A Washington Post article that attempted to smear the entire pro-life movement as a tool of white nationalism had to be corrected Tuesday after one of its assertions was found to be completely unfounded.
In her op-ed, left-wing writer Marissa Brostoff cited two recent examples to make her case that “white nationalists have aligned themselves with the pro-life movement,” hapless Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and conservative author J.D. Vance.
King has been accused of making comments related to white nationalism and in January was unanimously condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Vance made some comments at the National Conservatism Conference on July 16, that Brostoff distorted to paint him as a white nationalist.
“Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us,” Brostoff quoted Vance saying. “Vance did not spell out exactly who was included in the word ‘our.’ He didn’t need to,” she concluded, suggesting that he was referring to white birthrates specifically.
But Vance had made clear that he was talking about national birthrates in his speech, not birthrates of white people only: “There are a lot of ways to measure a healthy society, but the most important way to measure a healthy society is by whether a nation is having enough children to replace itself.”
Moreover, contrary to Brostoff’s portrayal of Vance as a white nationalist, the conservative is in an inter-racial marriage and has a bi-racial son. Oooops.
After a conservative backlash, the post added an “editor’s note” at the top of the article: “An earlier version of this story suggested that the author J.D. Vance lamented a falloff in white births; he was actually talking about American births.”
The entire op-ed, however, sidesteps the inconvenient truth of the matter: the pro-life movement has a long history of lamenting the devastating impact abortion has had on black Americans.
The impact is particularly striking in New York City, where more babies are reportedly aborted than born.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal last July, columnist Jason L. Riley, in an article titled “Let’s Talk About the Black Abortion Rate,” reported that between 2012 and 2016 in New York City, the city’s health department recorded 136,426 abortions performed on black women compared to 118,127 black babies born. Among whites, Hispanics and Asians in New York City, births far surpassed abortions.
However, when a pro-life group put up pro-life billboards in predominantly black neighborhoods in the south, the left reacted with outrage, calling the billboards racist and offensive.
Brostoff’s attempt to link white nationalists to the pro-life movement hinges on the claim that white nationalists “are obsessed with falling birthrates, and by extension they are obsessed with the recruitment — and total control — of women’s wombs,” as feminist writer, Mona Eltahawy put it.
But a much better case could be made that the abortion industry has “ties” to white supremacy going back to the racist eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
Dr. Brian Clowes, the director of education and research at Human Life International made that case after buying a complete set of Sanger’s journal The Birth Control Review and reading every one of its 5,631 pages.
“Sanger associated with racists and anti-Semites, people who despised everyone who was not a Nordic god or goddess, and those who demanded coercive eugenics programs to eliminate “lesser” humans,” Clowes wrote at Human Life International.
Here’s how Sanger summarized the intimate relationship between the eugenics and birth control movements:
Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. … Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race … Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.
According to Clowes, The Birth Control Review was admired by none other than Professor Doktor Ernst Rudin, Adolf Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and founder of the Nazi Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene [Society for Racial Hygiene].
In fact, Hitler himself was reportedly a fan of American eugenics journals, developing his ideas of an Aryan “master race” from its writers.
Like the Nazis, writers for The Birth Control Review advocated positive eugenics. C.C. Little said, “The eugenist is very clear on the two facts which have been given you this morning: That the production of the unfit should be discouraged or stopped, and that the production of the fit should be encouraged and possibly forced.” This was the first mention in modern times of an idea that evolved within a decade into the Nazi’s grotesque Lebensborn program, which bred the “highest-quality” Aryan men and women like cattle.
Brostoff sanitizes this history by asserting that Sanger was just latching on to a popular movement [eugenics] in an attempt to “legitimize” her noble cause.
Initially, as the scholar Aiko Takeuchi-Demirci notes, Sanger had little patience for the eugenicists she described as “masculine ‘race suicide’ fanatics,” nor were they keen on the notion that women should be able to access birth control of their own volition.
But hoping to legitimize her cause in the 1920s, Sanger sought the support of eugenicists and adopted their anti-immigrant views. The association lasted decades.
Indeed, the left calls every attempt to point out Sanger’s odious pro-eugenicist views “revisionist history.”
But what else can they do? The truth is ugly and the left’s cognitive dissonance on the matter is truly breathtaking.
Brostoff’s allies in the pro-abortion movement are the very white nationalists she condemns—racists like Richard Spencer who support abortion as a means of limiting minority populations.
As Spencer once explained: “The people who are having abortions are generally very often Black or Hispanic or from very poor circumstances.” Spencer supports abortion among whites only to weed out people with disabilities like Down Syndrome to improve the gene pool. Pro-abortion activists also encourage such abortions.
It has been estimated, sadly, that somewhere between 67 and 90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted.
As far as blacks and Hispanics are concerned however, Spencer is highly supportive of abortion as a means of “birth control.”
“They don’t oppose abortion because it’s good for racial minorities; they support abortion because it kills them,” conservative journalist Elliot Kaufman noted succinctly at National Review. “They hate black people and think America would be better if fewer of them were born.”
That’s all abortion is—a means to prevent unwanted people from being born. If it’s ghastly mission attracts some of the worst among us, that’s not the pro-life movement’s fault.