How Obama is reviving the evil of eugenics

A group of medical ethics experts argue that parents should be allowed to kill newborn babies like this one if they wish. Barack Obama's record indicates that he agrees.

This week, a group of professors linked to Oxford University who are recognized as experts in the field of medical ethics published a paper called “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”  In this paper, they argue that newborn babies do not have a “moral right to life” and that parents ought to be able to have their babies killed if they don’t want them after they are born.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Now consider this:  The President of the United States agrees with them.

In 2001 and 2003, Barack Obama, then a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted against and actively worked to defeat legislation to ban doctors from killing babies who had survived an attempted abortion and were born alive.  In other words, Obama literally worked to protect doctors who kill newborn babies.

As President, Obama appointed as his Science “Czar” John Holdren, a man who co-authored a book advocating for eugenics.  In his book, Dr. Holden argued that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Now consider this:  The only president in the modern era to embrace eugenics, including killing undesirable babies, is also the president who crafted and achieved the government takeover of our health care system.  Under ObamaCare, government panels will ration health care and senior citizens will be required to undergo “end of life counseling.”  It’s a eugenicist’s dream come true.

Think I’m exaggerating or being alarmist?  In the Netherlands, where they have had physician-assisted suicide for many years, many older people have become convinced that they have a moral obligation to end their lives rather than become a burden to their families or society.  Now, an organization called the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End to Life has created a program called “Life End,” a system of mobile euthanasia units that will travel the country to help them end their lives if their own doctors refuse to do so.

Barack Obama and his ObamaCare scheme pose very real threats to our culture and to the freedom of every American citizen to be in control of their own health care and personal destiny.  Obama must be defeated, and ObamaCare must be repealed.

  • Thank you for bringing attention to this. There are some who believe that issues such as this are not worthy of our time or discussion but these issues of life are fundamental and are a matter of justice.

  • ToR

    It’s great to see you bringing attention to this. The best way to stop abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to ensure access to birth control.

    Health insurance should cover birth control. I’m glad we’ve come full circle.

  • Who doesn’t have access to birth control? Is there an epidemic of people spontaneously erupting into pregnancy through no fault of their own? Goodness! I had NO idea!

  • Well, if the pro-life side of the argument gets their way, nobody will have access to birth control even if you are willing to pay for it with your own dime.

    Look at the Personhood bill. Democrats proposed an amendment that stated contraception would not be made illegal by the bill, however it was voted down.

    Yes, NARAL is extremist in their point of view. But you Republicans need to look before you leap into supporting the pro-life movements side of things that comes from your side.

    On abortion, most of us have opinions somewhere in the middle. We should not be forced into choosing between two great extremes when both extremes are ridiculous.

    However, the Republican controlled House in Richmond went all out in favor of one extreme. They voted to outlaw birth control. My guy, Bob Tata, who himself has only three kids, went along with them.

  • I’m definitely not an expert in eugenics but it would seem to me that this easily extends to adults and the elderly who are unable to be “productive” to society. just the thought of killing an innocent newborn child sickens me.

  • ToR: Health insurance already can cover contraception, and no one anywhere is saying they shouldn’t be able to do so. The questions is whether the government should FORCE them to do so, even it it violates their religious moral tenets. And, of course, none of that has anything to do with the subject of this article.

  • Infanticide does lead to genocide Amit. Hilter took the principles of eugenics from our very own American, Margaret Sanger, for his wave of genocide. It always has and always will be a slippery slope.

    “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Women and the New Race, Eugenics Pub. Co.,1920).

    http://mylordkatie.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/margaret-sanger-provider-of-death/

  • Ken Falkenstein,

    Not under the Personhood bill. Health insurance companies would not be allowed to provide coverage for contraception. Even if you tried to pay for it with you own dime, it would be illegal.

    If this is not so, why then was the Democratic proposed amendment voted down?

  • LD: You are just plain wrong about the personhood bill.

  • Mormor

    Your title is totally misleading! Obama has NOT revived – if it ever was alive – eugenics.
    “women COULD be forced..”;
    “population COULD be sterilized..”;
    “people who contribute to.. CAN be required by law..”

    The use of CAN and COULD make the statement not definite.
    A lot of things CAN happen and a lot of things COULD happen. Some are likely but just as many are unlikely to happen.

    As to the last paragraph about using “an armed international police force” That makes me wonder about your intelligence.

  • Tim J

    Mormor,” intelligence” and the exercise thereof, isn’t your strong suite, eh? Juxtaposing ” “Can” and “Could” is a feeble mental crutch you use that focuses on irrelevant semantics as you try to connect to an alternate reality which ignores the philosophical foundation of what is being proposed. Typical of mind-numbed liberals who use the tactic to hide the uncomfortable truth from their cults who are worshiping and conducting human sacrifices in the womb as offerings to their God and his disciples, their academics and politicians. As quoted from Ken’s link about Dr. Holden’s book:

    “Toward a Planetary Regime”

    “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

    The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

    Dr. Holden’s master blueprint, the ultimate utopia of liberal, Democrat and left wing hypocrisy with their stated goals about birth, life, death, the environment, water, food, shelter and the absolute subjugation and control of all humans and their existence on the planet. At this point, hopefully a rogue asteroid will hit Earth and do a master reset of this misery by cleansing this utopia and those who were responsible.

  • ToR

    Clearly some people don’t have access to birth control. Why else wouldn’t they be taking it? Lack of education? Religious beliefs? And yet they end up having abortions. If we want to stop abortions just ensure that everyone has access to and uses birth control.

    The numbers clearly show they don’t. If you want to stop abortion and put abortion doctors out of work, eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

    I do remember we had a issue in Virginia a while back, should the government force health insurance companies to cover autistic treatment? Should government force payment of anesthesia? Should government force people who believe in polygamy into reclusive compounds or Mexico?

  • @ToR: First, please tell me who are these people who don’t have access to birth control.

    Second, I am glad to see you followed your argument to its logical conclusion: “If we want to stop abortions just ensure everyone has access AND USES birth control.”

  • I’ve been studying eugenics for a long time — mostly because of its shameful history in Virginia against people of mixed races. My great-grandmother came from a group of what was then known as “tri-racial isolates” in West Virginia, and had West Virginia not seceded during the Civil War, then according to Virginia law, my great-grandparents marriage, my grandparents marriage and my parents marriage (all of which took place prior to LOVING) would have been illegal. Many of these groups were targeted for ” feeble-mindedness” and sterilized. So this isn’t only an academic topic for me, but one of family history.

    A few years ago, in a used book store, I was able to pick up a copy of THE SINGLE, THE ENGAGED AND THE MARRIED, published by the Eugenics Publishing House. It’s a fascinating, and horrifying, read.

    So while I don’t claim by any stretch of the imagination to be an eugenics expert, I do think that I’m pretty well read on the subject. I’d actually like to have an honest discussion about the history right here in VA, and what it means for us today. So when I read pieces like this, I just sigh and think that instead of having a real discourse on the subject of what ethical decisions should be made, who should make them, and what direction we as a country should be going, I’m told that if I support Obama, I must be for eugenics. I want to kill babies, old people and special needs children. Right.

    Not exactly the way to get the discussion ball rolling, unless, of course, all you want is to say that the other side (ie, Democrats) are bad, bad, bad and hear it in the echo chamber.

  • reality

    anyone confused about whether or not an abortion is murder please preform one.

  • louexis

    Ken, The problem is that if health insurance co had their way there would be more exclusions than inclusions. Maybe even excluding ingrown toe nails. Health insurance co’s are the problem not the solution. That is why they have to be mandated to provide certain services. Religious institutions don’t have the right to deny services that are available to everyone else.

  • Jerry Zeigler

    Religious institutions don’t want to deny services that are available to everyone else, some of them simply don’t want to provide it themselves.
    @Tor, you can get free condoms from Planned Parenthood and on college campuses and many other places. Free contraception is available.

  • @louexis, does that include communion?

    Does a mosque not have the right to deny its congregants pork because it’s available to everyone else?

    If the health insurance companies had their way, they would lobby Congress for so much regulation that it would make any new start-up competition virtually impossible. Then they would lobby for an individual mandate that made every citizen buy their product.

  • Gretchen- I am very familiar with the history of eugenics in Virginia and nationwide. The Nazis’ “Final Solution” was directly based in the eugenics movement that flourished in the United States, and as a Jew who has studied the Holocaust in detail, I have studied the eugenics movement. I am also well versed in Virginia’s leading role in that movement. As a student of that history, I firmly stand by my column and remain alarmed at Barack Obama’s affinity for eugenics (although he is politically savvy enough to avoid that terms). If you disagree, then point out where anything I said in this column was factually wrong.

    Oh, and please do me the courtesy of not accusing me of things I never said. I specifically accused Obama of promoting a eugenics agenda, and I cited facts to support this assertion. I never said that all supporters of Obama share that view. I assume from your comments that you don’t. So now that we’ve cleared up the ad hominem aspect of your post, let’s have that discussion.

  • Ken Falkenstein,

    I do not think I am wrong. I feel defining that from the point of conception that what we have is a person opens the gates to outlawing many forms of birth control.

    The IUD (Inter Uterine Device) does not stop conception, it only prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in the woman’s ovary. I keep hearing from the preachers I listen to on the radio that hormonal birth control (the pill) is not always effective in preventing fertilization of the egg. While they will concede that in the majority of the cases no conception takes place since the pill fools the woman’s body into thinking she is already pregnant so she does not release eggs, when her body is not fooled and the eggs are released anyway, fertilization often happens. In this small percentage of cases, according to them, the ordinary pill then acts as an abortifacient by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the ovary. I have heard some of these preachers recommend to listeners that they not use the pill because of this.

    If this was not such a big issue, why was the amendment proposed by Democrats voted down? The Democrats’ amendment was short and sweet. Currently legal contraception would not be made illegal by the bill defining Personhood as beginning at conception. For some reason, the Republican majority voted the amendment down.

  • louexis

    Ken, In answer to below.

    A elderly person who is of sound mind or has stipulated his desire to not be put on life support should have the right to end their life without the government being involved. Who owns your body? You or the government? You can’t have it both ways. Also “End of life counseling” is voluntary and not imposed by the government.

    Think I’m exaggerating or being alarmist? In the Netherlands, where they have had physician-assisted suicide for many years, many older people have become convinced that they have a moral obligation to end their lives rather than become a burden to their families or society. Now, an organization called the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End to Life has created a program called “Life End,” a system of mobile euthanasia units that will travel the country to help them end their lives if their own doctors refuse to do so.

  • louexis

    To Andrew,

    Religious institutes that engage in commercial endeavors and provide health insurance should not be allowed to limit their health insurance with their religious beliefs

  • Tim J

    “Also “End of life counseling” is voluntary and not imposed by the government”… you obviously have never had a close relative that has received terminal care in a VA hospital.

  • @louexis, are you saying there is no commerce involved in the purchase and distribution of wafers, wine, and pork?

    Or are you saying that laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion may be enacted as long as it’s for your current priority (health care)? Ah, Democracy…

  • louexis

    Andrew,
    Andrew
    No I am saying that the church cannot deny a person the same right to health care that their neighbor has through free choice. What the church has the right to do is excommunicate or deny a person the rights of the church. The church should not deny them there health insurance rights because they work for the church. To me what the church wants to do is the same as the health insurance co denying coverage

    • I would agree with you if (a) health insurance were a right, (b) the church were the only place anyone could receive health insurance, (c) I believed the church SHOULD do anything at the behest of the government, (d) health care and health insurance were synonymous, and (e) people were forced to work for a church.

  • Andrew,

    Most polls show that most Catholic women use birth control.

    If Catholics are allowed to not provide health care under ObamaCare for certain circumstances, should Seventh Day Adventists be allowed to not provide coverage for any medical procedure that includes blood transfusions?

    Where do you draw the line, and just where will you allow so much religious liberty that it becomes ridiculous?

  • Bob

    Barack Obama is nothing more than a modern-day version of Woodrow Wilson, another believer in eugenics.

  • I figured that this article has the same value as the link to the actual paper. That is NONE!!!!

  • ConservativeBrain

    I cant stand liberals. I also cant stand idjits who are so blinded by ideology and do not think. The paper was shockingly evil (google Dr. Minerva if the link is broken). It is not a scientific paper. It is a philosophical hypothesis that presupposes a distorted view of the meaning of personhood. Literally only published and gained attention because of its shock value. A paper can be evil and still be well written and this is just not well written. It isn’t a scientific study. It is a subpar essay, written by fringe humanities professors. There is nothing empirical about it. And no one except some fringe humanities professor who are also ‘shock jock’ academics claim it is legit. No medical association anywhere has wasted a microsecond on this proposal or taken it seriously. Much less the President of the United States. I really grow tired of defending conservatives when I’m exposed daily to these type of flat out childish fantasies. I just read an important study from University of Nebraska. One with empirical evidence and a proper scientific study that measured actual body responses (http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2012/02/01/Political+biology:+The+left+rolls+with+the+good,+the+right+confronts+the+bad) and it proves conservatives are hard-wired to fear things and to be negative. This misinformed, paranoid and false article proves it.

  • TMay10

    Conservative Brain How is it that you “know” that Obama has not taken the proposal seriously considering that Obama hired John Holdren as his science czar? Yes people screamed. He is still there and when questioned allegedly he said “he does not believe” in the attitudes stated above, similar to Clinton with his “is” statement. Books usually take longer to write than making a statement, or writing articles, which means a certain amount of seriousness and tenaciousness to the ideas over a passage of time.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.