Gosnell Headlines? Gone, Baby, Gone!
Feb 1, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
The story of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who ran what a Grand Jury report referred to as “a baby charnel house,” where viable babies—“big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus,” as Gosnell joked—were delivered and then outright killed with a “snip” to the spinal cord, their feet sometimes severed for souvenirs, is one the press quickly consigned to the memory hole. It is not being talked about by the “strong feminist” voices on daytime TV, or on night time cable news. There are no headlines, no feature articles in leading magazines.
The mainstream media, confronted with a house of horrors that was gestated and born of a single-minded mania for “protecting choice for women” had no choice but to report on Gosnell being charged for the murder of one woman who died while under his dubious “care” (another woman’s death had been “settled” for a financial consideration), and they mush-mouthed their way through his killing of at least seven living, viable babies, but they did not like this story.
They did not want to discuss that authorities had repeatedly received reports of Gosnell’s mayhem and had chosen to look the other way. They did not want to have to mention that Gosnell’s disgusting, “third-world” abortion mill—a place where women were abused, manhandled, disrespected, over-sedated, punctured, infected, sterilized, interiorly ripped, and otherwise treated like pieces of meat—would still be running, unimpeded, were it not for an investigation into illegal drug trafficking.
The Gosnell story—a story that by any measure deserved in-depth coverage, some serious discussion about regulation and responsibility, and a few features forcing the nation to consider just when a “late-term” abortion slips into the category of “infanticide” or what our leadership and politicians really think of all of this—proved too big and too messy for the mainstream media.
They did not want light shed on dark truths that cannot be prettied up with euphemisms and nebulous notions of “choice.” They did not want to have to ponder the likelihood of Gosnell’s stinking, body-piled-and-bloodstained rooms being replicated in other cities, in other states, where other authorities chose to look away from the carnage, rather than address it.
But replicated the story may well be. Andrew Rutland, for example, an abortionist working in southern California, has given up his medical license for a second time after a woman died in a botched abortion in July 2009. The abortion was performed
at a filthy and ill-equipped acupuncture clinic in San Gabriel that Rutland ran where he also did abortions. Rutland killed Chen by administering anesthesia to her and not knowing the proper dosage. . . . This is the second time Rutland has surrendered his license—as he did so in 2002 for severing a baby’s spinal column during a forceps delivery, then lying to the parents by telling them that their baby suffered a stroke. The baby later died. His license was reinstated in 2007 and Rutland was placed on five years probation with the restriction that he operate only under the supervision of another physician.
So, there we see two doctors providing “legal” abortions—in facilities described as “filthy”—in two different states, and working without fear of over-regulation, or even of regular inspections. Are we to believe these are the only two instances of abortion facilities operating under standards that would be illegal for a tattoo shop? Gosnell himself was connected to at least two other facilities in other states; we may assume neither of them were sterling examples of medical professionalism.
Post-Gosnell, Pennsylvania has inspected seven abortion centers and found problems in three, one of which lacked resuscitation equipment, monitors, or oxygen.
Three out of seven is a troubling ratio. Only a fool would believe—would make the choice to believe—that more abusive, poorly-staffed, filthy facilities are not currently in operation all over the country. In a recent piece for Politics Daily, editor Melinda Henneberger remembers the abortionist, Stephen Brigham, who began his late-term abortions in New Jersey and finished them in Maryland, and who (like Gosnell) was only caught by accident. She remembers New York’s Abu Hayat, the so-called “Butcher of Avenue A,” and other macabre practices in Florida.
Do a quick run-through of the search engines. Beyond some perfunctory coverage on the day the Gosnell story broke, there has been little attention paid, no follow-up by the mainstream media. This is an ugly story; it touches too many social shibboleths and indicts too many philosophies. The press wants Kermit Gosnell and his scissors to go away, and to that end they are simply not talking about him.
So, allow me to ask the impolitic question I have hinted at elsewhere: in choosing to look away, in choosing to under-report, in choosing to spin, minimize, excuse, and move-along when it comes to Kermit Gosnell—and to this whole subject of under-regulated abortion clinics, the debasement of women and the slaughter of living children—how are the press and those they protect by their silence any better than the Catholic bishops who, in decades past, looked away, under-reported, spun, minimized, excused, moved-along, and protected the repulsive predator-priests who have stolen innocence and roiled the community of faith?
The press was quite right (and duty-bound) to report on the shameful failures of our bishops and the sins of our priests. They reported; they followed up. They dug through records. They sought out histories. They looked for more, because they understood that if filth existed in one diocese, it likely existed in others. They courageously did their jobs, unworried about fallout or repercussions; they were looking at a big issue, and were thus unintimidated by big names, and rightly unreserved in their outrage.
They pulled neither punches nor headlines. They even dared to peer at the very uppermost seats of authority and leadership, to see if there was any culpability, there—any mismanagement, any looking-away.
In the wake of Kermit Gosnell, however, in the wake of Andrew Rutland, Stephen Brigham, and Abu Hayat, there is no following-up, no digging through records; there is no curiosity about filthy, women-maiming, spine-snipping facilities existing in other cities; there are no big names to go to for quotes. These crimes—when they are covered at all—are treated like “local” aberrations. No one peers in at authority or examines the pro-abortion leadership. There is no one in government, apparently, to ask about criminal-neglect, lack of scrutiny; no one to accuse of mismanagement or of looking-away.
The mainstream press, made uncomfortable by a 261-page grand jury report detailing what might well be called a decades-long and heinous crime against humanity, abetted by the spectacularly willful looking-away of those in authority, itself turns away from the story and neglects its duty to the public trust.
In doing so they bring to mind the words of Saint Paul to the Romans: “The evil which I hate, that I do.”
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here
RESOURCES
Grand Jury Report (pdf)
A scientist “unflinchingly” sees only “meat”
LifeNews, Practitioner Loses License, Killed Woman in Failed Abortion
Clark Forsythe, The Supreme Court’s Back Alley Runs Through Philadelph
LifeNews, Attorney General to Probe Second Gosnell Abortion Center
LifeNews, Abortion Centers Correct Problems Following Gosnell Horror
Melinda Henneberger, Kermit Gosnell's Pro-Choice Enablers (Is This What an Industry That Self-Regulates Looks Like?)
Elizabeth Scalia, Abortion, Language and Looking Away
Comments:
2.1.2011 | 2:56am
Gordon Jewett says:
A wonderful thing happened today. A Federal judge ruled against the City of Baltimore (the first diocese in America) which had passed a law promoted by the abortion industry in their unending attempts to thwart crisis pregnancy centers. This is good news, because in the wonderful state I live in, Washington, the first bills offered to our House and Senate this year were bills written by the abortion industry and handed to willing Democrats to attempt to hinder our crisis pregnancy centers. If one looks at the laws in our state, as to the regulation of " womenfolk's health care centers", you will find that all of the statutes enacted in Washington are for the protection of these centers. None are for the protection of women. The latest attempts were aimed at financially destroying crisis pregnancy centers. Unfortunately, Washington State has two federal Senators, both women, both claim to be Catholic, but register 0 when evaluated on life issues. We have a Governor, a woman, who claims to be Catholic, but registers 0 on life issues. Pray for us. We need it.
Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
2.1.2011 | 7:05am
Stuart Koehl says:
Maybe not so gone after all. According to a story in the Washington Times today, the Delaware Family Policy Council is asking Federal prosecutors to investigate a "women's clinic" in Delaware with ties to Kermit Gosnell:
In letters to Mr. Biden and U.S. Attorney Charles M. Oberly III, the Family Policy Council asked for investigations of Delaware clinic Director Leroy Brinkley and of Dr. Arturo N. Apolinario, a clinic doctor whose controlled-substances license lapsed in June 2009.
Delaware Family Policy Council President Nicole Theis said state and federal authorities need to investigate Dr. Apolinario because allegations of controlled-substance violations at the Pennsylvania clinic and at a Louisiana clinic owned by Mr. Brinkley led to the discovery of other problems.
“That’s what opened their doors, and we’re asking the doors to be opened here,” she said.
Biden spokesman Jason Miller reiterated that the attorney general’s office is conducting a “wide-ranging investigation” of Dr. Gosnell, but he had no response to the council‘s statements. . .
According to a Pennsylvania grand jury report released earlier this month, Mr. Brinkley owns the clinics in Delaware, where Dr. Gosnell worked one day a week. He also owns the Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, La., which has a long history of troubles, including violations of the Federal Controlled Substances Act two decades ago.
The grand jury recommended that the National Abortion Federation reassess the Delaware clinics’ membership, saying at least six patients were referred from Atlantic to Dr. Gosnell‘s clinic in Philadelphia for illegal late-term abortions.
“The director of Atlantic Women’s Medical Services, Leroy Brinkley, was unconcerned,” the report stated, adding that Mr. Brinkley did not properly supervise the doctors he hired and that, despite Dr. Gosnell‘s long association with Atlantic, Mr. Brinkley had produced just three files for patients seen by Dr. Gosnell in Delaware.
“Where are the records?” Ms. Theis asked Monday at a news conference where she was joined by about two dozen supporters. “It is vital that we know what they knew and when they knew it.”
A spokeswoman for the National Abortion Federation confirmed Monday that the group had suspended the memberships of the Delaware and Louisiana clinics owned by Mr. Brinkley.
In letters to Mr. Biden and U.S. Attorney Charles M. Oberly III, the Family Policy Council asked for investigations of Delaware clinic Director Leroy Brinkley and of Dr. Arturo N. Apolinario, a clinic doctor whose controlled-substances license lapsed in June 2009.
Delaware Family Policy Council President Nicole Theis said state and federal authorities need to investigate Dr. Apolinario because allegations of controlled-substance violations at the Pennsylvania clinic and at a Louisiana clinic owned by Mr. Brinkley led to the discovery of other problems.
“That’s what opened their doors, and we’re asking the doors to be opened here,” she said.
Biden spokesman Jason Miller reiterated that the attorney general’s office is conducting a “wide-ranging investigation” of Dr. Gosnell, but he had no response to the council‘s statements. . .
According to a Pennsylvania grand jury report released earlier this month, Mr. Brinkley owns the clinics in Delaware, where Dr. Gosnell worked one day a week. He also owns the Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, La., which has a long history of troubles, including violations of the Federal Controlled Substances Act two decades ago.
The grand jury recommended that the National Abortion Federation reassess the Delaware clinics’ membership, saying at least six patients were referred from Atlantic to Dr. Gosnell‘s clinic in Philadelphia for illegal late-term abortions.
“The director of Atlantic Women’s Medical Services, Leroy Brinkley, was unconcerned,” the report stated, adding that Mr. Brinkley did not properly supervise the doctors he hired and that, despite Dr. Gosnell‘s long association with Atlantic, Mr. Brinkley had produced just three files for patients seen by Dr. Gosnell in Delaware.
“Where are the records?” Ms. Theis asked Monday at a news conference where she was joined by about two dozen supporters. “It is vital that we know what they knew and when they knew it.”
A spokeswoman for the National Abortion Federation confirmed Monday that the group had suspended the memberships of the Delaware and Louisiana clinics owned by Mr. Brinkley.
2.1.2011 | 7:15am
Michael says:
I wouldn’t count them as mainstream media, but the Gosnell case has received continuing coverage in the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast. One article in the latter examines the grand jury report and observes that Pennsylvania has lax laws and that the health department hadn’t visited in 15 years. Just two years ago, Gosnell applied to join the National Abortion Federation but was rejected, even though the clinic went to pains to hide their lapses. She also quotes from a study that warns that rogue clinics like this seek out immigrants and low-income women poorly served by our health care system. Among Gosnell’s victims was a freshly arrived immigrant from Nepal and teenagers seeking a clinic that didn’t observe parental consent laws.
The feminist activists who support abortion rights would be all over this story and the others Scalia describes if they weren’t rightly worried that the pro-life movement would use them to limit abortion further. It’s concern over women’s health and especially reproductive health that drove the abortion rights movement in the first place. So oddly enough, it is the strength of the pro-life movement that inhibits the abortion rights movement from saying as much as it would like.
Since Scalia inappropriately brought up the clerical abuse story, I’ll just ask, what exactly inhibited the bishops from preventing their clergy from abusing more children?
Lest there be confusion, I’m pro-life.
The feminist activists who support abortion rights would be all over this story and the others Scalia describes if they weren’t rightly worried that the pro-life movement would use them to limit abortion further. It’s concern over women’s health and especially reproductive health that drove the abortion rights movement in the first place. So oddly enough, it is the strength of the pro-life movement that inhibits the abortion rights movement from saying as much as it would like.
Since Scalia inappropriately brought up the clerical abuse story, I’ll just ask, what exactly inhibited the bishops from preventing their clergy from abusing more children?
Lest there be confusion, I’m pro-life.
2.1.2011 | 8:01am
ferd says:
Thank you Ms. Scalia for this well-written observation. I read it with a sense of shame because I too had already passed by this news story on the otherside of the road as I watch you pouring in wine and oil.
I suppose the Western media and culture will continue to shape the overarching view, passing by any story that doesn't fit the template of their philosophical narrative--especially stories of their own "collateral damage".
The real battle, therefore, is to be waged at the place where this philosophy and narrative is carved into the hearts of our children. School choice is the near-death of Leftist indoctrination. Defunding Leftist media and universities is the finishing blow.
I suppose the Western media and culture will continue to shape the overarching view, passing by any story that doesn't fit the template of their philosophical narrative--especially stories of their own "collateral damage".
The real battle, therefore, is to be waged at the place where this philosophy and narrative is carved into the hearts of our children. School choice is the near-death of Leftist indoctrination. Defunding Leftist media and universities is the finishing blow.
2.1.2011 | 8:26am
pdn Michael says:
@ Edmond: because the press is supposed to report. In fact, the mainstream press continues to be one of Obama's primary excusers. Regarding the Gosnell story, Elizabeth has this exactly right. One might suggest, if fact, that the mainstream press editorializes by its silence.
2.1.2011 | 8:44am
Warren Jewell says:
The miserable creature asked the logical question for his brood of vipers: "How is killing the babies wrong?" After all, isn't that what abortion is really all about, for some pro-abortion types?
2.1.2011 | 8:47am
pdn Michael says:
By the way, Elizabeth, your calling out the press on the sexual misconduct issue is exactly right. I'm not a Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox. All the same, there have of course been similar issues involving Orthodox clergy; but that's an important point. Numerous studies seem to indicate improprieties occur at roughly the same percentages among other religious groups, and among school teachers as well. In pointing this out, Christians are accused of trying to make excuses for bad behavior. Once again, that's probably true and that very avoidance contributed to the magnitude of the Catholic scandal in the end.
But the point is not trying to excuse one's self or one's organization. Rather, it is the press's resolute discrimination and bias. Those fearless Woodard/Bernstein types clam up, turn their heads, and concentrate on other matters such as some voters unfairly disliking the President. To ignore things of the Gosnell quality; or more accurately, to continue to ignore the numerous reports of shoddy and unprofessional medicine practiced by abortionists like Gosnell (which would not be tolerated if Gosnell were a veterinarian) is to editorialize by failing to report, just as much as it is editorializing to admit to "a few thousand demonstrators" when the mainstream reports on the annual March for Life.
But the point is not trying to excuse one's self or one's organization. Rather, it is the press's resolute discrimination and bias. Those fearless Woodard/Bernstein types clam up, turn their heads, and concentrate on other matters such as some voters unfairly disliking the President. To ignore things of the Gosnell quality; or more accurately, to continue to ignore the numerous reports of shoddy and unprofessional medicine practiced by abortionists like Gosnell (which would not be tolerated if Gosnell were a veterinarian) is to editorialize by failing to report, just as much as it is editorializing to admit to "a few thousand demonstrators" when the mainstream reports on the annual March for Life.
2.1.2011 | 9:03am
RL says:
A partial dissent on the facts: Let's give some tentative and preliminary credit to the Democratic Attorney General of Delaware, Beau Biden (son of the Vice President), who has launched an investigation into a clinic in Delaware where Gosnell worked one day a week and started some of his illegal late-term abortions, including (according to the Philadelphia grand jury report) the one of the baby he described as big enough to walk him to the bus stop. Given the way Delaware's statutes are written, it's hard to escape the conclusion that starting an abortion (even by prescribing medication to induce labor) after the 20-week limit in Delaware, even if the abortion is completed elsewhere (such as Pennsylvania, where the limit is 24 weeks), is a felony under Delaware law. And Gosnell (according to the grand jury report) did it repeatedly. Time will tell whether the investigation is bona fide, but for an avowedly pro-choice politician, it's somewhat impressive that he's doing anything at all.
Also, it was reported in the local press in Delaware yesterday that the National Abortion Federation has suspended the membership of the Delaware clinic that is being investigated. (That was a recommendation of the grand jury report.)
Also, it was reported in the local press in Delaware yesterday that the National Abortion Federation has suspended the membership of the Delaware clinic that is being investigated. (That was a recommendation of the grand jury report.)
2.1.2011 | 9:41am
Stuart Koehl says:
Reconcile this statement:
"Just two years ago, Gosnell applied to join the National Abortion Federation but was rejected, even though the clinic went to pains to hide their lapses."
With this one:
"A spokeswoman for the National Abortion Federation confirmed Monday that the group had suspended the memberships of the Delaware and Louisiana clinics owned by Mr. Brinkley."
Gosnell worked one day each week at Brinkley's clinic in Delaware, which in turn referred patients to Gosnell's clinic in Philadelphia.
"Just two years ago, Gosnell applied to join the National Abortion Federation but was rejected, even though the clinic went to pains to hide their lapses."
With this one:
"A spokeswoman for the National Abortion Federation confirmed Monday that the group had suspended the memberships of the Delaware and Louisiana clinics owned by Mr. Brinkley."
Gosnell worked one day each week at Brinkley's clinic in Delaware, which in turn referred patients to Gosnell's clinic in Philadelphia.
2.1.2011 | 9:44am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Numerous studies seem to indicate improprieties occur at roughly the same percentages among other religious groups, and among school teachers as well."
Actually, the percentage of sexual abuse among school teachers is significantly higher than that among clergy, according to studies by the U.S. Department of Education.
But clergy do not belong to powerful unions that make large contributions to a certain political party.
Actually, the percentage of sexual abuse among school teachers is significantly higher than that among clergy, according to studies by the U.S. Department of Education.
But clergy do not belong to powerful unions that make large contributions to a certain political party.
2.1.2011 | 11:15am
harry says:
THANK YOU Ms. Scalia! It needed to be said.
Another item the media avoids like the plague is the role eugenics has played in the abortion rights movement. The documentary Maafa 21 focuses on this. I wonder if you would consider doing a review of it? It appears to me that its astounding, tragic claims are all very carefully substantiated with thorough documentation. If there is a good reason its message should not be taken seriously, I don't know what it is. I ( and many others I am sure ) would love to know what you think of it.
Thanks again for your remarks.
Another item the media avoids like the plague is the role eugenics has played in the abortion rights movement. The documentary Maafa 21 focuses on this. I wonder if you would consider doing a review of it? It appears to me that its astounding, tragic claims are all very carefully substantiated with thorough documentation. If there is a good reason its message should not be taken seriously, I don't know what it is. I ( and many others I am sure ) would love to know what you think of it.
Thanks again for your remarks.
2.1.2011 | 11:45am
Michael says:
Harry,
Maafa 21 is a propaganda video that plays fast and loose with the facts. It doesn’t even handle the basic facts well. Some of the things that it gets right, such as the roles of eugenics and racism in the early birth control movement and indeed in the early feminist movement have been well known among feminists since the 1980s, and they have worked hard to eradicate those ideas.
For a fairly decent critique of what’s wrong with the documentary, see Michelle Goldberg’s article (http://www.alternet.org/rights/146044/anti-choice_campaign_aims_to_undermine_support_for_reproductive_rights_by_falsely_claiming_%27black_genocide%27?page=1)
Obviously, I don’t buy her framing of the article, but she has her facts right.
Maafa 21 is a propaganda video that plays fast and loose with the facts. It doesn’t even handle the basic facts well. Some of the things that it gets right, such as the roles of eugenics and racism in the early birth control movement and indeed in the early feminist movement have been well known among feminists since the 1980s, and they have worked hard to eradicate those ideas.
For a fairly decent critique of what’s wrong with the documentary, see Michelle Goldberg’s article (http://www.alternet.org/rights/146044/anti-choice_campaign_aims_to_undermine_support_for_reproductive_rights_by_falsely_claiming_%27black_genocide%27?page=1)
Obviously, I don’t buy her framing of the article, but she has her facts right.
2.1.2011 | 11:47am
These complaints about the press's role in covering up the crimes committed here ring awfully hollow. Many of those writing and posting in conjunction with FIRST THINGS and its adjuncts have no hesitation in endorsing the press's equally deplorable role in covering up war crimes committed by, and in the name of, the U.S. government, many of which are ongoing.
Until there is a sea change regarding this double standard in the Pro-Life movement at large, the broader culture will never have grounds to respect its witness.
Until there is a sea change regarding this double standard in the Pro-Life movement at large, the broader culture will never have grounds to respect its witness.
2.1.2011 | 12:09pm
craig says:
Michael says: "Since Scalia inappropriately brought up the clerical abuse story, I’ll just ask, what exactly inhibited the bishops from preventing their clergy from abusing more children?"
Your characterization that the author's reference to the clergy sex abuse scandal was inappropriate is false: it was precisely on point. The clergy sex abuse scandal festered for two, and only two, reasons:
(1) because the bishops had, in practice if not in theory, greater solidarity with their fellow clergy than with their flock; and,
(2) because the bishops sought to suppress negative publicity that would taint the public image of their organization (the Church), its employees (the clergy), and its allies in the public square (Christians in general).
How is this any different? The abortion-rights lobby and the media certainly display greater solidarity with abortion providers and abortion procurers than with the infants killed by abortion. The abortion-rights lobby and the media certainly also seek to sustain an antiseptic, morally neutral public image to the procedure -- an image which is badly tainted by evidence that the phenomenon of abattoirs such as Gosnell's, operating with zero restraint and enjoying official non-scrutiny, is not localized to one doctor or one jurisdiction but is in fact alarmingly widespread and common.
If this case involved animal cruelty -- a puppy mill or dogfighting ring -- it would be page one news. If this case involved guns it would be cause for a "national conversation". Where is the Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle portraying the "peculiar institution" so near and dear to the Left? And who among the so-called intelligentsia is free enough of leftist groupthink to write it or film it?
Your characterization that the author's reference to the clergy sex abuse scandal was inappropriate is false: it was precisely on point. The clergy sex abuse scandal festered for two, and only two, reasons:
(1) because the bishops had, in practice if not in theory, greater solidarity with their fellow clergy than with their flock; and,
(2) because the bishops sought to suppress negative publicity that would taint the public image of their organization (the Church), its employees (the clergy), and its allies in the public square (Christians in general).
How is this any different? The abortion-rights lobby and the media certainly display greater solidarity with abortion providers and abortion procurers than with the infants killed by abortion. The abortion-rights lobby and the media certainly also seek to sustain an antiseptic, morally neutral public image to the procedure -- an image which is badly tainted by evidence that the phenomenon of abattoirs such as Gosnell's, operating with zero restraint and enjoying official non-scrutiny, is not localized to one doctor or one jurisdiction but is in fact alarmingly widespread and common.
If this case involved animal cruelty -- a puppy mill or dogfighting ring -- it would be page one news. If this case involved guns it would be cause for a "national conversation". Where is the Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle portraying the "peculiar institution" so near and dear to the Left? And who among the so-called intelligentsia is free enough of leftist groupthink to write it or film it?
2.1.2011 | 12:33pm
Michael says:
Stuart,
There are a few ways to reconcile the fact that the National Abortion Federation denied Gosnell’s application but accepted Brinkley’s.
1. The inspectors who visited Gosnell were more thorough and honest.
2. The inspectors who visited Brinkley were less thorough and honest.
3. Gosnell did a lousy job of hiding his crimes.
4. Brinkley did a good enough job of hiding his crimes.
5. The reporter is trying to hide the criminality of the National Abortion Federation by portraying it as being conscientious.
Which theory seems most likely to you?
There are a few ways to reconcile the fact that the National Abortion Federation denied Gosnell’s application but accepted Brinkley’s.
1. The inspectors who visited Gosnell were more thorough and honest.
2. The inspectors who visited Brinkley were less thorough and honest.
3. Gosnell did a lousy job of hiding his crimes.
4. Brinkley did a good enough job of hiding his crimes.
5. The reporter is trying to hide the criminality of the National Abortion Federation by portraying it as being conscientious.
Which theory seems most likely to you?
2.1.2011 | 12:41pm
Michael says:
Stuart,
I’m not following the logic. You’re claiming that the Democratic Party is accepting money from teachers unions, and the Democrats are in turn preventing the media from reporting on Shakeshaft’s study. I’m not buying that conspiracy theory.
Shakeshaft, by the way, cites with great approval two studies conducted by the American Association of University Women, and she has spent her career trying to improve the lot of girls in the classroom. In other words, she and the AAUW are some of those feminists that come under attack so often on this site, and yet they’re the ones leading the charge against sexual abuse by educators. Most of these women probably vote Democratic because, you know, they’re part of the liberal elite that has ruined higher education, or so the story goes.
I’m not following the logic. You’re claiming that the Democratic Party is accepting money from teachers unions, and the Democrats are in turn preventing the media from reporting on Shakeshaft’s study. I’m not buying that conspiracy theory.
Shakeshaft, by the way, cites with great approval two studies conducted by the American Association of University Women, and she has spent her career trying to improve the lot of girls in the classroom. In other words, she and the AAUW are some of those feminists that come under attack so often on this site, and yet they’re the ones leading the charge against sexual abuse by educators. Most of these women probably vote Democratic because, you know, they’re part of the liberal elite that has ruined higher education, or so the story goes.
2.1.2011 | 12:50pm
harry says:
Hello, Michael,
You wrote:
"For a fairly decent critique of what’s wrong with the documentary, see Michelle Goldberg’s article ..."
I thought Goldberg's article was lame. She picks a few straws out of a haystack of documentation provided in Maafa 21 and puts a spin them hoping it will keep others from examining the haystack. Sorry. It doesn' t work. Nobody could have provided as much documentation as Crutcher has in Maafa 21 without there being something to nitpick. For example:
"[Sanger's] words are noxious, but it’s also important to put them in context. As Sanger’s biographer, the historian Ellen Chesler, has written, in the 1920s (when Sanger’s career took off), eugenics 'had become a popular craze in this country—promoted in newspapers and magazines as a kind of secular religion... The great majority of American colleges and universities introduced formal courses in the subject, and sociologists who embraced it took on what one historian has called a priestly role.'"
That doesn't change or excuse the fact that Sanger didn't just embrace the notions of eugenics current at the time, she actually set about using eugenics to to exterminate those she believed to be inferior. There is a big difference between being racist and actualizing lethal eugenics based on that racism. It is not Crutcher who is playing "fast and loose with the facts." Give me a break.
If anybody else goes to the link Michael provided for Goldbergs' review of Maafa 21, be sure to click on "By Michelle Goldberg." The web page at that link will provide you with a brief synopsis of other stories she has written. That will be enlightening. It appears she is on a mission to save secular society from "theocrats," not Black babies from eugenics.
You wrote:
"For a fairly decent critique of what’s wrong with the documentary, see Michelle Goldberg’s article ..."
I thought Goldberg's article was lame. She picks a few straws out of a haystack of documentation provided in Maafa 21 and puts a spin them hoping it will keep others from examining the haystack. Sorry. It doesn' t work. Nobody could have provided as much documentation as Crutcher has in Maafa 21 without there being something to nitpick. For example:
"[Sanger's] words are noxious, but it’s also important to put them in context. As Sanger’s biographer, the historian Ellen Chesler, has written, in the 1920s (when Sanger’s career took off), eugenics 'had become a popular craze in this country—promoted in newspapers and magazines as a kind of secular religion... The great majority of American colleges and universities introduced formal courses in the subject, and sociologists who embraced it took on what one historian has called a priestly role.'"
That doesn't change or excuse the fact that Sanger didn't just embrace the notions of eugenics current at the time, she actually set about using eugenics to to exterminate those she believed to be inferior. There is a big difference between being racist and actualizing lethal eugenics based on that racism. It is not Crutcher who is playing "fast and loose with the facts." Give me a break.
If anybody else goes to the link Michael provided for Goldbergs' review of Maafa 21, be sure to click on "By Michelle Goldberg." The web page at that link will provide you with a brief synopsis of other stories she has written. That will be enlightening. It appears she is on a mission to save secular society from "theocrats," not Black babies from eugenics.
2.1.2011 | 2:31pm
Michael says:
Harry,
There’s more than a few straws here. I can’t speak to Sanger because I don’t know her story well, but I do know Myrdal’s “American Dilemma,” and Crutcher either can’t read well or he’s dishonest.
Myrdal was a social engineer. He was looking for ways of improving the lot of blacks in the US, and at that time, sociologists looked at every possible solution, no matter how ugly. He and his contributors, which included many black scholars, wanted to improve the lot of blacks, ending racism and segregation. That’s the context in which chapter seven—the one the film dwells on—needs to be placed.
One of the scare quotes the film uses from Myrdal is this: “Commonly it is considered a great misfortune for America that Negro slaves were ever imported. The presence of Negro in America today is usually considered as a ‘plight’ of the nation.”
Connie Eller introduces the quotation by saying that “the only solution in his eyes [Myrdal’s] was to get rid of them.” Eller is credited as “community organizer.” She’s not a historian, someone who might actually know the context in which Myrdal wrote.
So does Myrdal believe that the US needs to “get rid” of blacks, and is this quotation evidence of his desire? The answer is no to both questions.
The paragraph the quotation appears in begins with this clause in italics: “The overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America.” Myrdal doesn’t agree with whites; he’s trying to explain what white Americans believe. Look back at the scare quote, and you’ll see that even there he’s reflecting white American beliefs. Someone who read the whole book would know that and would understand that Myrdal disapproves of this white racism. Eller and Crutcher are flat wrong to use to accuse Myrdal of wanting to “get rid of” blacks.
If they can’t get this right, then what else do they get wrong? Why should I listen to them any more than I would Michael Moore?
As for your ad hominem attack on Goldberg, the relevant question isn’t what she believes but whether she gets the facts right, and, as I’ve just shown, she gets them right when she says, “Maafa 21 quotes descriptions of the mindsets of white racists in a way that implies that they’re Myrdal’s own views. It’s an ugly trick, and a mendacious one.”
If you can find a pro-life writer who has criticized Maafa 21, I’d love to see it. Just like it’s hard to find liberal critiques of Michael Moore, it’s hard to find pro-life critiques of Crutcher. So you have to take someone like Goldberg and differentiate between her perspective and her facts.
There’s more than a few straws here. I can’t speak to Sanger because I don’t know her story well, but I do know Myrdal’s “American Dilemma,” and Crutcher either can’t read well or he’s dishonest.
Myrdal was a social engineer. He was looking for ways of improving the lot of blacks in the US, and at that time, sociologists looked at every possible solution, no matter how ugly. He and his contributors, which included many black scholars, wanted to improve the lot of blacks, ending racism and segregation. That’s the context in which chapter seven—the one the film dwells on—needs to be placed.
One of the scare quotes the film uses from Myrdal is this: “Commonly it is considered a great misfortune for America that Negro slaves were ever imported. The presence of Negro in America today is usually considered as a ‘plight’ of the nation.”
Connie Eller introduces the quotation by saying that “the only solution in his eyes [Myrdal’s] was to get rid of them.” Eller is credited as “community organizer.” She’s not a historian, someone who might actually know the context in which Myrdal wrote.
So does Myrdal believe that the US needs to “get rid” of blacks, and is this quotation evidence of his desire? The answer is no to both questions.
The paragraph the quotation appears in begins with this clause in italics: “The overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America.” Myrdal doesn’t agree with whites; he’s trying to explain what white Americans believe. Look back at the scare quote, and you’ll see that even there he’s reflecting white American beliefs. Someone who read the whole book would know that and would understand that Myrdal disapproves of this white racism. Eller and Crutcher are flat wrong to use to accuse Myrdal of wanting to “get rid of” blacks.
If they can’t get this right, then what else do they get wrong? Why should I listen to them any more than I would Michael Moore?
As for your ad hominem attack on Goldberg, the relevant question isn’t what she believes but whether she gets the facts right, and, as I’ve just shown, she gets them right when she says, “Maafa 21 quotes descriptions of the mindsets of white racists in a way that implies that they’re Myrdal’s own views. It’s an ugly trick, and a mendacious one.”
If you can find a pro-life writer who has criticized Maafa 21, I’d love to see it. Just like it’s hard to find liberal critiques of Michael Moore, it’s hard to find pro-life critiques of Crutcher. So you have to take someone like Goldberg and differentiate between her perspective and her facts.
2.1.2011 | 2:50pm
Elisa says:
I did see a story about a Philadelphia woman who had a horrible experience at Gosnell's clinic in the "Washington Examiner" last month.
2.1.2011 | 3:00pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Thank you for this article. I would add only that Planned Parenthood enables the abortion industry. In my town, Planned Parenthood is a beneficiary of United Way; thus United Way is also of guilty enabling the abortion industry — they are among the purveyors of death.
2.1.2011 | 3:04pm
pam says:
Michael wrote:
"It's concern over women's health and especially reproductive health that drove the abortion rights movement in the first place."
It was never about women's health (this is only what they wanted you to believe.) It was always about having sex without any responsibility and making money off of a sexual utilitarian culture. The dead bodies along the way are just the casualties.
The undercover video taken at Planned Parenthood should put any false notions about concern for women's health to rest. You can find the video at Lifesitenews.com or google "Planned Parenthood caught on tape aiding underage sex ring."
"It's concern over women's health and especially reproductive health that drove the abortion rights movement in the first place."
It was never about women's health (this is only what they wanted you to believe.) It was always about having sex without any responsibility and making money off of a sexual utilitarian culture. The dead bodies along the way are just the casualties.
The undercover video taken at Planned Parenthood should put any false notions about concern for women's health to rest. You can find the video at Lifesitenews.com or google "Planned Parenthood caught on tape aiding underage sex ring."
2.1.2011 | 3:19pm
pdn Michael says:
@ Stuart Koehl: I was trying to be nice :>)
@CoEM
Elizabeth's point, if I may be permitted to paraphrase, is that there should be just as much noise (as in daily and relentlessly) from the NYT et.al. as there was about the clergy scandal. On the whole, there has not been. It's gratifying to see that HuffPo and a few others have weighed in, but on the whole Elizabeth's point stands; when the clergy scandal broke the NYT did not have it relegated to the back page by week two.
Also, I'm not clear how purported "war crimes" got into the discussion, but killing innocent infants is a world removed from adults engaging in war, especially since there is no Geneva Convention on behalf of unborn infants.
It is commendable that Gov. Biden has stepped out of character (and party lock-step) to investigate these ghouls; it is lamentable that it still requires stepping out of character.
@CoEM
Elizabeth's point, if I may be permitted to paraphrase, is that there should be just as much noise (as in daily and relentlessly) from the NYT et.al. as there was about the clergy scandal. On the whole, there has not been. It's gratifying to see that HuffPo and a few others have weighed in, but on the whole Elizabeth's point stands; when the clergy scandal broke the NYT did not have it relegated to the back page by week two.
Also, I'm not clear how purported "war crimes" got into the discussion, but killing innocent infants is a world removed from adults engaging in war, especially since there is no Geneva Convention on behalf of unborn infants.
It is commendable that Gov. Biden has stepped out of character (and party lock-step) to investigate these ghouls; it is lamentable that it still requires stepping out of character.
2.1.2011 | 3:28pm
Billy Bean says:
What? The Secularist, Postmodernist, Socialist, Progressive, Feminist, Pro-Choice, Darwinian MSM has an ideological agenda and is willing to bend the rules of fair play in order to pursue it? SHOCKER!
2.1.2011 | 3:56pm
Michael says:
Pam,
As I said, I’m pro-life, but I think it’s important to know the character of your opposition. So yes, there are abortion rights advocates who want to have sex without responsibility and even some who want to make money off of it. And there are many who are callous, especially toward early abortions. But in my experience, most advocates are deeply conflicted about later abortions, and most care deeply about women’s health.
It’s hard to talk to, much less persuade, people for whom you have contempt or people you are willing to mischaracterize, which is why videos like Maafa 21 and to a lesser extent the undercover sting you cite are so unhelpful.
---
Craig,
I find it inappropriate for Catholics and other Christians to bring up the bishops’ cover-up of clerical sex abuse under any circumstance except when discussing the cover-up. Mention of it in any other circumstance smells of special pleading. I remain grateful to the press for helping end this scourge.
As I said, I’m pro-life, but I think it’s important to know the character of your opposition. So yes, there are abortion rights advocates who want to have sex without responsibility and even some who want to make money off of it. And there are many who are callous, especially toward early abortions. But in my experience, most advocates are deeply conflicted about later abortions, and most care deeply about women’s health.
It’s hard to talk to, much less persuade, people for whom you have contempt or people you are willing to mischaracterize, which is why videos like Maafa 21 and to a lesser extent the undercover sting you cite are so unhelpful.
---
Craig,
I find it inappropriate for Catholics and other Christians to bring up the bishops’ cover-up of clerical sex abuse under any circumstance except when discussing the cover-up. Mention of it in any other circumstance smells of special pleading. I remain grateful to the press for helping end this scourge.
2.1.2011 | 4:01pm
Spencer says:
If you want to end a party or group dinner, just state one of the following opinions:
Abortion on demand was created so upscale women could be as irresponsible in their sex lives as men.
or
I don't believe that locating so many abortion providers in and around ethnic and poor neighborhoods is an accident.
The latter is the one driving the lack of coverage in the Philadelphia case. They don't want anyone thinking about it.
Abortion on demand was created so upscale women could be as irresponsible in their sex lives as men.
or
I don't believe that locating so many abortion providers in and around ethnic and poor neighborhoods is an accident.
The latter is the one driving the lack of coverage in the Philadelphia case. They don't want anyone thinking about it.
2.1.2011 | 4:21pm
Stuart Koehl says:
In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell recently signed an executive order subjecting abortion clinics to the same government oversight and regulation as other outpatient medical facilities. As might be expected, Planned Parenthood and NARAL were in the forefront of denouncing this commonsense rule, on the grounds that (a) it was not necessary; and (b) it place an undue burden on abortion providers and restrict women's access to abortion.
In light of the Gosnell incident, these statement appear disingenuous at best, and coldly cynical at worst.
In light of the Gosnell incident, these statement appear disingenuous at best, and coldly cynical at worst.
2.1.2011 | 4:45pm
Michael says:
Spencer,
You sound like a scintillating conversationalist.
My mother was one of those wealthy Catholic women in the 1950s who, despite great pain, rejected the pleas of her doctor to have a hysterectomy because so many in her circle were having them as a form of birth control. Although I’m grateful she held on long enough to give me my younger brother, I’m also grateful that she finally ended her pain and had the hysterectomy afterwards, rumors be damned.
Meanwhile, other wealthy women flew to other countries to have their abortions.
But I’m happy to see you acknowledge the effects of environmental racism. Abortion clinics are put in poor neighborhoods just like everything else the NIMBYs don’t want.
---
Stuart,
Good for McDonnell. Bad for Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
You sound like a scintillating conversationalist.
My mother was one of those wealthy Catholic women in the 1950s who, despite great pain, rejected the pleas of her doctor to have a hysterectomy because so many in her circle were having them as a form of birth control. Although I’m grateful she held on long enough to give me my younger brother, I’m also grateful that she finally ended her pain and had the hysterectomy afterwards, rumors be damned.
Meanwhile, other wealthy women flew to other countries to have their abortions.
But I’m happy to see you acknowledge the effects of environmental racism. Abortion clinics are put in poor neighborhoods just like everything else the NIMBYs don’t want.
---
Stuart,
Good for McDonnell. Bad for Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
2.1.2011 | 5:13pm
Joseph M says:
Clarity or consistency from the press is not to be expected. The Screwtape Letters spring to mind, as they so often do: the Devil is not out to educate people, but is a liar and the father of lies. Confusion and muddiness are his fingerprints.
Even though we must pray and work to turn hearts and minds to God, ultimately, ours is not a battle with men. I recoil from the idea that this horror is the work of a man like me - and I think that gut reaction is right.
Even though we must pray and work to turn hearts and minds to God, ultimately, ours is not a battle with men. I recoil from the idea that this horror is the work of a man like me - and I think that gut reaction is right.
2.1.2011 | 5:25pm
pam says:
Michael
Who would this undercover video be unhelpful too? I see it as being unhelpful to PP and that is a good thing. I don't know much about Maafa 21 so I can't speak to that video.
While there may be some misguided souls who think they are helping women and are willing to overlook the casualties for what they believe to be the greater good, we know they are sadly mistaken and the dead bodies the broken families and the high rates of STD's are the consequence of their "deep care for women." All women deserve the truth whether they work in PP or are thinking of using their services. I can only see the undercover video as helping in that regard.
Who would this undercover video be unhelpful too? I see it as being unhelpful to PP and that is a good thing. I don't know much about Maafa 21 so I can't speak to that video.
While there may be some misguided souls who think they are helping women and are willing to overlook the casualties for what they believe to be the greater good, we know they are sadly mistaken and the dead bodies the broken families and the high rates of STD's are the consequence of their "deep care for women." All women deserve the truth whether they work in PP or are thinking of using their services. I can only see the undercover video as helping in that regard.
2.1.2011 | 5:55pm
Larry Sheldon says:
What happened to "no more coat hangers"?
What happened to "no more back alleys"?
What happened to "mother's health first"?
What happened to "no more back alleys"?
What happened to "mother's health first"?
2.1.2011 | 7:31pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"What happened to "no more coat hangers"?
What happened to "no more back alleys"?
What happened to "mother's health first"?"
Gone, replaced by "Show me the money".
What happened to "no more back alleys"?
What happened to "mother's health first"?"
Gone, replaced by "Show me the money".
2.1.2011 | 7:37pm
Timothy O'Donnell says:
Thank you for your article. Spotlighting the disturbing wickedness of an abortionist practicing their craft is a great service to our nation.
2.1.2011 | 7:47pm
Ben says:
I think the problem here is even the MSM don't have a rationale blaming Sarah Palin for Gosnell's crimes. Otherwise, they'd have a lot to say.
2.1.2011 | 9:01pm
harry says:
Hello, Michael,
Myrdal's true intentions are not really the point, nor is the correctness of Eller's estimation of his intentions. The fact is that Myrdal worked on a project funded by a blatantly pro-eugenics organization that typified instutionalized racism.
Goldberg is nitpicking to distract attention from the basic, documented thrust of Maafa 21, which is that racist eugenics has been entrenched in the policies and politics of America's "ruling class" for quite some time -- and still is.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg telling the NY Times's Emily Bazelon 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" provides a clue to all but the hopelessly clueless that Crutcher is on to something.
Myrdal's true intentions are not really the point, nor is the correctness of Eller's estimation of his intentions. The fact is that Myrdal worked on a project funded by a blatantly pro-eugenics organization that typified instutionalized racism.
Goldberg is nitpicking to distract attention from the basic, documented thrust of Maafa 21, which is that racist eugenics has been entrenched in the policies and politics of America's "ruling class" for quite some time -- and still is.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg telling the NY Times's Emily Bazelon 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" provides a clue to all but the hopelessly clueless that Crutcher is on to something.
2.1.2011 | 9:25pm
MB says:
Maybe it's not reported as news because it isn't news. Seriously, what's newsworthy about an abortionist killing babies in horrific ways.
2.1.2011 | 9:43pm
Michael S says:
I read the entire GJ report and my question from page one was: "where were the authorities?" Seventeen years of neglect, complaints that were not followed up on, dead patients. After the Doctor's arraignment there was only one report of the events leading up to his arrest and that was on FOX News on the O'Reilly program. It was suggested in the GJ report that the abortion clinics inspector's were told to stand down by then Governor Ridge who I believe is Catholic. Since his tenure and the now ex-governor, inspections were still not mandated. Even in the GJ report their first recommendation was that abortion clinics be inspected like any outpatient surgical facility, this was even before the GJ's recommendations for Dr. Gosnell's charges. Even a hardened juror knew that the Gosnell case was truly reprehensible and should have a long lasting effect on the future inspections of abortion clinics. My second question is: why did it take a year for this to come to the news?
2.1.2011 | 9:47pm
finnegansfamily says:
In contrast, check out the outrage at the (tragic) sled dog cull in Whistler B.C. Canada. Those responsible have had death threats. The public is shocked that there is no legislation in place to require that unwanted dogs are placed in homes or sanctuaries. The msm is all a-buzz. Folks all over the country are calling for jail time.
Murdered babies? Not news worthy.
Murdered babies? Not news worthy.
2.1.2011 | 10:14pm
AnotherOpinion says:
Why would the press change? What I mean is, they already look away, minimize, excuse, and move-along when it comes to abortion. No major media shows what abortion actualy is. They, and too many of you, are complicit in a cover up. See at http://www.abortionNo.org and be changed. If abortion was SHOWN for what it is, it would be outlawed. Leave it at words, even if you don’t let the other side co-opt the words, and you have conceeded use of the greatest tool in preventing an ongoing genocide.
2.1.2011 | 10:20pm
edmond says:
Pdn Michael: "because the press is supposed to report."
Edmond- Yes, you are correct in theory, but in the real world "envelopmental journalism" pervades.
While we try to make the point, it is still hard to stomach that taxpayer's money, instead of being put to better uses, goes into "subsidizing" abortion.
Edmond- Yes, you are correct in theory, but in the real world "envelopmental journalism" pervades.
While we try to make the point, it is still hard to stomach that taxpayer's money, instead of being put to better uses, goes into "subsidizing" abortion.
2.2.2011 | 3:07am
Don Roberto says:
Here's real journalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Zj9yx2j0Y
Jan 13. More evidence of how Planned Parenthood uses tax dollars to aid and abet human sacrifice and other depravity.
†
Jan 13. More evidence of how Planned Parenthood uses tax dollars to aid and abet human sacrifice and other depravity.
†
2.2.2011 | 5:20am
Becca says:
The press is trying to protect their "Chosen One", Obama, from being scrutinized for his failure to vote in favor of the Born Alive Act which requires medical care be given to babies that went through a live birth from a botched abortion. He was the only person to vote against providing care to these babies in the Illinois Senate and it passed unanimously in the US Senate. If this legislation had not passed (obviously it overwhelmingly did) Gosnell would not have been charged with any crimes in the murders of the 7 babies. That would have been legal.
2.2.2011 | 6:40am
K P Winterer says:
Isn't this exactly the reason that Roe vs Wade was passed. I fail to see any difference between this 'clinic' and the providers of 'back alley abortion mills' the law was said to destroy. States' eschewing inspections shows the real concern is not the welfare of women but the expansion of murder. I've yet to hear that Pennsylvania or any other state has stepped up inspections. MSM is untrustworthy; they provide neither truth nor protection for citizens' rights. They're only interested in pushing the liberal, dehumanizing, anti-American agenda!
2.2.2011 | 8:19am
sarah says:
This is such an amazing article! I want to thank Ms. Scalia for completely turning my mind on this issue, 180 degrees. Thanks to her cogent argument against this dangerous, disgusting, inhumane example of just how terrifying and terrible abortion can be for the poor and underserved when they are pushed into the dark and neglected corners of crime where we can all pretend they don't happen - I am now thoroughly convinced of the importance and dire need for seeing to it, as a caring and loving and Christian citizen, that these depraved violations of humanity never exist.
Ms. Scalia makes quite a case for a legal imperative for safe, monitored, and accessible abortions for all women, especially the poor and underserved - "the least among us" is how I believe Christ would put it.
Thank you so much for this powerful testimony!
Ms. Scalia makes quite a case for a legal imperative for safe, monitored, and accessible abortions for all women, especially the poor and underserved - "the least among us" is how I believe Christ would put it.
Thank you so much for this powerful testimony!
2.2.2011 | 10:54am
anonymous says:
I would like to set the record straight on the Michelle Goldberg/ Maafa21 connection:
Goldberg is a flaming pro-abort who gets income from Planned Parenthood- Maafa21 on the other hand used Planned Parenthood's own documents to make their claims.
This “journalist” who also writes for the New York Times, receives funding from Planned Parenthood, the very organization which Maafa21 exposes! In fact, Goldberg was a recent featured speaker for Planned Parenthood events and Planned Parenthood has funded Goldberg’s speaking events, where she promotes her books. It is clear that Goldberg has an investment in seeing that Planned Parenthood is NEVER discredited.
According to media announcements of Goldberg’s speaking arrangements with Planned Parenthood- we also find out that Goldenberg has been involved in Planned Parenthood for many years, originally in Minnesota where she used to live. In 2011, the paper reports that Goldberg is also a member of the First Choice Luncheon Committee and the area affiliate board, and had this to say “My concern is for the future — my kids, my grandkids. I want them to have the same choices we had or we made for ourselves. I care a lot because I feel each person should have a choice in this very personal matter,” said Goldenberg. “There is such a need for more education, and Planned Parenthood is good at filling that need. I don’t feel the public understands what Planned Parenthood mission is. It’s primarily an educational organization, definitely not a contraceptive or abortion mill.”
With that view of Goldberg’s despite the fact that Planned Parenthood’s largest profits come from abortion- we see how biased she really is.
But the real kicker here is that Michelle Goldberg continues to malign the documentary film: Maafa21, but, has not in full disclosure revealed that she is on the board of Southwest & Central Florida Planned Parenthood.
Goldberg is not the only Planned Parenthood BIASED MEDIA MOUTHPIECE attacking this film and NOT attacking the fact that Planned Parenthood names their top award after KLAN SPEAKING RACIST FOUNDER Margaret Sanger. why is that ignored by these so-called journalists? I submit this in depth article to explain how Planned Parenthood is using their media connections and diminish ons to try and discredit Maafa21 because the film is so powerfully documented ! Just view the credits section of Maafa 21 (http://www.maafa21.com)
Planned Parenthood’s media mouth pieces seek to discredit the eugenics, abortion, Black Genocide film Maafa21 ! http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/planned-parenthoods-media-mouth-pieces-seek-to-discredit-the-eugenics-abortion-black-genocide-film-maafa21/
Goldberg is a flaming pro-abort who gets income from Planned Parenthood- Maafa21 on the other hand used Planned Parenthood's own documents to make their claims.
This “journalist” who also writes for the New York Times, receives funding from Planned Parenthood, the very organization which Maafa21 exposes! In fact, Goldberg was a recent featured speaker for Planned Parenthood events and Planned Parenthood has funded Goldberg’s speaking events, where she promotes her books. It is clear that Goldberg has an investment in seeing that Planned Parenthood is NEVER discredited.
According to media announcements of Goldberg’s speaking arrangements with Planned Parenthood- we also find out that Goldenberg has been involved in Planned Parenthood for many years, originally in Minnesota where she used to live. In 2011, the paper reports that Goldberg is also a member of the First Choice Luncheon Committee and the area affiliate board, and had this to say “My concern is for the future — my kids, my grandkids. I want them to have the same choices we had or we made for ourselves. I care a lot because I feel each person should have a choice in this very personal matter,” said Goldenberg. “There is such a need for more education, and Planned Parenthood is good at filling that need. I don’t feel the public understands what Planned Parenthood mission is. It’s primarily an educational organization, definitely not a contraceptive or abortion mill.”
With that view of Goldberg’s despite the fact that Planned Parenthood’s largest profits come from abortion- we see how biased she really is.
But the real kicker here is that Michelle Goldberg continues to malign the documentary film: Maafa21, but, has not in full disclosure revealed that she is on the board of Southwest & Central Florida Planned Parenthood.
Goldberg is not the only Planned Parenthood BIASED MEDIA MOUTHPIECE attacking this film and NOT attacking the fact that Planned Parenthood names their top award after KLAN SPEAKING RACIST FOUNDER Margaret Sanger. why is that ignored by these so-called journalists? I submit this in depth article to explain how Planned Parenthood is using their media connections and diminish ons to try and discredit Maafa21 because the film is so powerfully documented ! Just view the credits section of Maafa 21 (http://www.maafa21.com)
Planned Parenthood’s media mouth pieces seek to discredit the eugenics, abortion, Black Genocide film Maafa21 ! http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/planned-parenthoods-media-mouth-pieces-seek-to-discredit-the-eugenics-abortion-black-genocide-film-maafa21/
2.2.2011 | 11:02am
rapnsum says:
I am responding to this comment by :
Michael, "There’s more than a few straws here. I can’t speak to Sanger because I don’t know her story well, but I do know Myrdal’s “American Dilemma,” and Crutcher either can’t read well or he’s dishonest.
Myrdal was a social engineer. He was looking for ways of improving the lot of blacks in the US, and at that time, sociologists looked at every possible solution, no matter how ugly. He and his contributors, which included many black scholars, wanted to improve the lot of blacks, ending racism and segregation. That’s the context in which chapter seven—the one the film dwells on—needs to be placed. "
*****
MY RESPONSE IS :
Michael, you are the one who cannot read- check out the FOOTNOTES in the American Dilemma and see where Myrdal got these racist ideas of eugenics against blacks...that chapter footnote's include many conversations with - PLANNED PARENTHOOD- read the whole 1400 page book, okay?
Get the DVD of Maafa21 yourself and watch it in full-http://www.maafa21.com, the documents speak for themselves !!!!
Michael, "There’s more than a few straws here. I can’t speak to Sanger because I don’t know her story well, but I do know Myrdal’s “American Dilemma,” and Crutcher either can’t read well or he’s dishonest.
Myrdal was a social engineer. He was looking for ways of improving the lot of blacks in the US, and at that time, sociologists looked at every possible solution, no matter how ugly. He and his contributors, which included many black scholars, wanted to improve the lot of blacks, ending racism and segregation. That’s the context in which chapter seven—the one the film dwells on—needs to be placed. "
*****
MY RESPONSE IS :
Michael, you are the one who cannot read- check out the FOOTNOTES in the American Dilemma and see where Myrdal got these racist ideas of eugenics against blacks...that chapter footnote's include many conversations with - PLANNED PARENTHOOD- read the whole 1400 page book, okay?
Get the DVD of Maafa21 yourself and watch it in full-http://www.maafa21.com, the documents speak for themselves !!!!
2.2.2011 | 11:20am
Billy Bean says:
Yeah, and while I'm at it: Sarah has drawn the usual "Progressive" conclusion from the tragedy of aborion on demand: we need more of it! "Liberals" want to eliminate poverty, right? What better way to do it than by eliminating the poor -- and the "underserved." It's right out of the Margaret Sanger playbook.
2.2.2011 | 11:30am
Bill Rivers says:
If the national media has quietly pushed Kermit Gosnell back into the shadows, Delaware's local media, pro-life groups, and most importantly, several African American pastors and churches in the City of Wilmington (where Gosell worked for years), have kept the issue in the public spotlight.
This Friday morning, Wilmington's African American pastors, in conjunction with the Rose And A Prayer Education Group, will deliver a response to Gosnell, the failed system that enabled him, as well as specific requests to Attorney General Beau Biden for real regulation and inspection of abortion providers in the First State.
The press conference will be Friday, February 4 @ 10:00 a.m., at Theatre N at Nemours, in Wilmington, Delaware.
Kermit Gosnell worked at the Atlantic Women's Medical Society Clinic in Wilmington, DE, where one of the abortions for which he is indicted was initiated. His investigation has led to growing consensus in the First State, a place long known for its incredibly lax regulations on abortion clinics and the highest per capita abortion rate in the nation, at 39% (Guttmacher Institute), that it is at last time to pass parental consent laws. (Delaware does not have them for minors over 16.)
Hopefully these investigations and the coming regulations will have some teeth for a state where girls under 18 years of age must have their parents' permission to enter a tanning booth, but a 16 year old can have an abortion without her parents being notified or consulted.
This Friday morning, Wilmington's African American pastors, in conjunction with the Rose And A Prayer Education Group, will deliver a response to Gosnell, the failed system that enabled him, as well as specific requests to Attorney General Beau Biden for real regulation and inspection of abortion providers in the First State.
The press conference will be Friday, February 4 @ 10:00 a.m., at Theatre N at Nemours, in Wilmington, Delaware.
Kermit Gosnell worked at the Atlantic Women's Medical Society Clinic in Wilmington, DE, where one of the abortions for which he is indicted was initiated. His investigation has led to growing consensus in the First State, a place long known for its incredibly lax regulations on abortion clinics and the highest per capita abortion rate in the nation, at 39% (Guttmacher Institute), that it is at last time to pass parental consent laws. (Delaware does not have them for minors over 16.)
Hopefully these investigations and the coming regulations will have some teeth for a state where girls under 18 years of age must have their parents' permission to enter a tanning booth, but a 16 year old can have an abortion without her parents being notified or consulted.
2.2.2011 | 11:38am
Pat Gohn says:
William Bennett had an old book title that comes to mind: "The Death of Outrage". And while he was discussing the Clinton-era politics and polemics, I think the title is fits the bill here. As long as we can tolerate this and spin it, and that includes ignoring it, we will also have blood on our hands. The reductionism of any human person to a thing or an object (and that includes pregnant women and their children in the womb) that can be manipulated, used, discarded, or wasted, is a crime against humanity.
2.2.2011 | 12:30pm
Michael says:
Pam,
As I said in the post you responded to, the video is unhelpful if you’re trying to understand the character of abortion rights advocates.
It is helpful if you’re trying to understand the actual conditions on the ground in clinics.
As I said in the post you responded to, the video is unhelpful if you’re trying to understand the character of abortion rights advocates.
It is helpful if you’re trying to understand the actual conditions on the ground in clinics.
2.2.2011 | 12:37pm
Michael says:
The Deuce,
I don’t appreciate the profanity.
If you can show me where I have tried to “explain away a cold and inhuman woman Marge Sanger,” I’d like to see it.
The idea that I’m “running interference for” someone or that I’m not “actually pro-life” suggests that you have a preconceived idea in your mind that the motivations of participants in the abortion debate fall into easy categories. Meanwhile, I’m having conversations with abortion rights advocates who claim that pro-lifers just want to control women and make them second-class citizens. When I explain to them that pro-life motivations are much different, some respond a lot like you have to me.
I’m happy to have a serious conversation, but put your bile and suspicion aside. It’s counter-productive and tiresome.
I don’t appreciate the profanity.
If you can show me where I have tried to “explain away a cold and inhuman woman Marge Sanger,” I’d like to see it.
The idea that I’m “running interference for” someone or that I’m not “actually pro-life” suggests that you have a preconceived idea in your mind that the motivations of participants in the abortion debate fall into easy categories. Meanwhile, I’m having conversations with abortion rights advocates who claim that pro-lifers just want to control women and make them second-class citizens. When I explain to them that pro-life motivations are much different, some respond a lot like you have to me.
I’m happy to have a serious conversation, but put your bile and suspicion aside. It’s counter-productive and tiresome.
2.2.2011 | 12:40pm
Michael says:
Stuart,
“Gone, replaced by "Show me the money”.
When discussing ecclesiastical matters, you are capable of complex analysis, but when it comes to social issues, your capability of historical or sociological nuance flutters out the window. It’s disappointing but not surprising.
“Gone, replaced by "Show me the money”.
When discussing ecclesiastical matters, you are capable of complex analysis, but when it comes to social issues, your capability of historical or sociological nuance flutters out the window. It’s disappointing but not surprising.
2.2.2011 | 12:52pm
conservativemama says:
My parents remember the well-to-do Americans who brought their daughters to 1950s Cuba for their abortions. I remember growing up in the rural South in the first years after Roe. Upper middle class white girls had abortions, while African-American girls gave birth. While it was sad all around that too many young people were sexually active, at least in that time and place, the African-America families stood by their daughters and welcomed those babies. While the white families swept it all under the rug so as to not disrupt their comfortable lives.
2.2.2011 | 1:04pm
Michael says:
Harry,
The pro-life movement doesn’t need people who lie, condone lying, excuse lying, or find lying to be beside the point. If Eller and Crutcher misrepresent Myrdal, either through mistake or lie, then you must hold them accountable and seek the truth elsewhere. But you’re not willing to take their misrepresentation seriously, which surprises and disappoints me.
Still, since Crutcher tells you to be more concerned with the Carnegie Corporation, let’s talk about that, even though the veracity of Crutcher’s work is in question. Does the source of the funding always determine the results of the research? Do researchers ever publish findings that disappoint their funders? Carnegie brought in Myrdal because he wasn’t American. They wanted an impartial outsider to come in and explain what exactly is wrong with white and black America. And Myrdal provided an unpopular answer. He said that segregation was hurting blacks not helping them and that the reason blacks were not moving out of poverty was because whites were prejudiced. This answer was so unpopular that the study was buried for a decade until it was cited in Brown v. Topeka.
I’d love to know who you think America’s current “ruling class” is, and I’d love to see the evidence you have for their love of eugenics.
I hope your evidence is better than what you provided for Ginsburg, which is another case of misrepresentation, motivated either by mistake or lie. In her interview with Bazelon, Ginsburg explains that she believes that “government has no business making that choice [abortion] for a woman.” She was worried when Roe came out that it “was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion,” and she feared that Medicaid funding carried the risk of “coercing women into having abortions when they don’t really want them.”
So the question is why was Ginsburg worried that Roe was going to force some women to have abortions they didn’t want? Because some of the supporters of Roe were concerned “about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want too many of.” This is the sentence some people like to pluck out as evidence that Ginsburg is part of some eugenics-loving elite, when it is quite clear that Ginsburg believes in the individual woman’s right to decide without the government telling women either to have an abortion or to not have one.
Me? I’m not happy that Ginsburg supports abortion rights. But I am happy that she defended women from any government attempt to force them to have an abortion. In the same interview, she’s proud of her litigation of the Struck case, which occurred before Roe. In that case, the Air Force was trying to force an officer to have an abortion on base.
The pro-life movement doesn’t need people who lie, condone lying, excuse lying, or find lying to be beside the point. If Eller and Crutcher misrepresent Myrdal, either through mistake or lie, then you must hold them accountable and seek the truth elsewhere. But you’re not willing to take their misrepresentation seriously, which surprises and disappoints me.
Still, since Crutcher tells you to be more concerned with the Carnegie Corporation, let’s talk about that, even though the veracity of Crutcher’s work is in question. Does the source of the funding always determine the results of the research? Do researchers ever publish findings that disappoint their funders? Carnegie brought in Myrdal because he wasn’t American. They wanted an impartial outsider to come in and explain what exactly is wrong with white and black America. And Myrdal provided an unpopular answer. He said that segregation was hurting blacks not helping them and that the reason blacks were not moving out of poverty was because whites were prejudiced. This answer was so unpopular that the study was buried for a decade until it was cited in Brown v. Topeka.
I’d love to know who you think America’s current “ruling class” is, and I’d love to see the evidence you have for their love of eugenics.
I hope your evidence is better than what you provided for Ginsburg, which is another case of misrepresentation, motivated either by mistake or lie. In her interview with Bazelon, Ginsburg explains that she believes that “government has no business making that choice [abortion] for a woman.” She was worried when Roe came out that it “was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion,” and she feared that Medicaid funding carried the risk of “coercing women into having abortions when they don’t really want them.”
So the question is why was Ginsburg worried that Roe was going to force some women to have abortions they didn’t want? Because some of the supporters of Roe were concerned “about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want too many of.” This is the sentence some people like to pluck out as evidence that Ginsburg is part of some eugenics-loving elite, when it is quite clear that Ginsburg believes in the individual woman’s right to decide without the government telling women either to have an abortion or to not have one.
Me? I’m not happy that Ginsburg supports abortion rights. But I am happy that she defended women from any government attempt to force them to have an abortion. In the same interview, she’s proud of her litigation of the Struck case, which occurred before Roe. In that case, the Air Force was trying to force an officer to have an abortion on base.
2.2.2011 | 1:16pm
Michael says:
Anonymous,
This is not a revelation. A journalist who has decided to write positively about abortion rights is probably a member of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. And a journalist who writes well is probably going to become a featured speaker and get book deals, etc.
Do you automatically distrust an economist or policy expert just because he receives funding from the Heritage or Hoover Foundations? I hope not.
I hope you do what I do. Note the bias, check the facts, and read outside the circle you tend to agree with. I recommended Goldberg’s article because it is short, easily accessible, and assesses the facts correctly. As I observed above, it is hard to find pro-life writers who criticize the film. Unfortunately, we live in a degraded time for journalism and even for the comment columns for magazines like First Things, in which scoring political points is more important than seeking truth.
Despite the time you invested in your post, you clearly haven’t checked the sources to see if Goldberg is right about the facts. I have, and she is.
Praising a dishonest film because it agrees with your views will only hurt the pro-life movement. If getting the truth about the film requires that you read a column by a writer whose views you don’t share, then I say the truth is worth it.
This is not a revelation. A journalist who has decided to write positively about abortion rights is probably a member of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. And a journalist who writes well is probably going to become a featured speaker and get book deals, etc.
Do you automatically distrust an economist or policy expert just because he receives funding from the Heritage or Hoover Foundations? I hope not.
I hope you do what I do. Note the bias, check the facts, and read outside the circle you tend to agree with. I recommended Goldberg’s article because it is short, easily accessible, and assesses the facts correctly. As I observed above, it is hard to find pro-life writers who criticize the film. Unfortunately, we live in a degraded time for journalism and even for the comment columns for magazines like First Things, in which scoring political points is more important than seeking truth.
Despite the time you invested in your post, you clearly haven’t checked the sources to see if Goldberg is right about the facts. I have, and she is.
Praising a dishonest film because it agrees with your views will only hurt the pro-life movement. If getting the truth about the film requires that you read a column by a writer whose views you don’t share, then I say the truth is worth it.
2.2.2011 | 2:13pm
harry says:
Hello, Michael, others following the discussion of Maafa 21,
Just watch it. It will then become apparent why some people tried desperately to get you to write it off before you watched it.
God bless!
Just watch it. It will then become apparent why some people tried desperately to get you to write it off before you watched it.
God bless!
2.2.2011 | 3:59pm
michael Currie says:
One thing that stikes me about the comments in response to Elizabeth Scalias article is that, with the exception of Sarahs' sardonic reply, all were in basic agreement. Where there was disagreement it was at the edges. Another odd thing was that the regular visitors with a pro abortion bent seemed to stay away from the subject, probably occupied with some linguistic alchemy to turn Gosnells evil into an abberation having no connection to what abortion actually is as practiced by the majority of responsible abortionists. If there ever was a phrase that indicated how far we have fallen "responsible abortionist" would top my list. I digress.The stinking, fetid abomination that was gosnells practice is merely the leg bone sticking out of the burial pit in the killing fields of abortion. The dimensions of the horror of abortion must be hidden, its' reality and that realities legacy must be made a banality at worst and at best a testamony to womans ascent to power. Turn away if you can or you must but this is the face of abortion whether done in a hovel or a penthouse and this is a reality show we won't be seeing anytime soon.
2.2.2011 | 5:27pm
Michael says:
Conservativemama,
What I see today in Catholic families is reliance on vasectomy. I’m the last male in my generation in my extended family to remain intact. I haven’t asked my family members whether they have confessed this mortal sin. And I remain puzzled that the penance for this sin doesn’t require reversal.
The younger generation relies on the misnamed procedure of “natural” family planning, which continues to strike me as a fancy dodge and is most successful when practiced by the relatively affluent, educated, and responsible.
What I see today in Catholic families is reliance on vasectomy. I’m the last male in my generation in my extended family to remain intact. I haven’t asked my family members whether they have confessed this mortal sin. And I remain puzzled that the penance for this sin doesn’t require reversal.
The younger generation relies on the misnamed procedure of “natural” family planning, which continues to strike me as a fancy dodge and is most successful when practiced by the relatively affluent, educated, and responsible.
2.2.2011 | 5:37pm
Michael says:
Harry,
You might consider the possibility that I’m not warning against the film because I’m trying to suppress the truth of the film but because know the film is distorting the truth.
I’ve seen the film, I know something about the figures portrayed in the film, I’ve checked the film against Myrdal’s book, and I’ve observed how the film distorts the book. Against these facts, you’ve offered nothing. Nothing.
Just because the film is pro-life doesn’t mean that it’s right. Just because I’m critical of the film doesn’t mean that I’m trying to suppress it. And just because Goldberg is pro-abortion rights doesn’t mean that she’s wrong about the facts.
The truth matters.
You might consider the possibility that I’m not warning against the film because I’m trying to suppress the truth of the film but because know the film is distorting the truth.
I’ve seen the film, I know something about the figures portrayed in the film, I’ve checked the film against Myrdal’s book, and I’ve observed how the film distorts the book. Against these facts, you’ve offered nothing. Nothing.
Just because the film is pro-life doesn’t mean that it’s right. Just because I’m critical of the film doesn’t mean that I’m trying to suppress it. And just because Goldberg is pro-abortion rights doesn’t mean that she’s wrong about the facts.
The truth matters.
2.2.2011 | 9:31pm
harry says:
Michael,
The truth does indeed matter. That is why Maafa 21 needs to be seen.
Again, no one could provide as much documentation as is presented in Maafa 21 without there being disagreements on a few points. I find it interesting that you appear to be fixated on a few rather minor details and have nothing to say about the massive amount of documentation that corroborates its basic thesis.
If you aren't desperately clutching at a few straws pulled from the haystack of evidence in Maafa 21, frantically waving them around in an attempt to distract everyone's attention from the haystack of damning evidence, you certainly appear to be doing so.
The truth has its own power. It can't be suppressed forever. Get used to it.
The truth does indeed matter. That is why Maafa 21 needs to be seen.
Again, no one could provide as much documentation as is presented in Maafa 21 without there being disagreements on a few points. I find it interesting that you appear to be fixated on a few rather minor details and have nothing to say about the massive amount of documentation that corroborates its basic thesis.
If you aren't desperately clutching at a few straws pulled from the haystack of evidence in Maafa 21, frantically waving them around in an attempt to distract everyone's attention from the haystack of damning evidence, you certainly appear to be doing so.
The truth has its own power. It can't be suppressed forever. Get used to it.
2.3.2011 | 10:47am
Michael says:
Harry,
I’ve watched the film, and I don’t disagree on a few points but with large swaths of it. I’m not going to write an essay for you here when you can’t even admit that the film is wrong about Myrdal or that Ginsburg’s comments to Bazelon have been misrepresented.
Part of the art of documentary film is to pile on the “facts” one after another so that any distortion seems small in comparison to the rest. I could push over lots of other “facts,” and you’d still complain that they were “minor details.”
So I’ll put it to you, what is the central fact or set of facts that would make this house of cards fall for you if I showed you that they were distortions?
I’ve watched the film, and I don’t disagree on a few points but with large swaths of it. I’m not going to write an essay for you here when you can’t even admit that the film is wrong about Myrdal or that Ginsburg’s comments to Bazelon have been misrepresented.
Part of the art of documentary film is to pile on the “facts” one after another so that any distortion seems small in comparison to the rest. I could push over lots of other “facts,” and you’d still complain that they were “minor details.”
So I’ll put it to you, what is the central fact or set of facts that would make this house of cards fall for you if I showed you that they were distortions?
2.3.2011 | 9:23pm
Anonymous says:
Michael...I am confused. The filmmakers interviewed people with their own opinions in the documentary Maafa21, how does that personal opinion of Eller discredit the film? Are you aware that Myrdal's wife was connected to Margaret Sanger and received awards by her?
Myrdal was not only funded by Carnegie, but Rockefeller as well. Maafa21 connects Carnegie to Eugenics which is a well known fact on the Eugenics Society Records. Myrdal may have been reporting on the attitudes he found in society when he wrote the chapter Maafa21 quotes from- but- isn't that the point? And have you investigated where he footnotes those ideas as coming from- Planned Parenthood who he claims granted him several interviews.
As for Ginsburg, her statement in Maafa21 was not out of context and it was appropriate. Maafa21 gave the sources, so why would they do that if they are hiding things? You are the one who seems fixated. What other facts are "distortions"? All I saw was a ton of documentation...
I have studied the eugenics movement and Sanger's involvement. There is no denying what she admitted HERSELF, that she gave a speech to the KLAN and then was invited back to Klan meetings for more. ..There is no denying her ties to eugenics...Faye Wattelton (Planned Parenthood President) herself admitted the org took racist donations, Civil Rights leaders warned Planned Parenthood clinics would be used as Black Genocide- all facts !!!!
Sounds like a solid argument to me...
Myrdal was not only funded by Carnegie, but Rockefeller as well. Maafa21 connects Carnegie to Eugenics which is a well known fact on the Eugenics Society Records. Myrdal may have been reporting on the attitudes he found in society when he wrote the chapter Maafa21 quotes from- but- isn't that the point? And have you investigated where he footnotes those ideas as coming from- Planned Parenthood who he claims granted him several interviews.
As for Ginsburg, her statement in Maafa21 was not out of context and it was appropriate. Maafa21 gave the sources, so why would they do that if they are hiding things? You are the one who seems fixated. What other facts are "distortions"? All I saw was a ton of documentation...
I have studied the eugenics movement and Sanger's involvement. There is no denying what she admitted HERSELF, that she gave a speech to the KLAN and then was invited back to Klan meetings for more. ..There is no denying her ties to eugenics...Faye Wattelton (Planned Parenthood President) herself admitted the org took racist donations, Civil Rights leaders warned Planned Parenthood clinics would be used as Black Genocide- all facts !!!!
Sounds like a solid argument to me...
2.3.2011 | 11:55pm
Michael says:
Anonymous,
Eller’s personal opinion doesn’t discredit her. Her inability to interpret Myrdal correctly discredits her. And by “correctly,” I don’t mean that her interpretation agrees with mine; I mean that she is having trouble reading the sentence. I’m talking reading comprehension here.
When Myrdal is reporting on the attitudes he found in society, he wasn’t referring to high society. He was referring to ordinary Americans. His interviews convinced him that ordinary white Southerners wanted blacks to leave the country and that ordinary Northern whites felt much the same way. The debate at the time was whether the race problem in America was a problem with blacks or a problem with whites, and Myrdal came to believe that white racism was the chief problem. I encourage you to read his book and to read the praise that every black intellectual at the time heaped on it, from W.E.B. DuBois to Martin Luther King. Myrdal believed that ending segregation and educating blacks would lead to their prosperity and advancement. Eller is flat wrong to claim that he wanted to get rid of blacks.
As for Ginsburg, read the interview closely, and I think you’ll see that I interpreted it correctly above. It is easy to misread the line because Ginsburg talks like a lawyer, using passive constructions and failing to provide clear pronoun referents. I did a quick search online to see whether I could find you a fuller explanation. The one on Jezebel does a good job, especially of giving you some references for how some feminists have long been critical of Sanger. (http://jezebel.com/5311192/justice-ginsburg-eugenics--feminist-criticism-of-planned-parenthood)
I haven’t accused Crutcher of hiding sources but of misrepresenting them. Michael Moore provides his sources, but you don’t trust him, do you?
As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about Sanger to comment. I do know that eugenics swept up many in the first half of the century. I also know that the experience of Hitler immediately and broadly discredited eugenics. Many repented their earlier positions once they saw what it meant. Henry Ford supported Hitler, but I still drive his cars.
The film is right that civil rights leaders attacked abortion and Planned Parenthood in the late sixties when civil rights became radicalized, especially around the Black Panthers. But feminists also attacked Planned Parenthood for being too conservative. What they meant by that was what Ginsburg feared, namely, that abortion would forced on or directed at the poor. Radical feminists wanted a national health care system and a better welfare system so that poor women who wanted children could have them. They feared that merely making abortion available would lead to it being something that mostly poor women would do, and they felt that was unjust.
Linda Gordon has a great book on the history of birth control and abortion.
There’s a certain irony in the way that feminist criticism of their own history has been distorted by Crutcher.
Yes, Planned Parenthood has racism and eugenics as part of its past, but that past was over a long time ago. It has plenty of sins in the present that it’s responsible. I think we’re wiser to focus on those and not wraiths from the past.
Eller’s personal opinion doesn’t discredit her. Her inability to interpret Myrdal correctly discredits her. And by “correctly,” I don’t mean that her interpretation agrees with mine; I mean that she is having trouble reading the sentence. I’m talking reading comprehension here.
When Myrdal is reporting on the attitudes he found in society, he wasn’t referring to high society. He was referring to ordinary Americans. His interviews convinced him that ordinary white Southerners wanted blacks to leave the country and that ordinary Northern whites felt much the same way. The debate at the time was whether the race problem in America was a problem with blacks or a problem with whites, and Myrdal came to believe that white racism was the chief problem. I encourage you to read his book and to read the praise that every black intellectual at the time heaped on it, from W.E.B. DuBois to Martin Luther King. Myrdal believed that ending segregation and educating blacks would lead to their prosperity and advancement. Eller is flat wrong to claim that he wanted to get rid of blacks.
As for Ginsburg, read the interview closely, and I think you’ll see that I interpreted it correctly above. It is easy to misread the line because Ginsburg talks like a lawyer, using passive constructions and failing to provide clear pronoun referents. I did a quick search online to see whether I could find you a fuller explanation. The one on Jezebel does a good job, especially of giving you some references for how some feminists have long been critical of Sanger. (http://jezebel.com/5311192/justice-ginsburg-eugenics--feminist-criticism-of-planned-parenthood)
I haven’t accused Crutcher of hiding sources but of misrepresenting them. Michael Moore provides his sources, but you don’t trust him, do you?
As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about Sanger to comment. I do know that eugenics swept up many in the first half of the century. I also know that the experience of Hitler immediately and broadly discredited eugenics. Many repented their earlier positions once they saw what it meant. Henry Ford supported Hitler, but I still drive his cars.
The film is right that civil rights leaders attacked abortion and Planned Parenthood in the late sixties when civil rights became radicalized, especially around the Black Panthers. But feminists also attacked Planned Parenthood for being too conservative. What they meant by that was what Ginsburg feared, namely, that abortion would forced on or directed at the poor. Radical feminists wanted a national health care system and a better welfare system so that poor women who wanted children could have them. They feared that merely making abortion available would lead to it being something that mostly poor women would do, and they felt that was unjust.
Linda Gordon has a great book on the history of birth control and abortion.
There’s a certain irony in the way that feminist criticism of their own history has been distorted by Crutcher.
Yes, Planned Parenthood has racism and eugenics as part of its past, but that past was over a long time ago. It has plenty of sins in the present that it’s responsible. I think we’re wiser to focus on those and not wraiths from the past.
3.13.2011 | 1:20pm
Season Petek says:
A wonderful thing happened today. A Federal judge ruled against the City of Baltimore (the first diocese in America) which had passed a law promoted by the abortion industry in their unending attempts to thwart crisis pregnancy centers. This is good news, because in the wonderful state I live in, Washington, the first bills offered to our House and Senate this year were bills written by the abortion industry and handed to willing Democrats to attempt to hinder our crisis pregnancy centers. If one looks at the laws in our state, as to the regulation of " womenfolk's health care centers", you will find that all of the statutes enacted in Washington are for the protection of these centers. None are for the protection of women. The latest attempts were aimed at financially destroying crisis pregnancy centers. Unfortunately, Washington State has two federal Senators, both women, both claim to be Catholic, but register 0 when evaluated on life issues. We have a Governor, a woman, who claims to be Catholic, but registers 0 on life issues. Pray for us. We need it. Michael...I am confused. The filmmakers interviewed people with their own opinions in the documentary Maafa21, how does that personal opinion of Eller discredit the film? Are you aware that Myrdal's wife was connected to Margaret Sanger and received awards by her?
5.22.2011 | 5:54pm
Sarah Sober says:
Clarity or consistency from the press is not to be expected. The Screwtape Letters spring to mind, as they so often do: the Devil is not out to educate people, but is a liar and the father of lies. Confusion and muddiness are his fingerprints. Until there is a sea change regarding this double standard in the Pro-Life movement at large, the broader culture will never have grounds to respect its witness.
8.14.2011 | 4:51pm
Nelson says:
I am strongly against abortions; I can't conceive of a single child being killed by abortion. Be that as it may, it is clear, currently, that the number of abortions can only be reduced if there is a complete change of the circumstances involved, a change to honor and praise. Otherwise the for and against factions will keep squabbling and children will keep dying. If it is the woman's decision, and that is apparently the way, then let us do our part--do more, to help her in deciding for the sake of herself and the child. I can understand the dread that any woman would face with abortion and I don't believe that any of us uninvolved would ever know what a terrible tragedy it is for her. A child is a beautiful creation of God; praise God, and when a woman brings a child into the world, she should be praised and honored. Let it be known to her and to everyone that it is a happy, wonderful God-given event. Let her be honored and praised all the way from early conception to birth, and help her to realize what a wonderful thing she is doing-- unintended conception or not. Help her to see that the child and SHE wil be helped every way. This could help to lessen the number of abortions by a very large number and put us on the way to a complete elimination--some day.
4.13.2013 | 10:54am
LisaS says:
I'm glad you mentioned the church abuse scandal. There are similarities, no? here's a quote from another blog- A national abortion federation official who visited Gosnell's office said, "It was the worst clinic she had ever seen," but she never told the authorities about it.
4.13.2013 | 12:06pm
Doug Santo says:
Nice piece. Fair commentary. The media in this country is an unprofessional, biased, propaganda machine for democratic politics, with some exceptions.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
4.13.2013 | 7:35pm
Lucille van Ommering says:
I had to look twice to make certain of the year this article was first published. Can it be this case has been ignored for over 2 years?!? Seems to me there should be a general outrage which is not limited to the pro-lifers. The procedures Gosnell inflicted upon these women, especially minority women, evoke the grotesque experiments in the early 20th century perpetrated by some in the US military in which black enlisted soldiers were quite deliberatelyintroduced to syphillus. The death penalty for this guy would not inflict sufficient pain to atone for his evil. And the government agencies who ignored what was staring them in the face are complicit in this horror of such immense proportions.
Statement by President Obama on the Roe vs. Wade Anniversary
"Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right."
"I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption."