When Will We Speak?

We are a blessed nation. What other country can boast of a Speaker of the House who is a visionary Catholic scholar, as comfortable speaking on the Augustinian view on ensoulment, as she is on the inexplicable phenomenon of 500,000,000 Americans losing their jobs every month our nation is without a “recovery package”. The Speaker’s formidable intellect was once again on display when she was asked last month how expanding family planning services might stimulate the economy? Speaker Pelosi replied:

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and Obama….Oh my. How about a mulligan on this one. Well, might we be able to exchange the plague America has wrought upon herself for the trivial annoyance of infestation by frogs, flies, boils, and locusts? Yes, elections do have consequences.

Even before this comment, there has been clear evidence that policy makers, while not all as vocal, are willing to at least give consideration to the utilitarian view, rooted in eugenics, and so candidly championed by the Speaker. Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally. Utilitarianism is the belief that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility or happiness. Succinctly, utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number.

The work of Charles Darwin, in particular The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, formed the foundation of modern eugenic thought and inspired its founder, Francis Galton. Galton’s efforts led to an explosion of eugenic thought and practice which had its birth not in Nazi Germany but in the United States. The most staggering evidence of this is the forced sterilization and relocation program carried out in the United States over a period of thirty years in thirty one states. During this time over 20,000 “unfit” individuals were sterilized against their will. Notable amongst Eugenic advocates was Margaret Sanger. The founder of the American Birth Control League (ABCL) organization, the ABCL leadership council was dominated by members of the American Eugenics Society. Sanger ultimately went on to found the organization which became Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger stated birth control "is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives." Say what you want about Speaker Pelosi, she is honest in saying what she thinks about birth control, its usefulness in containing costs to society and her commitment to support it. Sanger would be proud of Speaker Pelosi’s candor.

Abortion, a primary plank of the Democratic Party, always shrouded in the language of “reproductive freedom”, has been the “secret” weapon in the liberal utilitarian march. At least two communities are prime evidence of this agenda. Exhibit one is infants with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Awareness day was March 21st. Down Syndrome results from an extra (3) number 21 chromosomes…thus Down Syndrome Awareness Day is 3/21. The march of the utilitarians has led inexorably to the targeting of unborns with Down syndrome. It is very possible, given the current recommendations of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) that all pregnant women be offered screening for Down syndrome that in the future there will be no infants born with Down syndrome. It is a disturbing fact that 80-90% of unborn infants diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted, and even more will be identified with current screening recommendations. Rates of births of Down syndrome infants have dropped in many nations. Denmark recently reported rates have been reduced by 50% with current prenatal testing. This is looked at by policy makers as a reduction in birth defects. Eugenicists, costumed as supporters of women’s health, reproductive rights, fiscal responsibility, and “quality of life”, wield abortion as a primary weapon in the battle to eliminate Down syndrome.

Despite the rapid disappearance of infants being born with Down syndrome, some of the greatest advocates for individuals with Down syndrome are incapable of confronting the larger utilitarianism at work. There is insistence from some advocates that if we are to reverse this disturbing trend of aborting unborn children with Down syndrome, we need to educate the community. Some believe that if more parents understood that individuals with Down syndrome can be functional community members, this trend of “discrimination” could be altered. Such work must be and is being carried out by tireless Down syndrome advocates; yet while all Down syndrome advocates ultimately believe that aborting the unborn with Down syndrome is “discriminatory”, the language is laughable. Only in 21st Century America would we call the systemic selective termination, abortion, and targeted killing of a population of the unborn, with a condition that is not life threatening but will render them less capable mentally, “discriminatory”.

As the ability of scientists to diagnose potentially undesirable traits in the unborn progresses, there will no doubt be more called to the eugenic banner. Genes for a predisposition to cancer, autism, and homosexuality are under investigation. Such diagnostic “advances” will lead to the further elimination of many unborns. What may be less consistently discussed in these cases is the uncertainty that even with a possible genetic predisposition it is not known whether such genetic material would ultimately be expressed in an individual. That aside, the ability to assess unborns for even mild abnormalities or a preferred sex will support a very personal eugenics. Imperfection, and eugenics, will mean different things to different people, and science will be expanding to accommodate the increasing demands from states and individuals for diversity in eugenic selection. What will become increasingly inapparent to our increasingly secular citizenry is the fact that we are all imperfect, in somebody’s eyes.

Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a leader in utilitarian thought, has openly stated what few find controversial, that it is moral and ethical to abort unborns with Down syndrome. Professor Singer, speaking for an increasingly vocal element of the utilitarian movement however, takes the next logical utilitarian leap. Professor Singer also supports the killing of infants with Down syndrome, and infants and individuals with other mentally and physically impairing conditions. From Professor Singer, “the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.” To the utilitarian, targeting the unborn population with Down syndrome offers the opportunity to eliminate a group of infants who, in their judgment, are incapable of societal integration, are a burden on families and communities, and would otherwise live a life of “suffering”.

Some have referred to the unborn with Down syndrome as the canary in the eugenic coal mine. The Down syndrome population is certainly the current canary in the ever expanding netherworld catacombs of the eugenicist coal mine. The mine floor, however, is littered with the bodies of millions of other victims. The African-American unborn infant population is the second exhibit in the expanding eugenic exhibit. African-Americans have historically used abortion services at three to four times the rate of other groups. The comments of Rep. Pelosi bring this well into perspective. While the Speaker prefers to use the terms family planning and contraception, refusing to use the “a” word, she makes her point. It seems unlikely that the Speaker is talking about family planning services reducing cost in families supported by “high skill people who are already professionals” or families supported by “white male construction workers”. These are not the groups that concern the Speaker, nor the President’s Economic Advisor Robert Reich for that matter. No, the Speaker is referring to individuals in low income groups who, if they were allowed to see the natural result of sexual liberties we promoted in their communities over the last forty years, would bankrupt the ever diminishing assets of state and federal treasuries. I will go out on a limb and presume the Speaker is referring to the African American community.

A rough estimate is that approximately 10-12,000,000 unborn black infants have been sacrificed on the abortion altar since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973. That represents an abortion rate of black infants at least three times the rate of white abortion rates. A rarely discussed medical finding is that abortion elevates the risk, in a dose dependent fashion (more abortions more risk), for a future extremely premature baby born at less than 32 weeks. Such deliveries can result in the death of the infant or injuries associated with extreme prematurity, including debilitating cerebral palsy. The evidence for this is powerful and based on over 100 studies over the past 40 years. So the end result of abortion is...well....it doesn’t end. For the black community it has meant not only the loss of millions of infants, it has meant extreme prematurity rates that are three to four times that of other groups. This means large numbers of premature deaths of very small African-American infants and much higher rates of cerebral palsy.

G.K. Chesterton, noted author and opponent of eugenic thought in the early 20th Century quotes, in Eugenics and Other Evils (Perry edition), the eugenics founder Francis Galton. Galton writes openly and unapologetically of strategies for developing acceptance of eugenic theory. “The course of procedure that lies within the functions of a learned and active society includes persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through: (1) It must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as fact (Global warming anyone?) (2) It must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. (3) It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for eugenics cooperates with the workings of human nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races.”

Chesterton offers another pearl, “There is one strong, outstanding thing about Eugenics, and that is its meanness. Wealth, and the social science supported by wealth, had tried an inhuman experiment. The experiment had entirely failed. They sought to make wealth accumulate and they made men decay. Then, instead of confessing the error, and trying to restore the wealth, or attempting to repair the decay, they are trying to cover their first cruel experiment with a more cruel experiment. They put a poisonous plaster on a poisonous wound. Vilest of all, they actually quote the bewilderment produced among the poor by their first blunder as a reason for allowing them to blunder again. They are apparently ready to arrest all the opponents of their system as mad, merely because the system was maddening.”

We are well down the road of Galton’s stages for the promulgation of a eugenic religion. It is standard fare now in the black community. African-American political leaders doggedly search for all variety of disparities and espouse their elimination, but in adhering to the abortion industry which has helped bring them to power, not only accept but vociferously defend policies which slay 300,000 black unborn infants a year. Their solution is to double down on affirmative action and diversity training which they claim will abate the racism cited as the root of all evils in the black community. Parents of Down syndrome children are routinely asked, “Didn’t you have the test?”, close their eyes to the wanton decimation of their communities ranks and put their faith in education to turn back the tide of the ultimate from of “discrimination.” Nancy Pelosi’s comments are stunning, not because they are revealing to anyone who has been watching, but because she, like Galton, feels no remorse at openly stating a eugenic agenda.

Rep. Pelosi went on to comment, later, “Let the State give every defective full knowledge of how to avoid children, and supply them free with contraceptives; better still, offer them a substantial monetary reward to consent to sterilization, and as long as they are given to understand that the operation ‘will make no difference’, they will in most cases agree.” Most of us would not be surprised to hear the Speaker utter these words on a national stage. Amazingly, I think few of us would have been shocked at all to hear her make such a statement, and some might actually agree. That is how desensitized many of us have become. These are not the Speaker's words, however. The above quote is from one of the primary eugenic journals of the 1920s, Birth Control News, published by Margaret Sanger.

Advocates of eugenic thought have increasingly fortified their position in American society. Like a malignant, determined tumor they have metastasized throughout their host over the past 100 years. These elements are now poised for a tumor explosion. While focusing on the unborn and young life in this discussion, the utilitarian menace is an equal opportunity destroyer, seeking out the defenseless whether they be unborn, young, old or otherwise infirmed. Maternity, geriatric, and chronic disease wards are target rich environments for the utilitarians. America may not have fully acquiesced in the Eugenics war but the clock is ticking. Lest we develop the will to overcome this utilitarian cancer, the end result will inevitably be the literal and figurative death of the host, an end to the American society built on individual liberty and the right to self-determination.

It may be that the outrageous targeting of unborn African-Americans and unborns with Down syndrome for elimination, if exposed, could be mobilized to expose the nefarious motives of increasingly utilitarian political and social policy. Many in racial and disability advocacy cling to the sacredness of women’s reproductive rights and the hope that education will stave off decimation of their communities. What we all must ultimately recognize is that the true utilitarian has no loyalties in determining who the non-persons are, who are the unfit. Authorities in the utilitarian movement reserve the right to judge cognizance, self-awareness, and the capacity to reason. These qualities define personhood for utilitarians. Many (the elderly, newborn and others) humans will find themselves unable to meet the utilitarian criteria of self-conscious beings or persons. Infanticide and euthanasia then become the order of the day. In Holland, euthanasia is common practice and protocols for euthanasia of infants are well developed and have been published in major American medical journals.

While we may not yet be the Netherlands, we have a President who has made it clear that it is "above my paygrade" to state when life begins. That said, the President seems willing to make some assumptions, given that he was unwilling, as a state senator, to support a vote on the same Born Alive Infant Protection Act that was supported by the staunchest abortion supporters in the US Senate. The Freedom of Choice Act, also supported by the President, will allow for an unprecedented expansion of access to abortion. Many seem willing to sprint down the path of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, in deploying abortion and euthanasia, does not discriminate. There are multiple groups that are and will be targeted by the proponents of such a philosophy and we must be willing to confront this immoral ideology that has devalued life, born and unborn, to such a degree that it is left for a few to decide on a grand scale what life is worth living and what life is not.

At his time in our history, government appears to have become ungovernable. Chesterton described the rise of the Progressives in 1914 as a period where “law has become lawless; that is it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government. In this atmosphere it is natural enough that medical experts, being authorities, should go mad as well.” As I have listened to very well meaning Down syndrome and African American leaders dismiss opposition to abortion in favor of advocacy strategies based on educating the public in an attempt to turn back societal tides, I am reminded of the words of Martin Neimoller, German Lutheran pastor in Berlin who lived through the rise and fall of the Nazis. He was an outspoken proponent for accepting the burden of collective guilt for WW II. He viewed this as a means of atonement for the suffering that the German nation, through the Nazis, had caused before and during WW II. He was imprisoned in 1937 and sent to Dachau. He barely escaped execution and wrote these words shortly after he emerged from prison:


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Quaere verum