Margaret Sanger

10 eye-opening quotes from Planned Parenthood’s founder

Margaret Sanger has been lauded by some as a woman of valor, but a closer look reveals that Planned Parenthood’s audacious founder had some unsavory things to say about matters of race, birth control, and abortion. An outspoken eugenicist herself, Sanger consistently promoted racist ideals with a contemptuous attitude. Read on to learn why Planned Parenthood hides behind a false memory of Sanger, and why, despite her extraordinarily prolific writing career, one rarely sees her quoted by Planned Parenthood leaders and apologists.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.


Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger

Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1

[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.

Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Here, Margaret Sanger speaks on her eugenic philosophy – that only the types of “quality” people she and her peers viewed as worthy of life should be allowed to live.

Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.

The Need for Birth Control in America (quoted by Angela Franks.)

Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.

“Family Limitation,” eighth edition revised, 1918

  • marie27

    Makes me think of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol “O Man, if man you be at heart, forbear that wicked cant, till you have learned what the surplus is and where it lies, it may be that in the sight of Heaven, YOU are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child” (to Scrooge)

  • Amy

    There are at least three huge books dedicated to Sanger in my school’s library, and I hate that. She may have made birth control more accesible (and I’m OK with married people using NFP), but she was a very twisted woman who caused so much damage to our country.

    Sadly, it’s the same story today, except that in addition to PP’s helping minorities abort more children, children with genetic abnormalities (an even girls in general) are aborted. People think, “Oh, I’m not ready to be a parent, and if I was, I wouldn’t want a Downs Baby/I wanted a boy. It’s better to abort.” Fact is, they’re already parents, and abortion doesn’t un-pregnantify you: it just kills your kid.

    • Kelsey

      Hello Amy!

      I had the same problem with these kind of books in my library. I made book marks that had information on Sanger and some of her quotes, and I left them in the books. Once the librarians caught on though I had to stop for a few weeks (I have no where else to go after school so I can’t afford to be kicked out). I found that this was effective in that people did see the information about Sanger that these books might have “missed”. Maybe this might be worth trying at your school?

      • Gail Holl

        Now That is a clever idea! I am off to the Library today!

      • MCH

        Did you leave them so they were sticking out? That might be the problem.

        • kelsey

          I never thought of that! I will try to leave them in the books. Thank you !

          • Rebecca

            Post-its inside the pages so they can’t tell!

    • John Hardy

      Sorry, but it is not FACT. Fact is truth. If it were true that a kid was killed, then it would be murder and by law, there would be a trial for said murder. The truth is that abortion is legal. So by the law of the land in which you reside, you do not state fact. Fact is indisputable. You state opinion, which is just your thought. So your opinion is that abortion is killing kids.

      • fus

        Actually, there are trials held all the time for the murder of children in the womb, it simply includes the death of the mother as well. In these trials the defendant is charged with 2 counts of murder (the mother and child’s). So the fact is, abortion does kill the child…and the is the truth as well. However John, I would strongly caution you on basing your belief of truths on government and law. A brief study of history gives plenty of examples as to why.

        • But since abortion is legal in our world it’s not considerd murder but the world says the unborn child is no a person yet because the child is not living outside the womb. We need to protect life inside and outside the womb. The child in the womb is being it’s God given right to life!

      • Tara

        John, you argue that because the government has made abortion legal, it is not murder. In other words, the government determines truth and fact. Based on that premise, so long as government made something legal (or illegal), it would be true. Apply that logic to Hitler’s regime-the killing or millions of people was legal under his government, so, based on your premise, it was not murder and killing them was acceptable. Governments are run by fallible humans. Truth transcends humans and can be objectively known. Whether government makes something legal or illegal does not change Truth. In looking at a baby in the womb, it is alive, it is a human person and therefore has as much right to live as you and I. Whether government acknowledges ad protects our right to life is another issue that should concern us all. For when one group of vulnerable people may e killed by a more powerful group, we are all at risk.

        • Awesome response!

        • D’naal

          Abortion is murder depending on how you define it. Our government defines these two things to be separate and distinct, and thus abortion is not murder by law. The fact is that this distinction exists in our government. Our law is not necessarily fact unless the laws are truths.

          • D’naal

            I am not saying that some laws in our history are just (i.e. slavery), but instead I am saying that it was fact that these laws existed.

          • Amy

            OK, we can agree that these laws exist/existed. Now what?

          • vonda

            So with your way of thinking Hitler’s Laws for killing Jews made it not murder. Sounds like you don’t think things all the way through. Killing an innocent person is always murder regardless of any government’ s laws.. Laws can be changed and hopefully I will see Roe vs Wade reversed in my lifetime. The US Supreme Court decision was made based on total lies. Both women involve in the cases say that the cases were lies. Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton. .And both women are now pro-life. They were used by the ACLU to promote abortions in the USA. Why not do a little research on the subject yourself?.


      • Liz Henderson

        Careful. Truth is not determined by laws. Slavery was also once law of the land. Unjust legislation cannot alter inherent truths of human nature. We can disagree about what those essential truths and ethics may be, but they are certainly not determined by the laws of imperfect human beings.

      • there is a double standard. It is legal to abort a baby, but if a pregnant woman is murdered then it is considered a double homicide. If the baby is a person in a murder trial why is the baby not considered a person when the woman doesn’t want the baby? If she didn’t want the baby then maybe she should keep her legs closed.

      • Sophias_Favorite

        The law does not define fact. The legislature of Indiana can try to define any value of pi they like, that doesn’t change the value of pi. The law once defined black people as subhuman, remember? Was it correct?

        Is it a fact that blacks, or any other minority, are people? Then why is it only opinion that a unique member of the species Homo sapiens is a person, if they merely happen to be in the amniotic sac? A fetus has all the scientifically detectable criteria of a human being (“viability” is not one of those criteria, in science—a nonviable member of a species is still a member of that species for science’s purposes).

        Are you claiming that, though the preborn individual has all the properties of a person, it is not a person? And further that, by some incomprehensible process, it becomes a person at birth, or perhaps at some arbitrary point before birth? Because there’s a name for the belief that things can change their nature without changing their properties. It’s called Transsubstantiation, and it is defined as a miraculous, supernatural belief.

        • No person in the world is subhuman. God created one race….the human race!

      • Glenn Ferro

        Justify, if it makes you feel okay. Written law merely codifies the FACT that ending a life unjustly IS murder.

      • it is fact that she wanted population control. blacks and poor ppl were on her list. she had the same mindset as hitler to make a perfect race. and abortion is killing children. no one disputes that now with the high tech ultrasounds of today and the fact that they can perform in vitro surgery. and it mentally causes problems for the mother that had her child cut up and suctioned out. or burned with saline. or partially delivered only to have scissors punched into the brain stem and what do you call it when it is delivered fully viable and left in a room to starve with strict instruction not to feed…we have since 1972 killed 56 million babies soon to be 60 which is ten times what hitler killed and you see how God dealt with germany…He will do the same here for the shedding of innocent blood. Because something is legal by the courts does not make it morally right nor does it mean it isn’t murder..there is proof also that they child feels the pain, it can be seen with ultra aborting children is killing them, if not then what the hell is it for,? ppl are going to clinics to get rid of their baby not dropping off a dog at the pound. you go to a clinic for one reason to kill your baby…not prenatal care they don’t do that….trust me i know from experience…which john have you ever been pregnant or had an abortion…didn’t think so. Why men even feel they have a foot in this race is beyond me. unless your footing the bill to kill your baby.

      • pretty bird

        Sorry John – YOU are incorrect. The FACT is that a baby is FULLY formed at 12 weeks into pregnancy, we now have pictures to prove that. It’s a kid ( I prefer the word child).

        • D’naal

          Pretty bird, a baby is NOT fully formed at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, it is merely 2.5 inches and weighs only a half ounce. The face is in the process of forming, and toenails are starting to develop. Be careful of what you say in ignorance.

          • SuperLogic

            Well, using that line of reasoning, a person is not fully formed till about the age of 25 when the brain is fully developed. At which point the body begins to slowly deteriorate. So technically, humans are only very briefly fully formed. So would we be able to “abort” any child up until 25, and then again after 25??

          • pro-baby/pro-woman

            Last time I checked, having finger nails did not determine whether a person was human or not. The baby’s features and structures are forming within the first trimester (about 3 months), and then after that the baby just grows. There are lots of pictures of what a baby looks like at 12 weeks, so you can check it out and see for yourself that the baby is a human being.

          • You all ignore the fact that a woman’s body cannot always tell when a pregnancy is viable. You cannot say across the board that at 6 weeks there is a heart – I’ve had 3 pregnancies that didn’t make it to 12 weeks and none of them ever had a heartbeat. Some people would say that those are not true pregnancies because there was no developing embryo, and while that is true, I still wasn’t offered termination of the pseudo pregnancy because I saw military health providers and they aren’t allowed to do abortions. So the law isn’t always clear and medicine isn’t always exact. To say that life begins at a certain point is extremely arbitrary.

          • Celeste Claverie

            If the pregnancy was conceived by two humans, the baby growing inside, regardless of stage of development, is human.
            If a rose bud is growing beneath the soil and it is uprooted before a green shoot of stem breaks upward into the sunlight, does it cease to be a rose plant?

          • kelsey

            I think what he meant was all of the child’s organs are in developed in place. We don’t judge a persons worth or humanity on size or weight though. This is a good site for more info-

          • Week 6 of pregnancy is when the heart and other organs form.

          • Amy

            What pretty bird meant was a 12-week-old baby has a beating heart, brainwaves, legs, arms, etc. Many people like to argue that it’s just a blob at that stage of development. Pretty bird wasn’t being ignorant—he (or she—can’t tell with the name) was just oversimplifying a bit to counter the “blob of cells” argument. That’s all.

      • May

        Dear Jogn Hardy, how many other things in our country, and others, that are now considered bad, wrong, racist, or inhumane were once legal and considered okay? Lets name a few.

        Forceful removal of Native Americans from homes to reservations
        Child Labor
        Women not having the right to vote

        I would assume you don’t support any of these and they were all once legal. Notice the ONCE legal part. Laws can and sometimes should be rewritten. A law is just someone’s opinion who had the power to enforce it on others, for better or worse.

      • HA! murder is termination of life intentionally, abortion terminates life intentionally, your point?

      • or say that I become president, long shot but an if!, and I make it legal LEGAL to kil, KILL you, would that be okay? I base my stance on science, life comes from life not from nothing, huumans make humans!


        So slavery wasn’t slavery because it was the law of the land? The truth is, that at FERTILIZATION, all the genetic information is present that will be present in the adult (gender, height, hair coloring, personality). If the woman claims, that the human growing inside her is her body, she denies science. She makes herself a slave owner, who can choose to dispose of human property at will. The human inside of her has its own DNA, its own circulation, its own heartbeat and brainwaves. If that human has a penis, it is more evidence that it is not her body.
        America has annihilated 56 million of its future citizens – almost as many people as the population of the U.K. and it is larger than the population of South Africa.

        All the people killed and wounded on America’s battlefields since 1776 amount to under FOUR million.

        The facts are on the side of those who do not believe the shedding of human blood is a healthy and effective way to solve social problems. A person in the womb is an embryo until he or she is eight weeks gestation. It is now possible to view that very tiny person during that period. At 21 days the tiny heart has been documented, by embyoscopic video, to be emptying and filling with blood. The strong, regular heartbeat has been recorded at 113 beats per minute. That’s the facts brother John. Science. “Choice” which Planned Parenthood is trying to dissociate from, is philosophy, an antisocial eugenicist idea.

      • D’naal

        I am in no way saying that I agree with this particular thought process, but I think what John was saying is not that law is fact, but that the fact is that the law exists in the way it does. He is saying that it is fact that certain things in this country are defined as murder, not that these things necessarily constitute murder by definition. By law they are murder, but by fact they are not.

      • SuperLogic

        Your argument is absurd. Law has very little to do with fact. If law is fact, then how can “facts” very from country to country, and state to state?? Is abortion murder only in countries where it is illegal?? Do politicians who became leaders due to a popularity contest become instant experts in morality?? They enact laws based on their own opinion, and generally what they think will keep them in power. Your argument is completely flawed!

      • ConcernedMom

        It also used to be the law of the land that slavery was legal. That is a fact. Does that make it right? The law does not determine what is right or wrong – it just determines what is legal or illegal. The law says killing a baby in utero is legal…it used to be illegal…but it is still killing a baby in utero.

      • Dinah 46

        Um, John. I don’t think you quite have that right. You’re doing OK with fact and opinion, but…Many times when a pregnant woman is killed and her fetus dies also, the perpetrator is charged with 2 murders. I have always thought that was awkward to support (although I do) since it’s alright for the mother to kill the fetus. It shouldn’t be who chooses to do the killing that is the issue. Either that fetus is a person and it is murder, or NOT a person so never murder.

      • Abortion is murder but because the child is still living in the womb it’s legal but the child is not outsidethe womb and according to the world is not a person and not important but just the opposite i true!

      • Interestingly, If I kill my pregnant wife, I am charged with not 1, but 2 murders. If she goes to PP and kills the baby but not herself, it is legal. Laws are so hypocritical. Abortion is not murder by definition (murder = the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life), but it definitely kills a human being. The problem in this debate is that the pro choice side claims that the life inside the woman is not a person, and can be “terminated”, whereas we prolifers say that a zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever is a human at our earliest stage of change. We as humans change every second of everyday we are alive, and this is just the first part of that. If it is ok to kill a human at its earliest stages of change, why not at a later stage, such as adolescence, or adulthood, or any other time?

      • Celeste Claverie

        “Facts” may be changed by a difference in circumstance of evidence.
        TRUTH is changed by nothing in the environment it exists. TRUTH is neither relative, nor is it malleable. If it were either, then it would cease or never was TRUTH … TRUTH changes the environment it is in.

      • Brandy Juhl

        Slavery was legal not too long ago. So because it was legal, those who strived to abolish it were ‘just stating opinion’, right? Yeah…didn’t think so. Please pick up a medical textbook..basic anatomy will do. In the chapter on human reproduction, you will find all the evidence you need to prove that a new, unique human being exists from conception. Not opinion, medical fact. The baby doesn’t magically become human once it emerges from a 6 inch birth canal.

    • If God doesn’t think you could handle a special needs child why would he give you a special needs child!?

      • Amy

        Special needs kids are as much of a blessing as all other children and they all should be cherished. I can’t tell if you and I are on the same side or not based on the phrasing of your comment, though, so I don’t know if I should be saying yay or not… Hooray for internet ambiguity!

  • If only the truth could be integrated into our educational system, sadly it isn’t and so this woman is held up in great esteem. She was a sick and dangerous person who thankfully didn’t entirely get her way.

  • MeiglanLedbetter

    I can’t believe my U.S history book literally idolizes this woman…

  • This makes me sad for all the misguided and blinded. It makes me mad at the abortion and killings but sad that someone like Sanger can wrap evil in such rationalization and make it palatable to others. I first heard of her in college and was told how great she was for showing poor women how to prevent the pregnancies that “burdened” them. There was never any discussion about her real agenda.

  • Gail Holl

    Margaret Sanger was a racist, child hating fool. Only racest, child hating fools accept her.

  • I just answered somebody who said since we don’t know if somebody before birth might turn out to be a hitler or a stalin it is good to abort people. Taken to it’s logical conclusion since we don’t know in advance who the pre-born good people are should we abort or prevent ALL births. That way in 70 years the problem will be gone since there will be nobody left to worry about it. Does anybody on the pro-abortion side ever think the things they say through to their logical conclusions?

  • Sue

    Margaret Sanger,founder of Planned Parenthood, and the one who inspired Adolf Hitler in his views of eugenics and “murdering socially undesirable people.”

    • Sophias_Favorite

      She and Hitler were inspired by the same people, she didn’t inspire him, though he did borrow a couple of ideas from her.

  • Pat

    I would be one of the “undesirables” that Sanger would want to purge. My birthmother was raped and I was given up for adoption. She was one of the “working class” with questionable “genes”, not to mention my rapist father. I am 100 Pro Life with NO exceptions. Sanger was deceived by the culture of death and promoted it.

  • sick thinking!

  • yes, Sanger wrote all these things. you really have to understand her in context and she was no angel — however, she aligned herself with the Eugenics movement in order to gain more support for birth control, which was her all consuming interest. Many Americans at the time supported eugenics, unfortunately — that is why she began to argue how birth control could advance Eugenics. It is not really fair to imply that Planned Parenthood agrees with these statements or that they support Eugenics now — and – in fact, Sanger distanced herself from Planned Parenthood in her lifetime. Another fact — Sanger herself was opposed to abortion and you can find that in her work as well. She argued that birth control would eliminate the need for abortion. Again, her all consuming passion was to make birth control legal in order to improve women’s lives.

    • actually sanger was pregnant a minimum of five times, aborted all. she distanced herself because she didn’t feel they supported her. they did but she ended up crazy! and it really does not improve a womans life or health by terminating a child. really I mean think about it, your pregnant and you have an engineering job, you get put on sick leave, you still get paid, you have a wonderful child, you go back to work, child gets wonderful life, you stay the same!

      • Actually, she didn’t abort all her kids. And I know this because Alexander Sanger, her grandson, is a high-ranking mucky-muck in the International Planned Parenthood Federation today. She must’ve had at least one baby.

        Apparently eugenics runs in the family.

      • She had two or three children (I think two), and from what I remember of her autobiography, she doesn’t admit to any abortions of her own.


      My son asked me if Nazism had ever really gone away. I had been wondering the same thing myself. Sanger had friends that reported to Hitler and Marie Stopes, her British counterpart, sent a book of love poems to him. Articles 4 and 6 in her ‘Plan for Peace’, published in the Birth Control Review, have been actualized in China for the last thirty years. Social scientists who have lived there and been familiar with the one child policy since its inception, state that Planned Parenthood heavily influenced the Chinese government and still does. You should download the document called ‘The Jaffe Memo’ and read how, with government funding, Planned Parenthood has brought about, in the U.S., most of the recommendations in the memo. Sanger recommended sterilization or segregation for “the spawning classes”. One of the most overlooked consequences of her policies is incarceration. America has more of its citizens in prison than any other country and people of color predominate om those environments.

      Birth control has been shown to be just as harmful to a woman’s body as abortion is.
      The only safe way to space children, is by organic methods known as Natural Family Planning, which must be mutually practiced by spouses. I have personally seen, in England and America, the devastating cardiovascular effects of birth control which contains estrogen. Estrogen is listed by the WHO, with asbestos and nicotine, as a Class 1 cancer causing drug. Estrogen by-products have been excreted in the world’s water for five decades and male egg-bearing fish are showing up everywhere.
      Progestin birth control, like Depo-Provera, is implicated in the rise of HIV and HPV in women, due to its immune suppressive action and the changes it causes in vaginal and cervical mucosae. In its highly concentrated form, found in emergency contraception, there is a risk of toxic shock caused by the C. Sordelli organism. Where women are coerced into taking these drugs and where there is no medical follow-up, women are known to die of infections and haemorrhage.

      Ovulating women pick genetically dissimilar males that have super-immunity. This, if evolution would have its way, is how a healthy next generation is produced. Contracepting women on the other hand, choose genetically similar males, with disastrous results. If she stops taking the pill, she finds that the doesn’t like the smell of her partner. Infertility, miscarriages and children with auto-immune diseases are common among such partners if they choose to hang together. (See ‘What They Never Told You in Sex-Ed’, on You Tube).

  • Nine of these are awful. Seriously awful.

    “A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell
    look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.”

    This one is not so bad. It’s kind of anarchist, which is problematic in its way, but it’s not in the same class as the others, which are out-and-out and purposely anti-human-rights.

    • johnwschwartz

      Beth, I think the ambiguity of this taken out of its complete context maybe makes it feel less awful. However, Sanger abhorred the idea of any absolutes placed upon women from scripture, especially the role of women, mothers and wives. The tearing down of the “convention” she speaks of leads directly to looking in defiance at the Creator himself and choosing what is right in one’s own eyes… the very precursor to justifying and supporting the notion that killing your own child is good and right.

    • MCH

      Yeah, that’s like saying getting shot in the gut isn’t as bad as getting shot in the face.

      • No, it’s not. This is not an endorsement of anarchy here, but telling women that they don’t have to feel bound by cultural ideas of gender roles is not a bad thing. In fact, I’m all for that.

        It’s important not to fall into the “Hitler ate sugar” trap here. (Which is a particularly apt name in this case, given how tight Hitler and Sanger were, ideologically.) What this means: Hitler is hideously evil, Hitler ate sugar, everything Hitler did was bad and evil, therefore eating sugar is bad and evil. Except that eating sugar isn’t bad or evil. The breakdown in Hitler-ate-sugar is not that Hitler wasn’t a bad person, but that even the things that bad people do and say must be evaluated against objective morality, and not against the fact that bad people did or said them.

        The things Margaret Sanger did or said aren’t bad because she did or said them. They are, when they are bad, bad because they are bad objectively. This one just doesn’t rank nearly the same way on an objective scale as the others do. The others are seeking to kill people over prejudice. This one is pushing for a cultural change. Killing people vs. cultural change do *not* belong in the same arena, even if Sanger happened to make comments about both of them.

  • Guest

    In one of the quotes, she appears to be saying, “Wipe out people with special needs.” That is just sick!!!

  • tom721

    Poorly organized. I cannot tell which quote goes with which comment. Perhaps the use of a divider……………..would help.

  • 1947rhoda64

    This Sanger idiot is one of the worst of the worst for Planned Parenthood and was one of the biggest racist in the US. She represents nothing in my book. Just a bad memory of someone who if she didn’t ask the Lord into her heart and repented of her sins is burning in Hell. When you go to Hell you burn forever, so these evil caniving woman will burn forever.

  • Bella

    Why do socialists always choose psychpaths as their role models?

  • Mamacat

    Thanks for this article!!! I already have actually heard these quotes from Sanger and more from her friends and colleagues in a movie called Maafa 21 (not sure of spelling without looking it up) that I recommend to everyone, but so many people have read books praising this woman without ever hearing her own hateful words. There are worse quotes of hers in eugenecist newsletters that were published and she actually read about meeting with a group of lady Kkk knights because she knew they had similar goals!

  • Mamacat

    Sorry, that should say “wrote about meeting with “

  • blimpwood

    Thank you. Margaret Sanger is one of the vilest “social engineers” in history. Every day, it seems, that there is yet another community leader coming out in support PP. What a danged shame that they are sooo blind to the hate they originally fought to stop! Dr King would be rolling in his grave if he knew that this lunacy was supported by folks he called friend.

  • Austin Jones

    This vicious bitch is proof in the pudding that the left IS racist. Also, this is proof that since the Nazis were considering sterilizing Jews and other “undesirables”, that they, too, were leftists and not conservatives.

  • What I find amusing is that this quote can now be turned on it’s head with today’s culture. The convention is the contraceptive/abortive mindset.

    “A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.”

  • Tina Arrotti

    If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. Clearly, people who embrace Sanger stand for nothing. Murder, eugenics, hatred for African Americans are all acceptable to people who are amoral and unethical. Their reference point for any meaningful decision is how will it benefit me. Also, they have no idea about what they want – what will bring them happiness. The result is a system that allows them to “change” their minds with their wardrobe. Today I feel like being a mother, tomorrow it’s time for an abortion. Today i feel like being a married woman, tomorrow I feel like a divorce. What a sorry group of people. No wonder they embrace Sanger, as ugly and satanic as she is to people who stand for something.

  • jellysquare

    What is truly sad is that many leaders in the black community support Planned Parenthood and do not see that they are being targeted by this racist industry. Here is a commentary from Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece, who is completely pro-life.

  • It’s obovius she didn’t see children as a gift from God!

  • MCH

    “A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell
    look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.”

    That’s not a woman. That’s a b****.

    Oh, and did anyone else the physical resemblance to Sandra Fluke? LOL

  • Lisa 11310

    I must agree on one point, If the Mother has never worked or been married and continues to have childern to assure her wealfare, she should NOT be allowed to keep her Children.


    IT WILL STOP.~!!

  • jb3842

    Good Lord Good Lord PLGB

  • Loosgravel

    Of course, Sanger would have fit right in with the leaders of the Nazi leadership.

  • Jonathan

    Is it a genetic fact that interracial kids are prettier, smarter and/or stronger than normal people? I wish it was, because, you know, it’s about diversity. Most of the bad genes are recessive, so if mom and dad are of different races, a maximal amount of those bad genes will stay recessive in their kids.

  • Jenn

    I would really like to know the difference between a murderer and one who does abortions??…to me they are both the same and should be treated as such…if this is not the case then I say to release all those in prisons and allow them to run amuck as this is exactly what that idiot in the white house wants as he supports abortion 100%…with abortion being allowed why are there so many rapists in prison?….shouldn’t they just be allowed to do what they do best??…just saying…