“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Stupak: Health Care Bill is About Eugenics

The interesting information regarding the plan for government health care and abortion just keeps coming.

Yesterday I examined Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) revelation that the reason congressional Democrats are so hell-bent on including taxpayer funding for abortion in the health care bill is that Dems see this as finally their big chance to get what they’ve wanted for so long; perhaps they figure if they can ram something so counterproductive and unconstitutional as government health care down our throats, we might not notice all the blood that comes with it in the form of taxpayer-funded abortion.

In RedState yesterday I read that there is an deeper layer to the dark designs of Washington liberals: eugenics.

The RedState piece refers heavily to a National Review piece a few days ago in which Stupak says the Democrat leadership wants abortion badly because killing off children before they can experience costly births (and subsequent medical care?) will save lots of money.

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

In an interesting connection, this ghastly ideology also ties back into the “green” movement. From the RedState piece:

Eugenics, indeed. See, not only can individual women be “punished by a baby,” but so can the entire World, evidently. This is one of the left’s dirty little secrets; factions of the left have been encouraging eugenics for years. The “green” movement, for instance, has population control at its core. An example from Diane Francis, of the Financial Post, who in her article entitled The Real Inconvenient Truth: The Whole World Needs to Adopt China’s One Child Policy, echoes the true beliefs of many global warming embracers. You know, like the majority of the Democrats in Congress and our President.

And, of course, these “champions of the poor” figure that many if not most of the children that will be aborted with taxpayer funds will be from the middle class and especially the poor.  It is well known that Planned Parenthood and the abortion-pushers are racist elitists who would love nothing more than to thin out the “undesirable” races and other dregs they consider unworthy to share the planet with.  They believe we really need to clean up the gene pool (where have we heard that before?).

You may recall that in addition to Marxists like the Chinese who think killing “excess” human beings is a great thing, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Dr James Hansen wants to plunge the United States two centuries back technologically…when plenty of people died from the primitive conditions in which they lived.  Even President Obama’s “science” advisor John Holdren wants the same thing, and also believes that a newborn (not unborn, newborn) child is not yet a human being; Holdren is a Malthusian population control fanatic.  Recently, some global warming freaks killed themselves and one of their children (the other child survived a gunshot wound).

So if you think these people aren’t serious, you’d better think again.

We cannot allow this inhuman, unconstitutional health care bill to pass.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


12 Responses to “Stupak: Health Care Bill is About Eugenics”

  1. I've heard it said that, as far as modern liberals are concerned, Hitler's crime was not his eugenicist policies; it was that he lost the war and gave those policies a bad image.

    Sometimes I think such a statement is an exaggeration; other times I'm not so sure.

  2. Eugenics has been the goal of abortion and now the Dems have shown us their true and honest motives. If you want more on this topic of Eugenics and Abortion – get a copy of a stunning Documentary produced by Life Dynamics, Inc. Called – Maafa21 You can watch a preview and puchase here: http://www.maafa21.com

  3. I think the point Bob is making is dead on ( pardon the unintentional pun). No doubt some liberals, don't know the percentage, feel this way. I have two liberal friends who make no bones about it- They say an embryo isn't a life so why not guard against overpopulation through abortion

  4. There are many european countries where abortion has been payed by the state for the last 20 years at least (for example France, Germany, England if your income is too low, Netherland also…), without it inducing any form of eugenism…

    Interestinly, studies have consistently found that countries with complete sexual education, as well as easy and affordable access to contraceptives are also the ones with the lowest rate of abortion and teen pregnancies. So maybe the best way to fight abortion would be by giving peoples all the knowledge and tools required to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

  5. Encouraging poor and “undesirables” to kill their own children–especially by using taxpayer's money–is itself eugenics when the intent is to clear away those “undesired” kind of people. Given that the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is probably the biggest pusher of abortion in the world, was founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, this is no leap at all.

    We already know that prenatal testing for genetic abnormalities–especially Down syndrome–is resulting in massive killing of unborn children who aren't just what their parents want. Gender based abortion is already widespread in many countries–especially China where it is creating serious problems for the men who are finding it increasingly difficult to find a mate.

    Abortion is itself morally abhorrent; when it is done for eugenics reasons, it becomes even more despicable.

    Finally, most if not all such studies like you mentioned are conducted by outfits like the Guttmacher Institute, the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood. Believing their biased “reports”–many of which have been proved embarrassingly skewed–is akin to believing a report by the wolves that hen-houses guarded by foxes are among the safest in the world.

    It is far better to teach our children that they are not animals, that they are human beings created in the image of God, are morally accountable for their actions, that sexuality has been given to them as a gift from their Creator to be used only within marriage. When we used to do that, teen pregnancy rates were indeed very low.

    It's time we quit expecting our children and adults to make sound moral decisions while teaching them how to avoid the consequences of immoral choices.

  6. …I found the statistic on abortion rate per country on the United Nation database (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inI…). It shows that US has the highest abortion rate compared to other developped european countries of christian heritage (France, Italy, Spain, Netherland…). In each of these countries, though, abortion is payed by the state.

    In addition, giving teens all the sexual education they need and affordable means of contraception is probably not going to turn them into wild animals, since the median age for first time sex in France, Italy, Spain and Netherland (between 18.1 and 19.2; chartsbin.com) can compare to that in the US (18.0).

  7. There are doubtless many factors that affect the abortion rate, but to assert that forcing the taxpayers to pay for murder lowers the abortion rate is asinine and defies common sense.

    And I would have to say that selling teens the “education” they need to have a better chance of avoiding the physical consequences of immoral choices has already turned them into wild animals.

    We must return to teaching our children that sex is a valuable thing that requires great responsibility to exercise, and that it should only be exercised within marriage. Let's stop treating them like animals.

  8. I did not want to say that having abortion funded would decrease it, but merely to point out that in countries where it is the case, abortion rates are not rising (people do not take advantage of it) and eugenism is not a reality either…

  9. While I'm sure that some who are eligible actually do not take advantage of taxpayer-funded abortion, the implied claim that few or none take advantage of it is an awful hard sell, as well.

    Even if few did take advantage, I don't want a single penny of mine going to fund the murder of an innocent child, and no one should be forced to pay for something they find so morally repugnant.

    Finally, eugenics is already a reality across the world, with parents killing children who aren't the “right” sex or who have genetic abnormalities, etc.

  10. Yes eugenism is a reality in some places like China, and India…however it is not very wise to choose these countries as an example of what could happen in the US if abortion was funded by the state…As you may know China and India are both developping countries, with a cultural background very different from the west.

    Had abortion not been available in these countries, sex ratio would still have been skewed toward less females: families would have killed or abandonned female babies (as it was the case in the chinese countryside not so many years ago), or, by providing them less care during childhood would have induced a higher mortality for this gender (http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html) …

  11. Yes, and human beings in the United States are just a better brand of human, aren't they? We're just inherently better than the Chinese or Indians, and we wouldn't possibly make the same mistakes as they, would we?

    You fail to acknowledge that this problem is one of character, one of evil, one of the fallen nature of humanity. If we adopt the same casual disregard for the value and sanctity of human life as they hold, we will end up in all the same traps they've fallen into. The only reason we have not so far is because until recently, we were a relatively moral people; our Christian heritage helped us avoid most of the ghastly horrors seen in other countries throughout history.But many in our culture are hell-bent on erasing this moral foundation, and we are already starting to see the ill effects of that.

    What makes it even worse is that our civilization has had far more freedom than any other nation–a good thing…until a people decides to stop restraining themselves through a solid moral foundation. Such a people, used to freedom and now also unrestrained by even an objective moral code? We have the potential to make the horrors seen in other countries pale in comparison.

    We must not abandon our moral foundation, and we must not treat human life like a commodity or something to be cast aside based on our definition of convenience.