Conservative political and social commentary

Contact us: dstol@prodigy.net
Links
Search

First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
– Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

You are welcome to post or publish these articles, in whole or in part, provided that you cite the author and website.



View All News Items

"Populations We Don't Want Too Many Of" - Monday, July 13, 2009 at 00:11

 

“Populations We Don’t Want Too Many Of”

David C. Stolinsky, MD
July 13, 2009

Liberals go around clad in the robes of tolerance, diversity, and compassion for the poor and minorities. But sometimes the robe slips, revealing what lies beneath. It is not a pretty sight.

Such a wardrobe malfunction occurred recently, when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by a reporter from New York Times Magazine. Ginsburg’s statement is remarkable not only for its racist, elitist implications, but also for the lack of response by the interviewer − or by the mainstream media.

Ginsburg was asked about Roe v. Wade, the decision that banned nearly all restrictions on abortion. Since the decision was handed down in 1973, roughly a million abortions every year have been performed in the United States.

In an unguarded moment, Ginsburg remarked:

Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

First of all, who are “we”? We elitists? We intellectuals? We graduates of prestigious universities? We affluent people? We whites?

Second, who are the people “we” don’t want too many of? The discussion involved Medicaid, so the implication is too many poor people and minorities, especially blacks. Ginsburg may also have meant too many children with disabilities. (Think Trig Palin.)

When the liberal Justice Ginsburg thinks of those “we don’t want too many of,” she doesn’t think of terrorists, murderers or child molesters. They evoke liberals’ sympathy, as shown by numerous court decisions. No, the people “we don’t want too many of” apparently include the poor, the disabled and racial minorities.

Does this mode of thinking seem “liberal” to you? Or does it seem quite the opposite? Does it remind you of the thinking of another group we really don’t want too many of − Nazis?

As John O’ Sullivan observed, “In Europe, the fascists goose-stepped. In America, they jog.” Similarly:

·         In Europe, Nazis liquidated “undesirables” in order to “purify the race.” In America, liberals abort “undesirables” in order to honor “a woman’s freedom to choose.” But some contradict themselves and call for compulsory abortions. Rather than being shunned for such vile opinions, they are honored by being appointed to high office.

·         In Europe, Nazis liquidated the disabled and the chronically ill because they were “unworthy of life” and a “drain on the Fatherland.” In America, liberals plan to allow the disabled and the chronically ill to die, because giving them medical treatment would not be “cost-effective.”

·         In Europe, Nazis acted with unconcealed hatred. In America, liberals cloak themselves in “compassion.” But the difference is mainly in style, not substance. The end result will be similar. Death ceases to be a tragedy and becomes a bureaucratic decision − one based on economics, not on moral considerations. The government will then hold over us the power of life and death. In what sense will we remain free?

A cousin of Charles Darwin coined the term “eugenics” and proposed selective breeding of humans. The eugenics movement gained favor among the elites of America and Europe in the early 1900s, much as the euthanasia movement is doing today. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist who wanted to reduce the reproduction of “undesirables.”

A milestone on the road downhill was the publication in Germany in 1920 of “Permission to Exterminate Life Unworthy of Life” (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Leben). The “unworthy” included the incurably ill, the mentally ill or retarded, and disabled children. Physicians’ loyalty was no longer to the individual patient, but to “society” − that is, the state.

Once the Nazis took over, medical graduates no longer took the Hippocratic Oath, but an oath to the health of the state. Most American medical graduates also no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, but a variety of other oaths, including one that refers to “humanity” but mentions neither abortion nor euthanasia.

I believe the chief cause of the Hippocratic Oath’s demise is its ban on abortion. But in the Oath, euthanasia and abortion are next to each other. Discarding one prohibition weakened both. If all human life isn’t sacred, none is. Intermediate positions are weak and are being overrun one by one.

Who is worthy to live becomes just a matter of opinion. And in the era of health-care rationing, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of government bureaucrats. Who knows? You may be one of those “we don’t want too many of.”

The phrase “life unworthy of life” was used by the Nazis, but it originated before anyone heard of Hitler. Nazism was a seed that fell on soil that had already been fertilized by the manure of seeing human beings not as having intrinsic worth because they are created in God’s image, but as having worth only if they are economically useful to the state. In the era when health care must be “cost-effective,” this point becomes critically important.

The Nazi euthanasia program utilized drugs, then gas, and was the physical and psychological prelude to the Holocaust. It was opposed so strongly by Catholic and Protestant churches that it was stopped, though it continued unofficially. Sadly, there was no organized opposition by physicians.

Of all professions, medicine had the highest percent of Nazis. When leading doctors support late-term abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia and use of embryonic stem cells, remember not to expect moral leadership from the medical profession.

The father of Baby Knauer, a disabled child who was the first person “euthanized” by the Nazis, stated, “Later, we could have other children, handsome and healthy, of whom the Reich could be proud.” How, precisely, does this differ from what Ginsburg seems to be saying? Indeed, the Reich would be proud.

Perhaps 3000 to 5000 partial-birth abortions are performed annually. Dehydration of the brain-damaged is becoming accepted practice in America. Ethicist Fred Rosner, M.D. protests that this “…attacks the very foundation of medicine as a profession.”

To me, this is a crucial problem. To others, it may be an advantage to have physicians become “double agents.” If physicians are no longer independent professionals, exercising their best judgment for the patient’s benefit, but become mere employees of the state, surely there will be fewer problems for administrators – regardless of what they are administering.

Note the case of a man brain-damaged in an auto accident, but able to maneuver his wheelchair down a corridor. His wife wanted to dehydrate and starve him to death. The case reached the California Court of Appeals, which ruled, “…there should be no presumption in favor of continued existence.” Accused murderers are presumed innocent until proved guilty, but the disabled must have their “continued existence” argued from a neutral standpoint.

But think of the money we’ll save by getting rid of the disabled. Now that’s really “cost-effective.”

If a conservative talked about “populations we don’t want too many of,” the media and politicians of both parties would condemn her in the harshest terms. There would be demands for her resignation. But if a liberal does the same thing, the silence is deafening. That silence is the most frightening thing of all.

Am I over-reacting? Perhaps. But which is worse: To sound the fire alarm when you smell smoke, then find that there is no fire? Or to remain silent and wait till you are sure there is a fire, but by then the exits are blocked? I smell smoke. Don’t you?

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com