Publicly funded eugenics

March 17, 2010
World Net Daily


Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak is spearheading pro-life opposition within his party to House passage of the Senate's health-care bill, which provides for publicly funded abortions.

While leaving the members of his "Stu-PAC" unnamed, Stupak tallied them at 12 until this past weekend, when he said he had lost one or two due to "having both of their arms twisted," as he told National Review Online, and "getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions."

Still, the Stu-PAC Ten might be enough to stop socialized health care in the House. In November its version, with Stupak's pro-life amendment included, passed with only a margin of five, 220-215. Without it, as the Senate's version excludes? Tough.

In motion is a dizzying array of both legitimate and nefarious factors that might sway some votes. But the Democratic pro-life caucus is key, one way or the other.

Pro-abort Democratic leadership stopped trying to strike a compromise with Stu-PAC late last week, finally realizing, as House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner put it, abortion is "one of those issues that, literally, can't split the baby." (Well, pro-aborts wouldn't mind, but pro-lifers do.)

But along the way, pro-abort Democratic leadership apparently engaged Stupak in some interesting conversations. Over the weekend, Stupak relayed one he had with Rep. Henry Waxman, as quoted by Fox News:
"I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's – we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.'

"'But we think we should,'" Stupak said Waxman told him.

Waxman is disputing that conversation took place, but I don't doubt it happened for a minute. Waxman is not just a pro-abort but a virulent pro-abort.

Why do Democrats want so much to publicly fund abortions? According to National Review Online, again quoting Stupak:

"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."

Actually, spending money has never been a Democratic hang-up. But they are indeed hung up on a central Democrat tenet, elevating the status of the poor and minorities.

Although an altruistic element within the Democratic Party may really want that, power mongers never meant to garner anything other than power from winning the affection of the poor and minorities. But only so many.

Enter abortion. It is already well-established abortion was initially advanced in the United States as a eugenic ploy to kill off undesirables, largely the poor and minorities. The push began when slavery ended, and blacks were no longer useful and even feared as eventually out-populating whites.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted the focus of legalizing abortion was eugenics in a New York Times Magazine interview last July:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

Which brings us back to health care. The Democratic Party wants publicly funded abortion available to the poor and minorities – so as to abort the poor and minorities. On the latter point, Sen. Dick Durbin was amazingly blunt during a Senate committee meeting last July when arguing in favor of publicly funded abortions in the District of Columbia. The transcript:

Durbin: In terms of safe, legal and rare, to the senator from Kansas, I will tell you two things. First, it is a fact that a disproportionately large number of African-Americans seek abortion in America, not just in the District of Columbia, but all across the nation.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: 41 percent?

Durbin: No, but it's also a fact that a disproportionately large number of African-Americans live in the District of Columbia.
Durbin was saying that where there are large numbers of blacks there should also be publicly funded abortion.

Publicly funded abortion in health care is actually publicly funded eugenics.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------