Shout Your Slave!

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

Celebrate Slavery!

Recently a demonically evil book has been published that celebrates the intrinsic evil of abortion, Shout Your Abortion. If a book celebrating slavery had been published in the mid nineteenth century, what follows would be the words of a pro-slavery reviewer of the book.

Slavery is normal. Our stories of our slaves are ours to tell. Because this truth is crystal clear and undeniable, this is not a subject for discussion or debate.

This new book, Shout Your Slave!, with multiple black-and-white lithographs, will be the tool for people of sensitivity and intelligence to change the anti-choice, anti-property culture not only here in America, but worldwide.

As someone who has had slaves, and has one now, and had access to a legal, free market that could be in jeopardy and gone with the legislative wind, I welcome any effort to reduce the artificial witch-hunt stigma associated with slavery, and the new efforts to normalize the choice that allowed me to have my first slave some years ago. I am so excited to see the new book, Shout Your Slave!,  and the new network of pro-slavery activists “shouting” their slave stories.

This just-published book, here at the end of 1852 A.D., is a 924-page statement, a new, powerful, and important statement about individual freedom, freedom of choice, property rights in general, and about the law of the land, the constitutional right to slavery  in particular.  Anyone who has experienced the joy of having a slave will agree the new book describes in real-world detail how empowering, and yes even ennobling, it can be to make the decision to obtain a slave, as well as the ongoing decision to keep one for some time, if not for life –either one’s own life or the life of the slave.

Storytelling, in this case  also truth-telling, is the basis  for Shout Your Slave! celebrations nationwide. People share their experiences, many of them even bring their slaves with them to illustrate the truth of each person’s (i.e. the slave owners) experiences.

The movement has been the impetus for many with slaves to make their own artwork normalizing slavery. In some cases, as the book’s preface joyfully recounts,  proclaiming  one’s support of slavery on one’s slave’s body can be incredibly effective. It is truly surprising how many people can be engaged in  conversation when viewing artwork and manifestos right there on the body of a living slave. In some reported cases, after viewing the bodies of slaves, both male and female, those who had been on the fence have been encouraged to choose, and purchase their very own slave.

“I shout the word ‘SLAVERY’ on the body of both of my slaves,” writes one commentator. “Others, when they view the graphics and read my slaves bodies, they start talking about their own slaves,  their mother’s slaves, or their grandparents slaves, and sweet and precious memories from their youth. I’ve talked with stay-at-home plantation owner’s mothers, slave market clerks,  and dozens of children who truly care for their slaves like they were human family.”

Throughout the pages of Shout Your Slave! – if you have had the utter joy of slave owning – you will see stories like your own and those of your peers. One slave owner after another tells their truths,  the circumstances surrounding the purchase of their slaves(s), while others speak of what it’s been like for them living with their slaves, their slaves serving them in an era still so rife with condemnation and hate. Many of the stories voice the themes of free ownership and empowerment.

“Slavery is not simply a women’s issue, it is a universal human rights issue,” says the introduction to the book. “Indeed, not only men and women have slaves, but there are many children who themselves own slaves. It is the telling of these important truths that highlight the need for this critical care for all people.”

“Again and again,” says Dr. Jessica Taney as quoted in the book, “when a woman buys her first slave, or a caring father or  husband does so for her,  it’s the same celebration, it’s the same joy, it’s the same relief.”  She goes on: “Allowing these women to exercise their right to choose their property, and then seeing their relief and gratitude when they leave the market … it’s overwhelming. Teenage girls have been especially overcome with emotion.”

“I am a not a bad person and my slaves made me feel good,” the book’s author shares in her personal story. “It’s makes excellent sense to be joyful that you were not forced to do things you did not want to do.”

One young woman who shared her personal “slavery shout,” said,  “Shout Your Slave! helped me know that I am not alone, that slavery is normal, and that I have everything to be proud of, and should feel no shame. The stories of all the women, especially those after they had gotten their first slave, they strengthened me and made me feel like I had some power again over my life.”

Most people who read this book have said that now they understand the situations and feelings of those who choose to have a slave, even if they are personally opposed to slavery. The more astute ones have made the inevitable connection between slavery and freedom, slavery and personal power, slavery and wealth, and slavery and the ability to determine one’s destiny.

I have  a slave and I would, absolutely,  buy another one. So my hope is that Shout Your Slave!  will help people to talk with those around them about this freedom. With the publication of Shout Your Slave!, people are sharing slave stories and taking action against the legislative and judicial attacks on slavery rights in the United States. This is because there is the very real possibility of the overturning of the  court decision that found, correctly, that slaves are property, which could mean the widespread criminalization of slavery.

Going forward based on the strength and power of people’s emotions will make it possible to overcome new legal hurdles for exercising this basic human right. Equally important, should a new group of men legislate differently from the Supreme Court bench, will be disseminating resources for concealing a slave, including the information in the how-to-hide-a-slave chapter included in the book. A possibly achievable dream is that, after this battle is won, the U.S. government will provide slaves to all, especially women, who need them.

No matter what the courts do, this is absolutely certain: As long as there are human beings, there will be those of us who need to, and also have a right to, enslave others.

 

More to explorer

Saint Nicholas: Bishop of Myra, Decker of Heretics, Giver of Gifts

After the king seated himself on the throne, one hundred and fifty nine fathers seated themselves at either side of him, both

It’s a Wonderful Life and the FBI

Hard to believe, but there was an FBI report in 1947 that deemed It’s a Wonderful Life as Communist propaganda: To: The

Yes, That is the Way Impeachment is Turning Out for the Democrats

83 Comments

  1. Guy and Lucius,

    I’m sorry so much work was put into this post… It rests on a false premise i. e. that the Abolitionist Republicans had a humane view of how blacks and whites should live together. ( you have lots of company in this—-I used to feel the same way too until I did some reading)

    I have done a couple of posts on this …. here’s one:

    http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-catholic-church-is-best-and-most.html?m=0

    If you don’t have time to read that let me just enumerate three points which are indisputable:

    1. Before the War and during, the Abolitionists’ most publicized plan for freed blacks was to deport them from their native land.
    2. Absent the first option, the Abolitionists’ plan was the expectation that the forces of social Darwinism would cause blacks to ‘disappear’ from the US. This was explicitly summed up in a statement by Abolitionist Congregationalist President of Illinois College Julian Sturtevant where he stated that blacks were destined to disappear just like the Indians had.

    3. Their chosen method of ending slavery was race war. They lionized John Brown and Nat Turner. They even hoped that the Emancipation Proclamation would bring on the race war they had dreamt of.

    They were not nice people!

  2. Mein Kamph revisited.

    (Her) struggle is viewing her own baby as an inferior race. An enemy that must be silenced and exterminated. Pro-life causes give these innocent ones a voice.

    Shout Racist.
    For each mother that killed her son or daughter and has no remorse or shame, is a flat out racist. A hate monger of humanity itself. A destroyer of hope. A liar.

    Yes, Shout your joy of killing another. Your last breath will accompany a child you aborted.
    As you gasp you will see his/her head turn away from you. Then you will shout from a dark place forever.

    Repentance.
    God will forgive but you must be contrite. You must change your mind on abortion before your last breath.

    God help us all.

  3. 1. Before the War and during, the Abolitionists’ most publicized plan for freed blacks was to deport them from their native land.
    2. Absent the first option, the Abolitionists’ plan was the expectation that the forces of social Darwinism would cause blacks to ‘disappear’ from the US. This was explicitly summed up in a statement by Abolitionist Congregationalist President of Illinois College Julian Sturtevant where he stated that blacks were destined to disappear just like the Indians had.

    3. Their chosen method of ending slavery was race war. They lionized John Brown and Nat Turner. They even hoped that the Emancipation Proclamation would bring on the race war they had dreamt of.

    All the above statements are completely untrue, and a deliberate distortion of the historical record.

  4. Mr. McClarey,

    Please venture into Eugene Genovese’s scholarly work ‘Roll Jordan Roll’ here

    https://books.google.com/books?id=fHtvU_6EC9EC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=julian+sturtevant+genovese&source=bl&ots=2uVIDmtSdv&sig=R6IIiLdFUW2v6CqGwzMf9R9Unp8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB4K-Ru7bfAhVSbKwKHR6eA-sQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=julian%20sturtevant%20genovese&f=false

    At the time Genovese wrote about this, he was a New York City Leftist. Not A Sons of Confederate Veterans ideologue. The Abolitionist Sturtevant
    Was in your neck of the woods, so I thought you might appreciate it. Sorry, that it didn’t go over so well.

    I was shocked that I knew nothing about people like Sturtevant’s views or Mr. Lincoln’s black deportation plans with all my ‘higher’ education. They certainly don’t fit the narrative that you and I have been fed. But, remember, narratives are always Written by the winning side.

  5. “Scholarly” means “I have multiple footnotes supporting my tendentious misinterpretation of the evidence and I know you’re too lazy to check my work.” Because he’s a Leftist, he’s arguing the Abolitionists were no better than the Slave Holders and thus this country has always been illegitimate and must needs give way to the Socialist utopia.

  6. Cite to the speech or writing given by Sturtevant. I suspect that in this case the late Professor Genovese is misinterpreting what Sturtevant wrote or said. In any case, although Sturtevant was anti-slavery, he, Sturtevant, pointedly noted several times prior to the Civil War that he was not an abolitionist.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=04YxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=sturtevant+slavery&source=bl&ots=yuWbuDTyAM&sig=s4D0k7xO7jFsHBfBnVPcgtPrItc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihicG7xrbfAhUFQK0KHfFaCkIQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sturtevant%20slavery&f=false

    I suspect that the point Sturtevant was probably making was that without slavery blacks would vanish from Illinois, since prior to the Civil War almost all blacks had been brought to Illinois by slaveholders, notwithstanding Illinois’s status as a freestate.

  7. It rests on a false premise i. e. that the Abolitionist Republicans had a humane view of how blacks and whites should live together.

    No, it’s based on slavery being about one group of humans being dehumanized to the benefit of another.

    They were not nice people!

    Ah yes. The all important “nice” value that comes with moral questions. Not right and wrong and balanced costs– but someone in the group was NOT NICE!

    Odd how it never hits the folks who are actually promoting intrinsic evil, only those opposing it.

  8. I see the article referred to was written by Sturtevant in May 1863 in the Continental Monthly, The Destiny of the African Race in the United States. He was responding to foes of Emancipation by arguing that blacks would find it difficult to compete in the free market and they might ultimately disappear. I do not have the text of the article. It was possible this portion was written tongue in cheek in response to white fears that freed blacks would take over the country. In any case, to claim this opinion piece was representative of abolitionist, a group to which Sturtevant did not belong, opinion is just silly.

  9. Philip N, I have wondered what would be a child’s reaction on encountering his or her Mom at the Pearly Gates. Below is one effort at figuring it out. LQC you nail the Party Of Death MO for seeking, getting keeping, and increasing power. It is no different from that of totalitarian national socialism. Guy McClung

    Poem: “WonderLove”
    Guy McClung Jun 12, 2015, site Catholic Lane
    WonderLove

    When I softly sing a lullaby alone to you,
    I wonder if in heaven you can hear.
    When I whisper that I love you love you now,
    I wonder if you’ll ever want me near.

    When I try to touch your tiny cheeks and hands,
    I wonder if in heaven you can feel.
    When I try to put my finger on your lips,
    I wonder if I’ll ever really heal.

    When I say my love’s now there alive in you,
    I wonder if in heaven you can know
    That now I want to be so much with you,
    And your love, your child-like love, can make it so.

    If my falling tears could cascade upon your smile,
    I wonder if you’d know each hour I grieve.
    If once again with me you could live,
    Will you wonder why I ever made you leave?

    When my long and well-earned penance has been done,
    I wonder if you’ll say “I forgive.”
    When our Father tells you I have new life from His Son,
    I hope you’ll say “Mama, you can live.”

    Copyright © Guy McClung 2015

  10. @ Guy McClung. Your poem is beautiful. I can’t imagine any mother who fell for the lie would not regret her decision to abort. As you so aptly said; “When my long and well-earned penance has been done,
    I wonder if you’ll say “I forgive.”
    When our Father tells you I have new life from His Son,
    I hope you’ll say “Mama, you can live.”

    Silent no More, a post abortion outreach for grieving mother’s, is a slice of Mercy for these women.
    Your probably aware of them.

    I hope they are aware of your poem.
    If not, they should be.

    Peace Guy.

  11. Ernst Schreiber<<<“Scholarly” means “I have multiple footnotes supporting my tendentious misinterpretation of the evidence and I know you’re too lazy to check my work.” Because he’s a Leftist, he’s arguing the Abolitionists were no better than the Slave Holders and thus this country has always been illegitimate and must needs give way to the Socialist utopia.<<<
    Dear Ernst,
    I hope you are reading this sometime after Christmas. I wouldn't want to spoil your celebration!
    I certainly didn't think anyone reading this blog is 'too lazy to check my work'….until I read your comment!! 🙂
    At least Mr. McClarey was NOT LAZY and chased down Julian Sturtevant and found out , sad to say, that Mr. Sturtevant was indeed an unabashed misanthrope–at least when it came to black folks.
    As to whether Sturtevant was an 'Abolitionist', or just the President of the college (from 1844-1874) which was the center of Illinois' anti-slavery movement …. . it is imaginable that President Sturtevant was in no way responsible for his college's reputation. I will cede Mr. McClarey's point.
    Regardless of whether he was an 'Abolitionist' prior to the War, As Mr. McClarey points out, in 1863 Sturtevant was arguing FOR Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation when he stated that blacks were likely to 'disappear' as a result of it. I think anyone arguing for the EP at that point–since many Unionists were still against it–would qualify as an Abolitionist. If you still disagree, I will accept that I have lost and will not mention Julian Sturtevant any more.
    Perhaps it would be easier to see the abolitionist trajectory by studying what became of other Abolitionists, like say Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He was a young New England Abolitionist, who served very honorably in the Union Army, who also lived into the twentieth Century and became a Supreme Court Justice. Do you think a close analysis of his views might give us a good read on what made Abolitionists tick?

  12. In fact, abolitionists (note the lower case ‘a’) came in many stripes. As with any movement, there were mild ones, moderates, and extremists. Up for discussion: where in the debate would fit free-staters (allow continued existence in areas it existed, prohibit spread)?

    Extreme abolitionists fit in this post: they were anti-Catholic bigots, too.

    “John Brown’s body lies a molding in the grave . . .” I pulled out my early-1960’s HS AP Am. History Text. It contained a piece on John Brown. Ten or twelve of his relatives (parents, etc.) were insane. The text intimates that if the powers-that-be had remanded him to an insane asylum, the abolitionist propagandists would not have wielded the murderous (bloody Kansas and Harpers Ferry) martyr.

    Coincidence?: In 1837, within months of Garrison first publishing the propaganda, Nat Turner (Now a national hero!) led a slave insurrection which killed 61(?), mostly women and children.

  13. Well, IIRC there WERE plenty of books published in the 1850s defending the institution of slavery as a good thing. There was a whole genre of “Anti-Tom” fiction composed as rebuttals to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, portraying slavery as beneficial to both whites and blacks. There were also numerous books and articles presenting political arguments for slavery. That said, it might be hard to find a work by a slaveowner, or especially a slave dealer (a profession that was despised even in the Deep South) explicitly stating “Yes, I own (or buy and sell) slaves and I’m proud of it!” in the way that women are being encouraged to “shout (their) abortion” today. I’d go looking for them if I had the time or inclination but I don’t.

    Merry Christmas everyone!

  14. Elaine Krewer.

    Your going to encounter a woman who is proud of her abortions…and when you do the Holy Spirit will speak his words to her. In your way shared with your compassion and His. Compassion with passionate admonishment.

    Just a hunch.
    Merry Christmas.

  15. Elaine and T Shaw,
    Merry Christmas to to you all too! And thanks for weighing in, trying to put the slavery issue in it’s real context.

    We have all been brainwashed to think the issue is a 5 minute read and any further considerations or attempts to remove our modern blinders amount to betraying America and apple pie.

    As Catholics, we should also remember that Pius IX ‘s sympathy was with the Confederacy and not with the conquerors. That should at least stir us to study a little more and demonize a little less, no?

  16. As other Christians pointed to their Bibles to support their contention that slavery was immoral. What we do know from history is that wherever Christianity has been strong slavery has eventually ended, where Christianity has waned or been persecuted, slavery has come back.

  17. Hello, Donald. I think the key word there is “eventually” (if well over a dozen centuries isn’t a misuse of the word eventually). The Bible has God giving instructions on one is to obtain and harshly mistreat slave. God twice calls slaves “property” and says being a slave to death with a rob gives no punishment so long as the slave dies a day later. Papal bulls like Sicut Dudum, Creator Omnium, and Regimini Gregis helped extend the practice when the world was long overdue for ending the practice.

  18. “What we do know from history is that wherever Christianity has been strong slavery has eventually ended, where Christianity has waned or been persecuted, slavery has come back.”

    Quote of 2018.
    No eagle.
    No right of mine to award Mr. McClarey of quote of the month or year…..
    But who among you can disagree with his simple truth.

    No Christ. No peace.
    Know Christ. Know Peace!
    Hey….
    Who’s that in the sky…..?

  19. Merry Christmas, Ernst and Mr. McClarey!!

    Regarding both of yours suggestion that Genovese being a leftist somehow made him antagonistic to the northern cause…..Perhaps neither of you knows this, but in case you don’t, I will inform you. Genovese died cursing the left and reconciled to the Church. However with regards to his sympathies, he remained a faithful friend of the American South.

    You probably already know that Mr Karl Marx himself was a cheerleader for the Nothern cause.

    I’m not saying that the Civil War was the left-right conflict. I’m only refuting your premise.

  20. With utmost vigor, I encourage everyone to read, or re-read, both UNCLE TOM’S CABIN and the later volume by Mrs. Stowe, THE KEY TO UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. She simply nails it (and LQC above can find his view in her words). Two excerpts below from UTC. Guy McClung. PS: Merry to all and God bless us, everyone.

    UTC Chap 1:
    Perhaps the mildest form of the system of slavery is to be seen in the State of Kentucky. . . . Whoever visits some estates there, and witnesses the good-humored indulgence of some masters and mistresses, and the affectionate loyalty of some slaves, might be tempted to dream the oft-fabled poetic legend of a patriarchal institution, and all that; but over and above the scene there broods a portentous shadow—the shadow of law. So long as the law considers all these human beings, with beating hearts and living affections, only as so many things belonging to a master,—so long as the failure, or misfortune, or imprudence, or death of the kindest owner, may cause them any day to exchange a life of kind protection and indulgence for one of hopeless misery and toil,—so long it is impossible to make anything beautiful or desirable in the best regulated administration of slavery.

    UNC Chap.!!
    He was possessed of a handsome person and pleasing manners, and was a general favorite in the factory. Nevertheless, as this young man was in the eye of the law not a man, but a thing, all these superior qualifications were subject to the control of a vulgar, narrow-minded, tyrannical master.

  21. @ Guy McClung.

    Great pick.
    In just the short excepts the author catches the irony of slave ownership and as equally ironic the idea of license to kill via abortion on demand.

    Tyranny in it’s most fashionable and sophisticated level.

  22. Merry Christmas, Guy!

    Thank you for bringing up Unitarian daughter of puritans Harriet Beecher Stowe. You are making Mike O’Leary’s point for him. ‘Catholicism has little valuable to say except when it sits at the feet of enlightened modern day puritans.’

    How many if the Abolitionists or even radical republicans were Catholics? I think I could count them on one hand, if I didn’t have any fingers!

  23. Merry Christmas! back at you. Who was an abolitionist, what they did or said, what they espoused or didn’t, make no difference to 1. the points that the Party of Slavery was the Democrat Party and 2. the point of LQC in the comment above (which is true). That, e.g. the Bible says this or that, or that Chief Justice Roger Taney was a good Catholic does not change the history of the Party Of Death, nor its MO for taking power. Guy McClung

  24. Guy<>>

    Wait, Guy….didn’t William Jennings Bryant (Democrat) run against Teddy Roosevelt (Republican)? Bryan was against Eugenics (read his written response to Darrow at the Scopes Trial) and Teddy was all for it, as were Robert Taft (ruled on Buck v Bell) and Herbert Hoover. Oliver Wendell Holmes was also a big Republican, but no one here seems to want to touch him with a ten foot pol. How does your Party of Death Argument work with that?

    American eugenics inspired the Nazis…Do you consider it just a ‘side issue’? I’ll bet Al Smith was against it. Catholics as a whole were still Democrats and they were the only group other than some Fundamentalists, also largely Democrats, who were against it. It would be really interesting to count on one hand, again, this time the number of Republican politicians in the 1920s who opposed eugenics.

  25. MARY DE VOE
    The demographic winter is upon us and irreversible.

    By the numbers, no, and don’t give up hope!

    Elf and I have six already; a lot of the decline is number-fudging, combined with four decades of “we’re all gonna diiiiiie if you have a baby” and “having a kid ends your life” screeching.

  26. Mr. McClarey,

    Teddy Roosevelt wrote a glowing review for Madison Grant’s 1916 ‘The Passing of the Great Race’. Grants book was also in favor of certain people having large families. It was eugenics nonetheless.

    http://eugenics.us/theodore-roosevelt-on-madison-grants-the-passing-of-the-great-race/306.htm

    Grant’s book also got good reviews from – well, you know who – (a certain Austrian Noncommissioned Officer.)

    As for his being pro life when everyone was against abortion, including Margaret Sanger, I don’t see that as laudable.

    The Culture of Death people weren’t pushing abortion yet. They were pushing eugenics and so was TR.

    TR also has the distinction of appointing the SCOTUS’ only avowed atheist, O W Holmes jr who would later write the Buck v Bell pro eugenics decision.

    The only people pushing back seems to have been in the Democratic Party, (unless you name me some anti-eugenics roaring twenties Republicans?) and they were in the minority there. NTL William Jennings Bryan was the Dems unsuccessful standard bearer three times 96-08 and his brother was the Dems vice presidential candidate in 1924.

    Nathan Cohen has written a book on this topic and done a good YouTube video where he points out that only Catholic (and Democrat) Louisiana won out over eugenicists at the ballot box.
    Am I informing you of something you didn’t know already? If not, then Why are you stuck on this ‘Republicans have always been the Life party and Democrats have always been for death’?

  27. “Am I informing you of something you didn’t know already? If not, then Why are you stuck on this ‘Republicans have always been the Life party and Democrats have always been for death’?”
    because the Democratic Party begot the KKK. The Democratic Party forced FDR to remove the ban on the hanging of Blacks and place Hugo Black on the Supreme Court if FDR wanted his New Deal to Pass. FDR did as he was told.
    It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Thomas Jefferson’s vision of all men being “created equal” and Republican Abraham Lincoln’s vision for the union was realized.
    SEE: “Mississippi Burning” and “To Kill A Mockingbird”.
    The Democrats refused to accept Black people as equal. Now the Democrats refuse to accept God, “their Creator” This can only lead to more corruption.
    Ronald Reagan, The Bush presidents and Donald Trump are/were pro-life.
    Hillary and Bill Clinton and Obama both Democrats, are pro-abortion, euthanasia and population control by means other than sublimating one’s will to the will of God. What atheist can and will do that?

  28. You didn’t bother reading TR’s article on Twisted Eugenics did you? Roosevelt was a man of his times and there was a major concern in his day of people, especially educated people, “shirking their duty”, in Roosevelt’s phrase, to have kids. That was Roosevelt’s major focus in regard to eugenics. He vehemently opposed attempts to legalize birth control devices, for example.

    Woodrow Wilson, as Governor of New Jersey, signed into law the first New Jersey statute to allow for the sterilization of retarded people. There was zip difference between the parties in regard to eugenics, and it simply was not a major political issue during Roosevelt’s day between the parties.

    In regard to Holmes, a Civil War veteran and Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, his lack of religious belief did not factor into his appointment. Like many Presidents, Roosevelt quickly soured on his pick, and noted that Holmes had the “backbone of a chocolate eclair”. Holmes is widely regarded as one of the great Supreme Court justices by students of the Court. His decision in Buck v. Bell, seven years after the death of TR, was an atrocity. It was also an 8-1 decision, demonstrating how little controversy there was about sterilizing those regarded as “feeble minded” at the time. Eugenics did not acquire it’s evil reputation in the public square until the Nazis embraced it.

    As for Bryan, his adversary in the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow, was just as opposed to eugenics as he was:

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2011/09/reprint.html

    By the time of the Scopes trial, Bryan had been out of politics for over a decade. His views on eugenics had as little impact on the Democrat party as did his views on evolution. Your attempt to argue that there was a major dividing line between the parties on eugenics during this period is ahistoric.

  29. As for his being pro life when everyone was against abortion, including Margaret Sanger, I don’t see that as laudable.

    Sanger wasn’t against abortion. She found it ineffective compared to birth control, and disliked the risks involved. Even in her NYTimes articles, her only objection to abortion was the surgical risks.
    Quite different.

  30. Happy St Stevens mr. McClarey!

    If you really think Clarence Darrow was anti-eugenics then….

    1. Why was he arguing for a pro- eugenics text book at the scopes trial?

    2. Why was he for ‘throttling’ defective infants? We as he pro euthanasia but anti eugenics?

    You are making light of the whole eugenics episode as if it were an excusable peccadillo because ‘everyone was for it. ‘ But everyone was not. Catholics made up a huge chunk of the Democratic Party and they were against it en masse.

    Also you youngsters are probably too young to remember but Republicans were a majority pro choice back in the late sixties when the first abortion laws were being repealed back in the late sixties early seventies.

    If you all don’t want to study this disagreeable topic any more during this joyous season…. we can do this later. My apologies to you and Guy and Ernst and Mary DV for robbing you of your Christmas Time! (And thanks for not blocking me!)

  31. Happy St Stevens mr. McClarey!

    If you really think Clarence Darrow was anti-eugenics then….

    1. Why was he arguing for a pro- eugenics text book at the scopes trial?

    2. Why was he for ‘throttling’ defective infants? We as he pro euthanasia but anti eugenics?

    You are making light of the whole eugenics episode as if it were an excusable peccadillo because ‘everyone was for it. ‘ But everyone was not. (It would be nice if we could extend the same courtesy to the Germans. Seriously!)

    My apologies for bringing up this disagreement at this joyous time. We can do this later if you prefer

  32. Per Mr. Darrow himself, because he got to attack a favored target, “Religious fundamentalism”.

    I cannot find any hits for Darrow supporting throttling defective infants, but did find this:
    Chloroform unfit children,” Darrow said. “Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live.

    So standard issue mercy killing, same as the murderous doctor he supported, Helen Keller, and the various other supporters.

  33. “If you really think Clarence Darrow was anti-eugenics then….”

    Deal with the article he wrote. Do not simply ignore it by hand-waving.

    “You are making light of the whole eugenics episode as if it were an excusable peccadillo because ‘everyone was for it. ‘ ”

    Not at all. I am explaining the historical context that you clearly do not understand.

    “Catholics made up a huge chunk of the Democratic Party and they were against it en masse.”

    Once again it simply was not a political issue at the time between the parties. I defy you to find any mention of eugenics in either of the parties platforms prior to World War II.

    “but Republicans were a majority pro choice back in the late sixties”

    Untrue. Republicans had a liberal wing led by Nelson Rockefeller that was pro-abort. We call those people Democrats now. Abortion became a major political issue after Roe in 1973 and the parties swiftly aligned pro-abort and pro-life. Republican party platform 1976: “a position on abortion that values human life;”; Democrat Party Platform 1976: “We fully recognize the religious and ethical nature of the concerns which many Americans have on the subject of abortion. We feel, however, that it is undesirable to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in this area.”

    Republican Party Platform 1980: “There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.

    We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent’s obligation and right to guide their minor children.”

    Democrat Party platform 1980: “The Democratic Party recognizes reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right. We therefore oppose government interference in the reproductive decisions of Americans, especially those government programs or legislative restrictions that deny poor Americans their fight to privacy by funding or advocating one or a limited number of reproductive choices only.

    Specifically, the Democratic Party opposes involuntary or uninformed sterilization for women and men, and opposes restrictions on funding for health services for the poor that deny poor women especially the right to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy.”

  34. Mary de Voe-
    as one article on it I ran into said, there’s no evidence she ever connected her quality of life based “mercy killing” and the Nazi outrages, even after they became well known.

  35. Hello again Mr. McClarey,
    First off, thank you for your tolerance in allowing me to comment!

    Regarding Clarence Darrow’s article…very well thought out for a materialist. I enjoyed it. I was almost ready to sew him on as one of the fingers on that hand full of Republicans who spoke out against eugenics, but then I found out he was also a Democrat ☹️. I’m still mad at him for wanting to chloroform handicapped babies, (Thank you foxfire for the Correction! )

    Regarding Buck v Bell Supreme Court justices (8-1 for eugenics legislation) 3 of the bad guys were Democrats and 5 were republicans. The only good guy was a Catholic Democrat. He was appointed by Harding though…. so I will sew One finger on the hand.

    Regarding the Republican abortion stance during the late 60s and early 70s : Don’t you think we could do a simple republican vs Democrat count on the roe v wade court to get a snapshot of how republicans felt at the time? Maybe a majority of the Republicans on the court order pro life! You obviously are not old enough to remember 🙂 . And all the examples you give me to refute my claim come from 1976 and afterwards.

    Do you recall that as late as 1971, Teddy Kennedy was anti-abortion?
    I think the deeper we dig on this subject, we are going to find that a shift, a swap has taken place. Especially since our 60 s conservative hero, Barry Goldwater was not pro life! ☹️

  36. “Regarding Buck v Bell Supreme Court justices (8-1 for eugenics legislation) 3 of the bad guys were Democrats and 5 were republicans. The only good guy was a Catholic Democrat. He was appointed by Harding though…. so I will sew One finger on the hand.”

    Once again, it simply was not a major issue when the justices were appointed. The law originated of course in Virginia, a state completely dominated by Democrats at the time, although once again it simply was not an issue dividing the parties. The same thing applies to the Roe court. The two dissenters in that case were Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, and White, a Kennedy appointee.

    In regard to Kennedy, I have written about his flip flop on abortion:

    https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2009/08/27/11960/

    I have also written about Goldwater’s secret, and then public, embrace of abortion:

    https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2014/07/16/liberty-and-justice/

    None of this gainsays that after Roe the parties quickly embraced their present positions on abortion.

  37. One more squirrel, Ernst,

    I went to college in Illinois back in the 70s and I seem to remember the governor‘s race back in 76 where the Democrat ( One of mayor Daley‘s minions) was pro-life and the Republican was pro-abortion. Anyway, I went searching and I found this interesting tidbit for Mr. McClarey… some good news for people in Illinois … in 1975 the legislature passed a law -signed by the Democrat then governor Walker- that is still on the books that says if roe versus Wade is overruled then abortion will be banned!

    http://www.smilepolitely.com/opinion/bad_laws_the_illinois_abortion_law_of_1975/

    The article also goes on to lament how Mayor Daley was so very pro life.

    I only want the our friends on this blog to remember that when they oversimplify and demonize and say that the party of ‘Romanism and Rebellion’ has always been the ‘party of death’ that they are unjustly slandering the dead and even maybe their own ancestors.

  38. Ernst,

    ☹️ I have failed to sway you…

    Did you notice the comment by Chicago’s then First Lady Mrs Daley?
    Not only was Democrat Mayor Daley prolife, his wife was also. That makes her different from every Republican First Lady from Pat Nixon to Laura Bush (from 1969-2009)

    http://www.firstladies.org/blog/pat-nixon-and-womens-issues-of-the-70s/

    The fact that all these ‘prolife’ REPUBLICAN presidents had pro abortion wives might go a long ways towards explaining how deeply Nixon’s and Ford’s and Reagan’s and the Bushes’ prolife convictions ran and why so little progress was made every time we elected a Republican President.

    Trump will get Roe overturned because he’s not a real Republican!

  39. “I went to college in Illinois back in the 70s and I seem to remember the governor‘s race back in 76 where the Democrat ( One of mayor Daley‘s minions) was pro-life and the Republican was pro-abortion. Anyway, I went searching and I found this interesting tidbit for Mr. McClarey… some good news for people in Illinois … in 1975 the legislature passed a law -signed by the Democrat then governor Walker- that is still on the books that says if roe versus Wade is overruled then abortion will be banned!”

    I voted for Howlett in 1976, first vote for governor I was old enough to cast, solely because of the abortion issue. Today the State of Illinois is completely dominated by the party of the Jackass and is one of the most pro-abortion states in the Union.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-abortion-numbers-illinois-out-of-state-20181129-story.html

  40. “Trump will get Roe overturned because he’s not a real Republican!”
    Trump will get Roe overturned because Roe is the greatest miscarriage of Justice almost ever…killing the innocent unborn, 70 million, disenfranchising every male in existence, Roe never bore the burden of proof that the newly begotten, innocent, sovereign person, morally and legally innocent sovereign person, the standard of Justice for our people, created in the image and likeness of our infinite act of being, God, without beginning and without end, “their Creator” of our Declaration of Independence, on trial for his life was not a sovereign person, procreated by his father and mother, infused with a rational, immortal human soul and endowed with all innate, unalienable human rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, created equal, (not born equal), the victim of an atheistic regime intent on destroying and enslaving the human being with the intent to eradicate the Truth; knowledge, love and service of God, our Father WHO is in heaven.
    Roe is the establishment of atheism by our government, a violation of freedom of religion. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheism is the belief and rejection of God. Although men are free to go as they may, men are not free to eradicate our freedom of religion in the expression of our response to the gift of Faith from God, WHO is The Infinite Supreme Sovereign Being, without beginning and without end, perfect Love, Justice and Mercy.
    Man is the act of being, finite, created, procreated and immortal, whose infused soul directs the human being towards almighty God.
    Roe will be overturned because Roe destroys our constitutional Posterity, George Washington’s constitutional Posterity, all future generations of George Washington’s constitutional Posterity.
    King Herod, the state, could not get Jesus as an infant. Crucifying Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was gotten by the high priests of the temple.
    Nevertheless, man is the glory of God. Woman is the glory of man. Destruction of God is the intent of Roe. The Republican pro-life servants of God are the standard bearers of God’s infinite Justice, Love and Mercy. May God be praised.
    Mary De Voe

  41. The death penalty is executed through the power of attorney of the condemned murderer, guilty of homicide in the first degree, murder, killing in stealth. The innocent, newly begotten sovereign person cannot be executed or aborted, killed, though his own innocent power of attorney, nor can he be put to death for the crimes and sins of his parents as in rape, lust, or communal guilt.
    The newly begotten, innocent, sovereign person institutes the state from the very first moment of his existence.
    Roe is murdering our people and extorting our money to fund this monstrosity. Roe will be overturned by every thinking person in existence.

  42. Foxfier
    “…as one article on it I ran into said, there’s no evidence she ever connected her quality of life based “mercy killing” and the Nazi outrages, even after they became well known.”
    Don’t bother Helen Keller with the truth.

  43. “The same thing applies to the Roe court. The two dissenters in that case were Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, and White, a Kennedy appointee.”
    It always tickles me that Justice Byron White was a good guy and “Justice” Hugo Black was not a good guy, that is, a bad guy.
    Sorry couldn’t help it.

  44. “Also you youngsters are probably too young to remember but Republicans were a majority pro choice back in the late sixties when the first abortion laws were being repealed back in the late sixties early seventies.”
    Not so. Rep. Christopher Henry Smith (R. N.J.) leader of pro-lifers in Congress and in America was a Democrat before abortion. Smith changed parties to become a Republican to stay pro-life. Rep. Smith worked with Rep. Henry Hyde (R. Illinois) of the Hyde Amendment to prohibit tax money from funding abortion.
    I’m Sorry you have been reading to much ill information.

  45. Ernst-
    shouldn’t that be first on the list?

    One of the big issues with finding out if someone is “pro life” is that unless you get their actual stances, you’re working off of second hand claims.
    From years of actually talking to people, an awful lot of “pro-choice” women are exactly as pro-abortion as the Catholic Church, and at least one survey I managed to dig around long enough to get definitions included life-saving medical treatment that harmed or killed the child as “pro-choice.”

    *********
    Foxfier
    “…as one article on it I ran into said, there’s no evidence she ever connected her quality of life based “mercy killing” and the Nazi outrages, even after they became well known.”
    Don’t bother Helen Keller with the truth.

    Sad thing is, without Truth, the littler truths go missing, too.
    And you end up with “mercy killing” that is very much for the tender feelings of those doing the killing, if the person being “helped” wants it or not.

  46. Foxfier-“Mercy Killing” is way to nice, and a bit too antiseptic, brings to mind putting a lame horse out of its misery. It is MERCY MURDER. Guy

  47. Ah, but that lets them fixate on the legal aspects.
    Murder being the unlawful killing of human beings.

    There’s three ways to emphasize it-
    unlawful killing of human beings,
    unlawfulkillingof human beings,
    and unlawful killing of human beings.

    Of those three, the “unlawful” part is easiest to argue about.
    Killing is harder– there are a LOT of articles insisting the doctor just “let the [infant] die” or “did not do a surgery” on the infant.
    And as we know from the abortion arguments, the “human being” part is really, really hard for folks to face. Even articles about that murderous doctor tended to make it hard to tell anything beyond “deformed”– he was a baby boy, by the way. Doctor used the standard “how can you force a child to suffer like that” angle of attack.

  48. Mercy Killing or Mercy murder, you can be sure some Republican was in favor of it first.

    Or if not, then they’re pro-suffering because sadism or big pharma or some d— thing.

  49. Hello again, Mary DV!

    Re: me getting bad information About the Democrats ALWAYS being the bad party (for 150 years straight according to Lucius) and, by extension, the Republicans ALWAYS good…..or why Sen Chris Smith leaving the Democrats proves the above…

    Please read Mr McClarey’s last couple of responses and you can glean that…

    1. We have Roe v Wade because in January 1973 FIVE out of 6 Republican SCOTUS justices just happened to be pro-abortion….mind you that would have been an astounding number if they had been selected according to a proabortion litmus test and 5/6 stayed true to their convictions! But no, as Mr McClarey points out they were not picked for the court because they were pro-abortion Republicans…. but rather because they were outstanding jurists who represented TYPICAL Republican sentiments – about legal issues – at the time each was selected, i. e. The 50s and 60s. If Eisenhower or Nixon had deliberately looked for pro abortion republicans, then we might say those 6 Justices were not representative of how republicans felt about abortion. BUT As Mr McClarey has pointed out…. there was no culling going on, and that is the best way to get a true random sampling for an opinion survey. From this it is logical to conclude that a solid majority of Republicans AT THAT TiME , The 50s and 60s, were pro choice.

    2. Mr McClarey himself voted for a Democrat against a Republican Illinois governorship because AT THAT time the Daley political machine was still more reliably prolife than the Republican Party which was only in the early stages of its attempt to pull Catholics out of the Democratic Party by using abortion.I know you don’t like hearing about this. I am sorry.

  50. “FIVE out of 6 Republican SCOTUS justices just happened to be pro-abortion”

    The Roe majority consisted of three Democrats and four Republicans. Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower, but he was a Democrat. Eisenhower considered his appointment of Brennan and his appointment of Earl Warren as being his two biggest mistakes. Abortion wasn’t on the radar screen when these appointments were made, except for Powell and Rehnquist in 1972, and they voted opposite on Roe. The idea that the Justices represented some sort of pro-abortion Republican sentiment is asinine, especially when one considers the negative reaction of a majority of the GOP to Roe. In later years Chief Justice Burger came to regret his vote in Roe and in his last year on the Court in 1986 called for a re-examination of Roe.

    “Mr McClarey himself voted for a Democrat against a Republican Illinois governorship because AT THAT time the Daley political machine was still more reliably prolife than the Republican Party”. Mr McClarey himself voted for a Democrat against a Republican Illinois governorship because AT THAT time the Daley political machine was still more reliably prolife than the Republican Party ”

    Complete and utter rubbish. Howlett was pro-life and Jim Thompson was not. Even in 1976 in Illinois pro-life forces were much stronger in general in the Republican party than in the Democrat Party. What you are attempting to peddle is ahistoric hog wash. Daley didn’t give a damn about abortion, and his children who followed him in political careers have been total pro-aborts.

  51. I was blest to study constitutional law with the undisputed, best constitutional scholar of all time, Prof. Charles Alan Wright, may he rest in peace.He was the expert on Constitutional jurisprudence. He pronounced the Roe decision as the worst, if the standard for judgment was how a case followed or ignored the constitution and applied correct legal/judicial principles. Some of the reasons for this are in the article cited below; but there is a wealth of valid criticism by constitutional scholars that condemns Roe as pure legislation from the bench. Why do totalitarians and democrats [but I repeat myself[ fight so to keep those off the court who do not agree that it can be twisted to suit their wishes? Because they know if five of theirs can create a right five of the opposite view can uncreat it – and, worse, create rights they despise; consider five in 2012 discover the “right to safety” in the penumbras of the preamble, and then tax dollars have to pay for a gun for each and every US citizen. Guy McClung

    John Hart Ely
    The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment On Roe V Wade
    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5116&context=fss_papers

  52. Thank you again, Mr. McClaret,

    With your correction about the Republicans on the Supreme Court, the new count would be four out of five Were pro abortioninstead of five out of six. i e 80% pro abortion instead of 84%. Not much of a drop ☹️.

    With regards to Mayor Daley‘s son, Junior, I do need to make a little correction. You seem to indicate that he was always pro Abortion. Joseph Scheidler said That Richard Daley JuniorWas one of the Illinois’ senate’s most reliable pro life members up until 1983 which was a number of years after his father’s death.

  53. Daley didn’t give a damn about abortion, a

    I’ll wager he did. What’s disconcerting is how ineffective were cradle Catholics who professed to be opposed to abortion were in building an maintaining a durable opposition to the practice within the Democratic Party. Eugene McCarthy, Sargent Shriver, John LaFalce, Dale Kildee, David Bonior, &c. failed completely if they ever made much of an attempt.

    It’s one aspect of an utterly distressing phenomenon: the collapse of Catholic culture in this country. The Church as it was in 1958 bore little resemblance to the Church as it was in 1990. After a period of holding its own, it began careering downhill again five years ago.

  54. Case in Point. Bad news from Ohio: “Ohio Heartbeat Bill Goes Down In Flames After GOP Sides With, Kasich, Planned Parenthood and Dems.”

    On the flip side, the Ohio legislature overrode Kasich’s veto of gun-owner rights law.

    I’m old enough to remember when Kasich imitated a conservative.

    Was ET Kucinich also from Ohio?

  55. T Shaw et al-It is no accident that the American Catholic homoarchy of the last five decades and today was/is mostly silent re Abortion. My meager history tells me it was mostly silent re slavery as well. But today, because of the fact that both abortion and homosex are, according to Holy Mother Church, intrinsic evils, and coming out against abortion would, at least indirectly help the GOP, and others opposed to homomarriage, the homoarchs and their minions said “Let the babies die dead, we have a more important agenda.” Guy McClung

  56. @Kneeling Catholic
    “By their fruits you shall know them”
    Abortion has been going on since Pharaoh sent the mid wives to kill every male child born to the Israelites. When my mom conceived my sister, (1939) the mid-wife sent and asked if she (my mom¬) “wanted it“. “it” being my sister. Same with me. The mid-wife was the wealthiest woman in the county.
    Roe v. Wade was about forcing the tax payers to pay for abortion, the killing of the unborn in the womb. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not born equal) and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness…”.
    I knew Christopher Henry Smith and Jeffrey Bell while they were campaigning for office against Sen Harrison Williams. Williams went to Federal prison for two years for ABSCAM, influence peddling, kind of like selling yellow cake to the Russians but not so bad. Chris Smith won and Williams went to prison. Chris Smith was pro-life, then and is now. Both he and his wife, Marie, support the March for Life in Washington. He did say that he could not stay in the Democratic Party because of their stance on abortion. Rep. Smith and Henry Hyde did wonders in protecting the unborn and the taxpayers.
    As a Kneeling Catholic, you must know that anyone who commits a grievous sin like abortion or consents to commit a grievous sin like abortion self-excommunicates himself and is no longer in the Catholic Church.
    Counting the beliefs of the Supreme Court Justices is like hanging feathers on clouds. Both William Brennan and Harry Blackmun were first class candidates for hell. Sarah Weddington, the 25 year old attorney for Roe, was asked by Justice Potter Stewart, that if the unborn was a person, would there be a case. Weddington laughed and said “NO”.
    Scientific DNA from the time of fertilization proves that the newly begotten innocent person is an individual member of the human species. The rational human soul informs the growth and development of the child. If you do not believe in the rational human soul, you are no Catholic.
    The feminsts pushed abortion down our throats, disenfranchising every human male from his seed, extorting tax money from pro-lifers and excoriating anyone who could not defend himself and his life, but the actual power was given over to the government and the administrative state as has now been done with gay marriage, transgenderism and our educational system. The power belongs to the people, not to the administrative state.
    Now we have Gov. Cuomo leveling a $250,000.00 fine for not using the politically compelled pronoun.
    “We, the people” are all of our ancestors, this generation and all future generations, our constitutional Posterity. Every human being conceived after Roe v. Wade is an escapee from abortion.
    FREEDOM.

  57. “Every human being conceived after Roe v. Wade is an escapee from abortion.” MDV

    Aka, Holocaust Survivors.

  58. Hello Mary, Ernst, Foxfier, Guy, Mr McClarey et al!

    Here’s a valuable story on our topic in this string: https://stream.org/abortion-became-party-line-issue/

    It traces the US right to life movement from its beginnings with Catholic Democrats lIke Ellen McCormack and Nellie Gray thru the time when disinterested Republican Protestant conservatives got converted in the late seventies.

    There is also a good Michael barone YouTube video where he mentions how in both New York and Michigan, in the early seventies, abortion was pushed thru by Republican power and it was largely old school New Deal Democrats who tried to stop it.

    There is really no mystery here….CATHOLICS were the only early resistance to the early abortion legalization attempts…hence it was only prolife Catholic Republicans- who had recently left the Democrats because they were attracted to the GOPs Cold War stance- and Catholic prolife Democrats AND almost no one else. Catholic Democrats vastly outnumbered Catholic Republicans back then in the EARLY seventies and Catholic Democrat Vice Presidential nominees like Edmund Muskie, 1968, and Eagleton and Shriver 1972 Were prolife. Contrast that with the shenanigans George h w Bush and Peggy Goldwater were up to during the same time period and you see what a distortion it is to say Democrats have always been the party of Death.

  59. The right to life movement rather predates Roe v Wade– heck, the NRLC was founded in ’68.

    That the Democrats didn’t kick out everyone who opposed abortion until much more recently is an awful thin twig to grasp, especially given the party platform quotes Donald gave up top and the article you linked having a pre-Roe pro-abortion plan defeated by fewer than 500 of 2.6k votes, and given the well known tendency for several of the big Catholic demographics to be Democrats as a matter of course. (My mom’s half-joking memory was that there was a wall in her folks’ house with a picture of Jesus, then below a picture of the Pope and JFK. She can’t remember which was at Jesus’ right hand.)

    There is really no mystery here….CATHOLICS were the only early resistance to the early abortion legalization attempts…hence it was only prolife Catholic Republicans- who had recently left the Democrats because they were attracted to the GOPs Cold War stance- and Catholic prolife Democrats AND almost no one else.

    That is not true–even the Atlantic notes that it was going decades before that, with it being anti-Catholic bias that helped push laws against abortion (standard issue “they’re having too many kids, we aren’t we’re going to vanish” stuff); later on it was doctors who opposed it because they understand life, then it morphed into the organizations largely being Catholic because of our theology, and that got tied to public welfare promotion. Which allowed the pro-aborts to sell stories of women becoming single mothers for the money they got. Per the historian writing for the Atlantic, various bishops realized it being a “Catholic thing” was alienating populations that were very pro-life (such as black Protestants) and worked to set up state chapters of not-explicitly-Catholic pro-lifers.

    Here’s more:
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/a-brief-history-of-the-american-pro-life-movement/

    Or this, on the sudden change in many protestant organizations in the late 60s/early 70s, which also lists several denominational pro-life groups, some predating Roe, and is on the National Right to Life site– they were founded in ’68, as a generic Christian group.
    https://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/1999/NRL199/sween.html

  60. Dear Foxfier,
    Nice work finding the Atlantic article about ‘the progressive roots of the prolife movement ‘.

    That article also emphasizes how the early right to lifers were ‘new dealers’ and catholic social justice types and just plain old Catholics. They got marginal help from the likes of the Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus. Catholics did the heavy lifting.

    Not to nitpick but the NRLC was begun by only Catholics and was totally under the wing of the bishops. When you say “that’s not true “ I have to scratch my head. Sounds like we’re harmonizing pretty well.
    In the late 60s and pre-Roe 70s the only prolife Republicans wereCatholics and there weren’t enough Catholic Republicans . At the same time there were a lot of Catholic Democrats like Ellen McCormack and Nelly Gray, and they formed the early right to life organizations .

    Not sayin That the Democrats are not now the party of death. Just that it always wasn’t that way.

  61. ” They got marginal help from the likes of the Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus.”
    Vincent DePaul Breen, third bishop of Metuchen N.J. was best friends with Richard John Neuhaus. Richard John Neuhaus brought his pro-life caravan of billboards and spoke at our diocese about the right to life. Neuhaus’ premier magazine First Things, which he authorized to be used for teaching without copyright permission after the first month was an intellectual adventure

  62. ” Neuhaus’ premier magazine First Things, which he authorized to be used for teaching without copyright permission after the first month was an intellectual adventure”
    …was and is an intellectual adventure

  63. “Not sayin That the Democrats are not now the party of death. Just that it always wasn’t that way.”
    Margaret Sanger was a democrat, and started PP as a way to control the black population.
    Dr. John Charles Wilke was an American author, physician, and anti-abortion activist. Along with his wife Barbara, Dr. Wilke founded The National Right to Life and the Ohio Right to Life. He wrote .
    many books: Handbook on Abortion, Abortion: Questions & Answers and others. If one is pro-life it matters not if one is a democrat or republican. Why is it so important to you to prove that the democrats are the founders of the Pro-Life movement in America?

  64. Kneeling Catholic-
    It says the first wave were doctors.
    The second wave was largely Catholic, and they realized that was bad for saving innocent lives.
    The third wave is what your article dealt with, and it’s rather important that it utterly ignored a lot of stuff, and more importantly people.

    n the late 60s and pre-Roe 70s the only prolife Republicans wereCatholics and there weren’t enough Catholic Republicans .

    Look at your own article– looks more like the only pro-life Democrats were the Catholics.
    And they got forced out, unless they enslaved their Catholicism to the party.
    Now, Billy Graham was a pro-life Democrat until he died, but he assuredly didn’t fit well in the current climate and hadn’t since the 80s…but you already insisted he and any group he was in didn’t do any real work.

Comments are closed.