It is not every day that the retirement of a non-felonious Republican state senator makes the national news, but the media have made an exception for Sen. Steve Fitzgerald of Leavenworth.
The subhead on the U.S. News & World Report explains why the media think Fitzgerald’s retirement newsworthy: “A Kansas state senator who gained attention for comparing Planned Parenthood to a Nazi concentration camp plans to announce his retirement from the Legislature within a few days.”
There it is. A Google search of the terms “Trump” and “Hitler” nets a quick 51.6 million hits. The most prominent recent such headline reads, “Michael Moore compares Trump to Hitler in new documentary.” In the entirely uncritical article that follows, CNBC calls the documentary “provocative” and never challenges the Hitler comparison.
But how dare a state senator from Kansas make a much more reasonable comparison between Planned Parenthood and the Nazi genocide programs! Here’s the background. In March 2017, a woman made a $25 donation to Planned Parenthood in Fitzgerald’s name, and the local Planned Parenthood cheerily tweeted a copy of the letter to its followers.
“Shame on anyone that would attempt to blacken my name in this manner,” wrote Fitzgerald in response. “This as bad, or worse, as having one’s name associated with Dachau.”
Fitzgerald’s comparison is one that the media do not want to hear, but his, unlike Michael Moore’s, has genuine historical validity.
The autobiography of Margaret Sanger was published in 1938, the same year that Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, made the following declaration:
“Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked. . . . Our objectives are entirely different: we must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world.”
Now consider the following from Sanger’s book, The Pivot of Civilization, one that makes Goebbels’s proclamation seem, by comparison, a model of restraint:
“[T]he most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.”
Sanger did not believe in eugenics per se. Sanger went one step further into the realm of “negative eugenics.” This is her real Scarlet Letter, one now kept under lock and key.
As Planned Parenthood rather lamely explains, Nazis were eugenicists. They opposed the use of abortion and contraception by “fit” women. Through education and persuasion, the state would try to inspire the fit to outbreed the unfit. This much is true.
Margaret Sanger dismissed this strategy as a “cradle competition.” She thought it lethally weak in the knees. Eugenics advocates had no plan for dealing with that “ever-increasing army of under-sized, stunted, and dehumanized slaves.”
Any plan to outbreed these people would inevitably fail the race and deny fit women mastery over their own biological destiny. Society simply could not leave to “chance and chaotic breeding” the perpetuation of the unfit. Sanger insists on more active measures, measures that might have to be “drastic and Spartan.”
As Nazi Germany moved from talk to action on the eugenics front in the late 1930s, Sanger and her allies began to see that they had a problem at hand, a big one—Sanger’s literary record tracked goose step for unholy goose step with that of her most notorious contemporary. Given her donor base, that record had to be scrubbed. This was not an axis with which it paid to be identified.
Millions of abortions later, a disproportionate number of them minorities, is it no wonder that Planned Planned Parenthood and its media allies bristle at the comparison with Nazis. Fitzgerald made himself a target by hinting at Planned Parenthood’s dark secrets. Theirs is a story they cannot allow to be told.