vote for america

UPDATE: Check out Keith DeHavelle‘s comment here. It adds considerable firepower to this post. I also suggest you visit his blog.  What he posts is definitely worth stopping by to read.

What caused me to write this post? I am usually quite content to let the comments I receive drive my the subject of my posts, and this one is driven by quite a few.

Does Planned Parenthood Use Taxpayer Funds To Pay For Abortions?

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. (origin)

When I advocated cutting Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, insanitybytes22 quite reasonably observed that because it is illegal to use Federal funds to pay for abortions, the bill before Congress would not do anything (comment here). Since is a smart lady, I was kind of puzzled. That did not square with the controversy in Congress. Fortunately, Keith DeHavelle added some clarification to the matter (comment here). So I was fairly satisfied I was on the right track. Nevertheless, when I got a comment from Steven Hoyt (here) stating unequivocally that  “NO federal funds are used for abortion aside from incest, rape, and endangerment to the mother,” I decided it was time to post something.

If you google “the hyde amendment banned the use of federal funds for abortions,” what you will get is a bunch of organization whining on how the Hyde Amendment violates women’s rights. This law prevent Federal funds from paying for abortions. If you want to know when the so-called Pro-Choice crowd thinks, click on the link.

This excerpt from is especially ironic.

The Hyde Amendment has a disproportionate impact on women of color, both because women of color are more likely to live in poverty and to rely on Medicaid for health care, and because women of color are also more likely to seek abortion care.  (from here)

Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood as a eugenics program design to get rid of colored people (see GROSSU: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire).

So how does Planned Parenthood use the money we give them? It is just a matter how they account for the money. They say they don’t use Federal funds to pay for abortions. Here are some articles on the subject. Because the Liberals own the media and clutter both the air waves and the Internet with nonsense, it takes more effort to find a Conservative viewpoint.

What the articles above illustrate is how some people view telling the truth.

It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. — Bill Clinton (from here)

In part two, I intend to respond to some of commenters on THE PRECIOUS HUMAN LIFE AND THE ABORTION FACTOR.

Steven Hoyt started a debate over the value of voting. I tend to think the fact we have to debate such a thing amazingly stupid, but it is common enough for Christians to want nothing to do with the dirty business of politics. It is, after all, a dirty business. Don’t we have to work with other disagreeable human beings?

Keith DeHavelle is very knowledgeable and erudite. So I will steal some more of his material.

exploringthegreatknown writes with a special degree of kindness and gentleness, and is unafraid to reference the Bible. I hope to incorporate some his thoughts and add my own perspective.

Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to add their own two cents, please do so.


  1. Tom, well meaning blogs are like a one grain of sand in our world………….

    Reality is that probably the only ones that read or listen to inspirational blog messages are the people that need the message the least.

    And one grain of sand in an ocean is not going to stem the tide.

    Reality is what reality is. We cannot make someone listen that does not want to hear,.

    However, we can make them listen if we send a message at the same time they are “eating” garbage to remind them they will have a responsible to clean up their messes if they drop any of the garbage from their orifices on someone else’s table.

    Regards and goodwill blogging..


    1. @scatterwisdom

      There are over seven billion people. Each of us is small in that sense. Yet is government the only way we can combine our efforts? I think not.

      One other thought. We don’t have the right to make someone else listen. We don’t have the right to take someone else’s money and spend it on propaganda they don’t support. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Never have.

      What we do have a right to do is demand that people clean up their own messes. What is happening now is that folks are using the power of government to foist the consequences of their actions onto taxpayers. That just enables immoral behavior.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We can make people listen if it will cause harm to other citizens. Public messages should only tell people what are public threats or consequences for foolish actions that will cause other citizens or taxpayers to clean up thier messes.

        Regarda and gooodwill blogging

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @scatterwisdom

          I like the fact you are interested in only using public messages to protect people from harm, but I don’t think you have thought this through.

          Let’s briefly consider a real-world example, one that young people must deal with. Suppose we want to protect young people from the consequences of premarital sex. The problem? What should be the content of our message? There are options.
          1. Do we want young people to use condoms?
          2. Do we want young people to abstain from premarital sex?
          3. Do we want young people to engage solely in same-sex sex?
          4. Is our focus unintended pregnancy?
          5. Is our focus disease?
          6. Are we concerned about the disastrous effect that learning to “score” has upon marital fidelity and the stability of families?
          7. And so forth.

          To get control of the government so that the government peddles the message that we desire, we must cobble together a public relations program. That raises a question. If we can cobble together such a program, then why do we need the government to peddle our message?

          Meanwhile, because the mass media likes government to sponsor commercials, we have set ourselves up as an advocates for government spending on commercials. Therefore, we are encouraging what can easily become (and is) an illicit relationship between the mass media and government.

          If we are interested in morality, we probably ought to make our own commercials. On the other hand, if we are Planned Parenthood, we probably ought to ask Congress to give us lots of money to make commercials. After all, we want to make certain that whatever the government says about sex it does not leave out the option for an abortion.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Tom, you stated.

            “I like the fact you are interested in only using public messages to protect people from harm, but I don’t think you have thought this through.”

            I believe I have thought it through based on my personal experiences.

            If you check my previous post, I stated It pays to advertise. Mass media public awareness messages should be done free of charge to the Government that has the power to license programming over our nation’s air waves. If a media source will not help you, make it known that the number of public awareness messages will be a consideration of granting licenses in the future.”

            You stated,

            “On the other hand, if we are Planned Parenthood, we probably ought to ask Congress to give us lots of money to make commercials. After all, we want to make certain that whatever the government says about sex it does not leave out the option for an abortion.”

            I believe if the government gave us the money to pay for public awareness messages, the mass media would double and quad triiple the costs for air time same as most service providers have done whenever the government gets involved in making payments for public welfare.

            If you will bear with me, I will give you a personal example I have experienced with drug costs I have been using for over fifty years to control a debilitating lung problem. Before Medicare Part D law was enacted, my monthly drug cost for one particular drug was $35 a month. For some reason the politicians who agreed to the new law put in a stipulation that our government cannot negotiate the cost of drugs with drug manufacturers. You can use your imagination why and how that political stipulation came about.

            Now the same drug costs me $435 a month. I pay $45 a month for Part D Medicare coverage which puts me in the donut hole in six months. That requires that for six months I must pay out of pocket $200 a month for the same drug plus still pay $45 a month for the Medicare Coverage. Why a drug that was sold for $35 and 20 years later cost $435 would make any economics professor who teaches economy of scale theory sound like a laughable fool.

            That is why the government should not pay for any public awareness messages.

            As for your points about the government messages promoting promiscuity, I agree.

            However, if the public messages were only to serve as warnings for CDC messages in prime time, I believe in time the present epidemic of STD would in time be reduces. In case you do not know, 65 million Americans have an STD disease right now..

            And if people were warned often enough that using a gun in the commission of a crime would result in mandatory jail sentences, perhaps the youth and gang members watching TV or listening to druggie songs might be a little more fearful of using a gun and especially pulling the triggers on guns.

            In other words, these people do not or probably will never go to church to hear a moral sermon, so you have to get the message to them somehow.

            What is being done now is not working, that is for sure, in my humble opinion.

            Thanks for commenting. I value your input, because it serves to sharpen my stones as to why I believe I have a valid worthwhile message about mandatory public awareness messages becoming a law to help reduce drugs, alcohol, and violence in the USA.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.


          2. You mentioned your experience with prescription drug prices. I can empathize with this. I will get a prescription drug delivery by 7pm this evening, which will last me until the 27th. The ticket price is $38,809.96, then I will need to get another few weeks’ supply.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Thank you. It is IVIg, intravenous immunoglobulin. Made from the blood of at least 10,000 persons (the specified minimum), mixed in a pot, strained, purified, condensed, and then pumped in over the course of a few hours.

            This sounds terrible, but is not: I get the infusions at home and continue working with the IV bag hung around my neck. It’s about $19k for 200 milliliters. A gallon would thus be $353,096.47 — but it takes me almost a year to go through a gallon of the stuff.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          4. Sheesh!!!!!! I cannot imagine how the price of that stuff could be lowered.

            Do they deliver in an armored truck?
            I suppose not; it would be so hard to find buyers only a fool would steal it.

            I assume you need IVIg because you have something similar to the Guillain–Barré syndrome. Did the docs ever nail down exactly what you do have?


          5. @scatterwisdom

            Well, it seems you understand government cannot be trusted. Nevertheless, …..

            If you have not done so, I suggest you read Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville. In this post I have an excerpt from the section I think applies to this discussion =>

            You know there was time Americans had a special knack for organizing to solve problems. Some how we lost that. Instead, we organize to get government to spend money, and we don’t solve problems. We just make new problems.


  2. “Whenever liberals defend Planned Parenthood, steam shoots out of my ears when they insist that not a penny of the $500 million they receive from the feds goes towards abortions. Clearly, they assume that everyone is as stupid as they are. Look at it this way: if I have a thousand dollars and you give me $500 on the condition that I don’t spend it buying a gun, all I have to do is spend $500 of my own money on the gun. Then, thanks to your generosity, I still have $1,000 … and a gun!” –Burt Prelutsky

    Liked by 1 person

  3. You are right about government not being the ideal messenger. However, the mass medial has only one objective, make money, Feeding more and more garbage into the minds of our impressionable children without considering the potential harmful consequences is of little concern to money mongers.

    If a public message only helped one child become aware of the potential consequences of a foolish action, in my opinion, it would be meaningful. Since the cost of advertisements during prime time cost millions of dollars per second or minute, and a government for the people is the only one who can influence mass media to comply in order to obtain an air wave license, we need to make use of the same powers of the waves they are polluting to clean up or pick up their garbage.

    It is not ideal or compatible to a church sermon, however, it is better than doing nothing and sitting by watching our nation’s youth being persuaded to swim in bigger and deeper pools of garbage.

    The other reality is the same government of the people, many well intentioned, passed laws to make single parenting possible with food stamps and aid etc.,By doing so, our government promoted a significant number of unsupervised youth to result in our nation. We need to make the mass media as well as ourselves be both responsible and accountable for our follies. intentional or unintentional..

    Regards and goodwill blogging..


    1. @scatterwisdom

      Your blog is more effective than the government-run propaganda program you want.

      Why is the mass media so full of garbage? The answer is that our government-run education promotes the values that allow people to watch the garbage on the mass media without feeling guilty. That same government is incapable of producing any propaganda that would encourage the voters to feel any guilt.


  4. “More than once I’ve warned them that I am not old enough for that sort of language.”

    That was such an awesome comment, Keith, all of it. I share your sentiments. It is absolutely appalling what is going on in the world today. I too am torn between being grateful for the declining attention spans and being concerned about it. The kids, grandkids think I’m being old fashioned or something, but they have been so slowly conditioned to the world that they just can’t see it anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It all starts at the top.

      That is why I believe it would help to issue public awareness messages over the same air waves to remind all of us about reality and to be fearful of the consequences of foolish actions. Messages about what type of jobs are in demand. where and how to obtain skills for the jobs, Messages of the STD and drug addiction epidemics now being experienced in the USA. Why, when someone pays money for a drug, the money helps promote more people to become slaves to drug dealers. etc. etc. How money saved over time adds up over time instead of being wasted on drugs and entertainment toys they will become bored with after a short time.

      In other words, make children think about their future instead of wasting their short times in life watching the future pass by them. One little message or warning does not work well, It takes constant reminders to wake up someone to realize the consequence of foolish actions and the rewards of wise decisions..

      A wise person once told me that the first one hundred years in life will be the hardest. He was right. The problems we face daily will never be solved. We need to constantly prepare ourselves for the worse and at the same time enjoy the best of times that will only come about as the result of our actions, be the actions of love or wisdom. .

      Regards and goodwill blogging.. .

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @scatterwisdom

        We are and were conditioned to think of government as the solution. Consider again what Keith said about our government and the mass media and how both condition children. Consider that to a lesser degree we were also conditioned.

        So we tend to think that the solution for every problem, even the problems caused by too much government, is more government.

        Consider what you proposed.

        That is why I believe it would help to issue public awareness messages over the same air waves to remind all of us about reality and to be fearful of the consequences of foolish actions.

        Who would you have produce such messages? Have you considered that such messages might help, but it would do no good if the government produced them? In fact, our government already produces huge numbers of such messages. Yet government officials are always happy to take up suggestions such as your own, act as if no money is already being spent on such messages, and spend more.

        It makes me want to cry. We are all such fools! We need to pray for God’s help, not our government’s.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Keith should get a job informing Congress facts about issues.Eight or nine GOP votes crossed over on this issue and took sides with the pro choicers, Why I do not understand? Anyone who ever took an elementary accounting course would understand how easy it is to doctor up funds moving from one account to another. In the USA, accounting is an ‘art’ wheras In Europe it is a ‘science. In other words this means no creative accounting. Instead every cost has to follow set rules rather than allow accountants to paint false or pretty pictures for gullible fools.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I expect that “pork” as a term for political largess resulting from Congressional logrolling may be soon outlawed. Not the concept, just the word used to describe it. A century ago, the standard term for this was “applesauce” — and that term would not offend the rapidly increasing Islamic population of the US.

        They were just successful this month in having pork removed from the menus of all federal prisons.

        And across Europe, the UK, Canada and now beginning in the US, they are successfully getting pork out of schools. The Dearborn school advisory committee is recommending that pork not just be removed from the menus, but that all mentions of pork products be banned from being even mentioned in the curriculum (and the Muslim holidays get added). The supposed motivation is to “prevent obesity.”

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        1. What I object to most is the lies. People don’t like pork? That’s absurd. That’s a lie, but lying is what the Washington Post does.

          The notion that people don’t like the taste of pork products is also idiotic. There is the possibility political correctness, however.

          I work at a Federal facility. The cafeteria is generally good and inexpensive (people have a choice of going elsewhere or bringing their lunch.). When the cooks prepare a BLT, they pile on the bacon. That bacon loaded BLT is very popular (and I have been known to eat one). When they serve an entree with pork chops, I usually get it. Admittedly, bacon is bit too rich, but, depending upon how they are cooked, pork chops are tasty and healthy enough even for an old man like me. Pig meat just has to be well-cooked.

          What is happening in the public school system is criminal. We can’t get government out of the education business soon enough. If Muslims, Jews, vegetarians, so-called environmentalists, and politically correct busybodyists don’t want to eat pork chops, nobody should make them. On the other hand, what right do any of these people have to force others to give up pork? Are we their prisoners? If we want to punish inmates in the Federal prisons with tasteless food, we can point to the obvious. Why should anyone expect good food in prison (We can get rid of cable TV too.), but what gives our government the right to punish plain, ordinary citizens with the strange beliefs of minority religious groups?


    1. Thank you! It is a role I would greatly enjoy. While running a business for decades (and more recently, writing science research and similar proposals), I’ve always keenly felt that a job teaching would have suited my inclinations rather well. I’d have been delighted to home-school the two children in the home I’m in … but they seem intent to prove that no one can teach them anything at all, so there is no motivation to remove them as wards of the government system.

      Perhaps Congress would be a bit like this.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “but they seem intent to prove that no one can teach them anything at all, so there is no motivation to remove them as wards of the government system.”

        Your above remark reminds me of the same frustration a certain wiseman seemed to have observed three thousand years ago.

        He also stated this about never stop trying.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.



        1. I do not give up. I know what you think of my sort of philosophy, but I am endeavoring to help these kids see good, desire good, and do good in the world. This involves fighting a considerable headwind, much of which originates in the popular culture, from vulgarity-laden television (for kids!) to propaganda-filled curricula in their schools. Perhaps the happiest notion (!) is that they are not even learning much of that with the attention spans they have developed through their device additions. The television, however, sticks all too well due to the countless hours spent absorbing it. The few minutes I’ve seen of it is shudderingly bad.

          When I took a look at what the parents were watching when the family was together, it was “Cops”: a show about the dregs of humanity like the kids’ shows, but with real (pathetic) people rather than animations. Whether planned or not, these hapless miscreants and criminals are today’s role models.

          The kid-show animations are done with nonsensical stories and agonizing styles that we’d advanced past much of a century ago. But they include sexuality and language astounding in its vile inappropriateness for young people — and that is now the language of my young grandchildren. More than once I’ve warned them that I am not old enough for that sort of language. But for them, they understand that it is necessary to be cool in today’s society. They get no arguments on this at home, other than from me.

          Imagine the animators who worked so hard on Fantasia in the 1930s, each frame of hundreds of thousands painstakingly handcrafted to produce a beautiful effect. Give those animators a peek at what would be possible in the future — the animation of Earth in WALL•E, or of Pandora in Avatar. They would be appropriately impressed. But then show them children’s television in 2015: South Park, King Star King, Mr. Pickles, the Simpsons … and you’d have a lot of explaining to do. Not just the animation … everything about them. Regardless of how much you might personally like these shows, recognize them as teaching children how to act, and the perspective changes a bit.

          And this is the how, what and why we are teaching those children and young adults — so that they will vote in local and national elections. They know every foul word for every body part or excretion, they can master every vile insult that has been drilled into their souls, but they have no idea that our government even has three parts, let alone their intended purpose. They see government only as the beneficent caretaker that they’ve been taught they need (without actually thinking about this), and they vote for it — and thus offset the vote of you, or me, or Citizen Tom. That is the significance of their vote, at least.

          This is why I continue to strive against these effects. My opponents include vulgar paper cutout of a hillbilly squid, and a textbook full of Howard Zinn’s communist diatribes against America. Perhaps it is a blessing that the teenagers can only remember the squid’s asinine sex jokes, and not the communist rants. But the subject matter of these two education sources overlaps more each day.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

          1. When my eldest child was about two, I threw the TV out. An no, I am not some paragon of virtue. My wife complained about the sex and the violence, and I just got tired of arguing. So in an angry moment, I just threw our TV in a garbage can.

            In addition, my wife insisted we send our children to private, Christian schools. Thus, we eliminated two of the enemy’s main propaganda tools.

            Did our children grow up to become perfect? No, but to help them form good consciences, we did not have to contend as much against our society.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. Well said, Tom. Thanks for the links too, I enjoy reading people who really give these matters some thought.

    It never ceases to amaze me how Margaret Sanger’s eugenics ideas are so ignored and disregarded these days, the truth and reality of what what she was advocating so hidden.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @insanitybytes22

      What is funny usually has a bit of truth. Hence, when wives accuse their husbands of selective hearing, there are grounds for a bit of bite as well as laughter. Nevertheless, the selective hearing of the average husband doesn’t come close to that of a supporter for Planned Parenthood.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. IB – do you think her ideas on eugenics are ignored and disregarded because they are pure, racially motivated looniness? Just maybe? Why would it amaze you? In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a lot of pseudo-science going around re racial superiority and sound “breeding” practices in the human race. It wasn’t just Sanger – she may have been the least of it. Eugenics shall free us was the order of the day in certain European and American circles, some of which ended up having direct intellectual links to the later arising Nazi phenomenon. It was, of course, pure, evil hokum. But I don’t think it odd at all that that sort of thing would have been relegated to the dustbin of history and that Sanger might be better remembered for other things. The more alarming outcome would have been that people like Sanger and the more prominent advocates of these theories, like Chamberlain, would be lionized today for their views.



      1. “IB – do you think her ideas on eugenics are ignored and disregarded because they are pure, racially motivated looniness?”

        I think they are ignored, or rather covered up and hidden from view, because they reveal the truth of the thinking behind abortion. Actually Sanger herself once explained it as, “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…” If that is your agenda, it sells much better if you instead speak of empowerment and women’s rights.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @novascout

        There is a bit of truth in your observation. Lots of otherwise well-meaning people thought eugenics offered potential to easily improve the qualities of the human species. Sanger, however, gave the matter sufficient thought to understand the moral pitfalls. Consider what she meant by eugenics. Organizations like Planned Parenthood kill lots of babies, especially black and brown babies ( Consider who most devotedly supports the practice of abortion. The Democratic Party, that party that promoted black enslavement, that party that supported the KKK and Jim Crow laws, eagerly promotes government funding of abortion.

        Eugenics was especially popular with the Nazis, by the way. When our soldiers entered the concentrations camps where the Nazis tried to exterminate the unfit, that opened up a few eyes. “Oh! That’s what people mean by eugenics.” Just the same, our own experiment in eugenics, Planned Parenthood calls it family planning, continues.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. The idea that “the parties swapped on racism” is a popular notion, and is promulgated by left-dominated sites (which unfortunately includes Wikipedia with regard to political topics). It does not bear close scrutiny, however. The Democrats are today the party that continues to keep blacks in a subservient, dependent status, and remain the party of racism. To avoid this stigma, they are quick to shout “Racist” at others. But they get tangled up in this by the fact that only Democrats attack politically active blacks merely because of their race — they are quick to attempt to destroy the careers of blacks who are conservative, and trot out every racist trope imaginable in that pursuit. They do the same thing to gays, of course: A gay conservative is subject to attack by the team of Democrats put together for just this purpose, to destroy the careers of any who are “traitors to their orientation.”

            When the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws — and this is not New Deal time, but extended into the 1960s — were no longer an issue, things changed in the South. But at the same time, conservative social values were being abandoned by Democrats, and this resulted in some migration from the party. People love to pounce on Strom Thurmond — but he was a major player getting the practice of lynching abolished, and was a key person promoting education for blacks in the south. He had been applauded and awarded by the NAACP — and thus doesn’t quite fit the “racist Republican” stereotype that the media tries to pin these days on the South.

            Anecdotally, from my spending time with politically active family members in the South in their interactions with people from Florida to West Virginia, racism among modern-day Democrats is still rampant. In fact, other family members, who actually are Democrats and in other parts of the country, sadly reinforce this too often.

            Superficially, you could sum it up this way: When a racist Republican politician is encountered, it horrifies his fellows and he is castigated. When a racist Democrat politician is encountered, it is buried by his fellows and he is elected. Over and over. While they call their opponents racists.

            The whole “Tea Party is Racist!” meme has been long since exposed as fraudulent, and has involved Democrats (and La Rouche members) infiltrating to hold up racist signs and get photographed before being chased off. Selective media treatment here is blatant, including the same reporter who had earlier called a costume of Bush as Satan “a good likeness” was later horrified at the racial implications of a costume showing Obama as Satan.

            I’ve seen some good details of this process written up. But in short, it is always good to approach Wikipedia’s treatment of controversial matters with great caution.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Keith

            Thanks for the comment. After your exhaustive treatment of the past, I decided to focus on the present and the practical implications of what the Democrats are doing.


          3. @Virginia Johnson

            Thank you for visiting and for commenting.

            From time to time I use Wikipedia as a source. However, as Keith illustrated, Wikipedia is not always reliable. The headache with any source is some person has to write it, and we are full of our own biases. Therefore, we have to research and consider multiple sources, but, like it or not, with respect to something as complex as history we will never get the exact truth, just an approximation.

            So how can we know the truth about the Democratic Party? I suggest you consider the here and now. What is the practical effect of their policies? Do they demonstrate an obsession with race?

            Over the years the Democrats (with a bit too much acquiescence from Republicans) have created a welfare state. Unfortunately, all that government spending empowers politicians, not the people.

            So why do we put up with all that government spending? The Democrats divide and conquer us by pitting us against each other. They use our envy, our greed, our laziness, our fears, and so forth to separate us by economic class, by race, by religion, by sexual preference, by our disabilities, by our professions, by our hobbies, and so forth.

            Consider yourself. What has your congressman or congresswoman offered you in return for your vote? Will you give your congressman your vote in return for this goody, or will you vote for what is best for our country? That is your choice. That is the choice we all have to make.


      3. Sanger is indeed lionized, including quite recently by Hillary Clinton. Her championing of eugenics was, as you pointed out, not unique to Sanger; these were the common views of the progressive elite.

        For example, at the time of the famous 1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee over the teaching of evolution versus creationism, the officially sanctioned textbooks (originating in California). This book represented the “five human races” as ranging from the most advanced and superior (Caucasian) to the most primitive and inferior (Negroid), complete with sketches of of a gentleman in Victorian dress and an African tribesman in loincloth to drive the point home. This is what the communist progressives wanted taught exclusively in schools, so they ramped up the ACLU to create and then prosecute the Scopes trial. (ACLU had existed for a five years prior to the Scopes trial, but had done little other than take care of Communist Party members.)

        Sanger’s one-time lover HG Wells was interesting here. This major player in Fabian socialism was also a big proponent of eugenics, but did not consider all blacks to be inferior as Sanger did. But he sought the end of the United States by having it consumed in the world government (he literally wrote the book The New World Order). And he was pro-Stalin: “I have never met a man more fair, candid, and honest.” He did consider Jews inferior, and expected them to be assimilated into civilized society or die out. (He was quite the anti-Zionist.) Thus, he was progressive through and through.

        Eugenics laws originated during progressive Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency, and operated in various parts in the United States for decades. By the time of the Scopes trial, sterilization of the “unfit” was a popular idea and was the law in many states, with progressive California leading the way. Those laws were still operating in our lifetimes, yours and mine, and some doctors who performed eugenics sterilizations (as HG Wells promoted in books and lectures) are still alive.

        Sanger, Wells and many others privately believed that genocide and euthanasia would be prudent, but only the most progressive (like George Bernard Shaw) would say so publicly. Some state laws copied language from Sanger and Wells, making it a requirement to sterilize “defective persons” whose “heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime.” This quote is from your own Virginia state law.

        You may be familiar with the case of Carrie Buck of Virginia, the early test case for the Constitutionality of such sterilization laws. She was white, but (according to testimony) she was one of the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.” The US Supreme Court decided (in Buck v Bell, 1927) that “[i]t is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

        A reasonable analysis would place the Buck case up there with Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy and other infamous decisions of SCOTUS; the list demonstrates that the allegation that Obergefell is correct merely because it was decided by SCOTUS has some weaknesses. But I’ve never seen Buck in such a list.

        The Nazis were, of course, quite impressed by the US’s eugenics movement, and decided to pick it up. So Sanger and her ilk inspired much more than just Hillary Clinton. They didn’t jut get the idea, they borrowed the language of the “Model Law” for sterilization and implemented it to sterilize more than a third of a million “unfit” persons.

        The Nazis picked up Woodrow Wilson’s propaganda process as well, guided by Wilson’s propaganda minister’s book, but that’s another story. US progressives have had a very large impact upon world history, little of it positive.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Little that each of us does is not seen and noticed by someone. Are we responsible the the Nazis concentration camps? Did we contribute to the Communist gulags? Not directly. Yet to a small degree, only God knows the full extent, some of those here who belittled individual rights helped to make the murderous killing of millions by those who did it just a little bit more palatable.


        2. The juxtaposition of racial theories so popular among white elites in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both here and in Europe, with Margaret Sanger is interesting and worth noting. However, Keith, I question your descriptor “progressive” in this context. These ideas were anything but “progressive” and the people who advocated them (you omitted the prime culprit in Europe, the Wagnerian/Nazi sympathizer, Chamberlain), were anything but “progressive” in their outlook unless one takes the view that a non-diverse Aryan world is progress. If you had used the term once, I might have thought it a slip, but you refer to these eugenic theories and the people and places around them as “progressive” at least a half a dozen times. You also describe the view that Jews are inferior as “progressive”. What’s so progressive about that?



  7. The Heritage link shows direct taxpayer funding of over 40% based on the most recent data they have (FY 2014), which includes federal, state and local funding. But there is more to it than that: Among other avenues, there are federal programs such as the Rural Health Services grants in which other healthcare providers are funded, and then subcontract abortion services out to local Planned Parenthood affiliates. Thus, Planned Parenthood can count this as “not taxpayer funded” but in fact it is, just through the detour of a local hospital or clinic who prefers not to do abortions themselves, or who don’t have the network to capitalize on the “pick your parts” business that PP has.

    The Title X federal funding is undifferentiated, paying (as was noted previously) pro-rated shares of all PP costs, including their abortion operations. It is amusing how they itemize services, in which handing out a ten-cent condom and performing a profitable abortion are each counted as one “service,” so that they can claim that only 50% of the services provided to the woman were abortion services. This is how they get to their supposed 3% number overall, while still doing a third of a million abortions per year and not all that much else of consequence.

    Still, defunding Planned Parenthood would not end abortions; another 600,000 plus are done each year by others. But at least the taxpayer-funded aspect would be addressed.

    It’s interesting that, despite our native birth rate not being enough to maintain our population, we kill one-third of a percent of our population each year, not long before they would have been born. And the great majority of these are done for US-born mothers.

    The American population would be shrinking were it not for immigrants, legal and otherwise. And most of the illegals want to carry their babies to term, in order to take advantage of current interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

    Our government encourages this anchor-baby behavior, while warning of the costs to the country of allowing black babies to be born. This is why they described defunding PP as being a net cost to the country; we’d save roughly $500 million a year but spend $600 million on welfare and other benefits for the now-born infants, who are predominantly black.

    The federal report assumes that the mothers would be unable to find the providers of the two-thirds of abortions not performed by Planned Parenthood. And, of course, assumes that the new crop of kids would be a net loss. They might be, but it is a testament to the horrific failure of the trillions of dollars spent on the welfare state, and the evil of having taken that role away from charities. Black charities were amazingly well-developed and high-functioning in the 1950s, but were destroyed by LBJ’s soi-disant “Great Society.” Our current inner city poverty, gangs, and urban violence traces back mostly to the programs started then, and to a smaller extent earlier under the New Deal of the 1930s.

    The federal government considers abortion a kindness for these people … rather like Margaret Sanger considered contraceptives and sterilization. But Sanger was, ironically, very much pro-life; she would applaud the focus on reducing the number of minorities, but be appalled at the abortions used to control the populations she considered so undesirable.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑


Supplying the Light of Love


Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Allallt in discussion

Debate and discussion: Reasonable, rational and fair

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


Finding Clear and Simple Faith


Author Alexander Hellene - Sci-Fi - Urban Fantasy - Fantasy - Culture - Art - Entertainment - Music - Fun

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

Sharing the Gospel message of hope, strength, love, and peace through Jesus Christ to those who are hurting in their soul or spirit. This is the mission of Healthy Mind Ministry

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Why Complicate If You Can Simplify?


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

Running The Race

Hebrews 12:1


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: