Tag Archives: eugenics

Uncategorized

UCLA pro-lifers attacking Planned Parenthood for… racism

2 Comments

(Originally posted at DailyKos.)

Pro-lifers hate Planned Parenthood.  We know that.  But now they’ve taken their attacks to a whole new level, with viral videos and such.  Now, there’s an ongoing campaign right here at UCLA in 2008 to discredit PP as being associated with racists.  This latest onslaught highlights PP founder Margaret Sanger of being in favor of eugenics, which was true, but then tries to equate her views with that of the present-day Planned Parenthood.  Logical fallacy, anyone?  And then there’s been “undercover” work done to try and prove that Planned Parenthood in its present state is still secretly racist against black people.

This is their latest attack video they’ve released.

From this new pro-life magazine, The Advocate (run by a UCLA student, no less), we have this “article” that claims Margaret Sanger’s legacy is one of “abortion as eugenics”.

But Planned Parenthood has not really left eugenics behind. They deny it, but consider their deeds. In a 1921 article Sanger called eugenics “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” As if marching to her tune, PP is solving those unfitting racial and social problems daily: 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are placed in minority neighborhoods (black and Hispanic). According to the Center for Disease Control’s report, “Abortion Surveillance”, blacks in particular receive 35% of all abortions in the United States, though they comprise less than 13% of the population. Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

PP has so far avoided comparison of their sales figures with Sanger’s messianic hope for genetic cleansing. It is interesting that they have escaped condemnation in a world so sensitive to racism. After all, words kill in politics-take ’08 presidential candidate Joseph Biden, whose campaign sank after he uttered “macaca.” The puritans of PC stoned Biden for the slightest hint of racism, but not a one has looked into the progeny of Margaret Sanger, who was the real deal, bona fide racism with a brick and a noose. While Biden was martyred, Sanger is praised for PP’s hands-on work curtailing the unwanted.

First… Joe Biden?!?!?!?!?  Yes, in these people’s minds, Joe Biden was Mr. Macaca, instead of the actual bigot who uttered those words, Republican George Allen.

But the bigger problem is their conclusion.  First, you can read the latest Abortion Surveillance report for yourselves.  It’s from 2004.  And yes, as they say, 35% of women who get abortions in the U.S. are black, even though blacks only make up about 13% of the population.  But look at that next sentence.

Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

OK, I’m calling bullshit on this one.  How can this person say “almost half”?  It’s similar to what former Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said, that “70 percent” of black babies were aborted, which drew sharp and fast rebukes from African-American legislators.  Beauprez quickly apologized for that incredibly wrong number.

So where are they getting this “almost half” number?  Well, it’s a combination of the CDC report and not understanding basic math.  The report says this:

In the 38 reporting areas for which race was provided, classified according to the same categories used in previous years, approximately 53% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were white; 35%, black; and 8%, other; race was not known for 4% (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (472 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (161 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogeneous “other” race category (330 per 1,000) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women.

That’s what the person saw.  The numbers 472 and 1,000, and so it must mean 47.2%, which is “almost half”!  Except… it’s a RATIO, not a percentage.  Those “1,000 live births” are just that; babies that are actually born, i.e., not aborted.  If you want the percentage, it’s 472 / (472 + 1000) = 32%.  (FYI, the percentage for whites is 13.9%.)  Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on whether 32% is too high of a number.  But we simply don’t refer to a percentage that less than one-third as being “almost half”!  Well, unless you’re a pro-lifer, I guess.

Now, I am not a historian well-versed in what Margaret Sanger’s personal beliefs actually were.  I’ll just cite her Wikipedia entry about what pro-lifers are trying to do.

Sanger remains a controversial figure. While she is widely credited as a leader of the modern birth control movement, and remains an iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movements, she also is reviled by some who condemn her as “an abortion advocate.” Pro-life groups have frequently condemned Sanger’s views, attributing her efforts to promote birth control to a desire to “purify” the human race through eugenics, and even to eliminate minority races by placing birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods. For this reason, Sanger is often quoted selectively or out of context, and her history and involvement with socialism and eugenics have often been rationalized or even ignored by her defenders and biographers. Despite allegations of racism, Sanger’s work with minorities earned the respect of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In their biographical article about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood notes:

In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city’s health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community’s elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois.

Now, the Advocate, along with Live Action Films (the pro-life counterpart to Brave New Films, it seems), is putting forth viral videos of their own undercover investigations.  The latest is calling Planned Parenthood personnel in Ohio and Idaho pretending to be a potential donor, where they “catch” the workers there being OK to taking money from a racist donor.  Um, that’s it?  While that may be bad, these people then want to paint the entire organization as being racist and in favor of eugenics.  Live Action Films did their part in putting out a video of those phone calls to Ohio and Idaho.

And already, WorldNetDaily is on the case reporting this story too.  Except to see it on Drudge in a few days, and Bill O’Reilly to bloviate about it next week.  The reporter who broke this story has already been interviewed by Brad Mattes for his show I’ve never heard of, Facing Life Head-On.

And just who is this crack reporter who broke the story?  UCLA student Lila Rose.  You may remember her from last year, when she did a similar undercover thing with Planned Parenthood, pretending to be a 15-year-old girl seeking an abortion, and getting the PP person she talked with to tell her to lie about her age.  She had brought a hidden camera and recorded the entire conversation, and put it up on YouTube.  It became a hit among pro-life groups, netting her interviews with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.  Oh, and Live Action Films?  She co-founded it.  She does seem to have an up-and-coming career; look for her as an investigative reporter on Fox News in a few years.

(There’s no way I’m embedding Fox News or pro-life videos on this site, which is why I’ve only linked to the YouTube videos here.  Too much nausea involved.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Taking a Stand on Prison Sentencing

14 Comments

We always like to talk about how a strong Democratic Party needs to be unwavering on specific issues to let the electorate understand the core concerns of the party and attract people to the brand.  This is no less true in California, where the Democratic brand is somewhat invisible (better than the Republican brand, which is shot).  This is a bold move on sentencing guidelines, and those who are supporting it are probably going to catch hell from the law-n-order crowd, but it’s important to plant the flag for sane sentencing so that we don’t turn massive percentages of the state into an unmanageable prison population.

Launching what promises to be one of the year’s fiercest debates in the Capitol, the Senate’s top Democrats on Thursday moved toward reforming California’s byzantine criminal sentencing system.

Unveiling legislation to create a sentencing review commission, Senate leader Don Perata of Oakland and Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles said California should join 16 other states now revisiting the question of who goes to prison and for how long.

The lawmakers also urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to use his executive powers to create an interim working group that would begin collecting and analyzing sentencing data as early as February.

“We can’t wait,” Romero said, noting that prison overcrowding is so severe that federal judges may impose a cap on the inmate population, now at 172,000. “Public safety is not served with a broken corrections system.”

more…

Schwarzenegger has already proposed a sentencing commission, but asked them to spend their first year looking at parole guidelines, which would have no effect on the prison population in a time of crisis.  He’s constrained by a base that already hates him, who would view loosening sentencing restrictions as a final betrayal.  Democrats have little to gain from this proposal other than moving the state forward.  Surely it plays into the ridiculous stereotype conservatives hold of liberals as coddlers of criminals.  But the fact remains that the present system is incredibly dangerous, and Democrats in the legislature are being the grownups here by trying to do something about it.  Not just TALKING about it, like the Governor, but taking it out of the realm of politics and into a solutions-based environment.  There’s a rapidly approaching deadline where a federal judge will start capping the number of people in prison.  If something bold like this isn’t done, you’re going to see inmates let out of prisons in droves, and that STILL won’t solve the long-term structural problem.  Republicans want to live in this fantasy world where they can one-up each other on being “tough on crime” as if there are no real-world consequences.

In California, many experts have urged an overhaul of the sentencing system, calling it chaotic, unwieldy and complex. The nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission, which is poised to release a report on sentencing reform, found that California has added more than 1,000 laws and sentence enhancements – lengthening prison terms – over the last 30 years. Most of the changes were made by the Legislature, though some came through ballot initiatives such as the three-strikes measure of 1994.

Some critics say the state’s fixed-term sentencing system should be altered because it compels the release of inmates regardless of whether they are rehabilitated. Under such a system, there is no incentive for felons to change their lives, some scholars say.

Other experts say the biggest problem in California is a lack of uniformity, with felons convicted of the same crime receiving different sentences in different counties.

“The system we have now is a hodgepodge, and we need independent experts to help us put some sense into it,” Perata said. “Whether the Legislature has the political will to do that is another question. I’m skeptical.”

The reductio ad absurdum of this “tough on crime” pose is this shocking report from CPR about forced sterilization (you heard me right) in the prisons:

Given California’s shameful history with the forced sterilizations of thousands of people during the 20th century, you would think that bureaucrats would think twice before suggesting that the sterilization of an imprisoned woman could ever be freely chosen. And you would be wrong.

“Doing what is medically necessary” is how the Gender Responsiveness Strategies Commission of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation termed its July 18 recommendation to consider providing, in the course of delivering a baby, “elective” sterilization of women who give birth in prison, “either post-partum or coinciding with cesarean section.”

To describe a sterilization performed under such circumstances as voluntary is absurd. One’s ability to consent to sterilization, or anything else, during pregnancy and labor is limited in any setting, not to mention in a coercive environment such as a prison. Moreover, Robert Sillen, whom U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson appointed last year as federal receiver over California’ s prison health-care system, has documented that a person dies each day in California prisons due to gross medical neglect. How, in such an environment, could we trust prison staff to ensure informed consent to such a procedure?

It’s absolutely revolting, and it’s what you get when you have this dehumanization of criminals, a lack of emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, and a political environment where conservative frames on law enforcement are the only ones accepted as “serious.”

As this crisis reaches a point of no return, it’s not enough to just talk about blurring the lines on partisanship.  You have to take a stand to do something about it.  I have not been thrilled with the legislature’s performance out of the gate on health care (save for the great Sheila Kuehl).  Their response to this crisis has been solid, however, and taking stands like this will eventually resonate with the public as long as they’re able to get out the message.  I don’t think the state’s citizens are as conservative as law enforcement policy suggests.  It’s time to take back this issue, and call for sanity, call for determining consequences before action, and call for lifting up those who transgress, rather than trying to lock the problem away.