Life Sunday Stuff — Margaret Sanger Conclusion

January 9th, 2014 Post by

MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOCPart I     Part II

In September 1915, Sanger returned to America and began working again on publishing a new journal titled, Birth Control Review. At that time, she also opened the first reproductive clinic in Brooklyn, New York. She was imprisoned, along with her sister, for opening the clinic and distributing contraceptive propaganda. After her release, she began publishing Birth Control Review and recruiting the upper ranks of society to join the eugenic and birth control causes.

Three tracts, written between the years 1918 and 1926, shed light on Sanger’s eugenic tendencies. The first tract is, “When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children,” written in November 1918. Sanger listed five main reasons why women should avoid pregnancy. The fourth reason is, “No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”[1] Sanger went on to defend this statement by explaining that no matter how much the parents desired to have children,

No man and woman have a right to bring into the world those who are sure to suffer from mental or physical affliction. It condemns the child to a life of misery and places upon the community the burden of caring for them, probably of their defective descendants for many generations.[2]

At first glance, this is nothing about which to be alarmed. Sanger lists many reasons when a woman should avoid being pregnant, such as youth and health difficulties. These are innocent purposes and encouragements. However, one phrase that causes trouble is, “places upon the community the burden of caring for them.” This was an issue with the eugenicists. The mentally or physically afflicted caused a burden upon society that otherwise could be prevented through birth control. This would allow the better fit to thrive.

The view that if the unfit or afflicted prevented a progressive society was amplified in Sanger’s article, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” written in February 1919.  Sanger opened the article by stating that before eugenicists can succeed with racial betterment, they must, “First clear the way for Birth Control.”[3] Sanger emphasized this necessity because she believed that eugenicists and advocates for birth control both had the same goal, the removal of the unfit from society.[4] She saw herself working with eugenicists toward the elimination of the weak in order that the strong could thrive in society.  Sanger sought, in line with the eugenicists, to purge society of certain individuals that they deemed detrimental to the progression of civilization.  This clarifies her statements earlier in, “When a Woman Should Avoid Having Children.”

Sanger continued in this tract to summarize that the eugenicist’s emphasis is the mating of healthy couples and the sterilization of the unfit. Sanger would contrast this with the birth control view that, along with the sterilization of the unfit, they emphasize stopping, “All reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.”[5]  Sanger clarified this distinction because the world is already overpopulated and there are limited resources for those already born. This is clearly an influence from her studies of Malthus and her time spent with the Neo-Malthusian League members. Sanger did not endorse positive eugenics (increased procreation rate), but negative eugenics (limited procreation for the sake of those already born).

Sanger does not disagree that one of the means of birth control is to stop the reproduction of the unfit. This raises the question concerning the definition of, “unfit.” Sanger defines this later in the tract concerning the sterilization of the unfit that she personally believes:

 In the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and the syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit.[6]

Sanger concluded this tract by stressing the fact that eugenics, if it is to continue and thrive, must rely on birth control. Sanger compared eugenics without birth control to a house built on the sand because it is, “At the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.” Eugenics could not survive as a philosophy, or as an ideal. It had to have a concrete tool to feed its ideology and, therefore, its practicality. Sanger endorsed birth control as the fuel to feed the fire of eugenics because a “free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.”[7]

This closing statement hearkens back to Chesler’s assertion that Ellis influenced Sanger in that women were the enforcers of a more prudent and better world. A better world, in terms of eugenics and birth control, is a world that allows the healthy and fit to have a better life, without the cares or burdens of the unfit. Sanger observes and emphasizes birth control as a steady means by which the population can be controlled and therefore better fit in this world. After reading this article, it is evident that Sanger asserts that a woman who practices birth control can better manage her economic, housing, and physical well-being. This article reveals the close relationship between eugenics and birth control and Sanger’s belief that they serve a common purpose.

The third writing is an excerpt from, “Racial Betterment,” written in August 1926. This is an excerpt from a speech that Sanger gave to the Vassar College Institute of Euthenics.  Sanger opened the speech saying, “There are two problems now confronting civilization. The pressure of population on the food supply of the world, and the reconciliation of humanitarian practices with race betterment.”[8]

Sanger did not address the issue of food supply, but instead asserted the necessity for the American government to implement programs that would educate society about the need for birth control. After explaining the country’s stance on immigration and how the government keeps out the undesirables, she noted that it is deplorable how there is no, “attempt to discourage or cut down on the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home.”[9]  Sanger addressed that the issue of birth control’s illegal status leads to the American public being, “taxed, heavily taxed, to maintain an increasing race of morons, which threatens the very foundations of our civilization.”[10]

 Sanger emphasized that the need to eliminate the feeble-minded was a foregone conclusion if society desired to be healthy. Sanger concluded her speech with the bold words that if a country desired a higher birth rate among the intelligent, there is only one reply, which is to, “ask the government to FIRST take off the burdens of the insane and feebleminded from your backs. Sterilization for these is the remedy.”[11]

Sanger was an advocate for birth control in America and around the world. In her pursuit to legalize both the distribution of contraceptives and the education of the masses concerning reproductive health, Sanger found herself with many diverse friendships around the world. However, the eugenicists remained friends for the remainder of her life after her return from England.

In the book, Birth Control in America: The Career Of Margaret Sanger, David Kennedy observes the relationship between Sanger and the eugenicists as an effective relationship. He asserts that Sanger:

 Had first embraced eugenic rhetoric as just another addition to her grab-bag of arguments for contraception. Soon, however, eugenics dominated birth control propaganda and underscored the conversion of the birth control movement from a radical program of social disruption to a conservative program of social control.[12]

There is a clear shift in Sanger’s rhetoric after her exile in England. Upon returning to America, she began using eugenic terminology and arguments to advocate the legalization for birth control for the sake of the nation and women everywhere. One must ask the question, “Did Sanger use eugenics to broaden her horizons and widen her audience, or did she agree with the tenets of eugenic ideology?”  Sanger herself answers this question in her autobiography, which she wrote and was first published in 1938. Sanger asserted that she, “accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands.” Sanger criticized the eugenicists because they wanted to “shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich.” Sanger argued against this because her priority was first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared to Sanger as the “most important and greatest step towards race betterment.”[13]

It is impossible for one to read into the conscience of Sanger or to comprehend her motives. She must not be made into an anachronism, nor should religious or secular biases interpret her language. Sanger’s works and words must determine the answer to the eugenic question. Was Margaret Sanger a eugenicist?  What is known is that Sanger did use eugenic arguments and rhetoric in order to further the cause of birth control in America. What is probable, after review of the materials, is that she learned these eugenic debates while in England in 1914-1915. Sanger did not use eugenic arguments to further her own cause, but agreed with the negative practice of eugenics, as is read in her own words, in order to continue her cause of race betterment. England was a turning point for Sanger and a determinant for her continued fight for the legalization of birth control in America.

 


[1] Margaret Sanger, “When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children,” in The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger: Volume 1 The Woman Rebel 1900-1928, ed. Esther Katz (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 243.

[2] Ibid, 243.

[3] Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Beterment,” in The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger: Volume 1 The Woman Rebel 1900-1928, ed. Esther Katz (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 252.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 252.

[6] Ibid, 253.

[7] Ibid, 254.

[8] Margaret Sanger, “Excerpt from Racial Betterment,” in The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger: Volume 1 The Woman Rebel 1900-1928, ed. Esther Katz (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 445.

[9] Ibid, 446.

[10] Ibid, 446.

[11] Ibid, 447.

[12] David M. Kennedy, Birth Control In America: The Career Of Margaret Sanger (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 121.

[13] Margaret Sanger : An Autobiography(New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1971), 374-375.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. James R Cutler
    January 9th, 2014 at 14:08 | #1

    Was this a typo in the source or a transcription error?

    “Did Sanger use eugenics to broaden her horizons and widen her audience, or did she agree with the tenants of eugenic ideology?”

    I don’t know anybody living in eugenic ideology. “tenants” should most likely be “tenets”.

    Thank you for the article. It gives marvelous background detail.

  2. Robert Hoffman
    January 10th, 2014 at 13:05 | #2

    Interesting History. I miss the confessional Lutheran points to it.

  3. Pastor Chris Hull
    January 10th, 2014 at 13:11 | #3

    @Robert Hoffman #2
    Robert,
    The article is divided into three parts because it was a paper I wrote for Graduate School at a State University. The problem that arises every time we preach against Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger is that we have no clue what we are doing. We have no clue who Sanger was or how Planned Parenthood began. We look like ignorant right winged conservatives who just want to hate anything to do with the liberal agenda. However, if we can give the facts of history to people it will at the very least allow us to approach this debate with some intelligence in order that the Gospel may be proclaimed. The History of Sanger is the law. The supporters of Sanger and PP cannot escape these historical facts. When they make the argument for Sanger, just begin to read them some of these statements and events. What do we usually do? We equate Sanger with Hitler, Stalin, and other tyrants. What do people do when they hear this? They stop listening. WE have to know the devil’s tricks and knowing Sanger’s background is necessary. There is nothing Lutheran about this paper. However, it will help if you are dealing with anyone in the community, or your own congregation, who thinks that Sanger or PP is beneficial. Hopefully this helps.

  4. Robert Hoffman
    January 10th, 2014 at 14:40 | #4

    Aaaahhh…Gotcha. Preach on, Brother!

  5. January 10th, 2014 at 18:42 | #5

    Many people on the secular left like to point out that their ‘side’ has always been on the right side of history. Most don’t realize that eugenics was a major platform for most secular progressives at the turn of the century. It was just as much a part of their platform as big government. It was only after the horrible consequences of the movement that they distanced themselves from it. However, eugenics is making a comeback. As faithful Christians we need to be ready to stand firm against genetic engineering of humans, which is the next step.

  6. Didaskalos
    January 11th, 2014 at 05:39 | #6

    @Pastor Chris Hull #3

    And as Life Sunday approaches (three days before the 41st anniversary of Roe v Wade), it’s good to know that the LCMS has a wealth of resources: http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=740 and http://www.lcms.org/marchforlife

    More importantly, the people of God need to examine their hearts to see what the Lord is calling them to do to “rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to slaughter.”

    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/01/actively_engaged_in_the_abortion_battle/page1

    “Actively engaged in the abortion battle: A pastor’s plea to not sit on the sidelines and hope this horrific genocide of the unborn works itself out”
    By MATT CHANDLER

  7. Didaskalos
    January 11th, 2014 at 05:52 | #7

    A week before Life Sunday, what better exhortation to action than that given by Matthew Harrison in last January’s Lutheran Witness [ http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=1333&IssueID=73 ]:

    “By the love of God the Father, who chose a young woman to carry out His plan of salvation, a young woman who knew what it is to be confused by an unplanned pregnancy; by the grace of Christ, who while still in the womb was greeted by the “leaping,” yes, “rejoicing” John the Baptizer, himself unborn (Luke 1:44); by the strength of Him who healed every disease and cared for every life He encountered (Mark 1:34); by the mercy of God the Father who sent His Son, mercy incarnate for all (Luke 1:78); by the knowledge of our eternal God and Lord who knows and loves every child formed in the womb (Jer. 1:5; John 3:16); empowered by the Spirit of life who gives me life (Job 33:4; Rom. 8:10), I–a sinner no better than the next (1 Tim. 1:15)–shall speak (Jer. 20:9). I shall intervene (Luke 10:33). I shall love all and treasure God’s gift of life, womb to tomb (1 Tim. 6:18). For Jesus experienced it all, sanctified it all and redeems it all (Gal. 3:13). He has redeemed me that I may no longer live for myself (1 John 4:9; 1 Pet. 4:2).”

  8. Rev. David Mueller
    January 12th, 2014 at 12:24 | #8

    @Pastor Chris Hull #3
    WHat I did find very interesting is the use of the word “Superman” *before* her trip to England. Eugenics, et al., have a common root of existentialism. I still can’t get over the boldness of Ben Stein in “Expelled”–drawing the connections between the evolutionary thought that lead to Nazism and abortion today.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.