Amy v. the Anti-Birthers - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Amy v. the Anti-Birthers
Bill Maher, using obscenities to describe Amy Coney Barrett (YouTube screenshot)

“Frankly,” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Ginsburg offered that assessment in a July 7, 2009, piece in the New York Times Magazine, titled, “The Place of Women on the Court.” Such was the place of women on the high court, in her view — to advance such concerns. It raises the question: Who are these populations that RBG and allies don’t want to have too many of?

To paraphrase Dianne Feinstein, Margaret Sanger’s anti-birth dogma lives loudly within you, Planned Parenthood.

It’s a question not being asked right now amid the remembrances of RBG. It seems especially pertinent given that the nominee to replace Ginsburg is Amy Coney Barrett, mother of seven, including a Down Syndrome child and two adopted children from Haiti.

Barrett evidently doesn’t share the same dismal view of Roe. Ginsburg saw in Roe a great added utility: Not only could it give women the “right” to abortion, but it could open the way for the federal government, via Medicaid, to fund abortions of undesired populations.

That was very much the view of racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization that was a staunch advocate of Justice Ginsburg. Sanger, who in May 1926 spoke to a rally of the women’s branch of the KKK in Silverlake, New Jersey, was committed to a vision of “race improvement.” She wanted to purge the population of “imbeciles” and “idiots” and “morons” and “human weeds.” She condemned America’s “race of degenerates” — its “dead weight of human waste.” “The most urgent problem today,” insisted Sanger, “is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

These were the populations that she didn’t want to have too many of.

Sanger preached a unique segregation. In her 1922 landmark book, The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger urged that “every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.” Carefully planned segregation, Sanger insisted, was necessary. And yet, agonized Sanger, “Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.” Thus, carefully planned sterilization likewise was necessary: “We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”

It was imperative, said Planned Parenthood’s matron, that the nation “become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race.” Funds should be made available, she counseled, “by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born.”

The populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

And today, Planned Parenthood, America’s leading abortion provider, is demanding a “NO VOTE” on Amy Coney Barrett, insisting that this court seat is RBG’s seat. President Trump’s nominee, cries Planned Parenthood, would “take health care coverage away from millions.” That’s that Medicaid funding for abortion that RBG spoke of, for those populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

To paraphrase Dianne Feinstein, Margaret Sanger’s anti-birth dogma lives loudly within you, Planned Parenthood.

This anti-birth spirit still inspires many Roe proponents. Take the telling case of Ron Weddington, abortion attorney in the Roe decision, who in 1992 wrote to Bill Clinton urging sharper measures to limit the birth of America’s defectives: “[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” urged Weddington. “The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.”

Weddington personally had done his part. “I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book,” he told Clinton. “I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret.”

There was Ron and his wife’s gift to the world: zero population growth from their marriage (actually, minus one, via the aborted baby).

All of which brings us to the nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one Amy Coney Barrett. It is a great irony that what I’ve written here is a distillation of a piece I wrote for The American Spectator in July 2018, titled, “Amy Coney Barrett vs. Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” when ACB’s naming was floated for the seat that instead went to Brett Kavanaugh.

“If Donald Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee, it would be maybe his boldest and most brilliant political-cultural move,” I wrote in that piece. “It would make a vote for Trump in 2020 almost irresistible to Never Trumpers whose primary concern with Trump was moral-cultural. And if Trump picks Barrett, among the first people solicited for comments should be Barrett’s potential senior-most colleague on the high court. Justice Ginsburg should be asked if Barrett is among those who should have limited her reproduction.”

Alas, who would have thought that ACB two years later would be nominated to replace RBG? But she is, and the anti-birther Left is going wild.

One of the first to fulminate against Barrett was comedian Bill Maher. The faithful atheist called the mother of seven “a f–king nut. Religion … Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic, really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic, like speaking in tongues, like she doesn’t believe in condoms.”

Hey, Bill. It’s even crazier than that. Get this: The woman prays to this invisible sky fairy, which she believes hears her prayers. The nut worships some Jewish carpenter dude from Nazareth who died over 2,000 years ago, who she thinks rose from the dead. She even thinks the guy raised other people from the dead, plus other fairy-tale “miracles.” The dude was supposedly born to a “virgin” mother, who likewise apparently didn’t believe in condoms, Bill. And here’s the kicker, Bill: She and her fellow really Catholic whack-jobs believe they eat the dead guy’s flesh every Sunday morning — in the form of some cookie-wafer thingy! What a bunch of stupid freakin’ cannibals!

And then there’s this response to Barrett’s children from Dana Houle, a Democrat activist and former chief of staff to a Democrat member of Congress. “I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti.”

I bet you would, Dana.

Houle continued, “So here’s a Q: Does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti?… Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if the press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it?”

Hmm. Better yet, how about if we take the kids away from her — eh, Dana? That’ll teach the witch! How dare she accept this nomination! Yeah, get her—snatch those kids!

Not to be outdone, Boston University professor Ibram X. Kendi compared Barrett to a “White colonizer.” “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children,” wrote Kendi. “They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.” Professor Kendi is author of the 2019 book How to Be an Antiracist.

An even uglier statement came from Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University professor and a commentator for CNN, who tweeted, “Many authoritarians seized children of color for adoption by White Christians. Pinochet’s regime did this with indigenous kids and Nazis took Aryan looking Poles for German families. Trump takes migrant kids for adoption by Evangelicals.”

Such is Ben-Ghiat’s reprehensible assessment of Amy Coney Barrett and her husband stepping forward to adopt children from Haitian orphanages left homeless and without a mom or dad after a terrible earthquake.

It’s a remarkable thing, really. Pro-choice liberals hiss that pro-lifers only care about the baby while it’s in the womb, with no regard for the child after birth. That cynical, lazy view is without evidence and categorically untrue, as anyone in the pro-life movement knows. Nearly every pro-life ministry deals with helping children and mothers after birth. Pro-choice liberals who never leave their university or coffee shops in New York City and LA wouldn’t know this because they don’t interact with religious pro-life communities. But the reality is that it’s pro-lifers, particularly pro-life Christians, who adopt children from overseas, from rural communities, from the inner cities, and from everywhere in between — from places like China, Russia, and Haiti. In so doing, they are models of this nation’s many mixed-race families. What blessings they are.

And believe me, it isn’t easy: the time invested, the resources, the financial cost, and so much more. It’s all-consuming, exhausting. Amy Coney Barrett having seven kids, with two adopted (in my family, we have eight, with two adopted, likewise mixed race), is a wonderful life of joy but also of sacrifice. There’s nothing selfish about it. It’s pure selflessness. You give and give and give, all the time, often with little time for yourself. And above all, you view each and every individual in your home not as a “human weed” or “imbecile” or “populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” but as precious human beings made in the image of God.

Yes, the image of God. That’s religion, Bill Maher. It’s a force for good, especially when it inspires the creation of families like these. It’s faith, too, that carries you through. It also instills in those children that same desire to help the populations that the likes of RBG and allies don’t want to have too many of. Someone in society must step up. Pro-choice progressives don’t. The likes of ACB do.

And yet, when angry pro-choicers encounter someone like Amy Coney Barrett who does what they demand — namely, walk the walk and seek to help children both in the womb and out of the womb — they rage at her. Rather than admire her, even commend her, they attack her. In so doing, they tell us what they really believe.

Paul Kengor
Follow Their Stories:
View More
Paul Kengor is Editor of The American Spectator. Dr. Kengor is also a professor of political science at Grove City College, a senior academic fellow at the Center for Vision & Values, and the author of over a dozen books, including A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism, and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!