Join CRA TODAY!

There is no “US” Without You!

Thank you for visiting us here at the online headquarters for THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY.

If you find value in the work we are doing to help fight for conservative values here in the Golden State, PLEASE BECOME A MEMBER TODAY!

Not at this time

OPINION – Now that the Supreme has overturned Roe v. Wade, the public debate over abortion has switched into high gear. But, as abortion advocates lament the impact this ruling could have on women of colors and their ability to get abortions, they inadvertently reveal the goal of their movement’s founders were in jeopardy.

What is that goal? To eliminate undesirable genetic traits in the human race through selective breeding.

While the rhetoric of today’s abortion activists focuses on “women’s health care” and “my body/my choice,” its beginning is much more sinister. “Eugenics” and “population control” were the goal of early abortion advocates. 

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, closely aligned her work with the Eugenics Movement. According to PBS: “In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement.”

Whether or not Sanger actually believed in the racist agenda supported by many in the eugenics movement of her time is debatable, but it was clearly not a deterrent. Racists in the movement recognized Sanger’s value in limiting the population growth of “inferior races.”

Even today, abortion advocates are still essentially allied with the movement’s sordid past. A recent Associated Press report, “With abortion in jeopardy, minority women have most to lose,” opened with the following assertion: “If you are black or Hispanic in a conservative state that already limits access to abortions, you are far more likely than a white woman to have one.”

It’s obvious that the goal of the authors was to lay out the case that women’s health care will be harmed in more conservative states, where access to abortions will be partially curtailed. It’s pointed out that women of color are far more likely to have abortions than their white counterparts:

When it comes to the effect on minority women, the numbers are unambiguous. In Mississippi, people of color comprise 44% of the population but 81% of women receiving abortions, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks health statistics.

The numbers are similar in Texas (59% of the population, 74% of abortions), Alamba (35% to 69%) and Louisiana (42% to 72%). 

Read another way, it’s clear that children of color – especially black children – disproportionately have their lives ended. A change in abotion policy would put a significant dent in these numbers, meaning the lives of black and brown children would be preserved under policy changes. 

It’s important to note these numbers are not unique to conservative states. In fact, liberal states have had even greater success in controlling population growth among blacks. In its 2015 report, “The Effects of Abortion on The Black Community,” the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) found:

According to the Departments of Public Health of every state that reports abortion by ethnicity; black women disproportionately lead in the numbers. At every income level, black women have higher abortion rates than Whites or Hispanics, except for women below the poverty line, where Hispanic women have slightly higher rates than black women. 

Both advocates and opponents of abortion don’t consider this disparity coincidental. According to the Associated Press:

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Alabama-based Yellowhammer Fund, which provides financial support for women seeking abortion, said women of color in states with restrictive abortion laws often have limited access to health care and a lack of choices for effective birth control. 

This rational explains the specific targeting of communities of color by the abortion industry reported by CURE:

The prevalence of abortion facilities within minority communities serves as a major contributor to the rate in which black women obtain abortions. Accordingly, black women are 5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women. A recent study released by Protecting Black Life, an outreach of Life Issues Institute concluded that, “79% of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are strategically located within walking distance of African and/or Hispanic communities.” 

The goal of many – but not all – of the founders of the “family planning” movement was to limit the population growth of “undesirable populations.” This included people of color. We also know governmental and charitable efforts to promote and fund “family planning” programs targeted low-income communities of color. And we know that based on all available data, women of color – especially black women – have pregnancies terminated in much higher numbers. The disparity is staggeringly high. 

There’s no documented proof that the goal of mondern-day abortion advocates is to target black and brown pregnancies for termination, but their own words demonstrate it to be among the results of their efforts.

Whether referred to as “birth control,” “family planning,” “population control” or “genocide,” it is obvious the abortion movement has had an disporportionate effect on birth rates among people of color. Intentional or not, the abortion industry has acheived a level of success the Ku Klux Klan could only have dreamed. 

___

Craig DeLuz is a longtime conservative activist and media commentator. He currently serves as the President of 2A News Corp. and Spokesman for the California Republican Assembly. He is also a Director for the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California and a media commentator/member of Project 21. You can follow him on Twitter @CraigDeLuz.