Ian Tuttle is a National Review writer and cuckservative. Today he published an article about abortion. The article reads like a $PLC hit piece. The article begins with the usual how dare they argument against Sanger for supporting eugenics. He does not bother to give an argument for why eugenics is Bad, nor does he address how many people supported eugenics back in the 1930s, including such neocon heroes as Winston Churchill. In a typical $PLC-like tactic Tuttle then “links” her to Lothrop Stoddard and then proceeds to point and sputter toward his views.
Sanger was “racist,” and was an advocate of eugenics. Tuttle, however accuses her of having been “complimentary toward Nazi eugenics,” and says that “Nazi leaders were complimentary toward Sanger.” He does not(surpise!) provide any evidence for this, and I couldn’t find no evidence. I find the phraising to be especially suspicious. “Nazi leaders?” Which “leaders?” Who qualifies as a “leader?” And what does it mean when he says they were “complimentary?” What I do know is that Sanger’s books were burned in the Nazi book burnings and she opposed nazism, in 1933 she wrote the following in a letter:
All the news from Germany is sad & horrible… and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.
Tuttle then claims that planned parenthood has “carried on Sanger’s troubling legacy.” Tuttle cites the fact that Black women are “five times likelier than white women to have an abortion” and that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are more likely to be located in areas with disproportionate black and/or Hispanic populations. It’s the same type of argument that liberals commonly make. “Blacks are more likely to “wind up in prison” so there is only ONE possible explanation!” This abortion argument doesn’t convince many Blacks or Hispanics, but I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to give cuckservatives like Ian Tuttle the opportunity to play Social Justice Warrior.
Tuttle claims that, by providing birth control and abortion to women they “create” some of their abortion customers by encouraging risky sexual behavior. This makes a certain amount of sense, but shouldn’t giving the women birth control also reduce the number of potential abortions?
At the end of his article Tuttle quotes Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested there are “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” If you want to know which populations she’s thinking of, perhaps you should look for the local Planned Parenthood clinic.
This quote is taken out of context. Here is what Ginsberg really says:
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a Jewish liberal woman in a position of power, someone who believes that it is unconstitutional for a state to not have affirmative action. But cuckservatives like Ian Tuttle would much rather pretend to be fighting “nazis.” Truth can be damned.
Republicans have been pointing out that the Democrats were the “party of the Klan” for decades, few liberals and few Blacks care. That’s ancient history. It’s an argument that is based on a double standard, people like Winston Churchill will not be tarred by neocons for their support of eugenics. Tuttle won’t remind you of Bob Jones’ support for segregation. Why should it matter?
Margaret Sanger was not a supporter of abortion. Don’t make the mistake of projecting the views of current abortion proponents onto Sanger just because they share the same organization. The views of those who run the present day Ford Foundation bear little resemblance to those of Henry Ford. Sanger wrote about Abortion that:
While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.(Sanger, 1922)
If you are trying to “link” abortion supporters to eugenics a more relevant individual would be Alan Frank Guttmacher. He served as president of Planned Parenthood in a more recent time, 1962-1974. Unlike Sanger he supported and advocated for legalized abortion. The pro abortion Guttmacher Institute is named after him, showing that modern day advocates of abortion are not shy about his legacy. And he was vice president of the American Eugenics Society, not just a supporter of the science.
He is much less famous than Sanger, but why else is it that you, the reader, probably haven’t heard of him? Why haven’t the Ian Tuttle’s of the world brought up his views?
Might it be because he was Jewish?
That fact would “complicate” Tuttle’s simplistic argument that abortion = eugenics and eugenics = Hitler. Tuttle might have to actually explain what’s so bad about eugenics.