By Kevin D. Williamson
Monday, June 19, 2017
Infanticide did not
go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization.
Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates
among leaders of thought and action.
— Margaret Sanger,
Woman and the New Race
Clarence C. Little was a cultivated man. He was a Harvard
graduate who served as president of the University of Maine and the University
of Michigan. He was one of the nation’s leading genetics researchers, with a
particular interest in cancer. He was managing director of the American Society
for the Control of Cancer, later known (in the interest of verbal economy) as
the American Cancer Society; the president of the American Eugenics Society,
later known (in the interest of not talking about eugenics) as the Society for
Biodemography and Social Biology; and a founding board member of the American
Birth Control League, today known (in the interest of euphemism) as Planned
Parenthood. His record as a scientist is not exactly unblemished — he will long
be remembered as the man who insisted that “there is no demonstrated causal
relationship between smoking or [sic]
any disease” — but he was the very picture of the socially conscious man of
science, without whom the National Cancer Institute, among other important
bodies, probably would not exist.
He was a humane man with horrifying opinions.
Little is one of the early figures in Planned Parenthood
whose public pronouncements, along with those of its charismatic foundress,
Margaret Sanger, often are pointed to as evidence of the organization’s racist
origins. (Students at the University of Michigan are, at the time of this
writing, petitioning to have his name stripped from a campus building.) Little
believed that birth-control policy should be constructed in such a way as to
protect “Yankee stock” — referred to in Sanger’s own work as “unmixed native
white parentage,” if Little’s term is not clear enough — from being overwhelmed
by what was at the time perceived as the dysgenic fecundity of African
Americans, Catholic immigrants, and other undesirables. (“The feebleminded are
notoriously prolific in reproduction,” Sanger reported in Woman and the New Race.) The question of racial differences was an
obsession of Little’s that went well beyond his interest in eugenics and
followed him to the end of his life; one of his later scientific works was “The
Possible Relation of Genetics to Differences in Negro–White Mortality Rates
from Cancer,” published in the 1960s.
The birth-control movement of the Progressive era is
where crude racism met its genteel intellectual cousin: Birth Control Review, the in-house journal of Planned Parenthood’s
predecessor organization, published a review, by the socialist intellectual
Havelock Ellis, of Lothrop Stoddard’s The
Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy. Ellis was an important
figure in Sanger’s intellectual development and wrote the introduction to her Woman and the New Race; Stoddard was a
popular birth-control advocate whose intellectual contributions included
lending to the Nazi racial theorists the term “untermensch” as well as
developing a great deal of their theoretical framework: He fretted about
“imperfectly Nordicized Alpines” and such. Like the other eugenics-minded
progressives of his time, he saw birth control and immigration as inescapably
linked issues.
Stoddard’s views were so ordinary a part of the
mainstream of American intellectual discourse at the time that F. Scott
Fitzgerald could refer to his work in The
Great Gatsby without fearing that general readers would be mystified by the
reference. What did Stoddard want? “We want above all things,” he wrote,
to preserve America. But “America,”
as we have already seen, is not a mere geographical expression; it is a nation,
whose foundations were laid over three hundred years ago by Anglo-Saxon
Nordics, and whose nationhood is due almost exclusively to people of North
European stock — not only the old colonists and their descendants but also many
millions of North Europeans who have entered the country since colonial times
and who have for the most part been thoroughly assimilated. Despite the recent
influx of alien elements, therefore, the American people is still predominantly
a blend of closely related North European strains, and the fabric of American
life is fundamentally their creation.
Yesterday’s scientific progressives are today’s romantic
reactionaries.
Sanger, who believed that the potential for high
civilization resided within “the cell plasms” of individual humans, made
statements that were substantially similar: “If we are to develop in America a
new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our
ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction
beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming
generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert
individuals as are the ideal of a democracy.”
Such was the intellectual ferment out of which rose the
American birth-control movement — or, rather, the American birth-control
movements, of which there were really two. Sanger, working within the
socialist–feminist alliance of her time, was a self-styled radical who
published a short-lived journal called “The Woman Rebel,” the aim of which as
described in its inaugural issue was “to stimulate working women to think for
themselves and to build up a conscious fighting character.” To fight what?
“Slavery through motherhood.” The Post Office refused to circulate the
periodical, a fact that The Woman Rebel
reported with glee: “The woman rebel feels proud the post office authorities
did not approve of her. She shall blush with shame if ever she be approved of
by officialism or ‘comstockism.’” But Sanger and her clique did not have a
monopoly on the birth-control market. Her rival was Mary Ware Dennett, founder
of — see if this name sounds familiar — the Voluntary Parenthood League (VPL).
Where Sanger was a radical, Dennett was a liberal,
couching her advocacy in the familiar language of the American
civil-libertarian tradition. She was an ally of the American Civil Liberties
Union, which had defended her when she was charged with distributing birth-control
literature classified (as most of it was at the time) as “obscene.” While
Sanger’s organization was focused on setting up birth-control clinics (the
first was in Brooklyn), Dennett’s group was focused on lobbying Congress for
the legalization of contraception. Sanger’s group was characterized by a
top-down management structure (the local affiliates had no say in American
Birth Control League policymaking) and a cash-on-the-barrelhead approach to
social reform: Its membership and coffers were swelled in no small part by the
fact that the ABCL would not provide birth-control literature to anyone who was
not a dues-paying member.
As Linda Gordon put it in The Moral Property of Woman: A History of Birth-Control Politics:
Increasingly the ABCL organized its
local affiliates as upper-class women’s clubs, even high-society charity
groups. In 1926, league organizing in Philadelphia was focused mainly on women
of the Main Line, a group of extremely wealthy suburbs. In Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Mrs. C. C. Edmonds, of 1414 Wealthy St., S.E., was collecting
“influential people” for a local group. New York meetings were held in the Bryn
Mawr Club. These details pile up, drawing an unmistakable picture of an
organization of privileged women.
In the contest between the ABCL and VPL, we see the
familiar struggle that has long characterized the broader American Left: On one
hand, there are liberals advocating a legislative reform project through
ordinary democratic means; on the other hand are progressives, often led by
radicals, who are engaged in a social-change project based on coopting
institutions and the expertise and prestige associated with them. Gordon
concludes: “It was Sanger’s courting of doctors and eugenists that moved the
ABCL away from both the Left and liberalism, away from both socialist-feminist
impulses and civil liberties arguments toward an integrated population ‘program
for the whole society.’”
Which is to say, the word “planned” in “Planned
Parenthood” can be understood to function as it does in the other great
progressive dream of the time: “planned economy.”
Who plans for whom?
Sanger herself was generally careful to forswear
compulsion in her eugenics program, but in reality the period was characterized
by the widespread use of involuntary sterilization. Mandatory-sterilization
bills were introduced unsuccessfully in Michigan and Pennsylvania at the end of
the 19th century, but in 1907 Indiana became the first of many states to create
eugenics-oriented sterilization programs, targeting such “unfit” populations as
criminals and the mentally ill, along with African Americans (60 percent of the
black mothers at one Mississippi hospital were involuntarily sterilized) and
other minority groups. The Oregon state eugenics board was renamed but was not
disbanded until the 1980s. About 65,000 people in the United States were
involuntarily sterilized.
European programs went even further, with the Swiss
experiment in involuntary sterilization drawing the attention of Havelock
Ellis, who wrote up his views in “The Sterilization of the Unfit.” Ellis, too,
objected to compulsory measures — up to a point. “There will be time to invoke
compulsion and the law,” he wrote, “when sound knowledge has become universal,
and when we are quite sure that those who refuse to act in accordance with
sound knowledge refuse deliberately.” He did not have access to the modern
progressive term “denialist,” but the argument is familiar: Once the science is
settled, then the state is empowered to act on it through whatever coercive
means are necessary to achieve the end. Two recent press releases from the
pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, both from May, are headlined: “State
Abortion Restrictions Flying in the Face of Science” and “Many Abortion Restrictions
Have No Rigorous Scientific Basis.”
Progressives holding views closer to those of the
proto-Nazi Lothrop Stoddard frequently talked about eugenics in zoological
terms, but, in the main, eugenics was subordinated to the larger progressive
economic agenda: the management of productive activity by enlightened experts.
The great economic terrors among progressives of the time were “overproduction”
and “destructive competition,” both of which were thought to put downward
pressure on wages, profits, and, subsequently, standards of living.
Contraception was widely understood as a political solution to a
supply-and-demand problem, with birth control understood as one element in a
broad and unified program of economic control. Ellis sums up this view in his
foreword to Sanger’s Woman and the New
Race:
The modern Woman Movement, like the
modern Labour Movement, may be said to have begun in the Eighteenth century.
The Labour movement arose out of the Industrial Revolution with its resultant
tendency to over-population, to unrestricted competition, to social misery and
disorder. The Woman Movement appeared as an at first neglected by-product of
the French Revolution with its impulses of general human expansion, of freedom
and of equality. . . . Woman, by virtue of motherhood, is the regulator of the
birthrate, the sacred disposer of human production. It is in the deliberate
restraint and measurement of human production that the fundamental problems of
the family, the nation, the whole brotherhood of mankind find their solution.
The health and longevity of the individual, the economic welfare of the
workers, the general level of culture of the community, the possibility of
abolishing from the world the desolating scourge of war — all these like great
human needs, depend, primarily and fundamentally, on the wise limitation of the
human output.
Or, as Sanger insisted: “War, famine, poverty, and
oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap.”
There is more to this history than exegesis of
Progressive-era thinking. It is significant that Sanger’s birth-control
movement, and not Dennett’s, came to dominate the field. The financially driven
structure of local affiliates working in complete subordination to a tightly
controlled national body of course survives in the modern iteration of Planned
Parenthood, but, more important, so does the humans-as-widgets conception of
sexuality and family life. The eugenic habit of mind very much endures, though
it is less frequently spoken of plainly.
In his Buck v. Bell
decision — confirming that involuntary-sterilization programs pass
constitutional muster “for the protection and health of the state” — the great
humanist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. declared: “Three generations of imbeciles
are enough.” Never having been overturned, Buck
remains, in theory, the law of the land. But that was long ago. And yet:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a reliable supporter of abortion rights, has
described Roe v. Wade as being a
decision about population control,
“particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Like Ellis and Sanger, Ginsburg worries that, without government intervention,
birth control will be disproportionately practiced by the well-off and not by
the members of those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In
an interview with Elle, Ginsburg
said, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor
people.” That wasn’t 1927 — it was 2014. A co-counsel for the winning side of Roe v. Wade, Ron Weddington, advised
President Bill Clinton that an expanded national birth-control policy
incorporating ready access to pharmaceutical abortifacients promised immediate
benefits: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated,
unhealthy, and poor segment of our country. It’s what we all know is true, but
we only whisper it.”
But it is not true that we only whisper it. In Freakonomics, one of the most popular
economics books of recent years, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner argued
that abortion has measureable eugenic effects through reduction in crime rates.
Of course that debate has an inescapable racial aspect: “Fertility declines for
black women are three times greater than for whites (12 percent compared with 4
percent). Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times
higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects
of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions,” Levitt
and a different co-author had written in a paper that the book drew from.
Whatever the merits of this argument, it is very much in line with the
classical progressive case for birth control, which was developed as a national
breed-improvement project rather than one of individual women’s choices. Linda Gordon
notes: “A content analysis of the Birth
Control Review showed that by the late 1920s only 4.9 percent of its
articles in that decade had any concern with women’s self-determination.”
The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret
Sanger in 1921, working out of office space provided by the American Eugenics
Society. Sanger would depart seven years later as part of a factional dispute,
with various elements of her organization eventually reunited in 1939 as the
Birth Control Federation of America. But the words “birth control” at that time
were considered public-relations poison, and so in 1942 the organization was
renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Sanger herself often wrote critically about abortion,
which, especially early in her career, she classified alongside infanticide,
offering contraception as the obvious rational alternative to such savagery.
Her arguments will sound at least partly familiar to modern ears: “Do we want
the millions of abortions performed annually to be multiplied? Do we want the
precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial
development, to perish in these sordid, abnormal experiences?” But that line of
thinking was not destined to endure, and by the 1950s Planned Parenthood was
working for the liberalization of abortion laws. Sanger’s successor,
obstetrician Alan Frank Guttmacher, also served as vice president of the
American Eugenics Society and was a signer of the second “Humanist Manifesto,”
which called for the worldwide recognition of the right to birth control and
abortion and, harkening back to the 1920s progressives, the extension of
“economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing
portions of the globe.” The repeated identification of birth control with
national economic planning rather than women’s individual autonomy is worth
noting.
Continuing Sanger’s strategy of courting elite opinion as
a more effective form of lobbying, Planned Parenthood’s medical director, Mary
Calderone, convened a conference of her fellow physicians in 1955 to begin
pressing for the legalization of abortion for medical purposes. By 1969, the
demand for therapeutic abortions had grown to a demand for the legalization of
abortion in all circumstances, which remains Planned Parenthood’s position
today and, thanks in no small part to its very effective litigation efforts, is
the law of the land.
As in Sanger’s time, Planned Parenthood keeps an eye on
the money and has a corporate gift for insinuation: It lobbied the Nixon
administration successfully for an amendment to public-health laws, as a result
of which the organization today pulls in more than half a billion dollars in
federal-government funds alone, largely through Medicaid. In 1989, it founded
an advocacy arm, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, that today encompasses a
political-action committee and super PAC that ranks No. 23 out of 206
outside-spending groups followed by OpenSecrets.org, putting a little over $12
million into almost exclusively Democratic pockets during the 2016 election
cycle.
Is it working? Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color against White World
Supremacy, might be gratified to note that, in Planned Parenthood’s
hometown of New York City, a black woman is more likely to have an abortion
than to give birth: 29,007 abortions to 24,108 births in 2013. African
Americans represent about 12 percent of the population and about 36 percent of
the abortions; Catholics, disproportionately Hispanic and immigrant, represent
24 percent. In total, one in five U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages)
ends in abortion, and most women who have abortions already have at least one
child. The overwhelming majority of them (75 percent, as Guttmacher reckons it)
are poor. The public record includes no data about the “feebleminded” or
otherwise “unfit,” but the racial and income figures suggest that Planned
Parenthood is today very much functioning as its Progressive-era founders
intended.
If Planned Parenthood’s operating model remains familiar
after 100 years, so does the rhetoric of the abortion movement. Sanger herself
relayed the experience of the Scottish ethnologist John Ferguson McLennan:
“When a traveller reproached the women of one of the South American Indian
tribes for the practice of infanticide, McLennan says he was met by the retort,
‘Men have no business to meddle with women’s affairs.’”
No comments:
Post a Comment