01 Aug 1999 When Birth Control Could Lead to Race Control, by Jackie Cissell
Years ago, I was called an extremist when I spoke out about the 1930s-era “Negro Project.” Now, a dangerous new study entitled “Legalized Abortion and Crime” has African-Americans in shock because it could threaten the very survival of the race. Who’s extreme now?
In the study, economist Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School Professor John J. Donohue III conclude that legalized abortion might explain why America experienced an overall reduction in crime from 1991 to 1997.
This study is so dangerous it is hard to know where to begin. But let me start with some historical perspective. Earlier in this century, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her followers advocated a brand of ethnic cleansing called eugenics. Eugenics is defined as a movement dedicated to improving the human species through the control of hereditary factors in mating. Sanger’s agenda was to “encourage more children from the fit and less from the unfit.”
One of the ways Sanger sought to implement her eugenics policy was to partner with black religious leaders to encourage black women to abort their babies. She called this the “Negro Project.” Sanger said, “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
While African-Americans survived the Negro Project, “Legalized Abortion and Crime” resurrects Sanger’s ideas. It suggests that those who would have been the greatest contributors to criminal activity during the peak crime years of young adulthood – the unwanted offspring of teenagers, the poor and minorities – were aborted at a disproportionately high rate starting more than two decades ago. One could interpret the results of this study to mean that all it takes to predict criminal activity is to look at the color of the skin of the mother. If you can get a black woman to abort her child, the country will be a better place to live.
Being poor and having brown skin seems to be a desperate condition for pre-born children. The study implies children born into poverty will suffer more neglect and abuse. This is an apparent reason to encourage abortion. For the liberal elite in our nation’s colleges and universities, however, “poor” could be defined as those not owning a microwave oven or a family without a second car. Depending on their definition of poor, many of us would not stand a chance.
African-American and Hispanics have always been at the lower level of the economic scale in America. If economics had anything to do with the survival of the races, we would have been extinct a long time ago.
Another reason “Legalized Abortion and Crime” is dangerous relates the recent racial and ethnically motivated killings in the country. The results will most certainly gives groups prone to this behavior ammunition to fuel their hatred.
Some of my friends were upset this study got so much media exposure. I am grateful. It proves once again that racism is still alive and well – and dangerous. As long as the liberal elite can get away with making allegedly rational arguments for racial genocide, our society is worse off than we thought.
Good people everywhere must understand the depraved nature of the “Legalized Abortion and Crime” study. In her book Women and the New Race, Margaret Sanger wrote that birth control is the “weeding out of the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” The abortion industry has quietly carried out her charge, resulting in the deaths of untold numbers of poor and minority children.
But we are truly in trouble if we don’t call abortion exactly what it is: another form of ethnic cleansing
(Jackie Cissell serves on the National Advisory Council of Project 21 and is a director of the Indiana Family Institute.)
Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.