Select Page

Abortion’s long racist history

Abortion’s long racist history

Much of the current political debate over abortion has to do with popularity when it is essentially an issue of morality.  When we only speak of popularity as opposed to morality, we should remind ourselves of the popularity of slavery in the early years of the American public.

Those on the left like to call Republicans and conservatives racists no matter what the issues may be.  It is that old-tattered “race card” that they play when they have no good counterarguments.  They even claim that opposition to abortion is racist.

If you take a serious look at abortion historically or contemporaneously, you may get a different picture.

The modern proponents of abortion in America rose out of the racist progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s.  It was a time when Democrat progressives were proffering a variety of doctrines relegating Negroes into a social and human sub-class.  White supremacy was reflected in the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  The former segregated the military and the Executive Branch of the federal government, and the latter crafted New Deal programs intentionally designed to transfer desperately needed jobs from blacks to whites.

Democrat leaders fully embraced the racist pseudo-sciences of Phrenology and Eugenics — giving a false scientific imprimatur to the belief of Negro inferiority.

One of the most prominent advocates of racist theology was Margaret Sanger.  Her mission was to save white humanity from the contamination of genetically inferior people – Asians, Middle Easterners, Jews, and above all, Negroes.  These were times when Democrats in the south – with the approval of the Roosevelt administration — were performing hideous and needlessly deadly medical experiments on Negroes.  It was a time when southern Democrats were conducting a genocidal reign of terror on the descendants of former slaves.

These were also times when Sanger was not only promoting abortion of black babies but also the forced sterilization of black women – often without their knowledge.  In the community, the procedure was referred to as “Negro appendectomies.”

To promote abortion, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League as a means of preventing inferior human stock from propagating – using both birth control and abortion.  Sanger did not mean voluntary birth control.  She wanted to make it illegal for a Caucasian to marry a person of inferior standing.   She wanted to prevent Negroes from having children of their own – literally making it illegal.  And if they could not refrain from parenting, mandatory abortion.  

Sanger not only travelled the nation promoting the aborting of black babies, but her group sponsored or arranged the procedure in many cases.  Sanger was a regular lecturer before white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan.  Her organization shared its mission with Adolph Hitler – who praised Sanger’s work and offered cooperation.

After Hitler declared war on the United States, Sanger had to disassociate from the Fuhrer, and changed the name of her organization to … Planned Parenthood.  The name change did not change the objective of the organization at that time.  The goal was to abort as many babies with African DNA as possible.

As Planned Parenthood expanded, the target audience did not change.  PP Clinics were initially located in exclusively black neighborhoods.  It was not until Roe v. Wade that Planned Parenthood’s services were extended to non-black clients.

Whether by design or tradition, Planned Parenthood has disproportionately terminated the lives of more black babies than white babies.

Current numbers show that approximately 39 percent of abortions involve white women, people of color (to use the new term) account for 61 percent.  That includes blacks, Hispanics, Asian and other minority groups.

Blacks are approximately 30 percent of the total abortions.  However, … when you compare those numbers to their population demographic, blacks have – by far — the highest per capita abortion rates of any group.  

Looking at it another way, there have been more than 20 million black babies aborted since Roe v. Wade.  Had those developing humans been allowed to be born, the black population of America would be 20 percent of the current population instead of 14 percent.

 Sanger’s mission has been enormously successful.  To put it bluntly, black influence and power has been significantly reduced by abortion – millions of fewer voters.  

The use of abortion as a political tool is no secret.  Years ago, I had a private conversation with a top Chicago government official – a Democrat.  He praised abortion and rhetorically asked, “Can you imagine how many niggers we would have without legal abortion?”

What strikes me strange about the political debate over abortion is the constant attacks on the Republican/conservative pro-life community as “racists.”  The folks who want to see millions of black babies live are somehow the racists.

There are a lot of ways to look at abortion, but there is one undeniable truth.  Sorry to say … whatever you think about the procedure, those who support abortion-on-demand are supporting an institution that has very real racist underpinnings.

So, there ‘tis,

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Mike

    use to live in the Chicago area and have departed. The people on the left there are beyond racist. They and no better then Margrett. Just look at the towns. If anyone get a chance =. Just drive thru the south side.

    • larry Horist

      Mike … Not people on the left. You mean Democrats from city hall to the precincts. I did not drive through the south side. I spent an enormous amount of time working in the community to fight institutional racism of the Democrat political machine.

  2. frank stetson

    “New Deal programs intentionally designed to transfer desperately needed jobs from blacks to whites.” OK, Social Security, based on input from Southern Democrats, had clauses precluding domestics and agro workers, mostly black, which is racism by design, but also racism as designed to get the law passed. Sort of how like we did the Constitution to begin with…..

    Lasted about 15 years.

    Most of the other racisms of The New Deal were implementations, not law, and so were the effect of certain managers operationalizing laws-without-racism in a racist fashion. Same effect, but a management issue, the law did not specify racism. Example, Ikes was not racist and neither was his programs. Others, not so much so. This is an issue of FDR monitoring and control, not really sure he knew. Maybe you know he knew…….

    But I know of no other New Deal law, program, that stipulated racism like Social Security did. And I am not sure FDR let it roll just to get the law passed.

    • Tom

      Most historical accounts that I have read lean in the direction that FDR had some knowledge and that he did “let it roll” because of the greater good he saw. Essentially he was willing to suffer the racism aspects to achieve a greater vision. I did read of one account where FDR was an owner of a country club in the South where Blacks were not allowed to join or be present inside of the club. Otherwise, most historians seem to agree that overall, FDR’s New Deal Program was good and marked the beginning of a progressive movement to combat racism. Those same historians do support your assertion that the monitoring of state and local implementations of the Federal programs spawned under The New Deal was deficient and was the culprit. Great post Frank, you have just received 9 of 10 points for accuracy and truth! Job well done!

      • Frank stetson

        Thanks for your support. Be here all week, be sure to tip your waitress as you go.

        Even if FDR did as we think, he is still culpable for never admitting it. I could see where he might not want to speak of it at the time, but he should’ve addressed it after he was out of office. Then again, that just couldn’t happen 🙁

        I would like to think you are right.

        • Tom

          I always tip waitresses, they work hard. And I am against the giant Restaurant owners union that suppresses their wages. I agree, it would have been nice if he had admitted some things somewhere along the way. In his defense, he died in office and maybe never had the chance to even if he wanted to. I think Eleanor often said and did what he could not say or bring himself to do. The nation was shocked when she went up for a ride with one of the Tuskeegee Airmen fighter pilots. It made the national news, as she often did. She was a great lady!

      • larry Horist

        Tom… the “club” was the spa where he died — allegedly waters that could treat polio victims. No Negroes need apply. It was also where he would hold his annual birthday party and take money for Democrat donors. Millions were raised with little accounting to the spending. That was before campaign finance laws. It makes the Clinton Foundation look like the Red Cross. FDR joins Wilson as the two most racist presidents in terms of policy since Andrew Jackson. FDR was not a reluctant racists. It was in his DNA. Ironically, it was Johnson — as President — who was the first pro-civil rights Democrat President — joining every Republican President since Lincoln.

        • Tom

          Thanks Larry, you are correct and that was what I read some time ago. That’s pretty bad when you can make the Clinton Foundation look like the Red Cross! LOL Yes I do recall the Johnson Administration. To me, Johnson seemed very racist but keyed on the civil rights issues to gain votes. But that is my personal opinion.

          • larry Horist

            In my book, I cover the three theories about Johnson … that he was persuaded that his racist history would not look good in the future as President …that he was operating purely for pragmatic reasons … or that he had an epiphany regarding civil rights and racism. But what is certain, he work hard to get the civil rights legislation passed. And to do that, he had to rely on the overwhelming support of congressional Republicans. It was a bipartisan effort with the GOP bringing most of the votes.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson. You seem to be saying that institutional racism is not a problem if only the IMPLIMENTATION of the law is racist … but not the law itself. Under that theory the only problem with the Jim Crow laws as implementation by the governing authorities. And you seeming defense of the New Deal programs and FDR is based on pure ignorance. In a prevous response, I explained the racism of a few of the New Deal programs — if you recall.

      • Frank stetson

        That is not what I wrote.

        • frank stetson

          And no, I don’t recall, sorry. Joe’s search engine or lack thereof, makes it pretty hard to travel back in time, or to find specific commentors. He should hire some Twitter web designers, they are cheap right now.

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson … I shall consider your memory failure in future responses.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson …. LOL. To rebut my comment you used the same technique I criticized. I know you did not specifically WRITE that it was okay as long as the laws were not racist … but you IMPLIED it.

  3. frank stetson

    Democrats: whatever it is, Larry is against it. Objective: no. Partisan: yes.

    ” Rather than wanting to exterminate the Negro population, Sanger wanted to cope with the fear of some blacks that birth control was the white man’s way of reducing the black population.”

    “In response, Planned Parenthood said Carson (aka Larry Horist) was not only “wrong on the facts, he’s flat-out insulting.”

    “Does he think that black women are somehow less capable of making the deeply personal decision about whether to end a pregnancy than other women? … It’s a shame that a doctor, who should understand the barriers black women face accessing high-quality preventive and reproductive health care services, would pander so clearly to anti-abortion extremists on the right.”

    “Her attitude toward African-Americans can certainly be viewed as paternalistic, but there is no evidence she subscribed to the more racist ideas of the time or that she coerced black women into using birth control. In fact, for her time, as the Washington Post noted, “she would likely be considered to have advanced views on race relations.”

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson …. You response just proves that fact-checkers need to be fact-checked. What you have offered up is a progressive defense brief for Sanger. It is shamefully misrepresentative of the facts. She clearly believed that blacks and Asians were inferior humans and need have their birth rates “controlled”. She promoted forced sterilization and support laws banning interracial marriage. She supported Nazi population policies and received praising communications from Hitler. He was the reason she changed the name of the organization — because he had become an international monster and her original name was associated with supporting him. I am not surprised that the pro-abortion community would try to whitewash Sanger. You need to take a deep research dive into the Sanger history.

  4. Tom

    I agree that our country has some racist roots and policies in the past. From the very founding we had slavery. After the civil war, racism temporarily went legal and underground. There were many forms of segregation which to me is racist. Jim Crow laws were allowed to be interpreted and implemented at local levels which caused harsh treatment of people of color, not just Blacks, but Asians and Hispanics as well. Asians largely were the reason we got the Transcontinental RR built but then they were later either deported, denied citizenship, and relegated to a life of poverty by working very low income jobs. Camps for Japanese people during WWII but no camps for German or Italian people. SSA excluded farm workers. Forced sterilizations of Black women and I do remember a sign in a store that noted if you were a Black woman and you were the victim of sterilization, you could sue the government for compensation. I remember the Black baseball leagues. When I was five in the January winter of PA I wanted to ride in the back of the city bus because that is where the engine was and it was warm, but my mother ordered me up front because the back of the bus was for Blacks. Vietnam was much a poor man’s and Black man’s war. The US Army during Vietnam had a video shown to all white soldiers to the best of my memory was called “Fighting with the Black Man” which was shown up to and including 1967. Race riots and my father whom I never heard a racist comment telling me one day that he was glad MLK stayed down South because “We don’t need that kind of trouble up here.” Larry correctly points out the origin of Planned Parenthood. VA and FHA Fair Housing Act had institutional racism built into it as Blacks were denied home loans as well as Whites were denied home loans if the home bordered a “Black area”. Abortion statistics definitely support the notion of unequal application towards Black population, but is this due to color or poverty? I do remember four White teen abortions in my high school and no Black abortions – but maybe that is because there were only about 10 Black people in my highschool. Yes I remember the majority of the items I just listed – this is our racial history, and it does indict Whites as being supremacists, both Dem and GOP Whites.

    But despite all of the aforementioned indictments of White culture in our country, I am still very proud of The United States of America. We are the best deal on earth. And we are a work in progress that constantly looks to root out, expose, and correct racism.

    I think it to be unfair to cherry pick a few cases and call FDR’s New Deal racist or a failure of racism. Nevertheless, the New Deal era’s political and cultural groundswell began to transform the country in a way that would help launch the Civil Rights Movement. Historians seem to agree that the New Deal program actually is the dividing line between the old racist USA of the past and the new progressive less racist USA of the present. Many leading New Dealers, such as Harold Ickes, Mary McLeod Bethune and Eleanor Roosevelt, were vigorous advocates of racial equality, something that had not been seen since the Reconstruction Era. One cannot blame the New Deal for racial policies that had roots in the larger contours of American society, and the Roosevelt Administration was sharply constrained by that larger context. A critical dimension of the New Deal (as throughout US history) was the reality of “federalism”, which means that national laws are often filtered through state and local powers. Many New Deal programs deferred to local oversight in the selection of projects and distribution of funds. That is why Jim Crow segregation ruled in public housing and ultimately in CCC camps. At the same time, such “deference to localism” (Thomas Sugrue, p. 60) was a strength of the New Deal because it allowed local governments to choose projects they wanted and have a financial stake in the massive federal investment in public infrastructure.

    I have in the past read many anti-progressivism comments in the hallowed halls of these blogs. Let us always remember that the progressive New Deal was key to helping all Americans embark on a more non-racial future. I hope that all Americans regardless of political party will join together, that Frank and Larry will walk arm in arm with Tom in the middle adjoining them and keeping the peace, and lets all come together in a renewed spirit of unity to celebrate the passing of many old American racial practices and continue bringing in the new non-racial America of today that is freer and fairer for all just as Lincoln, our greatest Republican envisioned and our greatest Democrats like FDR and Kennedy worked hard to implement. Lets clink and tip our mugs to eachother, as we are all key parts of this great American democracy experiment so long ago envisioned! May God continue to show us the way!

    • larry Horist

      Tom …. FDR was an active white supremacist … period. He did nothing to advance civil right. Quite the opposite. His administration was not a turning point against racism. Every New Deal program was racist and worked against blacks. In fact, it further embedded institutional racism throughout the nation. Virtually every New Deal programs was designed to work against black equality and equal opportunity. It was very successful in taking jobs away from blacks. That is why the black unemployment rose for around 3.5 percent to more than 50 percent while white unemployment rose from 3.7 percent to only around 20 percent. There is only one way that can happen. The NAACP called the NRA the Negro Riddance Act. It is true that Eleanor Roosevelt was support of civil rights, but she could not influence her husband. In my book I give examples. FDR and his people in Congress killed several anti-lunching bills proposed by Republicans. And you mention JFK. The guy who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1956 … voted for Ike’s 1960 bill — but only after he and the southern Democrats removed the enforcement provision, making it almost meaningless. Kennedy had his 1960 civil rights bill assigned to a committee headed by a southern racist knowing it would never come to the floor. It was merely a campaign ploy. He did the same during the 1963 campaign. The bill would have died in committee again had he not been assassinated and Johnson took it up sincerely — joining the GOP members of Congress to get the 1964 Civil Rights bill based. Democrats in Congress opposed the bill and even filibustered. The filibuster was quashed because of the overwhelming support of Republicans. Ironically, it is very likely that there would have been no 1964 Civil Rights Act if Kennedy had not been assassinated. The 1965 Voting Rights Bill was written and introduced by Republican Senator Everette Dirksen. That got Dirksen the cover or Time Magazine.

    • larry Horist

      Tom …. read it. A couple of observations. The report confirms that New Deal policies were racist — but excuses that fact based on the times. The article is the product of the hard left — and they say their defense of the FDR New Deal is necessary to protect the image of the new New Deal. Unlike the book I am working on, your recommended article does not examine all the New Deal programs with an eye on the racism,. The political purpose of the New Deal was to push out blacks in favor of whites — who were disparate for jobs and resources during the Depression.

      Since you mentioned FDR’s “club” … here is an excerpt from my manuscript.

      “Warm Springs for Whites Only
      Roosevelt’s association with a health spa in Warm Springs, Georgia was reflective of his deep racist beliefs. In 1926, he purchased a small local mineral water spring. It was alleged that the waters were beneficial for polio victims. Roosevelt was diagnosed with poliomyelitis in 1921 at age 39. (Although modern medical professionals believe it was a misdiagnosed case of Guillain–Barré syndrome.)
      Under his ownership, he expanded it to be a large nationally famous health spa. He created the Warm Springs Foundation as a tax-free charity to operate the spa. He served as president of the Foundation, its most prominent member and the magnet for America’s elite visiting the spa. They would welcome the opportunity to patronize Roosevelt’s favorite private charity with personal visits and large financial contributions — and on occasion enjoy his company. He hosted foreign dignitaries there.
      In encouraging donations and the use of the facilities, Roosevelt apparently made false claims about the healing effect the waters had on his body. His medical records indicated no such improvements in his condition. The National Park Service website promoting the spa claimed that Roosevelt experienced at least a partial cure from bathing in the waters of Warm Springs.
      Roosevelt arrived at the resort on October 3, 1924 hoping to find a cure. The next day, he began swimming and immediately felt an improvement. For the first time in three years, he was able to move his right leg.
      The American Journal of Public Health featured an article in 2007 by Naomi Rogers entitled “Race and Politics of Polio.” It stated:
      The president was also said to have deceived the American people about the effects of polio on his own body. According to a whispering campaign, polio had left him addicted to drugs, so erratic that he required a straight jacket, and was incontinent, sexually impotent and helplessly crippled.
      While the funds were claimed to create an endowment for the Foundation, the funds were often redirected to other civic and political purposes, and even allegedly to Roosevelt, himself. One of the major fundraising events was the President’s annual birthday celebration.
      Rogers writes that:
      At first the funds were intended to create a permanent endowment for Warm Springs. But gradually the Birthday Ball organizers redirected the money to the local communities that had raised it. The significance of this philanthropic policy shift away from Warm Springs was not widely appreciated by the American public …
      Roosevelt’s Foundation was criticized for its fundraising activities. He held an annual Birthday Ball with himself as the star attraction. America’s elite were solicited for contributions – including more than $100,000 donated by prominent black Americans. This was an incredible amount of money during the Depression.
      What has been lost in most modern histories of Roosevelt is that his wholly owned and operated spa was for whites only. He even rejected a suggestion for a segregated facility on the grounds for Negro patients. In southern racist tradition, however, the low paid work staff was approximately half Negro. They served as maids, janitors and aides to lift patients in and out of baths. The white staff was housed in the main building or in nearby private cottages. Black workers lived in more distant dormitories.
      His refusal to allow black children to use the spa, and revelations of the use of donated funds, created a growing embarrassment on the verge of scandal. In 1941, with help the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, known popularly as the March of Dimes, Tuskegee Institute opened a heath facility for black polio victims. With only 36 beds, the Institute facility was woefully inadequate to the need. Prominent physician W. Montague Cobb would latter describe the Tuskegee facility as a “Negro medical ghetto.”
      Roosevelt praised the Institute for its establishment of the special heath center for black victims of polio, giving him the appearance of concern for the Negro population who voted for him and donated to his Warm Springs all-white facility. In fact, the Tuskegee facility was necessitated because of Roosevelt’s personal decision to ban black children from Warm Springs.
      Most civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, were offended by Roosevelt’s racist policies and made their plea to Mrs. Roosevelt. According to Naomi Rogers:
      Reverend J. S. Bookens of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Mobile, Ala, tried to have his paralyzed 9-year-old son admitted to warm Springs and was told ‘Negroes (are) never admitted to that institution.’ This case was widely discussed in the Black press and spurred Walter White, secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, to remind Eleanor Roosevelt that segregation at Warm Springs was the reason his association refused to sponsor Birthday Ball fund raising.”
      The Urban League argued that a change in policy “would be heartily welcomed by ten million otherwise socially disinherited American citizens.” Whether Eleanor Roosevelt raised the issue with her husband is unknown, but there was no change in the policy.
      About the same time, the Chicago Tribune printed a letter that noted:
      There is a place in Georgia named Warm Springs where the President has endowed, or partially maintains, a sanitarium for the treatment of infantile paralysis. I have no doubt that what the humblest, most ragged, and illiterate little white child in the land would be admitted there for treatment, but the most cultured, refined, and well clothed Negro child would be denied admittance simply because it was a Negro.
      With public outrage mounting, the Chief Surgeon issued a public explanation for Roosevelt’s whites-only policy. His explanation is as damning as the policy. He said:
      “[Warm Springs] is not a general orthopedic hospital. It treats and studies nothing but Infantile Paralysis. It maintains no wards, separate clinics or segregated rooms. Aid and pay patients share the same facilities. We cannot take colored people for this reason.”
      By 1937, Roosevelt and his fellow trustees were faced with the issue of desegregating Warm Springs. While there was almost universal reluctance to admit Negroes, the trustees recognized the growing public relationship problem and the political problem for Roosevelt. They decided against serving black children but decided to “associate” with an all-black medical facility as a means of stemming growing criticism. After extensive deliberations Trustee James M. Hooper summed up the sentiment of his fellow board members in saying “our facilities do not lend themselves to the comfortable housing and treatment of resident colored cases … we do not feel that we could make such patients comfortable both physically and psychologically.”
      A 1937 decision by Roosevelt and the trustees to drop the Tuskegee Institute and other black medical groups as recipients for that year’s Birthday Ball funds created a firestorm in the black community.
      The Chicago Defender ran an article under the headline “We Donated, But They Left Us Out.” The Warm Springs leadership had decided that “the Negro should solve his problem … through local medical practitioners, because statistics show that it (polio) is most prevalent among white people.” Though untrue, the racist medical community proffered the false argument that Negroes were not afflicted by polio.
      Warm Springs remained segregated throughout Roosevelt’s lifetime. After his death at Warm Springs in 1945, Rogers further noted that:
      Warm Springs remained segregated for many years. By the end of the 1940s it had set up a few “emergency” beds for local Black patients, but there were no Black physicians, nurses, therapists, or administrators, and the Warm Springs movie theater had an indoor picket fence indicating where Black employees could sit, separate from the White patients and staff, in the worst seats.
      For the 19 years that Roosevelt owned the facility, and despite his civil rights rhetoric, the mounting criticism from whites and blacks across the nation and with disregard for the health of black children, Roosevelt maintained his racist policies at Warm Springs to the day he died.”

      • Tom

        Thankyou for the info Larry. Some of the facts in your manuscript I have read in the past in that article I referred to. You are obviously well informed on FDR and the New Deal. I would enjoy reading your book sometime. Again, thank you for the indepth answer and section of your manuscript. I really appreciated it.

      • Frank stetson

        So he’s just like Trump. I don’t agree with his personal business but I love the policies. Fyi: sarcasm alert.

        Another hero shot down.

        Can only Washington stand the test of time? Fuck, he owned slaves……You better be against crt, it wipes the southern founding fathers off the map…. How could Elenor remain with this guy. Somehow, like Johnson, I smell a greater complexity than Larry’s black n white portrayal. I just hate researching this one, so depressing….

        • Tom

          Now might be a good time to pop one of those SSRI’s I suggested earlier, and then listen to the Rolling Stones song, “Mother’s Little Helper” and just giggle a little. Giggling is good for the soul.

  5. Mike F

    Larry, Instead of discussing abortion in the context of history, and how the democrats who are now republicans used abortion to promote racism, why don’t we discuss the issue in a more modern context? The simple matter of fact is that abortion is far too complicated an issue for the government to regulate. There are always going to be issues regarding this matter that the law cannot provide for, so that is why the majority of the people in the United States believe that the issue of abortion should be one resolved between a pregnant woman and her doctor, not by a bunch of old men in the legislature who have not (and cannot be) pregnant. You claim that it is an issue of “morality” not “public opinion”, so that is why you want government intervention. While this has been the Republican position for many years-one could scarcely find an issue that is further from the Republican ideals of “less government intervention, rather than more”. As the recent elections directly regarding abortion have shown ( when it was directly on the ballot), all initiatives to preserve the right to abortion passed-showing that the populace in general is far more savvy than you and the vast majority of republican legislators. In addition, it can well be argued that abortion was the main issue that caused the much touted “red wave” to be the “red trickle” instead. Your opinion in this matter is purely based on emotion, no facts involved….

  6. Tom

    Mike, I think your discussion has much merit. I too believe abortion played apart in Red Wave Suppression – (borrowing a Dem term LOL) Also, harsh rhetoric by McCarthy and Trump, and Kari Lake to name three, absolutely turned off Independent/Unaffiliated voters like me. Larry actually has presented facts that you may have missed. I can tell you I personally read the poster urging Black women whom were the victims of forced sterilization between 1910 and up to 1929, and directed them to report their sterilization for compensation by the government. Now, with regard to abortion, Larry is correct in that the number of abortions are disproportionately more for Black and Hispanic women. I do not think this is a Democratic Party issue but rather owes to the issues of poverty and lack of access to contraceptives as well as quality medical care in that about 40% of their babies die in the womb or are pregnancies that will not be sustainable in the long term. There may also be a government component (the elephant in the room) sanctioned by both parties in that abortion is less costly to government than 18 years of social systems support. I did find some stats and facts for you at There are many stats and facts on the internet. I am sure you can independently find some that will support Larry’s assertions. You are correct, it is a complicated issue!

    • Tom

      Also Mike, read the article I referenced in my discussion with Frank. It supports other aspects of Larry’s assertions.

    • Mike F

      Tom, My point, in case it wasn’t obvious, is that Larry’s history lesson (or should we say badmouthing Democrats of the past) bears no relation to either modern day Democrats, or the abortion issue that we are currently facing (his data is not even relevant to the era when Roe v Wade was actually passed). Instead of focusing on ancient history, we should be looking at the real world consequences that the latest abortion ruling is having across the country-little girls finding it extremely difficult to get an abortion, abortions refused for rape cases, women being forced to carry unviable fetuses, etc….. The decision was made based strictly on emotion, and Larry’s writing continues to try to stir that emotional pot-he attempts to paint democrats in a bad light in the hopes that he can convince some black people to vote Republican by pulling at their emotions, showing that they were used in the past, of course not mentioning areas where blacks were treated poorly by republicans….

      • larry Horist

        Mike F … You need to pay attention. I have repeatedly address the brutal and deadly racism in today’s Democrat run cities. Something the hypocritical left turns a blind eye to. I only paint racist Democrats in a bad light. And show me major cities where blacks are treated as badly as they are in Chicago, New York, Baltimore. Los Angeles, etc., etc. etc. Show me Republican run cities in which there have been protests and riots by the scores. I have heard the claims of voter suppression by Republicans in places where blacks are voting in record numbers. Put that on the scale opposite of the million of blacks in segregated communities receiving inferior education …. high unemployment … general impoverishment …. and being killed by the thousands each year.

        And as far as abortion is concerned, it is not a political issue — but a moral issue. The central question is whether a developing human in the womb has an inalienable right to “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” At what point does he or she get constitutional protection? That is the question the pro-abortion community dodges — or distracts from by falsely claimed that the fetus is an integral part of a woman’s body and that abortion is a woman’s health issues. Both are patently untrue. There are three stakeholders with every conception. There is the father, who has not say in abortion under the theory that it is exclusively a woman address her own body — but who is held financially libel is the woman births the baby … and finally the developing person, which the pro-abortion community de-humanizes to the equivalency of a cyst. Your seeing abortion in different lights at different times does not fly with the basic biological and moral constant.

  7. Ac

    As a fairly regular consumer of your commentary essays, I have read your opinion often relating to the Democratic Party. That you detest the Party. President Biden, its elected members of government, and common citizens identifying as Democratic. Clearly you have an axe to grind with Democrats. You free in this fair land to have a vastly differing opinion, for whatever reason it’s motivated.
    However, I assume you have designs on credibility as a journalist.
    With this written piece your premise as stated by its title leads the reader in only to discover the real premise was your nursing an old grudge with the Democratic Party. At the outset you write that the atrocities done to women, black and minority were directly attributable to the Democratic Party. Then you extrapolate the old south Democrats deplorable morality to include “Modern” Democratic Party philosophy..
    Which subject did you intend for new information and enlightenment so your readers may learn something and understand how we came to be where we are today is it on the abortion question? On that subject research can be a fact finding process. Objective relating of the facts speaking of the horrendous treatment of women, human beings, relighted to animal status. What Margaret Sanger did and others in that time is applicable as evidence in support of societal context. Information from centuries past contrasted with today’s association with the abortion question can have instructional value. When appropriately translated into current social context positive learning can result
    In my opinion, mixed messaging occurs with your adding into the late 19th and early 20th Centuries story undo bias from the 21st Century. Time travel only is relevant for Science Fiction Novels. I think you would agree with me that life in the 21st Century is better suited to our happiness.
    PBP readership has been kept fully informed on those issue of particular disgust relative to the Democratic Party’s movement across the political landscape. Every day issues forth yet another diatribe detailing perceived evil and supposed damming evidence implicating Biden and Co. in some nefarious scheme.
    Reaching back into history immediately post Civil War Civil Rights infractions terribly wrong in the era and seeing a probable connection to one political party’s racist philosophy. Then jump to a highly suspect conclusion that the of party and the modern era party of the same name share the same attitudes and propensities. Inferring the old south Civil War Democratic Party with its perpetrating inhumane and punishing acts of discrimination and hate on black persons, women especially, lingers to this day. The rationalization required so it squares with some pro-ported reality defies logic.
    Advertising one product, Abortion’s racist beginnings, while actually promoting a very different valued and arguably controversial substitute has term defining unscrupulous activity. In business today it known as bait and switch.
    When I see something advertised for sale and find it worth my time and effort looking into. What am I to think and believe of those who own the shop.
    In this instance, my knowing the shop owner, I was prepared for the usual right wing slant. My interest was peaked seeing what subject came under fire. Immediately dismay overcame interest. Predictably political perspective containing extreme prejudicial bias. Second verse same as the first. The Democrats are up to some chicanery and it needs to be exposed..
    Are not other stories of more merit. Fallout from the midterm elections for Republicans and Democrats has possibilities for Horistic fiction.
    Since this article’s date on the 11th hot topics filled the media. Trump’s non-surprise, Republicans vow appointing a committee for inspection int Biden & Family, Republicans’ numeric majority in the House, not the Senate, Poloci retiring from leadership in her caucus, McConnell challenged and the other Mac (?). A few other fish to fry, people.

    • frank stetson

      I find it impossible to believe that Republicans boycotted Pelosi’s step-down from power speech on the floor of the Congress.

      Can’t even put down your guns and knives even for a moment, can you.

      Magnanimous in victory, gracious in defeat, a term not in the current Republican lexicon.

      Let the investigations begin!!! It will be H.. as in Hillary, Hunter (oh hell, the whole Biden family), covid response, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, DoT, Capitol Police/Pelosi, 13 dead in Afghanistan, impeach Biden, impeach Mayorkas, impeach Fauci (better be fast).

      I don’t know who they are. I don’t know what they really want. If they are looking for power I can tell you they have none, but what they do have are a very particular set of survival skills. Skills they have acquired over very long careers. Very long. Skills that make them a nightmare for people like you. If you decide to actually govern on behalf of all of America, that’ll be the end of it. But if you don’t, we will vote you out in two years. You got two years. Make it count for something good for the country. The whole country.
      Good luck.

    • larry Horist

      Ac … If you see me exclusively critical of Democrats on the race issue — past and present — you should understand that I am pushing back an unfortunate widely held belief that Democrats are the party of civil rights and Republicans are racists. My purpose is to show the missing part of the debate on American racism. My position is that the Democratic Party has been — and continues to be — the greatest force for INSTITUTIONAL racism — the racism that subjugates millions upon million of black citizens to second class status. I have spoken to hundreds of black audiences delineating a history they have not seen and addressing the modern day racism that keeps them subjugated — a reality they do see.

  8. frank stetson

    “Every New Deal program was racist and worked against blacks. In fact, it further embedded institutional racism throughout the nation. ” When someone makes a bold, unilateral, unforgiving, statement like this, it sticks out as low hanging fruit for proving wrong. In this case, I already did it, twice, and Larry just does not care.

    Two words: Harold Ikes. And his Public Works Administration proves Larry wrong. Easily. Yes, Social Security needed racism to pass, and it kept those provisions for over a decade. Yes, many managers, especially in the South, implemented in a racist fashion, but most of that was drummed out by personnel changes or codified by 1935. Larry’s black and white world where all things Democrat are all things wrong…… wrong. Life is grey, not black and white. Except for conservatives. Often.

    From The Living New Deal, which I am sure Larry will brand as a leftist anarchist’s group…. “Despite adverse political forces and social attitudes in America, the personnel, policies and programs of the New Deal, while far from perfect, marked an important step forward and had an overall positive effect on the welfare of millions of citizens of African descent.”

    But wait, there’s more: “To begin with, the New Deal featured the most enlightened and anti-racist federal leadership since Reconstruction. Administrators such as Harry Hopkins, Frances Perkins, Harold Ickes, Hallie Flanagan, Aubrey Williams, and Ellen Woodward were deeply committed to the goal of a more egalitarian society.” Wow, Ickes had non racist friends in New Deal leadership roles.

    I guess it’s all on FDR, a total toad of a racist in Larry’s book who: “Furthermore, President Roosevelt “appointed an unprecedented number of African Americans to high positions” in the federal government, such as Mary McLeod Bethune, Lawrence Oxley and Robert C. Weaver. Several of these appointees formed an unofficial but important advisory group, the “Black Cabinet”. Many went on to become civil rights leaders in the coming decades. FDR appointed the first African American federal judge, William Hastie. The Supreme Court also began to change under the influence of the New Deal and as FDR added eight new justices, 1937-43. Five of those —William Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Stanley Reed and Robert Jackson—would be part of the unanimous decision to desegregate public schools in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).”

    Black and white unilateral racist my sweet billydoots.

    Lastly, Larry, if you go back to your previous tome and pick a few racists laws authored and passed by Democrats, I would love to revisit. Should be easier for you that I, using Joe’s lack-of-search engine,