Fact checkers agree: Lay off Sanger’s eugenics!

Yesterday we looked at the Washington Post‘s “fact check” about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s support of eugenics. In that fact check, Sanger’s distasteful views were contextualized and she was put forth as a “racial pioneer.” What’s more, the person who mentioned her racism was labeled not just a liar but the worst kind of liar.

Not a high point for the already questionable newspaper practice of opining on a given topic and labeling it “fact checking.”

In any case, the author of the fact check, Glenn Kessler, responded:

For the record, I believe you are mischaracterizing and cherry-picking my analysis of Cain’s words. I make very clear that Sanger was linked to eugenics—even quote her biographer on it—but that does not support Cain’s sweeping statement that her aim in going into the south was to kill black babies or that 75 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are in black neighborhoods. The phrase “racial pioneer” referred to the fact that, for the era, she worked closely with African Americans and solicited their support at a time when many whites (including her) held racial prejudices that we find objectionable today. The column was NOT making a judgement on what Planned Parenthood does today or their policies; it was only looking at the historical facts. And for what it is worth, PolitiFact labeled his comments “pants on fire” and factcheck.org concluded they were totally false. As for the charges of liberal bias, I think if you check the record, I have given just about as many “Four Pinocchio” ratings to Democrats as Republicans. Indeed, I am frequently slammed by Democrats for being an alleged conservative. I am sorry if the facts do not support your opinion, but that’s the way it is sometimes.

So much to respond to. For instance, compare Kessler’s characterization above of Cain’s quote and the point he was trying to make with what Cain actually said: “Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word ‘genocide,’ but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.”

I mean, if you say he’s talking about the “south” (which he didn’t) and that his main point was something about where Planned Parenthood facilities are located, that might be a perfect combination of mischaracterization and cherry-picking.

Also, advocates of eugenics, as Sanger unapologetically was, aren’t just “linked” to eugenics. What a weak way to describe someone calling for “cultivation of better racial elements,” “a cleaner race” and “the solution for racial … problems.”

Further, pointing out that Sanger worked with blacks doesn’t change anything about the “factual” nature of the statement that was being “fact checked.” She did work with blacks. As one commenter put it, “Of course she solicited the support of African Americans, Glenn — for the eugenic policies she advocated.” She also worked with the Ku Klux Klan in support of the same goal. So what’s the point?

As for appealing to other “fact checkers” to substantiate the poor job that was done by the Washington Post … I’m glad it was brought up. (And they appeal to the Washington Post‘s “fact check” in the same way the Washington Post appeals to them! So considerate…)

Let’s look at FactCheck.org’s analysis of Cain’s statement. First his relevant quote:

… Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word “genocide,” but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.

Keep in mind that in addition to the several quotes of hers to this effect that I showcased yesterday (in such obscure newspapers as The New York Times), there are countless others that opponents of eugenics have trouble with. But note the sophistry in FactCheck.org’s analysis:

Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.

Remember, all of that explicit talk about “racial hygiene” and “cultivation of better racial elements,” “a cleaner race” and “the solution for racial … problems” does not back up Cain’s statement. And it has nothing to do with wanting to stop the birth of any black babies. Just trust us on that, OK? It just doesn’t. We can’t explain it right now, but you really have to trust us. We’re “fact checkers.”

But I’m more interested in the last sentence. The “fact checkers” say that the quote “many” point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” has been turned on its head …

Did you see what they did there?

Rather than address whether, as Cain said, Sanger talked about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks by preventing their birth, they created something altogether different to argue against! We’re no longer discussing whether Sanger talked about preventing black babies from being born and now we’re talking about an isolated quote. One that’s been picked precisely to argue the point that the eugenicist Margaret Sanger isn’t nearly so bad as her critics say.

This means the fact check is devoted to parsing a quote that Cain never even talked about. Seriously, how do they know Cain was referring to that? They don’t. (That quote, by the way, is “We do not want 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.”)

Please also note that despite specifically saying that Sanger didn’t call for “genocide” of blacks, he gets tarred with the allegation anyway.

FactCheck.org also had trouble finding anyone on the planet outside of a Planned Parenthood affiliate to discuss the reality of Sanger’s eugenicism. But they did find several Planned Parenthood folks to defend Sanger. And they were sure to put those folks’ quotes throughout the piece. This may tell us a lot about what attitudes on abortion are like in a newsroom but that’s not fact checking so much as writing a press release for Planned Parenthood.

And then FactCheck.org had the audacity to say that it was Cain who offered an “alternate version of history.”

But yes, Kessler is right, both he and the FactCheck.org and virtually everyone affiliated with Planned Parenthood or any other Margaret Sanger-supporting outfit agree that Margaret Sanger was totally awesome when it comes to race issues. And if you disagree, well then, you’re a liar. A “four Pinocchio” writer of “alternate history.” Are we clear?

This Sanger silliness — calling critics of her eugenics liars instead of people who simply disagree with the prevailing views of journalists on sanctity of life issues — is a great example of the flaws of the “fact check” trend in modern journalism. They conflate and confuse facts and ideology. They rather shockingly hide the facts on Sanger’s eugenics, sure. But they also fail to see that people interpret things such as Sanger’s eugenicism according to their own religious and ideological views. Sanger’s views on race and eugenics are perhaps more easily contextualized by pro-choice journalists than the views of Nathan Bedford Forrest or Adolph Hitler would be, but some just reject the “other people were doing it, too” argument. They might reject that argument as specious or unimportant or irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that they’re liars or the contextualizers are liars. It does mean that they disagree on race issues, sanctity of life issues, quality of arguments or any number of other things.

I know it must be frustrating for some journalists that they’re unable to convince readers of the rightness of a given perspective, through the typical method of biased reporting. But I’d rather that they not double down through one-sided, thinly sourced “fact checks” and instead reconsider whether their job is to convince lowly readers of a given political, philosophical or religious view in the first place.

Image of woman with tape over her mouth via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com bob smietana

    Hi Mollie:

    What about the claim that 75% of Planned Parenthood clinics being built in African American neighborhoods. That does not seem to check out.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Doesn’t check out at all, by my lights. And if the fact checks had restricted themselves to analyzing that easily verifiable or refutable claim, they might have fared better.

    Of course, I still think they should have spoken to at least one person not affiliated with an institution associated with Margaret Sanger. Just in case there’s something we’re missing.

  • Deann Alford

    African Americans and Hispanics led a march last year in Houston against the country’s largest Planned Parenthood facility, newly built in a predominantly low-income black/latino neighborhood. The building includes a surgical floor for late-term abortion.

  • Martha

    “The phrase “racial pioneer” referred to the fact that, for the era, she worked closely with African Americans and solicited their support at a time when many whites (including her) held racial prejudices that we find objectionable today.”

    That’s… a unique way of interpreting it. Does Mr. Kessler know what Mrs. Sanger’s aim in working closely with African Americans was? From theWikiquotes page on Margaret Sanger:

    “[We propose to] 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. And we do not want 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.” Commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939. – Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, 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.
    (Note: There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but Dec. 10 is the correct date of Mrs. Sanger’s letter to Mr. Gamble.)”

    That’s rather like the fox co-operating with the hens, if you ask me, but then again, I’m not a trained journalist and objective fact-checker.

  • James

    In her own, racist words:
    “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. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, 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.

    It would seem that some fact-checkers are just trying to make sure facts don’t actually make it into a story.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Great point Bob.

    It is great when journalistic fact checkers check facts and correct errors.

    That helps journalists do their jobs better. Ditto for talking to people on both sides of hot-button issues.

  • Martha

    Or perhaps Mr. Kessler means that Mrs. Sanger devoted an entire issue of her “Birth Control Review”, that of the June 1932, to the “Negro Problem” (as the opening editorial put it), and which contained articles from various prominent African-Americans of the time.

    Interestingly, even in 1932, a comparative table of the black population of certain cities and the black women availing of the birth control clinic services showed a disproportionate ratio, e.g. Cleveland had a black population which comprised 7.9 per cent of the total city population (as per the 1880 census) but the clinic had a rate of 20.6 per cent black women attending.

  • http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com Hector_St_Clare

    While I’m not a fan of either abortion or racial eugenics, to Margaret Sanger’s credit it deserves to be pointed out that, unlike the present-day Planned Parenthood, she was opposed to abortion.

    I’d suggest that a fair minded news story would not only cover her racial views, but also her attitude towards abortion.

    I think that on all sides, the debate would be a lot more enlightening if we differentiated between birth control (which most Christians nowadays strongly support) and abortion (which most of us don’t).

  • Rapnsum

    if you want it truly fact checked see the actual racist documents as detailed in the film- Maafa21 http://www.maafa21.com- Planned Parenthood’s founder was an admitted speaker for KLAN Rallies- that is RACIST !@

  • Julia

    The historical context issue reminds me that years ago it seemed absolutely rational to sterilize developmentally impaired people. The reason mostly given and accepted by the public was that they couldn’t possibly raise their children properly – at least that was what I always heard and read.

    But when you look into the legal rationale found in court cases, it was to prevent the birth of more “imbeciles”.

    The much-revered Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell (1927):

    It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

    Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

  • Julia

    I am not a fan of Planned Parenthood or Margaret Sanger, but it is useful to read the article of Buck v. Bell to understand how people were thinking about eugenics in the 1920s.

    Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, designed a model eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded for the purpose of eugenics.

    This is the law upheld by the S. Ct. Read all of the article and be horrified. Even “epileptics” were included as “feeble-minded”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

  • Matt

    It should be borne in mind that the supposed 75% of PP clinics being built in African-American neighborhoods was more than half of Cain’s point, and no one has given any evidence that that claim is true, so at least some Pinocchios appear to be in order.

    As for the Sanger quotes, Kessler reports that he asked the Cain campaign for clarification and they did not respond. While it would have been better if he had responded to the Sanger quotes that Mollie brought up, I think that just goes to show that “fact checking” should be a conversation rather than a one-time pontification.

  • Julia

    The American Breeder’s Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

    It seems that Americans just don’t want to remember the era of eugenics and how mainstream it was. Our laws were cited by the Nazi’s as their models.

    Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.

  • JimG

    One would also expect a WaPo writer to be able to spell “judgment.”

  • R9

    Please also note that despite specifically saying that Sanger didn’t call for “genocide” of blacks, he gets tarred with the allegation anyway.

    He did say “When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world. It’s planned genocide.

    Also he said “and Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word “genocide”". That’s not the same as “Sanger did not desire genocide”.

    I do appreciate we’re into reading implications etc which I guess is a bit outside the realm of fact checking. And I’m not well read on Cain. But I’m dubious of the motives behind the double-post outrage here.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com bob smietana

    Amy Laura Hall’s “Conceiving parenthood: American Protestantism and the spirit of reproduction” and Harry Bruinius’s book “Better for All the World” show that eugenics – before World War II – gained great acceptance among Protestant Christians. Not to defend Sanger- but her views were fairly commonplace. Genocide is probably too strong of a word.

  • Regina Harrow

    How do the proponents of the charge that Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist square the fact that her campaign to make it legal for couples to choose to use birth control began within her own Irish-Catholic community and was inspired by her own mother’s ruined health and early death from 18 pregnancies and eleven births?

    It took over 20 years of effort on her part to repeal the draconian laws that outlawed all methods of birth control in this country. She served time in jail and endured tremendous personal losses to right what she knew was a terrible wrong that was killing women and perpetuating poverty.

    It would have shown racism on her part had Mrs. Sanger NOT carried her compassionate campaign to provide information on how to use safe, effective cbirth control methods to other ethnic groups including blacks.

    Mrs. Sanger never advocated forced use of birth control. She was well aware that individual women were and are the best decision-makers on what is best for themselves and their families, and that effective birth control was and is the most effective method of preventing abortion.

    In her wonderful book, The Pivot of Civiliation, she argued against forced use or non-use of birth control. She believed in voluntary motherhood for ALL women of all races. Ironically, the quotes that are often attibuted to her regarding eugenics are based on her arguments in this book against those attitudes.

    She was well-respected by black leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr. because they knew her personally and knew that her goal to educate their community was intended to help, not harm their community. Margaret Sanger set out to help all families, including black families, plan their families for themselves and she succeeded. She was a great American who believed in personal freedom, and her impact is still felt through-out the world today.

    Mr. Cain himself is likely a beneficiary of her efforts. He has just two children. Though it is possible that his small family is a result of infertility or that he and his wife practiced abstinence, it seems more likely that he and his wife chose to use safe and effective birth control to accomplish their goal of having just two children.

    I am grateful that I was able to plan my own family, and would not like to return to a time when I might have had 15-20 pregnancies during my child-bearing years.

    I want all families to have this opportunity and Planned Parenthood has done more to provide education and other resources than any other group. It should be applauded, not castigated by those who detest abortion.

    I ask Mr. Cain and others to please read Mrs. Sanger’s book before casting stones at her memory and at Planned Parenthood. There is a great deal of misinformation in the press that if believed, is a disservice to us all.

  • Hector

    Regina Harrow,

    Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don’t think that Margaret Sanger was a bad person, though she did have some bad ideas (including eugenics) and I think that she did a lot to influence the eventual legalization and acceptance of birth control, and the associated social changes of the 1960s, which were very good things for the world.

    That being said, I can’t share the praise of Planned Parenthood. They may provide birth control, but on the flip side, they also perform abortions. Lots and lots of them.

  • Jerry

    First, I find your practice of opining on a topic and implying it’s an objective review questionable.

    Not a high point for the already questionable newspaper practice of opining on a given topic and labeling it “fact checking.”

    Fact checking that statement, I rate it only partially true:

    “factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.” http://factcheck.org/about/ And they agreed on Cain’s lies.

    In addition, there is what might be a very large ghost in this review since you do not address other media fact checking. Therefore, you assert by implication that fact checking is a newspaper practice. At the very least, you should have commented on other fact checking media outlets and occasional fact checking from still more. Such as:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/ and http://www.dccc.org/page/s/factcheckfox

    specific fact checks include AP which is not a newspaper http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvcktYhECCBpfi_N0r6mKTZwBO9Q?docId=6e90c82ba000475abead0b988b9139ab and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44815612/ns/politics-white_house/t/fact-check-obama-claims-miss-some-evidence/#.TrMaP7L4VBk CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/12/politics/main20105178.shtml and many many other sites.

    In addition, politifact is a newspaper-based checking but they won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting based on their coverage of the 2008 election. So you’re in effect accusing the Pulitzer process of being seriously in error because they gave a prize to what you assert is an unworthy recipient. That is an extremely serious charge that requires much more evidence then your complaint about a politician whose philosophy is apparently close to yours. Accusing the Pulitzer prize committee of such a mistake demands a review of many, many of their pieces and calls into question their entire methodology. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

  • Greg

    I agree that everyone should read the Pivot of Civilization. It contains excellent prose such as this: “The very idea of Birth Control resurrected the spirit of the witch-hunters of Salem. Could they have usurped the power, they would have burned us at the stake. Lacking that power, they used the weapon of suppression, and invoked medieval statutes to send us to jail.” It’s always “they” that are the worst villains, eh? Here’s another supercool quote: “Eugenics is chiefly valuable in its negative aspects. It is ‘negative Eugenics’ that has studied the histories of such families as the Jukeses and the Kallikaks, that has pointed out the network of imbecility and feeble-mindedness that has been sedulously spread through all strata of society. On its so-called positive or constructive side, it fails to awaken any permanent interest. ‘Constructive’ Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.”

  • Daniel

    “Doesn’t check out at all, by my lights. And if the fact checks had restricted themselves to analyzing that easily verifiable or refutable claim, they might have fared better.”
    Are we talking about new construction here, or currently existing facilities, or all facilities historically constructed, or what?

  • Daniel

    “Mrs. Sanger never advocated forced use of birth control. She was well aware that individual women were and are the best decision-makers on what is best for themselves and their families,” That’s why women are given skewed information about abortions, so they can make informed decisions.

  • Julia

    Watch for yourself.
    Mike Wallace interviews Margaret Sanger in 1957.
    Young folks might be shocked at Wallace’s attitude & Qs.
    [includes tobacco commercials - a man's kind of mildness]
    In 3 parts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7IUzjN3pY&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3U3NcCD1lg&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZdwpjArFjg&feature=related

  • Greg

    Here is an excellent piece from the Weekly Standard from a few years back, that I think pegs Margaret Sanger correctly, at least as well as can be done in a few paragraphs: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/139rdqpe.asp?page=3
    This is not exactly on topic, so I apologize if I am distracting or annoying anyone, but I really do find Margaret Sanger to be an individual worthy of serious historical examination.

  • Bill Russell

    JimG

    Re spelling: “Judgement” is the preferred spelling in most of the English-speaking world, and exclusively so in England which gave us English. “Judgment” is an alternative spelling, more common in the United States but considered a solecism elsewhere. It is surprising that anyone does not know this.

  • Deacon Michael D. Harmon

    Noah Webster, in his dictionary project, engaged in a conscious effort to “simplify” the spelling of many words. It is why words such as “color, flavor, honor” etc. are spelled that way rather than the “colour, flavour, honour” spellings of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary. We also changed “centre, theatre,” and other -re worlds to -er. And this doesn’t even get into meanings — I once read there are 4,000 words in daily use that have different meanings in England than they do here, such as bonnet for car hood, flat for apartment, lift for elevator, etc. My daughter spent a year at the University of East Anglia, and even at the end of the term, I got on a bus with her and when she asked for a round-trip ticket, was chided by the driver that “We call it a ‘return’ here, dear.”

  • http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com Jack Wellman

    Sterling point. I have heard that 76.2% of all statistics are irrelevant….which begs the question, how can I believe that. The “facts”, sadly, sometimes get in the way of reality. Great work.

  • Jim

    Of course misinformation abounds. Its hard to use the context of reactionary times like the 1920′s to frame current discussion. Our country was on a horrible racist binge in the 1920s.
    Sanger is easily maligned by the age she lived in, but it doesn’t detract from her success in women’s rights. The debate in our times has been taken to extremes. Its ironic that some are eager to discredit Sanger while attempting to reverse any progress on women’s reproductive rights to the point that some states are trying to criminalize artificial insemination or even miscarriages.

  • Daniel

    Why do you put your thumb down on my comment? I would be glad to back off if you can show the error in what I’m talking about. Is it easier to vote no than to give cogent answers? It seems Margaret Sanger’s adherent’s don’t actually respect her point of view. If they did, it could be stated concisely and adhered to scrupulously.

  • Memeplexes Driving The Humans

    The obsession with women and their reproductive capacities is all about producing new vulnerable minds to infect with the malignant memeplexes of religion. The horrors of gay sex and marriage are similarly related: no heterosexual sex means no babies. The memeplexes have no validity in real life so they survive only by using threats, promises and always seeking propagation.

    See: TED 2008: Humans Are Just Machines for Propagating Memes, Susan Blackmore Says http://bit.ly/kP4Qq8

    Solution: Be less “tolerant” of religion: it’s dangerous nonsense. Support civil and human rights for all. Actively confront the propagation methods such as interference with reproductive control. Demand loss of tax benefits for engaging in political activity. No one-sided Bible “education” in public schools; only elective well-rounded classes about all the world’s religions should be tolerated.

  • Mark Baddeley

    I wonder if we could get the fact checkers to “fact check” comment #30?

  • Will

    Perhaps “Memeplexes”, likes Princess Ida, imagines that posterity will admire his views. To which, like Hilarion, I reply that if women do not propagate, ‘How is posterity to be provided?’
    Unless, of course, he is merely driven by the rationalist memeplex to say these things.

  • Deacon Jim Stagg

    Has anyone actually checked the 75% location of Planned Parenthood locations in black areas?

    There are five listed for Georgia. One is iffy, Gwinnett County; the other four appear to be in, or directly adjacent to what would be considered primarily black areas.

    That would be 80% in Georgia. Anyone else for figures that DON’T lie?

  • R9

    38 downvotes on Regina Harrow? I’m curious as to whether some other blog has been mobilising voters…

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    The meme made us do it.

  • Rockerbabe

    There are five PP centers in all of Georgia.
    -2 in downtown Atlanta, which is a mixed area and quite wealthy. Very yuppy.
    -One center in Cobb County/Marietta-white + Latino and black with lots of Indians and other asians. Very suburban.
    - Gwinnett ctr is white with mixed races as is all of Gwinnett country. Also very suburban.
    - August and Savannah I cannot speak to presently.

  • Jay

    Using the argument/excuse that Sanger “did work with the the blacks” is akin to stating Hitler “did work with the Jews”. Revisionist historians, try as they might, cannot alter the facts that Sanger shared many of Hitler’s eugenic beliefs and if she had had his power would probably have wreaked as much destruction and chaos in the black community as he had in the Jewish community.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X