Abortion’s War on “the Least of These”
“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit.” —Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder and heroine of the American Left
Margaret Sanger’s ghost haunts the news. Memories of the patron saint of Dilatation and Evacuation, as well as the Left’s depraved obsession with killing, have returned to the public conscience, thanks to the efforts of a courageous pro-life sting effort. The Center for Medical Progress videos which document months worth of meetings and hundreds of hours worth of footage in which Sanger’s modern proteges discuss dismembering and selling, piecemeal or whole, human babies, has exposed her agenda in the most concrete terms. The architect of abortion-on-demand said:
While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.
Margaret Sanger was a tireless advocate for the progressive ideal of “people control.” Sanger’s ardent promotion of quantitative and qualitative population control, provided the basis for the“Eugenics,”movement; the philosophical basis for the NAZI plan to achieve “racial purity.” The mother witch of progressive social experimentation associated openly with the KKK. Although her activism predates Roe vs. Wade, her dream of legal and state-sanctioned abortion is now status quo. But this woman had contempt for those to whom she referred as “feeble-minded” and “unfit.” Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate people with disabilities from society. Her ideas about the “unfit” and the expendability of “the least humans” have inveigled themselves into the platform and policies of the Democrat Party.
The IPAB, or Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Obamacare law, is not designed specifically to discriminated against the elderly and disabled. But in every model of socialized medicine that has ever existed the rationing of medical care has become an ingrained function of huge government/medical partnerships. In the UK, for example, medical care is regularly withheld from the elderly and people with disabilities. This policy, whether inferred or written in granite, is an outgrowth of Eugenics and its related philosophies which base the value of a human directly with the usefulness of that human to the greater society. People with disabilities often do require greater expenditures for educational, medical, and sometimes social services. They are the least efficient of all people and so, in the thinking of Margaret Sanger, the architects of socialized medicine, and population control social engineers, they are also the most expendable.
BLATANT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WITH COGNITIVE DISABILITIES
Cases of medical discrimination against children and adults with various cognitive disabilities such as autism and Down syndrome have been documented for years in the UK. Their National Health System has been beset with a record of discrimination against such individuals. Heart transplants and other critical cardiac measures are among the services commonly withheld from individuals with Down syndrome in the UK. These decisions are not made based on outcome or cost, but appear to be purely discriminatory based on the relative valuation of individuals who require more support and more attention than the “normal” population. A twenty-three year-old Pennsylvania man with autism was recently denied a heart transplant. The young man who has a a chronic and dangerous heart condition must take medications to help him manage the emotional and behavioral symptoms of his autism, and the potential for complications from drug interactions was put forth as one excuse for the decision. This seems like a tenuous rationale for withholding a life-saving operation since most adults in the United States take at least one or two prescription medications on a regular basis. The physicians who made the decision to deny surgery to the young man with autism refused to comment because they thought that public discussion of his case would be “unkind.”
SELECTIVE ABORTIONS THAT TARGET POTENTIALLY DISABLED CHILDREN
Abortion has become the intervention of choice to deal with children whose lives may be complicated by a congenital or acquired disability. I use the words “may” and “potentially” because prenatal tests designed to detect such disabilities have often read as false positives. The Medicaid systems in some states are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to cover the surgical abortions of late-term babies if they test positive for a condition such as Down syndrome. In fact, it is reportedthat nine out of ten children that are aborted following prenatal genetic testing test positive for Down syndrome. The gradual eradication of people with Down syndrome is taking place before our eyes.
by Marjorie Haun 8/30/15