Once a
Posted on 05/12/2006 11:52:13 PM PDT by Lurker
In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country
A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws. Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.
The missive turned up in an exhibit put together by the watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, which has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on the abortion drug RU-486, notes James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... Republican
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Now this is why the democraps will never again gain office in the USA unless they get a grip! The only mistake is that we do not spread the news enough.
I mean this thinking you have indicated so demurely is on the level of all those "dumb" blond jokes that one can read by simply doing a web search.
Abortion, gun control, health care, illegal aliens, pull out the troops from Iraq, CIA 5th columnist interference with presidential policies by seditious leaking, all those Democrap positions have the same thinking.
I have a theory: George W. Bush rarely defends himself or his policies because the Pubbies do not want the Democraps to smarten up, assuring future electoral victories!!!
May the democraps continue to hoist themselves onto their own petards!!!
It's probably the best recourse, but some things are just so gobsmackingly absurd they just cry out for rebuttal.
Not the way I would word it, but essentially yes (I would clarify that I don't believe abortion lowers crime rates. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the reverse, however, even though some data collected by the previously mentioned researchers would place such an opinion in doubt).
My point is that this is a completely erroneous assumption.
Not according to the scientific method it isn't. If someone comes up with a hypothesis that says "x", and I can give examples that show "not x", that means that "x" is an invalid hypothesis. The researchers assert that more abortions reduce crime rates. But the fact remains that there are quite a few places, outside of the scope of the limited data used by the researchers, where that assertion does not hold. A great number of European communities with increasing abortion rates have also had an accompanying increase in crime. The hypothesis is simply invalid.
The same may be true of abortion. I really don't know, but your statement is flawed in terms of its logic.
I disagree. If the idea that abortions reduced crime was true, then more abortions would reduce more crime. The relationship might not be linear, but it would still show up. The fact that it doesn't show up (except in the suspect initial sample data of the researchers who first advocated the idea) shows that it is an invalid hypothesis.
Statistics aren't science, they are just math. But like any math, they can be used in science. The proper form is to create a hypothesis, then gather data, then test (to confirm or reject the hypothesis, creating a theory). The researchers did a great job coming up with their hypothesis, but they didn't test enough. If there were really causation rather than merely correlation, then the hypothesis would hold for other data sets too, and it doesn't. There are more than enough examples to show increases in crime where abortion has increased, and that alone suggests the hypothesis is invalid in spite of the one or two hand-picked data points selected by the researchers who proposed it.
My initial reaction was thank God for small favors... but then I thought of his murdered child, and I couldn't even think that. What a creep!
L
echoes of Margaret Sanger
Margret Sanger was an open advocate of eugenics through abortion.
Preach!
Know what he's doing these day?
De-composing.
Ramesh Ponnoru (Ponnuru?) demolishes that claim in his book "The Party of Death."
I don't. Why would they want to destroy their future supply of Democrat voters?
thanks, I'll have to read it..
It's true. Planned Parenthood grabbed the abortion legislation years ago in an attempt to keep the minority population down. Today, it's been expanded to the poor. 85% of all abortion clinics are found in poor and minority neighborhoods. The rest are near by.
The elitists socialists believe in population control. That's also why the euthanasia crowd is overwhelmingly liberal. The poor, disabled, and elderly are considered useless eaters and a burden on the earths resources.
I took a quick look in the FR archives to find you a link that contains the exact words of the Planned Parenthood founder, but I didn't have a lot of time so I gave up.
Hopefully, another FReeper has it in a folder somewhere and will share it with you.
Quoted in a post to me the other day. Sorry, I don't have a source. Does anyone remember this one?
Thanks for the link. I had it saved once, but cleaned out my files and managed to lose it. It's a great one to use when debating a "non-racist" (a-hem) pro-abort liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.