Shocking new footage found of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger saying “no more babies”

The Daily Caller has unearthed a chilling new video from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. British Pathé, a newsreel archive company, uploaded 85,000 historic films onto YouTube. One of those films featured Margaret Sanger, called Margaret Slee (her second husband’s name) in the video, demanding that women have no more babies.

When questioned about women who want babies and in 10 years won’t be able to have them, Sanger insists that it is somehow practical and humane to not allow them to have children.

Considering that 96% of pregnant women who go to Planned Parenthood abort their children, Sanger clearly got her wish.

It isn’t particularly surprising that Sanger would strongly advocate for abortion. We already know that she was a proponent of eugenics, and didn’t want to allow “undesirables” to breed. But this puts her into an entirely new, and even more sickening, light. Sanger didn’t just want abortion. She didn’t want any women having babies, period, regardless of how they felt about it. And that attitude has quite obviously trickled down into the pro-abortion movement today.

How often do abortion activists fight against any semblance of choice? They don’t want pregnant women to have the option of going to a crisis pregnancy center to help them through an unexpected pregnancy. They don’t want them being given the option of adoption, or being told the truth of fetal development and embryology. They don’t want ultrasounds before abortions, or anything really that could possibly sway her away from having an abortion. Women’s health? Please.

This video, and Planned Parenthood’s own annual report, says it all. They have one mission, and that’s the elimination of unborn children. Margaret Sanger would certainly be proud of the monster she created. Her twisted ideals not only continue to live on today; they’re thriving, with millions of taxpayer dollars making her nightmare a reality.

  • PJ4

    We need to have this video of Sanger’s Last line: “no more babies”
    immediately followed by Hilary hailing Sanger as a hero

    This would be a great anti-Hillary campaign

    • MamaBear

      Indeed it would!

      • PJ4

        and then, right after she hails Sanger as a hero… we can pan to “what difference does it make now anyways?”

        Her down fall will be caused by her very own words.

        Somehow that just seems poetic.

    • Doug Miller

      Don’t forget to splice in the cackle.

    • Basset_Hound


      We don’t need no stinkin’ BABIES!!!

  • MamaBear

    A 10 year moratorium on babies as Sanger proposed would of course be followed by delayed retirements for the able bodied elderly and required euthanasia of disabled elderly at the point those babies would have entered the workforce.

  • Ingrid Heimark

    I have heard that Sanger didn’t believe in abortion, but since she said the most merciful a family can do to it’s latest member is to kill it, I am sure she would be proud…..

    • MamaBear

      I looked that up. I tried to post an article with quotes, from RedState, and it may still show up. She actually did state objections to both abortion and infanticide, despite the quote you found, which is in one of her books.
      We do need to remember that abortion was illegal and advocating for birth control and sterilization was pretty shocking in the 30s and 40s.
      Any numbers she gives seem to come out of her imagination. She claimed large families led to unemployment, prostitution, and many other evils and had outrageously high infant mortality rates. At one point she advocated for a shocking one fifth of the population should be sterilized as they were either feeble-mind or unhealthy, and the rest limited to two babies each.
      So even if she opposed abortion itself, she sure prepared a good foundation for it’s advocates of today.

    • Jonathan

      Her evil agenda is all about population control and white supremacy, no other righteous purposes. Abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstance. Those who’re for it are either sluts who live on their sexuality or hypocrites who love their own children but hate other people’s. The my-body-my-right claim is just BS. Having children is not always for love, respect to god’s blessing or the need of parenthood. In my region and culture, children are desired for a number of pragmatic reasons:

      – Continuance of family line;
      – Extent of parents’ genes;
      – Spreading of family influence;
      – Need for heir to inherit family property;
      – Labor force for family business;
      – Financial support and medical care in twilight years;
      – Political alliance with other families via marriage;
      – Hope for an ascendance into a higher social class;
      – Stabilization of society (more natural-born citizens, less immigrants).

      I think everyone with self-respect should oppose abortion for these reasons whether they’re religious or not. Poor people are poor because they have no or limited access to abundant resources that are controlled by the rich, many of whom are closing the door of opportunity to them by their support for abortion.

  • Marauder

    In the interests of fairness, I feel compelled to point out that when she says “no more babies” at the end, something about the way her voice raises makes me wonder if they didn’t cut off the footage in mid-sentence. Don’t get me wrong, it does indeed appear that she said this – when the guy says the thing about the women who won’t be able to have babies in ten years, she doesn’t say anything about his misrepresenting her position, or anything like that – but I wonder if there was some qualifier at the end of the “no more babies” sentence. It wouldn’t make what she said okay, but it would be interesting to know if there was in fact a second part to that sentence.

  • Marauder

    Sorry, no. I’ve read her in context, and there’s no “out of context” excuse for talking about “human weeds” and people who should have never been born. Some scans of her books are here:

    and some links to the full text of her books on Gutenberg are here:

    I really don’t understand why you, as a deaf person, are defending this woman. She didn’t think you should have been born and she definitely didn’t think your kids should have ever been born, either.

    • ldwendy

      I’m not defending her. You mentioned about a possible “qualifier” so I thought you might be interested in an alternative view about Sanger.

      • Marauder

        Nothing is going to change the fact that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who, far from being “pro-choice,” thought various segments of the population shouldn’t be able to reproduce. The fact that I think it sounds like her sentence might have been cut off in the video doesn’t mean I’m going to be convinced to overlook all the frankly nasty things she said elsewhere and conclude that she was really a lovely person. It just means I disapprove of misrepresenting evidence. Besides, do you really think people who are active in the pro-life movement haven’t heard the pro-choice line about Margaret Sanger before?


  • 441019

    I came from a very poor family of seven boys & two girls, and my sister and brothers, in my opinion, all are, or were, terrific people. (Three have passed away.) My niece has eight children–all are really wonderful and outstanding children.