For John, BLUF: And partly because the issue has been suppressed in politics for too long. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Kirsten Powers: "I've got news for Democrats. It's a baby!". OK, so Ms Kirsten Powers is selling her book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. But, that doesn't make her wrong.
The sub-headline is:
Democrats on wrong side of history when it comes to Planned Parenthood's crimes against innocent unborn.Here is the lede:
Democrats like to talk about the importance of being on the “right side of history.” This phrase was invoked frequently during the same-sex marriage debate. Yet when faced with a series of videos detailing grotesque human rights abuses against unborn children by Planned Parenthood Federation of America doctors, Democratic Party forces have eschewed all concern for historical or moral rightness.Yes, I get that the videos are questionable with regard to the ethics of journalism. I have read what Reporter Carl Prine has said about that. And Carl is a pro-life kind of person.
Pope Francis has correctly described the unborn as “the most defenseless and innocent among us.” But in the sordid tale of strategic crushing of the unborn to better harvest their hearts, lungs and livers, many Democrats have incredibly cast an organization with a roughly $1.3 billion annual budget in the role of the innocent and defenseless. Hillary Clinton emerged as Planned Parenthood’s highest profile protector Monday, decrying the “assault” against her allegedly helpless campaign donors.
That said, there is a problem here. Ms Powers sees it. I think even The New Yorker sees it. On 13 August of this year they had an article by Jedediah Purdy, headlined "Environmentalism’s Racist History". It is focused around Mr Madison Grant (Yale College 1887, Columbia Law School) and talks about how early Twentieth Century Environmentalists were also Eugenics fans and were concerned about the future of mankind. For example, in 1916 Mr Grant published his The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History.♠ I was amused at how The New Yorker described the book:
...a pseudo-scientific work of white supremacism that warns of the decline of the “Nordic” peoples.Funny how something we now reject is considered "pseudo-science", as though there was no real scientific effort put into it. I bet Mr Grant's work was considered "settled science" by the Bien-Pensant of the day.
Of interest, Mr Grant was involved in the writing of the Immigration Act of 1924.
No, Ms Margaret Sanger was not mentioned in article by Mr Purdy. On the other hand, there is this, perhaps based on the idea that her work was "pseudo-science". Actually it is a group of Black Pastors, led by a Harvard Law School Graduate. The Breitbart headline is "Remove Bust of Racist Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger from National Portrait Gallery". Makes sense to me.
As a final thought. The abortion issue may be a case of groups not being willing to take yes for an answer. While I am personally opposed to abortion, this is a Democracy and everyone gets a vote. A large majority of us believe abortion should be legal. A large proportion of us believe that late term abortions, except for the life of the Mother, are wrong. I would think there is a compromise at about 20 to 22 weeks. Not all I want, but also better than the current approach.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
♠ I was surprised as to the number of different versions of this almost 100 year old publication that is probably of questionable taste. Although reading it might help us understand how we got to where we are.