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

 

On a sunny day in Brooklyn, October 16th, 1916, the doors to the first birth control clinic in America were opened. In the pamphlet inviting them, women had been told, “DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT.” Now they lined the halls, waiting their turn to hear the information. As groups of women were ushered in, they were told that no matter how early it was performed, abortion was taking life and was wrong. Contraception was encouraged, which although being "a little trouble" was worth it because life had not yet begun. 1

Who was running this clinic? None other than the “notorious” Margaret Sanger, who would end up in jail for her activities. After the opening, rumours were spread that they were committing abortions, which scared many women away, but drew a new crowd in. When a Jewish wife and mother threatened to kill herself if she could not have an abortion, Sanger convinced her not to kill herself or her baby. 1

One of the most famous quotes by Margaret Sanger goes like this, “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 2 

It’s the first quote that comes up when you google her name. It’s used by many pro-lifers when talking about the history of planned parenthood, I have used it myself. 

About a year ago, a pro-choicer told me that I was taking the quote out of context. It was a ridiculous claim. Of course Sanger was talking about abortion! Everyone knows that she promoted abortion, especially for those with disabilities, for races she looked down on and for poor populations. I decided to start digging into her writings, as it would be the easiest way to expose her. 

It’s almost been a year since I first began my research. I’ve read many of Sanger’s books, including her autobiography, ‘Woman and the New Race’, and ‘The Pivot of Civilization’. I’ve also done searches through her entire collection of writings, and have found that my perception of her was not entirely accurate. 

Sanger is often depicted as an abortion fanatic, sometimes painted with blood running down her face and hands as she holds an aborted baby. However, over and over again in her writings, she classed abortion with infanticide and child abandonment. 3 She called it a horror 4, abhorrent practice 5, barbaric & crude 6, and a disgrace to civilization. 7 She said that permitting thousands of women each year to go through abortions is absurd cruelty 8 and that abortion is inhuman. 9 In the strongest language possible she condemned abortion. One of her chapters even begins with a poem by Amelia Josephine Burr entitled, “The Song of the Unborn’. 10 She also referred to abortion as "killing of babies in the womb" 11, and said that prenatal care was essential, as the unborn baby has "rights no less imperative". 12

In 1918, she defined abortion as anything which attempts to remove or stop further growth after the sperm meets the ovum. 13 In other words, she also would not have approved of birth control that works after fertilization. When a Russian doctor told her that they had birth control, but then explained that it was abortion, she said, “We don’t want that. Birth control is different.” 14

Sanger’s first introduction to abortion was during her training as a nurse. She worked in hospitals with poor women, who came in mangled and dying from abortions. Aside from calling out abortion for ending a life, she wrote chapters on abortion’s effects on women, the dangers to their bodies and health. This seemed to be her main focus when she wrote about abortion.

Sanger peddled birth control as a way to prevent and end abortion. She believed that laws were not enough to stop it. As long as women didn't have an education, continued having large families they couldn't afford, she believed that they would go to desperate means. She pointed to history as a witness to the fact. "Family limitation will always be practised as it is now being practised–-either by Birth Control or by abortion. We know that. The one means health and happiness–-a stronger, better race. The other means disease, suffering, death.” 15

Let’s circle back to her quote about killing an infant being the most merciful thing you can do. To be completely honest, I still don’t understand what she was saying. She wasn’t talking about abortion, that’s for sure. The chapter in which the quote is included talks about the death rate of children during their first year of life. She says that 12th born children have a 60% mortality rate, then goes on to say that those who live for more than a year very often die before they reach the age of five. Here is the full paragraph surrounding the quote.

“Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.” 2

I’m not sure what Sanger is getting at here. It doesn’t seem probable to me that she’s telling parents to kill their children. Was she saying that was the common belief at the time, and why infanticides and abortion were committed? Or maybe she was trying to get her point across that life for the youngest of large families was very difficult in her time, and that dying young was a more merciful end than fighting to survive for the rest of their life? I obviously disagree with that. Life was very hard for poor families during the time in which she lived, but life is worth living despite the struggles that come in it. 

The conclusion to this first installment of my Margaret Sanger series is that she did not support abortion. She was actually anti-abortion and touted birth control as the only way to end the practice. 

Of course, as history shows, birth control did not end abortions. In fact, the organization that she founded with the claim that it would end abortion, is now the primary provider of abortions in the US. Many of the arguments she used to promote birth control are now being used to promote abortion. What would she think of that? 

NOTE: I will be following up with two articles about Sanger on racism & Nazism - which has been published here, eugenics and sterilization which is published 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 17

2 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter IX

3 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter IV

4 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter IV

5 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter IV

6 – Margaret Sanger: an autobiography, Chapter 15

7 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter XIV

8 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter XVIII

9 – Asia Discovers Birth Control,” Reader’s Digest, July 1956.

10 – The Pivot of Civilization, CHAPTER IV

11 – Woman & The New Race, Chapter XVIII

12 – The Children's Era

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretsangerchildrensera.html

13 – Birth Control or Abortion?

https://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

14 – Margaret Sanger: an autobiography, Chapter 36

15 – Birth Control or Abortion?

https://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

 

 

 

  At the corner of a busy city street, feeling disoriented and confused, I struggled to keep from being pushed along by the crowd rushing past me. Most of the people running along the grey pavement were women, but a few couples walked hand in hand, sometimes one dragged the other forward.

  One of the women bumped into me, and I reached out to stop her and ask where everyone was going. There was a look of annoyance on her face as she glanced at me before hurrying away. A bundle was tied to her front, and as I looked around I noticed that all the women rushing down the street carried the same.

  My curiosity aroused, I followed her, the strong current of people pushing me along. Among the crowd, I could better observe the bundles. They were of varying sizes, pure white, and made of the softest fabric.

The road was now attractive russet cobblestones. Joyful music played, and on each side of the road, murals decorated the walls. Painted branches reached down, bearing fruit so realistic it seemed like I could reach out and pick it.

The crowd slowed, then came to a standstill. As far as I could see, people were standing waiting in lines. Even on my tiptoes, I could not see what we were waiting for. On one side of the street, steps were leading up the side of a building. Making my way through the crowd, I started to climb.

As I rose above the street, I saw, at the front of the crowd, a red curtain that spanned the street and fastened to the tall walls on either side. As I paused, wondering what was behind it, I noticed the women at the front of the lines were handing their bundles to workers in black uniforms.

Some women were hesitating and asking to see what was inside their bundles. The workers told them that they should not worry about the contents but rather think about the weight and how it would only grow heavier and more burdensome the longer they stalled. Being convinced, the women handed over the bundles and left.

Some women seemed to know what was in their bundle and asked the workers if they would be kind before handing them over. The workers assured them that they would be gentle.

Other women laughed as they handed over their bundles, conversing with the workers as if they were old friends. As the workers unfolded the soft cloth of each bundle I saw that each contained a small baby. Some were very tiny, others larger. I could see their hands, feet, and faces and hear their heartbeats, barely audible over the music. The workers took them and passed them through the curtain.

Then I saw one of the couples in which one had been dragging the other arrive at the curtain. The woman was screaming and begging, but the worker and man accompanying them tore the bundle from her. Other times, the scene was reversed, with the women handing over the baby and the men powerless to stop them.

The scene troubled me, and I climbed higher to see past the curtain. On the other side was a deep, dark pit with jagged rocks at the bottom. My horror grew as I realized that the babies passed through the curtains were being tossed into the chasm.

I could hear the piercing screams of an innumerable number of babies echoing from the bottom of the pit as their little bodies were crushed from the fall. I saw that among the dead, a few of the bigger ones were still moving and crying out.

 More and more babies were tossed into the pit, faster and faster. Their red blood splattered onto the dripping curtain. It was running down the road and staining the cobblestones their russet hue.

I wondered, why is there no one to help? Away in the distance, back down the street, a small group of people called out to the women, warning them of what was happening behind the curtain. Some passersby laughed at them, while others stood in front of them and called them liars. Few women stopped, but many times, those who did, joined the group in warning others.

I wondered why there were so few; and why they did not get closer to the curtain. Just then, one ran towards the group of women, pleading with them, but was dragged away and put into a cage.

Next to the wall, I saw a tall building with a golden cross crowning its steeple. The sight comforted me. Surely they would help. Some workers and women who had just left the curtain walked into the building. I climbed down and followed them.

Inside, there was a large crowd of people. They were singing songs and dancing, laughing as they did so. To my surprise, the workers joined in with them.

I saw that the church had a window overlooking the pit, but heavy drapes obscured the view. One of the people sitting in a pew went to the window and tried to pull open the drapes. Others told them to stop, as it was distracting from the service. They also motioned to the workers and women, and the person at the window sat down again, for fear of offending them.

As I was considering all I had seen, a fiery light began to glow at the front of the room. A finger appeared, writing on the wall in burning letters.

“THEIR BLOOD CRIES OUT TO ME — THEIR BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT YOUR HANDS.”

 Dread enveloped me. “Does nobody see?” I shouted.

 But the frenzy of the music seemed to grow, and the dance made them turn away.

  There have been many movies and books made about Esther. The most popular may be 'One Night With the King', which I saw when I was younger.

   It portrays Esther as a beautiful twenty-something-year-old woman, who falls in love with a young and handsome King Ahasuerus/Xerxes. As I remember from last time I saw it, he doesn't want his concubines anymore, just Esther.

    That movie bothered me back then, and I was thinking about it again today, and decided to write a blog post about it!

    The story of Esther is NOT romantic.

   A prequel to the story is that the Israelites were taken captive to Babylon, and then granted freedom. By the time of Esther some of them had returned to Jerusalem, but many of them decided to stay in Babylon rather than return to Israel, God's home for them.

    The story of Esther starts of with Vashti, the Queen, refusing to go before the King's drunken party to 'show off' her beauty. The King is so angry that he removes her from her position - to be disgraced and exiled at best, or killed at worst, we are only told "that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she."

    She is often portrayed as the "bad one" in the situation. She was a pagan Queen, who most likely knew little of God, but I think that she was brave and right to refuse the King.

   So, not a very romantic start to the story. Let's keep going.

   The King decides to find a new wife of the young virgins of the country. Esther is brought to the royal grounds to be prepared.

    With some research I have found that Esther was probably fifteen years old. She was an orphan, and raised by her Uncle Mordecai who seemed to know that she was going to be taken - he advised her not to let anyone know she was a Jew.

   So she was taken to the palace against her own will, a Jew surrounded by Babylonian practices and religious rituals. She was under constant danger of being found out.

    The King would have been around forty years old when he married Esther. He no doubt had many concubines already.

   I can't even imagine how incredibly hard that would have been for Esther. A fifteen-year Jewish girl old forced to marry a middle-aged, pagan King. Away from her family, amid a political scene where people were attempting to assassinate the king, and she was in great danger personally.

  In Esther 2:12-14 it is described how each of the young girls were taken to the King, where he slept with them, and then sent them to live with the concubines. They would spend the rest of their lives living in a harem unless the King liked her and would call her to come back to him.

  For Esther it was no different, except that he found her the most beautiful, and she was made the Queen. It is recorded that he "loved her above all the women," and as is shown later in the story he must have cared for her. But that doesn't change the situation or Esther's experience. After sleeping with countless women and sending them to his house of concubines, even if he really did love Esther, she was still a fifteen or sixteen-year-old girl who had been taken against her will to the palace, could very well have ended up living the rest of her life in a harem, and who had to hide her identity to protect herself.

    It was not romantic. It was not a great love story. Esther probably did not want to be there.

    That makes it all the more amazing. God used this awful situation to bring about good and save many lives. Joseph being betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused, and thrown into prison was a horrible situation but God used it to save many people, He also used the awful situation Esther was in to save many people.

   When she was around twenty, she found out about the plot of Haman to kill the Jews, and decided to go before the King. She had not seen him for thirty days. She knew the gravity of the situation, and that to go before him without permission would most likely mean to lose her life, and to not go would mean the same. That is why she prayed and fasted for three days, with all her handmaidens and the Jews in Babylon.

   She went before the King, and he extended favour to her. God's hand was in that. And her people were spared.

   If you want a romantic story go read Cinderella. Not Esther.

   If you want a story of how God can use an awful situation to bring about good, and a courageous young woman who was brave enough to obey Him, read Esther!

Footnote: this is an interesting article about Esther if you'd like to read more.