000 Negro mothers and babies died in childbirth in this country. They died, for the most part, as a result of inadequate medical attention, poor living conditions, improper diet and many other ills, which taken together made for mothers who were poor maternity risks from the start... 45 per cent of the Negro population lives in sub-standard housing, together with the fact that four-fifths of all Negro babies are born in states that have less than the national average income, helped to swell the total of 12,000 babies who died in 1945... The real answer, of course, is better housing. All America is now aware of this gnawing need. But until this housing takes shape in wood and stone and indoor plumbing, lets not make physical and emotional casualties of too many innocent children.” 4

She admitted that birth control is not an end-all-be-all solution, but promotes it as an immediate solution while other problems are worked on. She believed that if women were free to decide when or when not to have children, it would improve their station and situation.

She also wrote about the lack of and inadequacy of medical care in the South. “The death rate of Negro mothers is three times as high as that of whites. The stillbirth ratio is twice as high among Negroes. Nor are Negroes the only underprivileged people in our society. In Puerto Rico, the maternal death rate is nearly twice that of the continental United States, the infant death rate more than double. Birth control, of course, is not the sole reason. The fact that on the average Negroes have less access to hospitalization and medical care in childbirth plays its part.” 4

The Negro Project was endorsed by The Amsterdam News - a black newspaper. It was supported by many African-American leaders, including civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune, NAACP founder W. E. B. DuBois, Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., politician and pastor, and Charles S. Johnson – Fisk University’s first black president and a member of the Birth Control Foundation of America. The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender featured Sanger’s writing, the list goes on and on. Some people claim that all these supporters were merely duped. They seem like intelligent people to me who truly supported Sanger’s ideas. There were black members of the eugenics movement, DuBois even wrote an article for the June 1932 issue of the Birth Control Review. 

Though the BCFA initially supported Sanger’s project, they later changed their mind. Instead of funding her project, they funded clinics run by whites and dropped the educational campaign. She had wanted birth control education and resources, but once out of her hands it changed to promoting sterilization and the information on contraceptives was scarce.

In her famous letter to C.J. Gamble, she says that the clinics should be run by black doctors, and not white people, as they would not trust them. “The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation. 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 that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” It was a terribly worded way to express her views.

In searching her writings, and reading what contemporary supporters said, I can find no evidence that she wanted to exterminate the African-American community. In context, it seems clear to me that she wasn’t trying to hide a nefarious intent, but rather prevent misconceptions. Her project was taken out of her hands and quickly fizzled out.

Later on, when Martin Luther King Jr. accepted the Margaret Sanger award, in the speech his wife delivered on his behalf, he praised the work Sanger had done. “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister... Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.” 5

Margaret Sanger did speak out about racism. She had travelled extensively throughout her lifetime, and compared some of the atrocities she had witnessed to the racism in the United States. 

“I can recall many horrible things I saw in India. I once saw a white man come out of a train; there were five or six Indians in his way; he just kicked them away – literally with his foot. There were a hundred people around, who were powerless to strike him. The white man’s power and the Indian’s defencelessness were so unjust.

In China, the Chinese could not go on ‘our’ property. A Chinese doctor was not allowed to see me, couldn’t come into the American area. Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be oppressed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.” 3

She spoke against supremacist thinking, in a way that was uncommon in her days. “What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic of this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in the museum.” 3

However, Sanger did speak to the women of the Klu Klux Klan. Many photos are circulating of her speaking before hooded men, rousing them to racist action. These images are photoshopped, and the truth is far different. 

“Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.” She spoke to them about the use of birth control, encouraging them to use it themselves. “Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these... My address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.”6

Once she finished her speech, she was given more invitations to speak to these groups. It was late at night, and as she relates, “I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado.”6 She clearly did not hold the KKK in high regard.

Her quotes on racism peg the problem on whites, and this leads to the next subject: Nazism. “The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.”3 

The biggest connection between the Nazi party and Sanger was a man by the name of Ernst Rudin, who was the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich. He was very much involved in the Nazi race policy. 

In April 1933, he wrote an article on sterilization for the Birth Control Review – the year that the Nazi Party seized power, and eight years before the US entered WWII. The Birth Control Review was founded by Margaret Sanger, however, she had resigned from it in 1929 and was no longer involved. There was no connection between these two figures.

In 1939, Sanger wrote a draft statement called “Hitler & the War”. “Before Hitler came into power in Germany, I was one of the few Americans who joined the Anti-Nazi Committe and gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. When Hitler got into the saddle and burned all books he considered (not immoral) but dangerous to the State, my three books were destroyed and have not been allowed to circulate in Germany. The publisher and translator were put into concentration camps and I have never heard of them since.” 7

She criticized the Nazis not only for their concentration camps, forced labour and slaughter, but also for their breeding programs. “The Nazis have encouraged illegitimacy in their mad desire to create more little Nazis, given these children the dubious honor of having Nazi dignitaries for godparents.” 8

The eugenics movement had many racists ideas and members. Sanger should have done more to speak out against this. Although she didn’t always, she certainly was far from being racist. 

  I will conclude this article with a few more quotes which speak for themselves.

“We must protect tomorrow’s Chinese baby and Hindu baby, English and Russian baby, Puerto Rican, Negro and white American babies who will stand side by side to heal the scars of this conflict and to bring promise of a better future.” 8

“Finally, all we had considered constant in rational thought, morals, ethics, started to go with equal violence in the other direction towards dictatorship and nationalism and race prejudice—a giving over of individual freedom. The immediacy of the deaths of women in childbirth seemed so small in comparison, of so little consequence; no longer were felt the pains of problems which used to be of such deep concern.” 9

   NOTE: Part 3 of this series is on sterilization and eugenics, where we delve into the darker views of Sanger. You can read it here . This is not meant to be a defense of Sanger, I do not consider her a hero or role model. I simply believe that it is important to be accurate, and want to correct myths that have been circulating about her and establish the facts about her. Like most historical figures, she is more complex than we might think.

1 – Margaret Sanger: an autobiography, Chapter 25

2 – Margaret Sanger, 1934 letter to Sidney L. Kassel Jr., The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger, Volume 2, Ed. Esther Katz (2006), 278.

3 – AMERICAN VIEWPOINT, On U.S. Birth and Bias Control, 22 Sept. 1945. By Earl Conrad

4 – Love or Babies: Must Negro Mothers Choose

By Margaret Sanger from NEGRO DIGEST, August 1946. by Johnson N. Johnson

5 – Martin Luther King Jr., acceptance speech May 10th 1966 for the Margaret Sanger Award, delivered by Coretta Scott King.

6 – Margaret Sanger: an autobiography, Chapter 29

7 – Margaret Sanger, " [Hitler and War] ," [1939]

8 – Population – Everybody’s Business, 1944

9 – Margaret Sanger: an autobiography, Chapter 39

   
 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
 

   
       The US election - I'm sure you've all heard so much about this topic. You can't go anywhere without seeing articles, and opinions. Facebook, the news, Instagram... It has been the buzz, and honestly, it's an important thing. Before you start to groan, and click away, I want to make something clear. This article isn't going to be about the election. I'm not going to tell you my opinion on who won, or the issues brought up. This article is going to be about using your voice on what matters.
      There has been such outrage and noise lately. People saying that their lives are ruined, that the world is ending, people refusing to move on, etc. I'm sure you've heard it all. Laws are being broken, stores are being broken into, cars are being burned. People are angry, and unfortunately using violence.
      Just the other day I had a thought. (I mean obviously, I have lots of thoughts, but this one was blog worthy.) What if people were loud about more important things? What if they were angry about the important things? What if they put their effort - instead of burning cars and vandalizing things - to make a difference in the things that matter more?

     Every 29 seconds a child is sold into slavery. 

Every 15 seconds a child dies of starvation.

Every second 86 babies are killed. 

Every second someone commits suicide.  

       Where is the outrage about this? Where are the people protesting? Why isn't your social media filled with people trying to raise awareness to this? Why aren't people giving speeches about this? Why aren't people worried about this? 

        There are 45.6 million slaves worldwide today, and that number is rising by the minute. The average age of a child sold into the American sex trade is 12-14. 800,000 people are being trafficked across international borders every year, 80% of these are women, and 50% are under the age of 18.
        In the 1850s a slave cost 40,000 dollars in today's money. Today it costs 90 dollars to buy a slave. Slaves are involved in making your electronic devices, chocolate, coffee, clothing. Starbucks, Victoria's secret, Nestle, Hersheys, Kraft, Apple, Walmart, H&M, Forever 21, etc. They use slaves to make their products.
       How can you help? Here are a couple websites to get you started: walkfree.org freetheslaves.net slaveryfootprint.org enditmovement.com productsofslavery.org
        
       There are 17.8 million orphans worldwide. Many of these cannot get an education. Many more are starving. 
       How can you help? Sponsor a child, or learn more: worldvision.ca we.org
      
        Did you know that many, many, abortions are done after screenings? Parents decide their children do not have a right to live, because they are girls, or because they have down syndrome. Less than 1% of all babies aborted were conceived in rape. Only 13% of Americans are African american, but they account for 37% of abortions. 80% of abortion clinics are situated in minority neighbourhoods.  Planned Parenthood was also caught selling baby-parts. More than 400 women have died from legal abortions since 1973.
     How can you help? Here's one way: https://savethestorks.com
      
      Many people don't realize how many people are hurting. 804,000 people commit suicide a year, this doesn't count the failed attempts. Did you know that men are more likely to commit suicide than women? Soldiers also have a very high suicide rate. Kind words, showing you care, getting these people mental help, can truly safe them. 
      Find more information here: save.org 

     My question is, why aren't people doing something about this? Why aren't they outraged at this? Why aren't they protesting? Things could actually change if we started speaking out. Imagine how much we could accomplish if we began to talk about more important things.  

Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy. Proverbs 31:8-9

     I challenge you to speak words of life. Speak out for those who cannot for themselves. Make a change - where it is most needed. Don't waste your words. Focus your efforts on doing good. Instead of sharing articles that are mocking and ridiculing others, share articles that can change the world.

      
      Sincerely,
        Rachel