Pro-Abortion Leftists Go All In on Eugenics

“If you are pro-choice,” Maher told his audience (who were assuredly as surprised as he was), “the modern countries of Europe are way more restrictive than we are. … If you are pro-choice, you’d like it a lot less in Germany, and Italy, and France, and Spain, and Switzerland.  Did you know that?  I didn’t know that.”

Yes, America is already a fringe radical when it comes to global abortion policy.  Yet the left’s push for ever more radical abortion policy continues apace.

The left abandoned whatever limiting principles had previously won it ground in the political debate around abortion, and public opinion is fast turning against it.  The politically measured suggestion from my teenage years that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” has given way to public campaigns demanding that women proudly “Shout Your Abortion!”  Some women have even gone so far as to publicly celebrate the special occasion with cake.

Naturally, many Americans started tuning out these horrific suggestions and turning against those making them.  In their desperation to remain broadly relevant, abortion advocates have returned to the same disgusting social engineering philosophy that drove the early-twentieth-century eugenics movement.

It’s unfair, perhaps, to morally paint Margaret Sanger alongside today’s abortion cultists in terms of depravity, as it’s hard to imagine that she would have supported the butchering of a fully developed child in utero.  But the ideological delusion she suffered from is precisely the same.

Abortion proponents are again suggesting, as Sanger and her fellow eugenicists did a hundred years ago, that if we don’t allow poor mothers and mothers who may be likely to have disabled kids, to kill their unborn children, then those children will grow up poor and needing government assistance, only to later become poor themselves and economic and social burdens to society.

In terms of Democrat party talking points, it’s no secret that black Americans are singled out as demographically poor and that black women have abortions at significantly higher rates than other American women.  In Democrat stump-speak, the words “poor” and “black” are practically synonyms.  If you don’t believe that, recall Joe Biden’s recent Freudian slip, suggesting that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”  In the Democrat party’s pro-abortion calculation, we have a moral imperative to ensure that black mothers in black neighborhoods have ample access to abortion so they may snuff out their black children before being born and becoming burdens that are too much for their parents or productive society to bear.

If you think any of this an unfair portrait of the progressive vision, consider the testimony of our current secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, who just recently elucidated this racial component of the pro-abortion agenda in response to Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, before she was leveled by his response:

Yellen: In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the work force. … And it means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves.

Scott: I’ll just simply say, as a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator.

In America, a child slated to endure poverty is no less worthy of life, or having his life protected by law, than a child ostensibly slated to enjoy affluence.  And a child who is unwanted by his parents or society is no less worthy of life than a child who is wanted by his parents or society.

These are American ideas, of course.  An individual has potential and value granted by God and has a natural right to life which is to be protected.  That value is not determined, and that right cannot be revoked, by a government bureaucracy that sees in that individual no potential value to the collective, or even by a mother and her doctor who see that child as a burden in her life.

If you refuse to believe these simple, moral truths about humanity, then you are free to move to North Korea, China, or the state of New York, where the abortion allowances may all be quite similar even after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  As for the rest of us living outside the radical abortion-loving fringe, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the path away from radical abortion policy, is nothing less than the healing of our national soul.