Economically elite “oligarchy” behind push for abortion
by Kelli
The American public overall is opposed to abortion on demand; whether they call themselves “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” a majority do not want abortion to be legal except in the “hard cases” (e.g. rape and incest), and of the remainder, most support limits on later-term abortions.
The problem is that low-income Americans lean pro-life while the well-off tend to support abortion.
For instance, in a January 2013 Gallup poll, 58% of those with an annual income of $75,000 or more identified as “pro-choice.” Among those who earned less than $30,000 a year, only 41% identified as “pro-choice” – a whopping 17-point gap.
This leads, unsurprisingly, to abortion groups having a fundraising advantage over right-to-life groups. Abortion groups also enjoy the patronage of billionaires like Warren Buffett [pictured top right] and Susan Pritzker [pictured bottom right with husband Nicholas]. And of course, they command a majority of a particularly elite group of nine.
But I don’t think the oligarchy report (or at least, the media’s reporting on it) captures the full picture….
Abortion levels in the United States are at record lows, pro-abortion think tanks are panicked by our progress at the state level, and just last week, the representatives of the people of Colorado rejected abortion-on-demand legislation.
So don’t let the oligarchy get you down. Wealthy elites are powerful, but they are not omnipotent. By banding together, we can win.
~ SecularProLife.org, discussing the idea that small group of elites, instead of a democratic body, exercises control over the general population, April 21
[Photos via travelfuntravel.com and zimbio.com]
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.
Hear hear!
Rich, powerful and famous people are allied against regular working families. This is nothing new.
They control our government, our media and entertainment, and our schools.
It is in the schools where they do the most damage — where they can teach our children that their parents’ values concerning life and marriage and family and sex are “bigotry.”
We are not powerless against them! Our Culture has survived the attacks of elitists since the Roman Emperors attempted to exterminate Christians.
Small group of elites control how they spend their money and rightfully so but do not affect social policy beyond that check.
Fundraising does not always ensure victory either. Its the message and the perseverance of the underdog that count. Goliath was defeated by young David. Pro-life is backing PP into a corner weekly and it seems that PP is often hoisted by their own petard (PA issue case in point just this week).
Class structure is a funny animal but not the end all and certainly not to be feared….
That’s funny, he appears to complaining about liberals and progessives yet he describes how the right mislead so many and hijack the body politick!
Yes the pro life battle is a struggle between the people and a tiny ruling class elite, just as the war of independence was a struggle between the people and a ruling class elite. If America is to survive the people must win.
“Yes the pro life battle is a struggle between the people and a tiny ruling class elite” – what do you base that on?
Hi Joanne:
The tiny class elite is not ruling by any stretch of the imagination and to describe this issue as a struggle is a disservice to the opportunity that America is for all of us.
This is not an issue of taking advantage of the capitalistic nature of our political system and it is not an issue of complaining about how the “filthy rich” spend their money.
It is simply an issue of how Pro-life can and does respond to the policy-makers and social policy that is contradictory to pro-life mission.
To describe pro-life as a struggle btw the people and a tiny “ruling” class elite, is a misleading focus and one that makes us look silly.
Small group of elites control how they spend their money and rightfully so but do not affect social policy beyond that check.
Bill and Melinda Gates “invest” their money in population control efforts around the world, and their money is behind Common Core, which is now in our country’s schools. We have wealthy investors who own media conglomerates, on both the liberal and conservative sides.
Both the education system and the media have an impact on social policy.
What good does it do us, Pro-lifers, to whine about how the Gates’ invest their money? What does it do for me to complain how anyone that contributes to this blog spends their money?
I prefer to concentrate on what I can control and how I can affect the things I find important in life. We can and we have. There is always a way out….
Regarding the Common Core curriculum in public schools and its funding stream (the Gates’among other): our sons attend a public school and we as parents ensure that they are properly informed and educated on matters outside of the actual subject curriculum. Those that attend private schools also have to be subjected to curricula that may not fit their family’s belief system and yet continue based on their religious affiliation only.
Its the parents job to ensure that children have an understanding of the general shift vs the proper/actual and know the difference. Our nightly talks with our children get so extensive sometimes and cover all sorts of issues from their school day. We are our children’s source for morality and provide them the support to ensure that they can adequately manage outside influences.
I hate to say it but would the better alternative academically be similar to what’s going on in Texas (no assignments about other political systems because it may expose children to communism and they can actually become communist?!?!). I like Texas but their disagreement with Common Core (not having adapted it although many aspects of the curriculum are proper and well-rounded) is pushing them back in terms of educating the new generations of Texans….
Thomas R. says:
April 23, 2014 at 9:33 am
To describe pro-life as a struggle btw the people and a tiny “ruling” class elite, is a misleading focus and one that makes us look silly.
==============================
I agree. Totally.
But this is an election year. We are going to hear a lot from the ruling Elitist Totalitarian Dictators about how those evil corporations are spending a lot of money to influence elections.
The populists need to keep this sort of information out there: This is how the wealthy class really want us to live and believe and run our lives. They want want us to use lots of contraception and abortion. To them, we are just “surplus population” who need to be reduced.
As pro-lifers, we need to focus on Life. The political class will make plenty of noise about the class struggle between the elitists and the populists. (It would be great if we could persuade the populist party to help us fund our Pregnancy Centers, the way that the elitist party funds the abortion industry.)
Abortion was never “legalized”, because only a few left-coast states passed laws, it was litigated. Legislatures produce laws; courts produce litigation. The litigation campaign that produced Doe and Roe was elite led.
“Rubin (1987:1) characterizes the legal abortion movement not as a ‘grass roots’ campaign but as a ‘litigation campaign’, where pressure group activity was ‘tailored to fit the format of a lawsuit but specifically designed to produce broad social change rather than to vindicate the private rights of the parties’. Litigation campaigns originate not with grass-roots groups but with elites who control significant economic and social resources. Rubin points out (1987:3) that litigation campaigns are extremely costly: ‘To control, organize, and manage a carefully selected sequence of cases, it is also necessary to have sizable resources in money, legal talent, and experience. Funding is especially important, for litigation is expensive.’ In litigation campaigns, the characteristic resource is not grass-roots volunteers but routine access to elite networks. Ordinary people start social movements; elites start litigation campaigns.” – James R. Kelly, “Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name For Abortion Opponents”, Abortion politics in the United States and Canada: Studies in Public Opinion, 1994, Praeger, pp. 15-40. http://with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies.org/Kelly.html
Reality says: “Yes the pro life battle is a struggle between the people and a tiny ruling class elite” – what do you base that on?
This displays ignorance of the actual, historical, documented truth. Anyone reading can remain ignorant. If you don’t want to remain ignorant, you can begin reading on your own and figuring things out.
It is a long story going back at least as far as the 1300s, and the establishment in England of the “Poor Laws.” Those with money to support ne’er-do-wells spent centuries trying to figure out what to do with those meddlesome lower classes who kept thieving and re-producing.
Darwin, one of the elite, provided a scientific façade for their classism: those thieving, immoral baby factories were simply following their genetic destiny.
Darwin’s cousin Galton, yet another of the elite class, described an answer: “eugenics.” Let’s make sure the “right” people have enough babies, and let’s figure out how to keep the “wrong” people from having babies.
Abortion has simply been a favored tool in the eugenics toolkit the entire time it has been well-recognized among the elites, and presented as morally palatable by various writers including Garrett Harding, Lawrence Lader, Paul Ehrlich, etc.
Wealthy ruling class members who were Great fans of eugenics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Draper
Henry Ford
Rockefeller
Thomas Watson, IBM founder, etc.
-on to the present, with Bill Gates.
After Hilter, two big changes: first, you had to disguise your elitist-based eugenics in family-friendly terms, and the rise of popularity of abortion allowed you to be an advocate of access to abortion “rights” and so sound like some humanitarian rather than a eugenicist elitist.
The boards of directors of the American eugenics society was filled with the educated elite, and that board easily morphed into the board of planned parenthood.
Starting in the 1950s, things took a major international direction, with these wealthy elites funding the non-governmental organization meddling in the lives of those darkies on those continents where people with dark skin breed like rabbits, threatening our way of life.
So, we are blessed with the IPPF, UNPF, etc.
None of this led by grass-roots activism, and no population control programs in any of these darky countries having arisen from the populace, but encouraged from the West, by NGOs funded by the wealthy.
Start reading.
So, no actual, historical, documented proof then TLD. Just conspiratorial thinking, opinion, rhetoric and propaganda.
Having recently demonstrated outside the retirement party for Peter Brownlie (CEO of a Planned Parenthood affiliate) where Cecile Richards headlined, I can attest to a steady stream of luxury cars and the well-to-do attending. A ticket to this luncheon was only $100, which isn’t outrageous. The most common supporter appears to be older, wealthy, white women. Past observations at other fundraising events even at the local level (trivia nights, cocktails, etc.), I have noted the same demographic. I suspect a soft elitism and racism at work.
The Last Democrat: “It is a long story going back at least as far as the 1300s, and the establishment in England of the “Poor Laws.” Those with money to support ne’er-do-wells spent centuries trying to figure out what to do with those meddlesome lower classes who kept thieving and re-producing.”
TDL, it *is* a question – especially when we start out with a desire to have “everybody” have a minimum standard of quality-of-life.
What, really, *do* we do with those at the very bottom? Pure, unbridled capitalism results in a few super-rich people, with the rest being little better than serfs, if that. Communism and socialism don’t work all that well, either – they take away incentive for the individual to produce, resulting in economic systems with less total wealth in them.
In the US, we’ve ended up with something in-between, but it’s destined to fail – it’s massively unsustainable.