To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case

Posted by Kendall Harmon

(Please note the above headline is theirs and not the way I would choose to word it--KSH).

For years the largely white staff of Georgia Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, tried to tackle the disproportionately high number of black women who undergo abortions. But, staff members said, they found it difficult to make inroads with black audiences.

So in 2009, the group took money that it normally used for advertising a pregnancy hot line and hired a black woman, Catherine Davis, to be its minority outreach coordinator.

Ms. Davis traveled to black churches and colleges around the state, delivering the message that abortion is the primary tool in a decades-old conspiracy to kill off blacks.

The idea resonated, said Nancy Smith, the executive director.

“We were shocked when we spent less money and had more phone calls” to the hot line, Ms. Smith said.

Read it all (from the front page of yesterday's New York Times).

Filed under: * Culture-WatchLaw & Legal IssuesLife EthicsRace/Race RelationsReligion & Culture* International News & CommentaryAmerica/U.S.A.* TheologyEthics / Moral Theology

Posted February 28, 2010 at 7:03 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Vatican Watcher wrote:

The factors fueling the focus on black women — an abortion rate far higher than that of other races and the ties between the effort to legalize and popularize birth control and eugenics — are, at heart, old news. But they have been given exaggerated new life by the Internet, slick repackaging, high production values and money, like the more than $20,000 that Georgia Right to Life invested in the billboards.

I don’t agree with everything he says, but this type of message is one of the things Glenn Beck has been preaching about on his Fox show for the last year: the tie between progressives and eugenics.  If by phrases “old news” and “exaggerated new life” the author hopes to discredit this relationship, she’s got a tough battle.

February 28, 11:17 am | [comment link]
2. montanan wrote:

Hard to know the motivations and intentions of others.  However, the facts are hard to argue and they are horrific regarding percentage of abortions in the black community.

February 28, 11:41 am | [comment link]
3. Sarah wrote:

I don’t think it right to feed fears of a conspiracy against blacks.  This is like asking “why is Mickey D’s more in low income neighborhoods than in nice suburbs.”

It’s because abortion—like MickeyD’s—is a commodity business.  Physicians can churn good money doing rapid-fire abortions—and the clinics aren’t going to have a huge margin either. It’s not as if it’s a high-end product offered in luxury—no, it’s a mass product offered like cattle on an assembly line “towards the rotating knives.”

The more, the better.  And where can we sell more abortions?  To what communities?  Why—to the communities which have less natural social support for a new baby.

This is about marketing and free-enterprise the pagan way. 

But then . . . it’s a legal “product.” 

It shouldn’t be legal—nothing involving killing innocent babies should be “legal.”  But it is, and the market forces will necessarily pursue where there can be sales for the product.

One of the things I think people are missing in the abortion wars is that this is about money in huge part.  It’s not about the kindly abortion doctors offering missionary services to the impoverished, a la the crudely didactic movie Cider House Rules.  It’s about abortion doctors being willing to sell their souls in exchange for 300 bucks a pop, cash only—hopefully one day a week, churning a good 30 to 40—and playing golf 3-4 days a week. 

Fortunately, it’s *still* a shame and a disgrace for abortion doctors to ply their trade.  So much so that the State and activists are attempting to *require* and mandate abortion training in medical schools, in order to further the supply of the minority of physicians willing to violate the Hippocratic oath and kill babies in what ought to be the most protected place on earth—their Mother’s wombs.

February 28, 11:50 am | [comment link]
4. Country Doc wrote:

In our state, MS, black abortions are three times as prevelant as non-black.  Our black legislators always vote to fund it. However we are down to one abortiorium and it is supplied by a black doctor.
Now for something different:

February 28, 6:17 pm | [comment link]
5. Loren+ wrote:

Sarah #3:  Abortions are not purely a “commodity”—if they were, they would not need outside funding.  Thus your analogy to fast-food breaks down—with fast-food the outside funding is an investment which the investor expects to recoup.  That’s not the case with abortions—from what I have seen over the years, these clinics do not make any profit on their “commodity”.  The doctors can only make a “profit” if someone outside the system actually pays them to do so—so the question becomes why do the donors (including the government) provide the funding for these locations?  I do not know how pervasive the racial prejudice in this is, but it has been and certainly remains a factor among some donors.

February 28, 6:41 pm | [comment link]
6. Sarah wrote:

Hey Loren, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

RE: “Abortions are not purely a “commodity”—if they were, they would not need outside funding.”

Having outside funding does not mean that abortions are not commodities.  There might be other reasons—but not the fact that they get outside funding.

RE: “Thus your analogy to fast-food breaks down—with fast-food the outside funding is an investment which the investor expects to recoup.”

It is true that the outside funding for abortions is supplied by ideologues who desire abortion rights.  Clinics *do* make profits on their commodities.  I’ve seen the numbers.  Those which do not make profits—unless they’re non-profits, of course—go out of business, as has happily occurred here in SC.

RE: “The doctors can only make a “profit” if someone outside the system actually pays them to do so. . . “

Not true.  Docs can make a very good living on a day or two of back to back abortions.  I’ve also seen docs numbers on that as well.

February 28, 7:25 pm | [comment link]
7. Loren+ wrote:

Looks like I will have to take a more careful look.  I have not seen specific numbers, but have read reports in the news over the years about clinics needing funds from Planned Parenthood, the government, or others to keep the doors open to provide the needed “services”. It has always appeared that they were dependent on a base of support.

March 1, 6:10 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): Notable and Quotable

Previous entry (below): In Oklahoma an Episcopal pastor eyes new programs

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)