A presidential candidate with a racist, mass-murdering genocidal agenda?

I think that the Democratic platform in favor of abortion and their unabashed support for Planned Parenthood are blatantly obvious examples of racism of the most horrific sort. In fact, I believe that every Democratic presidential candidate for decades now has quite vociferously advocated racist, mass murdering genocidal policies, and when elected has worked towards implementing them to the best of their ability to do so.

I know that sounds rather extreme, but I think that the facts clearly and unambiguously bear that strong claim out. The abortion movement in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular, have a history of advocating a racist, genocidal agenda. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger’s eugenicist policies as elucidated in her speeches and publications such as the Birth Control Review were very similar to those of the Nazis:

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people (1)

Her disdain for blacks was exhibited in Planned Parenthood’s “Negro Project”:

Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 , “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 the idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” [1]

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research
Association, said, “There is a great danger that we will fail because
the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to
let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the
conference in Atlanta.”[2] Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of
America hired a full-time “Negro Consultant” in 1944.[3]

The entire operation [Sanger’s 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse–a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own
elimination. (2)

They still target minority populations as evidenced by the fact that almost 80% of their abortuaries are located in minority neighborhoods… and their targeting seems to be pretty effective:

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history. (3)

“Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black.” (4)

Given how closely Sanger’s views were to those of the Nazis (5) (6) and the Ku Klux Klan, it shouldn’t be surprising, I suppose that she surrounded herself with admirers of Nazi eugenics programs (7) & that she spoke at a KKK meeting (8), though she said that she had to tone her message down a bit so as not to offend even them.

There is a lot more evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrates that those behind the abortion movement, including, but certainly not limited to Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, have a blatantly racist, eugenicist agenda but this will hopefully suffice for now.

I think that the fact that the Democratic Platform championing a “right” to abortion is in fact championing mass murder is similarly clear and overwhelming. Abortion is the deliberate, often brutal killing of an innocent human being. Even Planned Parenthood has given up on trying to pretend that a fetus is not a human being. They know that they don’t have a leg to stand on from a scientific point of view:

“It might surprise many that there has been an unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real, already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a scientific fact – not an “opinion”, or a religious or theological belief. And public policy debates and decision making should not continue to escape that unavoidable scientific fact.” (9)

Dr. Jerome Lejeune exemplified the unanimous testimony of the top experts from around the world who testified at the US Senate subcommittee hearings in April 1980 on the topic of When Does Human Life Begin:

“Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” (10)

The scientific evidence is quite clear that a human fetus is in fact a human being.

The infamous abortionist Leroy Carhart, under oath in a case that overthrew prohibitions of partial birth abortions, also clearly explains what the goal of an abortion is:

“My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the fetus and terminate the pregnancy.” (11)
So, I think that any reasonable person would be convinced that an abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Unborn children, of course, could not be guilty of any crime, unless their mere existence is defined as a crime, of course.

More than 50 million innocent human beings have been deliberately, often brutally, slaughtered in this way in the U.S. alone since the Supreme Court threw out every state law against abortion in the infamous Roe v Wade decision in 1973. That is far and away more than all U.S. citizens killed in all of our wars combined! (12)

More innocent human beings are deliberately killed in the United States alone via abortion per day than were killed in all of the direct deaths due to the 911 terrorist attacks! … and the Democratic Party claims this as a “constitutional right”, and even wants to force every taxpayer in the country to subsidize and pay for it.

Some will claim that this is not “murder” because it is legal. A common definition of murder is:

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (13)

But virtually no one would say that nations can deliberately kill (or have others kill) millions of innocent people even if they define the slaughter as “legal”. If they could, no state could be guilty of mass murder, and yet virtually no one asserts that states have been guilty of mass murder throughout history.

The bottom line for me is that I realize that there are valid reasons why people may not want to vote for almost any politician. Most seem to be compromised in one way or another or who hold opinions at odds with our own on one or more topics that we may consider to be important… but, I fail to see how anyone of good will, much less a Christian, could in good conscience vote for anyone who is in favor of a “legal right” to engage in the often brutal slaughter of innocent human beings, much less on a scale of thousands per day in the U.S. alone and totaling tens of millions here so far.

That is far worse than even the evil of racism. Christians would recoil at the thought of voting for anyone who advocated a “right” to engage in child abuse, and rightfully so.

Ripping the arms and legs off of helpless babies is the ultimate form of child abuse. Or so it seems to me.


1. Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words

2. Planned Parenthood’s Racism

3. Abortion, Because Lynching Is For Amateurs
Klanned Parenthood

4. Erma Clardy Craven, Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader
Black Genocide.org

5. Nazism and Planned Parenthood (Reprinted from the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate brochure)

6. The Truth About MARGARET SANGER
Black Genocide.org

7. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/just-discovered-letter-shows-margaret-sanger-was-part-of-euthanasia-society/

8. Reflections on Roe: When Margaret Sanger Spoke to the KKK
By Paul Kengor – 1.22.15, The American Spectator

9. Cloning:When Word Games Kill
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

See also her detailed analysis of this question:
When do human beings (normally) begin?
“scientific” myths and scientific facts
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

10. When does life begin? – Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings April 1981

11. The Carhart Testimony – Partial Birth (D and C) Abortion described

12. Deaths by war vs deaths by abortion, a visual representation

13. definition of “murder”
Merriam Webster Dictionary


The Repackaging of Margaret SangerTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Repackaging of Margaret Sanger


By Steven W. Mosher


I was personally offended when Planned Parenthood recently announced plans to give its Margaret Sanger Award to the BBC documentary “The Dying Rooms.” Don’t get me wrong: The documentary is a wonderful and courageous piece of work. An undercover camera crew managed to gain entry to China’s state-run orphanages and videotape the mistreatment and murder of the girls there. I appeared in the documentary, testifying that this tragedy is a direct consequence of the country’s one-child policy.

It was the award, named after Planned Parenthood’s founder, to which I objected. For Sanger had little but contempt for the “Asiatic races,” as she and her eugenicist friends called them. During her lifetime, she proposed that their numbers be drastically reduced. But Sanger’s preferences went beyond race. In her 1922 book “Pivot of Civilization” she unabashedly called for the extirpation of “weeds … overrunning the human garden;” for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted;” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” It was later that she singled out the Chinese, writing in her autobiography about “the incessant fertility of [the Chinese] millions spread like a plague.”

There can be no doubt that Sanger would have been wildly enthusiastic over China’s one-child policy, for her “Code to Stop Overproduction of Children,” published in 1934, decreed that “no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit … no permit shall be valid for more than one child.” As for China’s selective elimination of handicapped and abandoned babies, she would have been delighted that Beijing had heeded her decades-long call for exactly such eugenicist policies.

Indeed, Sanger likely would have turned the award on its head, choosing to praise publicly rather than implicitly criticize China’s government for its dying rooms. Even the inhuman operators of Chinese orphanages might have gotten an honorable mention, in order to underline the importance of their front-line work in eliminating what she called the “unfit” and “dysgenic.” Sanger was not one for subtlety in such matters. She bluntly defined “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit” aimed at “the creation of a superman.” She often opined that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one its infant members is to kill it,” and that “all our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class.”

Sanger frequently featured racists and eugenicists in her magazine, the Birth Control Review. Contributor Lothrop Stoddard, who also served on Sanger’s board of directors, wrote in “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy” that “We must resolutely oppose both Asiatic permeation of white race-areas and Asiatic inundation of those non-white, but equally non-Asiatic regions inhabited by the really inferior races.” Each issue of the Birth Control Review was packed with such ideas. But Sanger was not content merely to publish racist propaganda; the magazine also made concrete policy proposals, such as the creation of “moron communities,” the forced production of children by the “fit,” and the compulsory sterilization and even elimination of the “unfit.”

Sanger’s own racist views were scarcely less opprobrious. In 1939 she and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called “Birth Control and the Negro,” which asserted that “the poorer areas, particularly in the South … are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.” Her “religion of birth control” would, she wrote, “ease the financial load of caring for with public funds … children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.”

War with Germany, combined with lurid tales of how the Nazis were putting her theories about “human weeds” and “genetically inferior races” into practice, panicked Sanger into changing her organization’s name and rhetoric. “Birth control,” with its undertone of coercion, became “family planning.” The “unfit” and the “dysgenic” became merely “the poor.” The American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Following Sanger’s death in 1966, Planned Parenthood felt so confident that it had safely buried her past that it began boasting about “the legacy of Margaret Sanger.” And it began handing out cutely named Maggie Awards to innocents who often had no inkling of her real views. The first recipient was Martin Luther King – who clearly had no idea that Sanger had inaugurated a project to set his people free from their progeny. “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,” Sanger wrote Gamble. Had Dr. King known why he may have been chosen to receive the award, he would have recoiled in horror. The good news is that Sanger’s – and Planned Parenthood’s – patina of respectability has worn thin in recent years. Last year Congress came within a few votes of cutting a huge chunk of the organization’s federal funding. The 1995-96 Planned Parenthood annual report notes that it has closed up shop in Mississippi, and that the number of its staff and volunteers has fallen by 4,000 over the previous year.

Perhaps the next time the Maggie Award is offered to someone of character and integrity – and more than a passing knowledge of Sanger’s bigotry – he will raise an indignant cry of refusal. He will have ample grounds.

When does human life begin?

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. has one of the more concise and precise summations of the question of when human beings first come into existence in her lifeissues.net article:

When Word Games Kill


“It might surprise many that there has been an unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real, already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a scientific fact – not an “opinion”, or a religious or theological belief. And public policy debates and decision making should not continue to escape that unavoidable scientific fact.”

The testimony of the top experts from around the world assembled for hearings before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings on the question, “When Does Human Life Begin?”, April 23-24, 1981 all came to the same, unanimous, unambiguous answer — Human life begins at conception. A few quotes:

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

* Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

* Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

For those who might prefer a more thorough, scientific explanation, please see Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.’s article:

When do human beings (normally) begin?
“scientific” myths and scientific facts


Study finds abortion shortens a mother’s lifespan

Study finds abortion shortens a mother’s lifespan
by Michael Cook

September 14, 2012 (Mercatornet.com) – In a study published last week in the European Journal of Public Health, Priscilla Coleman and colleagues report that mothers who have experienced natural pregnancy loss or induced abortion are more likely to die over a 25-year period than those who have experienced only giving birth. Dr Coleman, a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University

What was your aim in this study?

The study was undertaken to provide reliable data pertaining to the relative risk of death associated with distinct reproductive history patterns over many years. …

In a nutshell, what did it show about pregnancy loss compared with giving birth?

Pregnancy loss, whether due to induced abortion or natural loss (miscarriage or stillbirth), was associated with a higher probability of dying over the 25 year study period when compared to giving birth. However, the results related to natural loss should be interpreted cautiously, because only the most serious cases requiring hospitalization are captured in the data.

Are the results robust compared with other studies on this subject?

The results are comparable to other record-based studies. In a record-based study by Reardon and colleagues, U.S. women who aborted, when compared to women who delivered, were 62% more likely to die over an 8 year period from any cause after adjustments were made for age. Further, consistent findings were reported in large Finnish population-based studies by Gissler and colleagues published in 1997 and in 2004.

In the first study, post-pregnancy death rates within 1 year were reported to be nearly 4 times greater among women who had an induced abortion (100.5 per 100,000) compared to women who carried to term (26.7 per 100,000). Spontaneous abortion had a pregnancy associated mortality rate of 47.8 per 100,000. In the later study, Gissler and colleagues again found that mortality was significantly lower after a birth (28.2 per 100,000) than after a spontaneous abortion (51.9 per 100,000) and following an induced abortion (83.1 per 100,000).

Our results then are consistent with prior work and extend what is known by examining combinations of different reproductive outcomes and by examining the associations between repeated experiences of the same outcome in association with mortality risk.

What, specifically, did your study show about the risk or benefit of a) induced abortion, b) miscarriages and stillbirths, c) births only?

With controls for the number of pregnancies, year of birth, and age at last pregnancy, when compared to only giving birth, having only induced abortion(s) was associated with a 66% increased risk of dying. A reproductive history entailing only natural losses (compared to birth) was associated with a 181% increased risk of dying across the study period.

Did it make any difference how often a woman experienced abortion, miscarriage etc, or the birth of child?—or what combination of these different outcomes she experienced?

Yes, both things made a difference. Women who had experienced both induced abortion and natural loss were, on average, more than three times (327%) more likely to die over the 25-year period. When induced abortion and birth were combined, the risk of dying was increased by 56%. Natural loss in conjunction with birth was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk. When all reproductive outcomes were present in women’s lives, when compared to only birth(s), a 94% increased risk of death was observed. Risk of death was over 6 times greater among women who had never been pregnant compared to those in the birth(s) only group.

Multiple abortions, compared to no experience of abortion, and after applying controls, increased the risk of mortality as follows: one abortion, 45%; two abortions, 114%; three abortions, 191%. Similarly, increased risks of death were equal to 44%, 86%, and 150% for one, two, and three natural losses respectively compared to no natural losses.

By contrast, giving birth to more than one child significantly decreased mortality risks. Specifically, two births were associated with an 83% lower risk of death compared to no births, three or more births corresponded to a 44% decreased risk over no births.

Early this year a US study reported that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion—and it received a lot of attention. But your study suggests that birth is protective of the life of mothers compared to abortion. How do you explain the difference?

In arriving at their conclusion that abortion is many times safer than childbirth, Raymond and Grimes relied on data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to secure numbers of deaths related to childbirth and induced abortion. The authors acknowledged underreporting, but they made no attempt to address the factors associated with this shortcoming, nor did they discuss the magnitude of the problem: “Weaknesses include the likely under-reporting of deaths, possibly         differential by pregnancy outcome (abortion or childbirth.)”

Raymond and Grimes also failed to address abortion-related deaths beyond the first trimester, which constitute 12-13% of all abortions performed in the US. Using national U.S. data spanning the years from 1988 to 1997, Bartlett and colleagues reported the relative risk of mortality was 14.7 per 100,000 at 13–15 weeks of gestation, 29.5 at 16-20 weeks, and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks.

Although your study does not establish causality, do you have any theories about how pregnancy loss would shorten women’s lives—other than through immediate complications of the abortion or miscarriage?

As a psychologist without medical training, any hypotheses that I have are largely restricted to mediational processes involving mental health variables. There is significant evidence that an abortion experience increases a woman’s risk for experiencing mental health problems and when women are anxious, depressed, or abusing substances, they are more prone to experiencing accidents, negative partner relationships, and suicide, and their overall physical health may decline rendering them more susceptible to chronic and acute physical ailments.

One result in your study seems surprising—the greatly elevated risks of death among women who had not experienced any pregnancies. What do you make of that?

Without inclusion of additional demographic data, health history, and cause of death information, I think it would be premature to speculate too much. There is a great deal of medical research demonstrating physical and psychological benefits of full-term pregnancy, so women who have not experienced a pregnancy will not benefit from them. Moreover, many women in our Danish study may have died before they had opportunity to experience a pregnancy.

What further research would you like to do—or see done—on this subject?

My primary research interests relate to mental health correlates of reproductive outcomes; therefore in the future, I would like to more closely examine specific psychological pathways leading from distinct reproductive outcomes to particular causes of death using record-based data.

More specifically, I would really like to see if women who have experienced induced abortion are more likely to die from causes that may be logically associated with adverse mental health outcomes such as suicide, deaths due to engagement in risk-taking behaviors, and/ or substance abuse.

In this regard, there are a few existing record-based studies that have addressed associations between particular reproductive outcomes and chance of death due to suicide. For example, in a population-based study, Appleby (1991) reported in the British Medical Journal that pregnant women are 1/20th as likely to commit suicide when compared to non-pregnant women of childbearing age. Appleby concluded that “Motherhood seems to protect against suicide.”

Further, Gissler and colleagues (2005) reported the annual suicide rate for women of reproductive age to be 11.3 per 100,000; whereas the rate was only 5.9 per 100,000 in association with birth (and was a startling 34.7 per 100,000 following abortion). Several other studies conducted in various countries have revealed low rates of suicide in the year following birth when compared to non-postpartum samples. …

Priscilla K. Coleman is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Dr Coleman has nearly 50 peer-reviewed journal articles published, including 33 on abortion and mental health. In recognition of her strong publication record, she has been called to serve as an expert in several state and civil court cases, has spoken at the UN, and in 2007 she testified before U.S. Congress. Dr. Coleman is currently on the editorial boards for five international psychology and medical journals.

Study citation: Coleman, P. K., & Reardon, D. C. (September, 2012) “Reproductive History Patterns and Long-Term Mortality Rates: A Danish, Population Based Record Linkage Study”. European Journal of Public Health.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. This article reprinted under a Creative Commons License.