Ban abortions for white supremacy?
Guest post by Paul Revere
In the aftermath of last week’s elections, much has been made of the demographic problem Republicans may face in coming elections. Black and Hispanic voters consistently give a majority of their votes to Democratic candidates, and this was especially true in 2012. With the Hispanic population expected to continue its substantial growth in America – it made up more than half of the growth in America’s population between 2000 and 2010, and grew by 43% in that time period, both according to the Census – many in the media have focused on this as a topic of discussion.
Unfortunately, one of those discussions included a very racist, and factually inaccurate, half-joke on MSNBC.
Well, according to Nancy Giles of CBS, her comment was intended fully as a joke, but it’s kind of hard to tell when watching her make the comment. Take a look for yourself, via Newsbusters, and let me know in the comments if you think she was kidding about white people trying to “build up the race” by opposing abortion:
Now, to be fair, Twitchy notes Giles has defended her comments on Twitter as part of her “nutty sense of humor.” Since she did appear to be half-serious in her comment, though, let’s take a look at some of the facts surrounding abortion.
First, let’s look at who has abortions. After all, Giles may think white people are having more abortions compared to all non-white Americans. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control, though, we can see black women had 40.2% of abortions in 2008, in the 35 areas that reported such statistics to the CDC. Also, according to the CDC (emphasis added):
Among the 28 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2008 (Table 14), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for 37.2% and 35.5% of all abortions. Hispanic women accounted for 21.1% of all abortions, and non-Hispanic women in the other races category accounted for 6.3%. Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (140 abortions per 1,000 live births), whereas non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (33.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (472 abortions per 1,000 live births). Among the 24 areas that reported by race/ethnicity both in 2007 and 2008, increases in abortion rates and ratios were somewhat greater for non-Hispanic black women than for non-Hispanic white women and Hispanic women. Abortion rates increased 10% for non-Hispanic black women (from 32.2 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 35.4 in 2008), 5% for non-Hispanic white women (from 8.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 9.0 in 2008), and 2% for Hispanic women (from 20.0 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 20.4 in 2008). Similarly abortion ratios increased 4% among non-Hispanic black women (from 481 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 501 in 2008), whereas they were more stable for non-Hispanic white women (at 145 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 and 144 in 2008) and for Hispanic women (at 201 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 196 in 2008). Because 2007 was the first year for which cross-classified race/ethnicity data were compiled, longer term trends could not be evaluated.
Clearly, black Americans are having far more abortions than white Americans. And the rate as compared to the population is slowly growing in black communities.
But perhaps the CDC’s facts are misrepresenting the situation. After all, it is well-known that the CDC’s statistics on abortion are inferior to that of the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood. The report referenced above admits that the CDC typically reports about two-thirds of the abortions Guttmacher reports, for example. Therefore, it is instructive to see that an August 2011 Guttmacher Institute report shows non-Hispanic white women had 36% of abortions, and black and Hispanic women had 30% and 25% of abortions, respectively. This means that a majority of abortions were had by non-white women. Considering that the 2010 Census found 64% of Americans are white, 13% of Americans are black, and 16% are Hispanic, this means the shrinking white majority in America is killing off its future at about one-quarter the relative rate of black Americans, and about one-third the relative rate of Hispanics.
So now we’ve established that Giles’ “joke” about white people opposing abortion to “build up” the race is false. In fact, white people should support more abortions in order to maintain ethnic and racial dominance.
If this is the case, Republicans should be gung-ho for abortion. After all, the party gets the majority of white voters and loses the majority of minority voters. Except this is negated by the fact that earlier this year Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank attacked Republicans – especially white Republican Representative Trent Franks of Arizona – in one of his columns for risking the Asian-American vote by pushing legislation that would ban sex-selective abortions, which Milbank admits are most common in the Asian-American community. (Huffington Post also reports that Guttmacher has said sex-selective abortions may indeed be taking place, though the admission is highly qualified.)
Oh, and it’s also negated by the fact that most Republicans oppose abortion in most or all cases. The pro-abortion crowd is in the Democratic Party.
Related to this, it was the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that met with the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus earlier this year to discuss how effective the pro-life movement has been within the black community, as Jill noted in an interview with HotAir.com. And I can assure you that the CBC was not celebrating the successes of the pro-life movement. So even the black-centric Caucus on Capitol Hill wants more abortions, abortions that kill off its future progeny at a much faster rate than white Americans’ abortions do.
So, to recap, Giles’ “joke” is tasteless, factually inaccurate, and racist. However, let’s look at one more thing: the host of the show, Melissa Harris-Perry, followed Giles’ comments with a half-hearted “Well, there is all these eugenics associated with abortion, right?” Considering that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist eugenicist, and Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country, it could be argued that eugenics are indeed involved with abortion… but not from the pro-life side of things.
Paul Revere is the pseudonym of a D.C.-based political blogger. He has contributed to Race42012.com, American Thinker, Conservative Home USA, and Reason Foundation’s Out of Control blog.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Edward Allred, the doctor who tried to kill Gianna Jessen, is the only “conservative” I’ve come across who favored abortion for racial reasons. He was pretty open about embracing abortion as a means to cut down on the Hispanic population.
But other than him, virtually every conservative that the left accuses of racism is pro-life. Huh. Gosh, maybe it’s because they actually don’t like killing babies!
No, no – there must be another explanation. Oh wait, I’ve got it! Their sexism trumps their racism!!!1!1 Yeah, that must be it.
Nancy Giles needs to check out the site http://www.klannedparenthood.com as it could open her eyes to a few things. The pro-life movement is NOT racist, not trying to curtail the percentage of blacks in the society. Just the opposite really. We’re telling black women to stop letting the abortion industry kill their babies. Does that sound like we want fewer of them? Not to me it doesn’t. If we wanted fewer of them, we’d be encouraging them to have more abortions, like Planned Parenthood does.
Then there are cases like the Tonya Reaves case, where Planned Parenthood scores a bonus point by killing the black mother along with her baby. That was such a needless and easily avoidable death. But Planned Parenthood just let her lie there and bleed to death for five hours. Let’s hope Planned Parenthood loses the lawsuit and a lot of money. Maybe that’s the only way they’ll start to care for the lives of their black patients.
Black women are hoodwinked into letting the abortion industry kill their babies at a much higher rate than white women are. So minority babies are at a greater risk for abortion. Abortion has taken a much bigger bite out of the black population than the white popualtion. Nancy Giles has it backwards. It’s the abortion industry that is making the black people a much smaller percentage of the general population.
She wasn’t joking. It’s like when anybody else makes a snide/mean remark, then decides to take the “sting” out of it (they THINK) by saying “just kidding”.
She probably thought (at the time) that she’d get a lot of accolades from Liberals/Pro-aborts for her “clever” assessment…
and it back-fired on her…BIG TIME.
Don’t quit your day job, Ms. Giles..you’d never make it in comedy if that’s what you find “humorous”.
Well, they sure hire some quality people over there at CBS. [/sarcasm]
From Galton and Darwin, it has been the PROGRESSIVES who have adopted two leading justifications for sterilization and abortion, including by govt decision of WHO gets aborted and sterililized, and advocating for these efforts as GOVT programs.
With Hitler, it could be argued that he was a conservative or a progressive. Ultimately, progressives believe that govt should be used not to keep society free to the extent possible, but that govt should be used to progress toward some ideal utopia.
Abortion has been justified by PROGRESSIVES along two arguments: one is the “scientific-y” arguments – get rid of genetically “inferior” people, reduce misery; and the second is to achieve societal goals of reducing burden upon the general populace, lest we all be dragged down by a society having to support each and every Down Syndrome baby, or BLACK welfare case.
Racism has a long history. In that history, it is obvious when science became co-opted as a defense of racism: the idea that BLACKS are genetically inferior, or lesser, and so there is a genetic justification for getting rid of BLACKS.
The same argument was made for the Jews: Jews have genetic qualities that make it better off for society as a whole if only they could be gotten rid of.
Hitler had progressive and conservative (protect nagative rights and traditional values) aspects of his philosophy. The progressive elements he imported from the eugenisists in the United States and UK.
Here in the U.S., we hav painted Hitler as a “conservative” so no one even questions and begins to invetigate the long line of history from eugenesists Galton and Darwin directly to Hitler, via the American Eugenic Society, via Wickliffe Draper, and others.
The genius of the eugenisists is that they developed a campaign to get BLACKs to ACCEPT the killing-off of Black progeny. Selling ice cubes to an eskimo, to use a racist phrase, is one thing; getting Blacks to kill progeny is another.
It is worthwhile to figure out how PROGRESSIVES have done this. Nary a conservative in sight in that tale of history. Progressives have sold the “economic advancement” story, plus the “it’s just a blob” story, along with the “if it feels good do it” story and the “don’t let whitey dictate your life” story.
Look at the statistics: at this point, almost every Middle-age or younger Black adult has been a party to at least one abortion. So, like many of us, this demogrpahic group is READY to accept arguments FOR abortion, since it serves to release us from our cognitive dissonance of perceiving ourselves as decent and not capapble of murder, yet being complicit in murder.
Darwin wasn’t a eugenicist. The eugenics movement took what he learned about natural selection and tried to make a social movement out of it. Kinda like how Spencer took the ideas of natural selection to make the idea of “survival of the fittest” in regards to his economic theories.
Look at the statistics: at this point, almost every Middle-age or younger Black adult has been a party to at least one abortion.
Not me. I mentioned my son’s girlfriend is having her second child with him. Her father said “still pregnant?” the last time he saw her, and she’s 16 weeks and starting to show. Jerk.
Phillymiss, I just can’t believe that family. :(
Is Newsbusters, founded by Brent Bozell, who settled a libel suit in 2002 with the WWE, still in business? Brent Bozell is nothing but a fetus worshiping hypocrite.
“Is Newsbusters, founded by Brent Bozell, who settled a libel suit in 2002 with the WWE, still in business? Brent Bozell is nothing but a fetus worshiping hypocrite.”
Oh great! We just talked about this fallacy in my course earlier this week. We were reading Montagine’s “On Cannibals” where he has that last line “But why bother? They don’t wear breeches!” He basically says that none of what a certain group of people has to teach us matter because hey, they don’t wear pants! So what can we possibly learn from Brent Bozell- he was in a libel suit with WWE!
So, Bobby Bambino, the hypocrites blast Dan Rather but accept Brent Bozell. Got it.
“So, Bobby Bambino, the hypocrites blast Dan Rather but accept Brent Bozell. Got it. ”
Oh great! This is another example of a fallacy. Although we haven’t mentioned it in class this week, perhaps I will on Friday. This is called a red herring. It is to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand by bringing up something else- in this case Dan Rather, whoever he is.
There’s also the matter that you don’t have to be worshipping someone just because you don’t want to see them dead. It’s as juvenile as a kid saying “Why don’t you marry him / her?” if you express any sort of disagreement with their hatred.
I’m sure you all remember how the KKK supported civil rights because of how much they hated blacks.
…….what?
@Jack – I dont either. BTW I “came out” as prolife in class tonight. I got some grief but I dont care. One person was talking about how terrible life was for kids in foster care and I asked “does that mean they should be dead and she didnt answer. Its sad that someone in one of the helping profession s would feel that
@Philly
You should have asked them if they were volunteering to kill the kids themself
I should have, U-104, but I just didn’t feel like getting into it. Granted, foster care isn’t the ideal solution for children, but some foster parents are very good. And I’ve yet to hear a foster child say “I wish I would have been aborted.”
On the bulletin board in the building where I have my classes, there was a notice about a new pro-abort group for social work students. Their first project was to write thank you notes to abortion providers! One of the abortionists working for Planned Parenthood makes $500,000 a year. I’m sure he’s not doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
Looks like he is a hypocrite after all:
Pro -Life Christian Republican admits his wife had two abortions
15 minutes ago
as well he wanted his girlfriend to get one.
Of course he was re-elected
All life should be cherished and protected. We are pro-life.”
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais testified during divorce proceedings that he and his former wife made a “mutual” decision for her to have two abortions, according to divorce transcripts released Thursday.
The 2001 court transcripts were released by the state Democratic Party, which had tried to air the documents before the Nov. 6 election. A DesJarlais spokesman didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.
DesJarlais easily won a second term despite revelations that he once urged a patient with whom he was having an affair to get an abortion. DesJarlais, whose campaign platform opposed abortion, acknowledged the conversation but said he was only trying to get her to admit she wasn’t pregnant.
The transcripts show that woman testified under oath that she had been pregnant. She declined to elaborate on the outcome of the pregnancy.
If he “mutually-decided” to have his children aborted, he’s obviously not actually Pro-Life (unless he’s since changed his mind about that having been a good decision to make and regrets his actions).