Let’s see what Mrs. Clinton finds so laudable about the well-known Margaret Sanger: a leading voice of eugenics, defined as a belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits. This selfsame philosophy (and its disproven pseudo-science) informed Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life.” Essentially, Mrs. Sanger’s view was the creation of a (white) “master race” by determining or otherwise controlling who has children. Specifically, in a 1925 essay called “The Need of Birth Control in America,” Mrs. Sanger wrote: “Such human weeds [defined by her in published writings alternately as morons/defectives, delinquents/misfits/the maladjusted, and dependents/the poor] clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world, we must cultivate our garden.” Her radical solution: to segregate and/or neuter those she deemed racially or socially undesirable. To this end, she influenced state legislatures and local jurisdictions to sterilize “unfit” young people. That was the underlying purpose of Planned Parenthood, started by “trailblazer” Sanger in 1916.
So why would Mrs. Clinton proudly accept such a dubious honor named for such a nefarious character (especially in light of the history, of which it is reasonable to assume she is aware) and further defend that organization today with the exposure of business practices that would have given Adolf Hitler pause? Indeed, how can she claim to be a supporter of minority lives and not publicly condemn Planned Parenthood for their profiteering and lack of respect for human dignity? How in her twisted little mind is the bartering of baby body parts by the powers-that-be at Planned Parenthood – which targets minorities and the poor, underwritten by 500 million taxpayer dollars each year (self-reporting only 3 percent abortive services, or 327,166 [per 10/1/11-9/30/12 figures]) – equate to an “attack on a woman's right to choose”? Certainly, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want to address certain truths, so instead she makes an absurd straw-man argument à la Obama by changing the subject. Indeed, a woman’s right to control her body (which is irrelevant to this situation) has nothing to do with how fetal tissue is scientifically treated or sold in the marketplace. If the last six years have taught the American people anything, it is that someone who cannot deal with realities on their face has no business being president in 2016, especially when her only qualification – besides a failed record – is the fact that she is a woman who feels some elitist entitlement to the post.
Mrs. Clinton needs to send back her prized Planned Parenthood Lucite block that bear her and Margaret Sanger’s names – an award that symbolically promotes racial misogyny and abortion. Until she does, it remains a hypocritical memento to a person – like her amoral former U.S. president husband – who in true Clintonian fashion stands for nothing but her own self-promotion.