When an organization makes billions of dollars killing babies in the womb, it is clearly a bloodthirsty organization. And when a disproportionate number of those babies are black and Hispanic, it is clearly a racist organization.

All this is self-evident when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but recent events – the firing of Planned Parenthood’s president and a blatantly racist tweet – underscore just how deeply Planned Parenthood is a bloodthirsty and racist organization.

First there was the unexpected firing of president Leana Wen.

Her primarily failing, it appears, was that she did not have the cold-blooded killer instinct necessary to make abortion the priority of Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps it was her training as a medical doctor.

Perhaps it was a trace of the image of God that still pervaded her humanity, as much as she was still an abortion advocate.

Whatever the underlying causes may be, the broad strokes are clear. As noted by Alexandra Desanctis on National Review, “The organization has ousted its president, apparently for being insufficiently committed to pro-abortion advocacy.”

Indeed, “Planned Parenthood has long sought to downplay its commitment to abortion, calling itself a health-care organization and spreading the lie that abortion is only 3 percent of its business, even as its clinics perform between one-third and half of all abortions in the U.S. annually. The group’s leadership evidently believes this political moment demands more aggressive advocacy.

“And Wen wasn’t up to the task.”

More bluntly, cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg put it like this: “What they are saying is this: ‘You are not blood-thirsty enough! You are not meeting your quotas! More babies MUST DIE!’ That is the mindset of PP. They are after blood – and money. That is their core business. That is why they exist.”

And he suggested that Planned Parenthood should run an ad that sounded something like this: “Wanted, an experienced baby killer who has no qualms about taking human life, nor about selling body parts of babies to others for profit. It is preferred that you resonate with past such ministries, such as the Nazi extermination camps. Having no heart and no conscience is also essential. Those who think that the vulnerable and defenceless should be our priority need not apply.”

Do you think he was exaggerating? I do not.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood’s racism, there is a spirited debate concerning the connection between Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, and eugenics. Sanger’s conservative critics are sure that she wanted to reduce the number of black Americans (among other races and ethnicities), if not exterminate them entirely. Her defenders deny this passionately, also claiming that her interest in eugenics was not racial.

Yet even the left-leaning Time Magazine admitted in 2016 that Sanger did “make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, ‘the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.’” (Time also cited her defenders who claimed that she “uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles.”)

And the very left-leaning Snopes.com, in an article devoted to debunking a quote attributed to Sanger, uncovered this hardly flattering quote from a 1923 New York Times article. She wrote: “Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” (Snopes’ emphasis.)

To my liberal, pro-abortion friends: Are you sure you want to defend Sanger against charges of racism?

But let’s not worry about 1923. Let’s look at the present, as in July 19, 2019, when Planned Parenthood tweeted,

’Black women are sexy and sexual entities, independent of anyone else’s ideas of what that means.’ For #SummerOfSex, our partnership with @WearYourVoice, @GloriaAlamrew talks about creating space for Black girls to understand their sexuality.

In one short tweet, Planned Parenthood’s motives are revealed for the world to see.

Bound4Life, a pro-life organization, noted that, “Black non-Hispanic women have the highest abortion ratio. Black women’s abortion ratio has reached 444 abortions per 1,000 live births, while non-Hispanic white women’s abortion ratio is 124 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

Apparently, however, this is not enough. More black women need to have sex. More black women need to have unwanted pregnancies. More black women need to have abortions.

This, to me, is all part of the “Jezebelic” attack on our nation. It is an attack we must resist with prayer, with truth, and with compassion. May Planned Parenthood be exposed.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

Overpopulation. From its usage in Thomas Malthus’s notorious 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population” to its resurgence in Paul Ehrlich’s 1960 “The Population Bomb,” the word invokes images of a bleak, hopeless future. As the story goes, the ever-increasing birth rate triggers rampant food shortages and systemic resource deprivation, culminating with the human race extinguishing itself. Ehrlich went as far to predict an imminent cataclysm: “England will not exist in the year 2000.”

The solution? In an effort to stave off this destruction, population control ensues.

We’ve witnessed it rear its dehumanizing head again and again. The U.S. Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell (famous for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes chilling phrase “three generations of imbeciles are enough”), which legalized eugenics in the United States. China’s former one-child policy, which resulted in coercive abortions and wreaked havoc on the nation’s food supply and labor force. The United Nations Population Fund, which promoted forced abortion and involuntary sterilization.

Now, population control has returned with a vengeance, reincarnated as the antidote to the Left’s favorite existential threat—climate change. According to the narrative, population growth correlates to detrimental environmental impact. As French President Emmanuel Macron said of Africa’s burgeoning population, “When countries still have seven to eight children per woman, you can decide to spend billions of euros, but you will not stabilize anything.” The Center for Biological Diversity launched a “condom campaign” to alert people to the perceived dangers of having children by distributing birth control in “colorful packages depicting endangered animals,” which sport poorly rhyming mantras like, “Wear a condom now, save the spotted owl.” Progressive author Jill Filipovic’s tweet, however, best encapsulates this ideology: “Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet. Have one less and conserve resources.”

First, progressives overstate the gravity of overpopulation. As the National Vital Statistics System noted, fertility rates are sharply declining, causing some perturbed scientists to foreshadow the antithesis of previous concerns–a population “implosion.” By implication, the data the Left uses to fuel overpopulation aversion is inconclusive at best. Furthermore, National Geographic points out that the entire world’s population could fit standing shoulder-to-shoulder in Los Angeles, which demonstrates the sheer amount of space in the world for each individual.

Second, population control—and along with it the mantra that discourages procreation to preserve spotted owls—severely devalues human life. As Alexandra Desanctis observes in the National Review: 

Who among us has the right to decide when a child is “extra,” and how many is too many? Or maybe we should get down to business right away and begin by eliminating all of the “extra” people currently milling about the globe, taxing the earth’s precious resources with their costly carbon dioxide emissions. Any volunteers?

She continues:

Of course, there’s a big difference between offing a child standing next to you and saying that people ought to choose not to have that child in the first place. But both presume that human life is valuable only if — and should be brought into the world only if — a certain subset of powerful and wise elites give the okay.

To classify children as a blight because of a tenuous connection with their carbon footprint, to caution parents to avoid children on the basis of preserving endangered species, to contend that procreation is one of the worst things for humanity are affronts to human life and have devastating repercussions for a shared public understanding of the value of human life.

Third, population control exacerbates the fundamental problem: government intervention. By essentially granting to the government the authority to determine who ought or ought not to live, population control legislation vests more power in humanity’s biggest killer.

Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, provides evidence that government interference harms humanity far more than does population growth: 

The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth. For example, Zimbabwe was agriculturally rich but, with government interference, was reduced to the brink of mass starvation. Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

In other words, population control enthusiasts miss the point. While they’re alleging that increasing population entails mass starvation, they miss the empirical reality that it is government interference, not population growth, that is the real problem for humanity.

Ultimately, only “greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law and an economic system closer to capitalism than to communism” comprise a system that solves the harms falsely imputed to overpopulation and ensures the protection of human value.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.