Eugenics Phase II: Implant Girls With Abortion Devices, Pump Them With Drugs


So there’s apparently a movement afoot among Democrats that is intended to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Sounds good, right?

The hitch is that what’s being pushed is a taxpayer-funded program to dispense contraceptives to young girls, including long-acting implants and IUDs.

Like so many other questionable ideas, this notion started in Colorado in a pilot program that did show results in terms of lowering the rate of teen pregnancies and the abortion rate.

The results of that program — which ultimately was ended by the Colorado Legislature over a range of moral, ethical and fiscal concerns — were sufficient to encourage Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam to call for a similar program in his state.

Proponents see the numbers as justification for the proposed government program, the cost of which they argue should be covered by taxpayers because IUDs and contraceptive implants are expensive. It’s the Sandra Fluke argument, basically.

And just like when Fluke had her moment of fame, the issues of responsibility and marriage are notably absent from the discussions.

The program Northam has discussed would call for sex education of teens, which sounds fine in concept. The troublesome point is that the sort of sex education that results in a teenager getting a birth control implant is not emotionally healthy for children.

These sorts of programs seem to almost universally proceed from a standpoint of surrender by simply assuming that kids are going to get naked and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it. The victims of these programs often wind up learning in detail about sexual positions and fetishes, with the merest admonishment to use birth control.

There is precious little said about waiting until marriage or even at least until the youngsters have become adults. If it’s mentioned at all, it’s often as an afterthought.

Despite the spiel about women’s health, the real pattern of these programs is to encourage unhealthy behavior by delivering information children aren’t emotionally equipped to process, then providing the illusion of safety by doling out birth control, including implants (probably without parental knowledge), and when the inevitable pregnancies happen, perform an abortion.

The results that aren’t obvious from the raw numbers touted by proponents include a child’s emotional trauma from having a relationship she wasn’t ready for, then killing her own child. Historically speaking, she’ll probably go through much of this alone.

Actual sex education including scientific facts about the changes teens are going through is needed. What’s not needed is taxpayer-funded programs that encourage kinky sex and hooking up.

But the Left will invariably say look at the numbers. Teen pregnancies and abortions are down to almost their lowest point since before the 1950s, so that proves that all this invasive-government, social-engineering-through-sex stuff works.

The glossed over point there is that with the abortions of over 56 million people just since Roe v. Wade, and who knows how many millions more before the Supreme Court made abortion legal, that’s significantly cut into the numbers of teens and adults who ever could have had children of their own.

Those numbers show that the greatest numbers of abortions are performed on black, Latino and poor Americans in general, just like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger always intended.

Interestingly, Sanger herself wasn’t fond of abortion as a method because she viewed abortion at any stage as the taking of a life. But she was a strong proponent of birth control, including forced sterilization, for “the unfit,” which is effectively what some of these long-lasting contraceptives are.

Sanger’s aim for her eugenics program was always a quote-unquote “cleaner race.” Those numbers the Left touts as their greatest triumph are really just indications that Sanger’s vision is proceeding according to plan.

Previous Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders Will Settle Things Once and for All  
Next Obama's $1 Billion Library and 'Income Inequality'

Comment