mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Lessons from History
NYT Worries: Babies from Poor Mothers Are Expensive
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jeff77450

    In 1960 the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the U.S. was ~5.3%. Now it’s ~41% with a comparable percentage raised by single parents. Children born to or raised by single parents have worse stats across-the-board re. crime, substance-abuse and dropping out of school.

    I’m a social & fiscal small government Conservative and I’d be willing to pay taxes to provide birth-control to low income people. It’s a classic case of an once of prevention being worth a pound of cure.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Too bad that your correct view of this is, for the most part, not shared by other conservatives. We don’t have to get off in the weeds of eugenics to understand that most people will have sex on several thousand occasions per lifetime. Yet, zero or one or two or three or four children are generally all we can afford (financially or emotionally) to raise well. With those realizations, sensible social policy on this matter should not be a “hard subject” from any political angle.

      • Jeff77450

        Thank you for commenting. Part of the problem is that if you publicly endorse (voluntary) birth-control for low-income women you risk being labeled a racist regardless of your intentions/motives. To be labeled a racist is, of course, the kiss-of-death for an elected official. My generation, the Boomers, as well as the Xers, don’t seem to have produced very many “profiles in courage.”

        • FriendlyGoat

          You’re welcome. I’m glad that you, as a conservative, and I, as a liberal, can agree on this one. Unfortunately, race aside, if you and I together go out and say “Hey. You know what? Nearly EVERYONE is gonna need some birth control.”—–we will be met by perhaps a quarter of the USA population having a fit at us with various objections.

    • Roach Scientist

      On the surface, what you propose makes sense, but I get hung up on a couple of statistics. 99% of sexually active women used contraception and 51% of abortions are had by women using contraceptives the month they got pregnant. So I don’t know if anyone lacks access to contraceptives or that contraceptives are particularly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy.

      • Jeff77450

        Valid points. Yes, what would be better than people behaving like alley cats and trusting in birth-control would be to save sex for marriage, but I’m a realist. Men & women both using a form of birth-control, and being consistent, would likely greatly increase the effectiveness. Continuing on, if women would commit to not having a child with a man that they aren’t married to and not before the age of twenty, that would eliminate a lot of poverty.

        • Roach Scientist

          You make valid points as well. Two methods should be better than one and I seem to remember that this is increasing among younger people. I do wonder if there is a cause and affect. That is to say, I am using birth cantrol, I can do as I please, and if that increase unwanted pregnancy.

    • Simpatica

      That change was the result of the “war on poverty” that paid women to have babies and get rid of fathers.
      Thank You LBJ (and for Vietnam). What ever he did for African American equality can never make up for what he did to the African American family. If you do not agree look at the fatherless African American children today.

      • Jeff77450

        Agreed. And the civil rights legislation of the 1960s would’ve happened regardless of who was president. LBJ may have been our worst post-WWII to date.

  • ronetc

    While reviling forced sterilization as inhumane and detesting Margaret Sanger and all Planned Parenthood stands for as the butcher of the world, I have always thought recompensed voluntary sterilization makes a lot of sense. Pay, say $10,000 to any man or woman of any age or race (so no discrimination whatsoever) who is voluntarily sterilized. Of course, much of those $10,000 payments would quickly go up the nose or into the veins or into the slot machines . . . but, still, the social savings on welfare should be enormous.

    • outer_rl

      Not sure you make a saving if you pay a 60 year old woman to be sterilized.

      • ronetc

        Of course not . . . but otherwise the cries of discrimination would fill the air.

        • outer_rl

          Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very bad.

          However, when you’ve openly declared that your goal is to save money for the public purse, specifying that you will only pay people under the age of 45, with no job and no qualifications, that won’t make you any more hated.

    • Nevis07

      It’s an impossible issue to solve. Even if you could encourage voluntary sterilization, you’d get the left shouting even louder that we need more immigrants to keep the country young and growing so that we could push our national debt payments and entitlement programs out another couple of decades. And of course immigrants are much more dependent on public services themselves. Around and round we go…

  • D4x

    The conflation of abortion with eugenics and Sanger is the right-to-life movement’s worst slander against Sanger. It is a disgrace what Planned Parenthood has done to the legacy of Margaret Sanger since her death in 1966. Margaret Sanger was a Socialist who saw first hand, as a nurse for the Henry Street Settlement House, how the Federal Comstock Law of 1873 banned access to birth control to poor women. The phrase “Banned in Boston” was coined when Sanger was arrested for publicly speaking about birth control.

    Sanger did ally with prominent society women in New York to advance her cause of repealing the Comstock Laws, but Sanger forbad abortion in her early Planned Parenthood, until her death in 1966. Griswold v Ct, 1965 was the SCOTUS case that finally overturned the 1873 Comstock Law, making contraception legal.

    Sanger may have been influenced by her lover and mentor, eugenicist Havelock Ellis, but Sanger’s affections turned to Fabian Socialist HG Wells after 1920. The rest of this story is sealed in my research papers because I did not want the right-to-life to ever know why Sanger chose the judicial path to repealing the Comstock Laws. There were several at the state level, protected by the power of Catholic legislators, especially in New York and Massachusetts.

    The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the “Suppression of Trade
    in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”.

    “Be it enacted…. That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States… shall sell… or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States… he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

    • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

      You’re not very convincing. From Time (hardly a right-to-life source): “In a 1921 article, she wrote that, ‘the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.'” http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/

      • D4x

        Your citation from Time does NOT mention abortion. Eugenics was embraced by American elites into the 1970’s.

        Sanger’s legacy was making access to birth control legal, never about abortion.

        I stopped trying to convince anyone about anything years ago – you just reminded me why.

        Just wanted the author, Mr. Mead, to get a grip with the facts about the Federal Comstock Law of 1873..

        • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

          So you agree that Sanger was a racist eugenicist. Good to know.

          • D4x

            No. Eugenics was NOT about racism. Eugenics was about the Deplorables, a century ago.Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were motivated by the fact that educated women COULD and DID access birth control in spite of the 1873 Comstock Law, and thus worried that WASPs would decline as hordes of Catholics immigrated to the USA, and propagated.

            Plus, 100 years ago, all those dirt-poor hillbilly coal miners were marrying their cousins.

          • Angel Martin

            keep digging…

    • Makaden

      “The rest of this story is sealed in my research papers because I did not want the right-to-life to ever know why Sanger chose the judicial path to repealing the Comstock Laws.”

      That’s quite the cryptic statement…

      • D4x

        Sanger’s allies in the 1920’s were VERY prominent society women, whose descendants have kept archival documents secret to this day.

        • Makaden

          Sounds like you need to write a book.

          • D4x

            Thank you. Have developed the habit of post-editing what should NOT be in the blogosphere. This one is hard to keep secret – so juicy, but needed to confirm my dot-connecting with the lists of guests at dinner parties, guest lists kept secret by the family. Perhaps one of them will write that book.

  • lukelea

    Idiocracy, the movie, sticks in my head. My question is, what would Darwin say? https://goo.gl/VHHU

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Bill Burr the comedian says the leadership just refuses to come out and say it, “85% of you have to go”. They truly believe that mankind is bad for their Leftist Utopia. They completely ignore the fact that Mankind and the Humanocentric Ecology are Mother Nature’s greatest achievement, and she is justly proud. Muwahahaha!

  • Charles Martel

    The CBO is a classic example of a terrible bureaucracy that misleads more than it illuminates. When abortion rates skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade, did natality increase? Not a bit, because the availability of abortion increased the number of conceptions. In addition, funds currently destined for Planned Parenthood will, under the Republican plan, go to other women’s health groups that don’t kill unborn children, so it’s far from obvious that there will be a decrease in contraception regardless.

    Another example of the idiocy of the CBO comes with its projection of Obamacare enrolment, which is currently ~50% of what was repeatedly projected.

  • ——————————

    “Fearing that intelligent, well-bred Anglo-Saxons weren’t having enough babies while trailer-trash whites, immigrant hordes, and blacks were incessantly breeding, Margaret Sanger and her colleagues did their best to suppress the birth rate among undesirable people.”

    It is a fear based on reality, like it or not. There was a time when Darwinism controlled humanity, now it is our artificial technologies that do. This will end badly some day.

    “But it’s remarkable that in 2017 the NYT is flirting with the same bigoted impulses that were at the core of the progressive message one hundred years ago: The poor, unless we intervene, will breed like bunnies, and their babies are going to cost us a fortune!”

    It is not “bigoted”, it is reality. Calling ideas bigoted, racist, etc. is dangerous in the long-term for humanity….

    • CosmotKat

      In an age when Progressives can smear those with whom they disagree with the taint of racism and bigotry for the simple act of disagreeing this type of thinking is exactly what it is and it stained Progressives of the past and it is exactly who they are today….bigots, but let me add hypocrites as well.

  • CosmotKat

    “Fearing that intelligent, well-bred Anglo-Saxons weren’t having enough babies while trailer-trash whites, immigrant hordes, and blacks were incessantly breeding, Margaret Sanger and her colleagues did their best to suppress the birth rate among undesirable people.”
    [snip]

    “But it’s remarkable that in 2017 the NYT is flirting with the same bigoted impulses that were at the core of the progressive message one hundred years ago: The poor, unless we intervene, will breed like bunnies, and their babies are going to cost us a fortune!

    The more things change the more they stay the same. It is unsurprising to many of us and the true progressive impulse is unmasked and guess what, they are the same old bigots from yesteryear.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service