CHAPTER 50 FORCED ABORTION: ANTI-LIFE DREAM FOR THE WORLD
American Life League

Extol the first,
praise the second,
criticize the third,
dispose of the fourth.

Keystone slogan of China's "Planned Parenthood" campaign

Socialism should make it possible to regulate the reproduction of human beings. We should be able to produce human beings under a quota system, just as we produce bicycles and tons of steel.

Vice Premier Chan Muhua, Director, Chinese Family Planning Board, 1979.[1]

WARNING! Some of the material described in this chapter is extremely offensive in nature.

Anti-Life Philosophy.

State guidance is by no means a compulsory command; we absolutely oppose compulsory methods.

Qian Xinzhong, Minister in Charge of the State Family Planning Commission.[2]

There is no such thing as a "forced abortion." The stories of "forced abortions" in China are merely fairy tales spun by anti-choice propagandists so that they may force their narrow views on other countries by destroying or hobbling international United States population control assistance programs. These fanatics also hope to eliminate reproductive rights here in the United States by using these fictional stories to frighten people with the specter of coercion.

This kind of horrible, anti-choice abuse simply cannot happen in a democracy such as ours unless the right-to-lifers get their way.

Origins of the Chinese Population Control Program.

The Basic Philosophy.

The vast majority of people (even most pro-aborts) would agree that forcing women to have abortions is not a good thing.

So where does the coercive population control philosophy come from?

It originates in the same place from which all anti-life monstrosities emerge: The utilitarian philosophy. This worldview holds that a goal that is deemed to be "good" by the people in power may be attained by any means available. Not by moral means. Not by ethical means.

Just by possible means.

The Chinese are adhering to a simple five-step syllogism. It can be written as follows;

1. TOO MANY PEOPLE = BAD
2. WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE
3. WE HAVE THE NECESSARY DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER
    OUR POPULACE
4. THEREFORE WE CAN REDUCE OUR POPULATION
5. SO WE WILL REDUCE OUR POPULATION BY ALL AVAILABLE
    MEANS.

Those who think that this view seems simplistic should not chuckle too soon. American abortionists and their toadies have been saying exactly the same thing for more than a quarter of a century, although their statements are couched in a luxurious layer of soothing Newspeak and reassuring (but meaningless) qualifications.

For example, abortionists Selig Newbardt and Harold Schulman claim in their "how-to" book Techniques of Abortion that "An abortion should not infringe upon the rights of any other woman or man. A continuing pregnancy might infringe on these rights because a new person has to have clean air, clean water, electric power, dispose of his waste materials, be educated, and require protection and health services."[3]

Notice that the authors' sweeping statement qualifies any "continuing pregnancy" wanted or not as a possible violation of the rights of others. This philosophy, if accepted widely enough, will certainly mandate abortion wherever it holds sway.

This is precisely the mentality that eventually led to the Chinese forced abortion program. As shown later in this chapter, many or most of the 'leading (b)lights' of the pro-abortion movement have been calling for mandatory contraception, abortion, sterilization and euthanasia in this and other countries for more than a quarter of a century.

Goals of the Program.

Most pro-life activists have heard at least sketchy details about China's forced abortion program. The direct cause of this coercion is the ridiculous goal set by China's "one child" policy: population stability at 1,054 million by the year 2004, with a precipitous decline to only 370 million by the year 2080.

This utterly unrealistic goal will supposedly be achieved by firmly controlling the country's massive population by any necessary means. These means include forced abortion, forced sterilization, forced use of contraceptives, and widespread female infanticide.

Origins: The National Security Council.

Since the mid-1970s, the United States has been deeply committed to both domestic and foreign population control programs. Billions of dollars of our tax money have been used to implement many questionable programs, including, most notably, the Chinese forced-abortion atrocity.

The National Security Council (NSC) is the highest U.S. bureaucracy charged with the planning and direction of foreign policy. One of the most vital aspects of this policy is population control.

The idea that drives NSC population control policy is fundamentally racist and elitist. The concept is this: If there are too many of "them" (people of foreign races) and too few of "us" (pure White and other acceptable American races), then the worldwide influence of the United States will decline, and eventually, if the situation becomes serious enough, our country will cease to be a "global player" entirely. Therefore, we must use our vast reserves of "foreign assistance" money now to cut down on threatening "foreign" populations, while we still have the chance.

This policy is a very slightly altered version of the Nazis' Lebensraum concept, the driving force behind the extermination of the Jews and the initiation of World War II.

One highly sensitive NSC document entitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests" was written in 1974 and was only declassified in late 1990. This document served as the foundation for our country's anti-natalist population philosophy.

The document states that "Commitment to population stabilization will only take place when leaders of less-developed countries (LDCs) clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action."

The paper goes on to suggest that United States food assistance might be made conditional depending on the LDC's population control performance. More significantly, the document states that United States agencies should be planning on the use of force in the future: "It is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion ... mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now."

In 1976, the Interagency Task Force on Population Policy for the Under Secretaries Committee of the NSC found that "In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives such as payment to acceptors for sterilization, or disincentives such as giving low priorities in the allocation of housing and schooling to those with larger families. Such direction is the sine-qua-non [essence] of an effective program."

United States Involvement.

For many years, the United States government has lavishly funded the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) with tens of millions of our tax dollars. One of the main targets of UNFPA money is the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Although spokesmen for the organization have stridently disavowed responsibility for China's coercive programs, UNFPA's plan was laid out in many of its internal memos, including a January 15, 1985 briefing note entitled "The United Nations Fund for Population Activities and China;"[4]

• UNFPA contributed more than $100 million to China's population control programs;

• UNFPA bought and custom-designed a $12 million IBM computer complex specifically to monitor the population program;

• UNFPA provided the technical expertise and personnel that trained thousands of Chinese population control officials;

• UNFPA presented China with the United Nations' award for the "most outstanding population control program;" and

• UNFPA only stated that the coercive programs should cease because they were causing the Chinese "negative image problems" not because the programs were inhuman genocide, but because they had been caught in the act.

Interestingly, the Chinese Family Planning Association which implements the coercive program in China is an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Cash grants from IPPF to the Chinese birth control program rose tremendously about the time the Chinese coercive population control program was publicized: From $5,600 in 1982 to $750,000 in 1985, a 134-fold increase in just three years![5] And about this time, the IPPF changed its logo from a two-parent/two child design to a two-parent/one child design

Philosophy of American Leftists.

It is an exceedingly curious fact that many dedicated American Communists bitterly denounce the United States government for purportedly "dictating to women how they can control their own bodies," while wholeheartedly applauding China's forced-abortion and forced-sterilization program. In fact, these people hold up China's population control program as a "model for the entire world to follow."

United States citizens William H. Draper and Andrew P. O'Meara, both of whom have long histories of involvement in international population control, wrote a preface to a widely-distributed Chinese family planning manual. This manual was written in English and sponsored by the Victor-Bostrom Fund and the Population Crisis Committee.

Draper and O'Meara spoke of using "postconceptive means" to control the "rising tide of excess and unwanted children." Draper parrots that "We must control our population if life is to be worth living." Guest writer Edgar Snow makes the amazing statement that "There are no illegitimate children in China."[6] No prize for guessing why illegitimate children are forcibly aborted!

In this family planning manual, the Chinese speak plainly of "population control propaganda," "enforcement mechanisms and surveillance procedures,"[6] and call "excess" children an "offense to the Government" (Government with a capital "G")!

Interestingly, the words "Planned Parenthood" appear dozens of times in the text.

The rest of this chapter describes some of the hideous crimes against born and unborn humanity now occurring in the People's Republic of China.

Involuntary Contraception and Early Abortions in the PRC.

Ann Landers: "If a woman who has three children becomes pregnant with a fourth, is an abortion compulsory?"

Chief of Staff of the Peking Hospital: "No, but we send a member of the Revolutionary Committee to educate her. After a visit or two, the woman almost always agrees that abortion is best."[7]

The Women's Federation at 'Work.'

There is obviously no "right to privacy" in the PRC, especially when the subject is human reproduction. The euphemistically-named 5,000,000 member "Women's Federation" is the Gestapo of the Chinese family planning program, kind of a grown-up and fully-empowered National Organization for Women.

It aggressively 'educates,' detects pregnancies, and accompanies women to the abortion clinics to insure that they don't have a change of heart (thus performing a service identical to our 'clinic escorts'). In the factories, the Women's Federation even records and publicly displays a chart of each woman's menstrual cycle and insures that she uses contraception.

This type of coercion, of course, is nothing new. It has been endured under totalitarian regimes since the beginning of recorded history. For examples the Japanese Shoguns, particularly during the Tokugawa Dynasty, adhered strictly to zero population growth. Every family was allowed but two children; the third was suffocated upon birth under the rule of mabiku, or "thinning out."[8]

Roasted Uteri and Other Atrocities.

The United States suffers about 1.55 million surgical abortions per year. This is a large number, but we are rank amateurs compared to the Chinese. From 1975 to 1992, the Chinese committed 175 million abortions, with an almost incomprehensible high of 14,371,843 in 1983 alone.[9]

About 95 percent of these abortions are performed before 24 weeks gestation. This means that half a million are performed past the point of fetal viability each year!

Since about 80 percent of China's population lives in rural areas, many early abortions are performed by methods that have been designed to use locally available materials. One of the most popular is to create powerful suction by burning flammable liquid in a stoppered series of two jars.[4] This method is very efficient, and most "barefoot doctors" and many of the Chinese cadre members are trained to construct and use it.

However, the injuries inflicted by constructing or using such a crude apparatus improperly can be hideous. In some cases, the amateur 'abortionist' loses control of the suction tip and extracts neat plugs of the uterine wall, possibly penetrating arteries and leading to hemorrhaging that can only be controlled in a modern hospital that may be hundreds of miles away. The suction tip may completely penetrate the uterine wall and shred other vital body organs. Most appalling of all, burning liquid may be inadvertently injected into the uterus if instructions are misinterpreted, causing the woman to die in unspeakable agony.

Death caused by a roasted uterus takes anywhere from thirty seconds (if the woman is lucky) to a week or even longer.

Forced Late Abortions in the PRC.

China annually commits about half a million third-trimester abortions. Most of these babies are fully viable when they are killed, and virtually all of these abortions are performed against the mother's will. Stanford researcher Steven Mosher has described how pregnant women are imprisoned in a small room, isolated from their families, and are not even allowed to leave so that they can change clothes or go to the bathroom. While they sit in misery on hard wooden benches, they are perpetually berated by shifts of professional cadre, who shout that they must perform their "duty to the State and the Party" by aborting.[10]

This barbaric brainwashing endures for weeks on end if necessary, until the helpless mothers finally break down and agree to 'voluntary' abortions. This is how Chinese 'family planning' officials can insist with straight faces that there are no forced abortions or illegitimate children in their country.

Pro-abortion propagandists play the same lying word games all over the world.

After she finally breaks, a woman in her last trimester is generally taken to the local abortion mill and injected with Rivalor (du zhen, or "poison shot"), which causes congestive heart failure in the unborn baby. The child usually dies in agony over a period of about a day, and is then delivered dead.[10]

China's Infanticide.

Introduction.

As bad as forced abortions are, the most extreme horrors of the Chinese program are reserved for those poor mothers who somehow manage to hold out against the brutal pressure, or who conceal their pregnancies in some remote part of the Provinces. This illegal activity is common enough to be referred to by the Chinese as "childbirth on the run."

The Law and Second Children.

Couples in rural areas are only allowed one or, at most, two children. Any third child is officially labeled "excess," and law dictates that these "excess" children be delivered in the commune clinic. Large red placards proclaim that "THE CLINIC WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISHAPS THAT OCCUR DURING THE BIRTHS OF EXCESS BABIES."[10] This is a wise disclaimer, since the infant mortality rate for third babies in these clinics is a perfect one hundred percent!

If a mother tries to give birth to a third child, she is led to believe that perhaps an exception will be made in her case. She is soothed and told that all will be well that she and her child will be taken care of. Everything is, indeed, all right until the baby's head crowns. The "barefoot doctor" then locates the fontanelle (soft spot) on the baby's head, and injects a formaldehyde solution through it into the baby's brain. As the mother watches in horror, her child thrashes in agony as its brain slowly disintegrates.[10] Of course, the "doctor" will merely shrug and disavow knowledge of what is happening, and the injection site in the fontanelle is so small that it is undetectable by the grieving mother.

Michael Weisskopf of The Washington Post describes this type of murder;

In the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohot, however, hospital doctors practice what amounts to infanticide by a different name, according to a Hohot surgeon who would not allow his name to be used for fear of reprisal. After inducing labor, he revealed, doctors routinely smash the baby's skull with forceps as it emerges from the womb. In some cases, he added, newborns are killed by injecting formaldehyde into the soft spot of the head. He estimated that hundreds of babies die this way in his hospital every year.[11]

"Post-Natal Abortion."

Occasionally, the child may escape the clutches of the clinic until it is born. But the cadre members are prepared for this event as well. They carry 'chokers' in their bags, which are similar to the white plastic tie-wraps used as handcuffs by some United States police departments. This 'choker' is simply placed around the living baby's soft neck and cinched down hard. The baby will flail its little legs and arms helplessly, dying painfully of strangulation over a period of about five minutes, usually in full view of the poor mother, as a "Lesson in obedience to the Party and to the wishes of the State."[12]

The sad little carcasses that result from this pro-abortion butchery rarely goes to waste; they are commonly thrown to the commune pigs, who gleefully tear the tiny delicacies apart.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a newborn baby emerging from the warmth and safety of your mother's womb. Imagine that, instead of being held in your mother's loving arms, someone seizes you, chokes the life from you, and throws your broken, dead little body to the animals as waste. Is this what God intended?

Steven Mosher has documented cases where a mother has given birth to twins, and has then immediately been faced with an inhuman 'Sophie's Choice' Party officials ask her which twin she wants to keep. The other twin is executed on the spot.

He describes the plight of a woman who was unfortunate enough to have borne twins; "In one incident shortly after I left Guangdong Province, a young woman pregnant for the first time gave birth to twin boys. What should have been an occasion for rejoicing quickly turned tragic as the cadres asked her which one she wanted. "Both of them," she replied, but to no avail. One of the babies she could not and would not choose which was taken from her and put to death."[13]

Gender Imbalance in the PRC.

Since boys are valued more than girls in China, female infanticide (femicide) is common. The March 3, 1983 People's Daily admitted that "The butchering, drowning, and leaving to die of female infants has become a grave social problem."

China's newborn male-to-female sex ratio was about 1.085 in 1981, compared to the historical Chinese ratio of 1.06. This means that there was a 'shortfall' of 232,000 baby girls in 1981. The Chinese sex ratio climbed to 1.110 in 1983, for a shortfall of 345,000 baby girls for the year.[14] In light of the fact that amniocentesis, sonography, and other means of detecting fetal sex before birth are almost unknown outside the largest Chinese cities, it is obvious that the vast majority of these 'disappearing' girls are killed at birth, when their parents discover their sex.

The 1983 sex ratio remained about the same until 1987, and then rose to 1.125 in 1989 and dropped slightly to 1.113 by May of 1990. The Chinese census also revealed that the sex ratio for first children is about 1.060, and the sex ratio for second and later children is about 1.140.

This means that about 3.5 million baby girls were killed at birth due to their gender in the last decade alone.

Kang Ling of the Secretariat of the All-China Women's Federation estimates that, by 2010, there will be 40 million males of marriageable age who will be unable to find wives, as a direct result of this mass femicide.[15]

Beijing's China News Service has also announced that 93 percent of unmarried adults in Beijing are men. Single men outnumber single women by a million in the 29 to 49 age group in Beijing alone. Men's prospects for marriage, of course, are even bleaker in the rural areas, where female infanticide is most prevalent.

This is only one ghastly aspect of the wonderful new world that the Neoliberals are dreaming of: The world where they will have complete control. This is the ultimate result of losing respect for God and for the lives of the most wonderful of His creations, human beings. This is what the Neoliberals so passionately desire for all of us.

Steven Mosher's Experience.

At the center of the storm resides Steven Mosher, Director of Asian Studies at California's Claremont Institute, who observed first-hand and then exposed the practice of forced abortion in China while he was researching his Ph.D. dissertation for Stanford University.

The reaction by pro-aborts at both ends of the globe was predictable. His doctoral dissertation committee did not deny any of the facts in his project, but denied him his doctorate on the grounds that he had caused "... an erosion of trust between himself and Stanford's Anthropology Department."[16] Naturally, when Mosher and others demanded proof of this serious charge, there was none forthcoming. The committee reluctantly acknowledged that his research was "outstanding in nature," but added that "There are things better left unsaid."[16] This attitude of censorship is quite typical of the Neoliberal mindset.

China formally charged Mosher with "crimes against the people," including spying, bribery, smuggling, and slander against China. China's Ministry of Public Security (similar to the Russian KGB) honored him with the title "international spy." Pro-aborts in both China and the United States called him a liar and a counterrevolutionary, and stated flatly that his charges were pure "fabrications."[16]

Of course, those without a vested interest in these atrocities saw things differently. The Wall Street Journal, renowned for its dispassionate and even-handed reporting, stated that "No one has ever raised significant objections to the veracity of Mr. Mosher's revelations ... If it were not for Mr. Mosher's courage, the world would never have learned of the horrors he discovered in Guangdong [Province]."[16]

Lobbying for Forced Abortions.

The Role of the UNFPA.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights and population-control agencies heartily and vocally approve of these great strides towards securing "women's rights," as proven by their actions and statements subsequent to Mosher's discovery of the Chinese forced abortion program.

When the horrors of the Chinese population control program were finally laid bare, funding to the architect, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, was cut off. Planned Parenthood, despite having the evidence of the Chinese atrocities before it, protested strongly and lobbied vigorously in a vain attempt to get UNFPA funds reestablished.

As background, the legislation that offended Planned Parenthood was enacted in 1985. The Kemp/Kasten Amendment, named after its chief sponsors, cut off "population assistance" money to "... any organization or program which, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

Following passage of the Kemp/Kasten amendment and the repeal of a law that guaranteed funding of the UNFPA, the Reagan Administration found that UNFPA had violated the Kemp/Kasten amendment in China. UNFPA's funding was cut off, and this action was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

These actions were seen by "family planners" as a direct attack on them, and they reacted predictably: by pouring millions of dollars into another trademark ad/smear campaign filled with distortions and outright lies. Leading population controllers were led on carefully structured tours in China, and blandly reported to the public that they personally saw no forced abortions (as if the Chinese would lead them to a clinic filled with screaming women enduring forced third-trimester abortions)! Werner Fornos, head of the Population Institute, insisted that 'disincentives' were used in China, but never 'coercion.'

As lately as November of 1989, UNFPA Executive Director Nafis Sadik claimed on CBS's "Nightwatch" television program that the UNFPA "does not support abortion programs anywhere in the world," and is "not supporting coercion in any form." He also continued to insist that China's population control policies are "purely voluntary."[17]

Continuing the Program.

After hearing repeated denials of wrongdoing, that International Spy and Enemy of the People Steven Mosher decided to check the current situation in China. Despite numerous bureaucratic obstacles thrown in his path, he managed to visit several rural villages for four days in June of 1987. Upon his return, he published articles showing that forced abortions and sterilizations were still taking place in China. The Agency for International Development (AID), after reviewing the UNFPA "family planning" program, agreed that China's family planning program "remains systematically coercive."[18]

However, the pro-aborts apparently still couldn't care less about forced abortions. For example, virulently pro-abortion senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii attempted to reinstate funding for UNFPA, but was rebuffed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, 14 to 11, on December 3, 1987.

As final proof of China's program of forced baby-killing, the United States House of Representatives on December 10, 1987, adopted a resolution sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith that "... strongly condemns the continued violations of human rights by the Government of the People's Republic of China, including the one-child-per-family policy adopted in 1979 that relies on coercion, economic penalties, and forced abortions, often late in pregnancy ..."

Applause from the United States.

Support for Forced Abortions.

Pro-abortion groups like to say that pro-lifers who do not vigorously condemn clinic bombings actually support such actions by their silence. Since no national pro-abortion group in this country has condemned forced abortions in China, we can use the identical logic to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, and all other pro-abortion groups support forced abortions.

The proof is in the (non)speaking.

The NOW Supports Forced Abortions.

However, pro-abortion support for forced abortions is by no means limited to a refusal to attack the programs. The most vociferous American supporter of China's forced abortion program is undoubtedly Molly Yard, former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

In the midst of the Congressional debate over the issue, Yard, during her March 1989 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, continued to offer support, excuses and rationalizations for mandatory abortions by asserting that "I consider the Chinese government's [population control] policy among the most intelligent in the world ... It is a policy limited to the heavily overpopulated areas, and it is an attempt to feed the people of China. I find it very intelligent."

Shortly thereafter, she said in an April 7, 1989 press conference that criticism of China's family planning program comes "from a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about." She also said that "China's population is so enormous that if they didn't control it, they wouldn't be able to feed their people. The Chinese government doesn't coerce people. They use education. It's very clear when you're there. You can't miss it. Even if you can't read the language, you can't miss it."[19]

Even after viewing the mountain of evidence that convinced Congress that our tax dollars are supporting coercion in China, Yard continued to ignore the facts and sidestep the central issue. During her keynote address at the 1990 NOW National Convention, she asked

What is moral about denying family planning funds to China, which is what the United States has done, because the Chinese have a policy of allowing abortions and encouraging a one-child family? What is moral about insisting that our point of view should be adopted by the Chinese when the only responsible policy they can have is to control family planning?[20]

ZPG Supports Forced Abortions.

Incredibly, Zero Population Growth founder and perennial popcon hack Paul Ehrlich recently found a forum in the [formerly] prestigious National Geographic magazine. On page 922 of the December 1988 issue (the one with the flashy full-holograph cover), Ehrlich praised China's coercive population-control program as "remarkably vigorous and effective" and applauded China "as a leader in a grand experiment in the management of population and natural resources."

The Worldwatch Institute Supports Forced Abortions.

Lester R. Brown, president of the Worldwatch Institute, stated in the May 8, 1985 New York Times that "The main difference between China and other densely populated developing countries ... may be that the Chinese have had the foresight to make projections of their population and resources and the courage to translate their findings into policy."[21]

Other Pro-Abort Support for Forced Abortions.

In prefaces to various Chinese family planning manuals, Planned Parenthood darlings William Draper and Andrew O'Meara say that "The methods and techniques used in the People's Republic of China will be of great interest to other nations," and ask "Why not adopt China's population goals and methods?"[6]

In June of 1992, the ubiquitous Garrett Hardin (who himself has four children) said in Omni Magazine that "I give the Chinese credit for officially recognizing that they have a problem and for having the nerve to propose the single-child program ... They have failed, however, by not making this directive universal throughout the country. The one-child policy is only enforced in congested urban areas."[22]

And, of course, in 1983, Ted Turner, owner of Cable News Network (CNN), produced a half-hour bogus "documentary" entitled "A Finite World: China," which praised the forced-abortion and sterilization program there. For this enthusiastic endorsement of population coercion, he was awarded the "Media Excellence Award" by the Population Action Council.[23] This revealing episode shows us exactly where the population controllers stand on forced abortions.

Ted's pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia Hollywood stars certainly haven't helped the poor women in China exercise their "right to choose." In fact, as more Chinese atrocities are revealed one by one, Hollywood seems to get behind the coercion more and more.

Turner's Better World Society demonstrated its wholehearted support of China's forced-abortion program when it presented its 1988 "Envision a Better World" Award to the head of the China Family Planning Association, Wang Wei. Attending the lavish banquet were, among other stars, "New Age" guru Shirley MacLaine, Margot Kidder, Turner, Carl Sagan, Robin Chandler Duke, Jean-Michel Cousteau, and "good Catholic" Phil Donahue.[24]

As expected, the pro-abortion American media did not hesitate to defend the Chinese population control program. In June 1983, the New York Times praised China as "... the country that has been most effective in implementing birth control and population planning."[25]

A particularly virulent supporter of coerced family planning is the Times' Anthony Lewis, whose hobby until about mid-1988 seemed to be condemning Jerry Falwell for mixing religion and politics while praising anti-apartheid Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa for getting into politics up to his neck.

The same Anthony Lewis excused the 1975 forced march of three million people from Pnomh Penh because, as he said, it was being done to build "a vision of a new [Communist] society," and branded objections to the atrocity from the United States as "cultural arrogance." In 1987, he acknowledged that the Chinese population control program includes forced abortion and sterilization, but stated that "The propriety of the methods used to discourage children is a fair question. But outsiders should not make ringing statements about it without understanding the reality of the problem China faces."[26]

The Current Situation and the Future.

The Slaughter Continues.

The policies of China's family planning program are still being rigorously enforced. Third or fourth babies are automatically slated for abortion. Second babies are also killed if they are conceived less than a fixed period of time after the first usually four or five years.

The one-child policy, as it is currently applied, is summarized by Central Committee Directive Number 7 of 1983: "All state officials, workers and employees, and urban residents, except for special cases which must be approved, may have only one child per couple."[15]

A more detailed statement regarding the basics of China's inhuman population control program is the directive by Shanxi Province Communist Party Chief Zhang Boxing, issued on July 10, 1983: "Those women who have already given birth to one child must be fitted with IUDs, couples who already have two children must undergo sterilization of either the husband or the wife, and women pregnant outside the Plan must abort as soon as possible."[27]

This is the essence of 'reproductive choice' in the People's Paradise.

There are no exceptions to the "one child" policy in the city, but if couples in the country should have "real difficulty" with their first child which means that it is a girl they may be allowed to have a second. Of course, women have no choice when it comes to being neutered. The official Central Committee policy, handed down in 1983, dictates that women with one child be fitted for an IUD, and women with two children be sterilized, whether they want to be or not.

Officials Respond to Criticism.

Predictably, Chinese officials at first blandly denied that forced abortions or sterilization had ever been a part of their population control policy, and tried to shift blame by alleging that these coercive measures were strictly due to the "enthusiasm of local officials for the population program."

Then, when the growing pile of evidence became too large for them to ignore, Chinese bureaucrats took the position that any protest against these brutal actions was meddling in their internal affairs. As early as January 11, 1985, Chinese embassy aide Shi Chengxun denied reports of female infanticide and defended his country's coercive population control program with a statement that was hauntingly familiar to American pro-lifers; "Precisely because of this important [population control] policy, the Chinese people's material and cultural life has been improved, the old have been taken better care of, and babies have become fewer but healthier."[28]

Perhaps the most comical statement was made by Jin Mingai, mayor of Daijiawan Village, who claimed that "There is no infanticide here. The peasants would never drown their own daughters."[29]

The reason that Jin's statement is so funny is that Daijiawan Village has no girl children at all under the age of twelve.

On March 16, 1989, Ministry spokesman Li Zhaoxing said that "It is a country's sovereign right to decide its own population policy."[30]

A burst of defensive essays appeared in the English translations of Chinese magazines following disclosures about their coercive population programs and the widespread publicity about the mid-1989 Tianenmen Square massacre. The bottom line of these essays was that "There are no universal and abstract human rights ... from the Marxist standpoint, all rights emerge historically and are based on economic relations in society."[31]

This final statement is the philosophical underpinning for the entire Chinese program. Several Provincial governments have adopted a program of compulsory abortion and sterilization for tens of thousands of retarded women in some districts. In Gansu Province, for example, official Xiao Shuzi stated that "The purpose of the [compulsory sterilization] law is to raise the quality of our population and of our nation."[32]

By May of 1990, 5,500 compulsory sterilizations had taken place in Gansu Province, and officials stated that their goal was to sterilize most or all of the Province's 260,000 mentally handicapped persons by the end of 1990.[33]

Dr. Blake Kerr, a physician who has long been involved in civil rights, reported in early 1989 that coerced sterilizations and abortions were still widespread in China. They are primarily performed by "roving birth control teams," whose pay depends upon a quota system. Dr. Kerr reported that several Tibetan monks witnessed such a team functioning outside their monastery in Amdo; "All pregnant women in the village had abortions followed by sterilization, and every woman of childbearing age was sterilized. We saw many girls crying, heard their screams as they waited for their turn to go into the tent, and saw the growing pile of fetuses build outside the tent, which smelled horrible."[17]

Merely an 'Image Problem.'

According to Nafis Sadik, executive director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which helped design and execute the Chinese population program, such abuses should be halted not because they are intrinsically immoral acts, but because "the Chinese need to counter their negative image" in the hope of getting UNFPA funds reinstated by the United States. This attitude is typical of the international popcon fanatics the only real evil is a tarnished image.

All of these measures mean that China's population is aging faster than the population of any other country in history. By the year 2010, the elderly retired will outnumber workers. Since China is not a rich country, this will place an intolerable burden on its economic system.

China is falling into a demographic hole of its own construction. However, it is quite well prepared to climb out, using the same Draconian methods it used to dig the hole in the first place. Following the lead of eugenicists and euthanasiasts like Joseph Fletcher, China's intellectuals are already preparing mathematical formulas to assess the 'suitability' of its citizens to live.

One such crude assessment table and several possible outcomes are shown in Figure 50-1.

FIGURE 50-1
EXAMPLE OF A CHINESE EUTHANASIA ASSESSMENT TABLE

[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the table may be discombobulated.]

                                                                    Typical Scores
                            Maximum     Communist                                                 Mentally
                              Possible          Party                                                  Handicapped
Criterion                 Score           Official          Laborer       Criminal          Person
Moral Quality               5                   5                     5                   0                     0
Value of Occupation    10                 10                  10                   0                     0
Educational Level        10                  10                    5                  5                      0
Creative Ability            60                  60                 20                 10                     0
Other Qualities             10                 10                  10                  5                      0
TOTALS                    95                 95                  50                 20                     0
                                 Possible cutoff score for mandatory euthanasia: 40

Reference: Professor Zhu Wenhua, Fudan University. "Also On Population Quality." Jingji Kexue ("Economic Science"), Number 4, 1981, page 23. This table is also shown in Steven Mosher. "Thinking Clear: Forced Abortions and Infanticide in Communist China." The Human Life Review, Summer 1985, pages 7 to 34. The first two columns are provided by Professor Zhu; the possible typical scores are provided by the author.

How easy it is to classify entire groups of people out of existence! And yet, we Americans cannot look down our noses at these 'barbaric' Chinese we have been doing the same thing, albeit in a more genteel and covert manner, for decades. Remember Baby Doe of Bloomington, Indiana? And Nancy Cruzan? And the thousands of others that have joined them in death because of their "inconvenience?"

The final result of all of this is predictable and entirely inevitable. Shortly after the turn of the century, the elderly perhaps those of a fixed age and those who fail to garner enough 'points' in tests like those shown in Figure 50-1, will be forced to attend 're-education' sessions that get progressively longer and more intense until the attendees finally realize the mistake they are making by continuing to be useless eaters. They will then unanimously 'volunteer' for euthanasia.

And who in the United States will applaud then?

Support for Forced Abortion in the United States.

The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) by quiet men in clean, carpeted and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.

                                                                    C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.[34]

The True Meaning of 'Pro-Choice.'

For more than two decades, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and many other popcon fanatics have lavishly praised the Chinese population control program, and have held it up as a model for other countries including the United States!

At the same time, any pro-life activist who points at China and raises the specter of reproductive coercion in the United States is roundly criticized and ridiculed as being an alarmist not only by pro-abortionists, but by know-little Christians as well.

Pro-lifers are not merely being alarmist. There are concrete reasons for worry. American scholars have been discussing direct and indirect coercion in many areas of reproduction for more than 25 years. If indirect mechanisms for the application of force are successfully installed, and if they function efficiently and quietly enough, direct coercion is absolutely inevitable.

As always, this force will first be applied to the handicapped and weak. Already parents and doctors allow thousands of handicapped newborns to die of starvation and thirst in this country every year (for documentation of the spreading practice of infanticide in the United States, see Chapter 110 of Volume III). And soon, parents may not even have the choice of bearing a less-than-perfect child.

For example, demographer Bernard Berelson has recommended a Federal fertility control program that would include childbearing licenses, temporary or permanent enforced sterilization at the whim of the government, compulsory sterilization for all men with three children, and mandatory abortion in many cases if the government saw fit.[35]

Figure 50-2 is a list of quotes made by population controllers in support of their goal of a program of forced contraception, abortion, and sterilization in the United States. The reason that so many quotes are presented is that it is necessary to emphasize that such desires on the part of the population controllers are not unique to just one or two individuals most or all of our country's well-known antinatalist agitators favor mandatory population control measures for the United States.

FIGURE 50-2
QUOTES BY POPULATION CONTROLLERS WHO SUPPORT FORCED CONTRACEPTION, STERILIZATION, ABORTION, AND EUTHANASIA IN THE UNITED STATES

Though coercion is a dirty word to most liberals now, it need not be
forever ... Its dirtiness can be cleansed away by saying it over and over without apology or embarrassment.

Population controller Garrett Hardin and Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado. Quoted in " 'Voluntary' Sterilization?" ALL About Issues. March 1983, page 30.

If parenthood is a right, population control is impossible. If parenthood is only a privilege, and if parents see themselves as trustees of the germ plasm and guardians of the rights of future generations, then there is hope for mankind.

Garrett Hardin. "Parenthood: Right or Privilege?" Science Magazine. Quoted in Robert G. Marshall. Bayonets and Roses: Comprehensive Pro-Life Political Action Guide. 1976, 388 pages.

Enforced population control need not be feared if people will be voluntarily responsible in their breeding.

Official of the San Jose chapter of Zero Population Growth, in a letter to the San Jose Mercury. Quoted in Elizabeth Moore. "Feminism and Population Control Not Compatible, Says Germaine Greer." National Right to Life News, November 23, 1981, pages 8 and 11.

[This panel recommends] (1) mandatory abortion for any unmarried girl found to be within the first three months of pregnancy, and (2) mandatory sterilization of any such girl giving birth out of wedlock for a second time.

The 1969 White House Conference on Hunger, panel entitled "Pregnant and Nursing Women and Infants," headed by Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher and Dr. Charles U. Lowe of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Is adolescent pregnancy a disease? We have laws regarding other epidemics. We have mandatory immunizations, but we have no law prohibiting motherhood before the age of 14 in our supposedly-civilized society. We ought to mandate against continuing pregnancy in the very young say, those less than 14 years."

Minnesota abortionist Jane Hodgson at the May 28-30, 1980 National Abortion Federation conference in Washington, D.C. Quoted by Mary Meehan and Elizabeth Moore. "Forced Abortion Suggested at Clinic Owner's Conference." National Right to Life News, June 2, 1980, pages 1 and 13.

Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion and determine when and how it should be employed. At present, the means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps someday a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.

Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, Former President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Medical World News, June 6, 1969.

[We recommend] compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies ... payments to encourage abortions ... and compulsory sterilization for those who have had two children ... Coercion [in population programs] may become necessary. Such force may be required in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.

Planned Parenthood panel, quoted by Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy." National Right to Life News, March 28, 1985, page 5.

When health insurers do enter the field [of genetic counseling], some enterprising company may offer to pay for amniocentesis and abortion, if indicated, but not for subsequent medical care of the offspring, should abortion be refused.

Dr. Gilbert S. Omenn, Medical Genetics Division, University of Washington. Quoted in "M.D. Predicts Forced Abortion." National Right to Life News, July 1975, page 4.

As a first step in this direction [of achieving zero population growth], it would be necessary for the family planning movement to enlarge its objectives ... from enabling couples to achieve the number of children desired to inducing them to have a number of children consistent with a zero-rate of population growth.

Philip Hauser. "Non-Family Planning Methods of Population Control." From the Proceedings of the International Conference of Family Planning, Dacca, 1969.

It has been concluded that mandatory population control laws, even those requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under our existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently compelling to endanger the society. A few consider the situation already serious enough to justify some forms of compulsion ... A massive campaign must be launched to restore a quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.

Paul Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (1970). Quoted in Brent Bozell. "Environmental Inaccuracy: Who Cares?" Conservative Chronicle, June 17, 1992, page 18.

Just as we have laws compelling death control, so we must have laws requiring birth control the purpose being to ensure a zero rate of population increase. We must come to see that it is the duty of the government to protect women against pregnancy as it protects them against job discrimination and smallpox, and for the same reason the public good. No longer can we tolerate the doctrinaire position that the number of children a couple has is a strictly private decision ... Such laws would serve not only to defuse the population bomb, but also to protect first-born children against too prolific reproduction by their parents.

Edgar Chasteen, author of The Case for Compulsory Birth Control and a board member of Zero Population Growth (ZPG). "The Case for Compulsory Birth Control: The Stork is Not the Bird of Paradise." Mademoiselle Magazine, January 1970.

Planning to prevent over-population of the earth must include the practice of euthanasia, either negative or positive ... Therefore, since we must restrict the rate of population increase, we should also be giving careful consideration to the quality as well as the quantity of people generated ... We doubtless will not get support from all religious groups and it would be best not to force these and other disagreeing groups to conform unless non-conformity would affect society or significant segments of it too adversely.

Robert H. Williams, M.D. "Numbers, Types and Duration of Human Lives." Northwest Medicine, July 1970, pages 493 to 496.

We are making birth control compulsory because we have compulsory death control, and we have found you can't have one without the other ... Having compulsory death control, we must have compulsory birth control, limiting every family to two children.

Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm (of "duty to die" fame). Quoted in "'Voluntary' Sterilization?" ALL About Issues. March 1983, page 30.

I am a little discouraged and irritated at the welfare recipient families growing in size all the time. Those of us who work and pay taxes all the time shouldn't have to pay for these kids.

Hilmar G. Moore, chairman of the Board of Human Resources and Chairman of Richmond, Texas, in a February 27, 1980 UPI press report. Quoted in "Welfare Director Advocates Forced Abortion." National Right to Life News, March 1980, page 19.

I am not afraid to stick by my belief that only those couples who have the necessary material possessions and sources of income to ensure an economically secure and safe cradle should allow a pregnancy to progress to term.

Letter from Dr. Julius Adlam. Medical News, April 6, 1977. Described in Nancy B. Spannaus, Molly Hammett Kronberg, and Linda Everett (Editors). How to Stop the Resurgence of Nazi Euthanasia Today. Transcripts of the International Club of Life Conference, Munich, West Germany, June 11-12, 1988. Executive Intelligence Review Special Report, September 1988. EIR, Post Office Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. $150.00.

I am told by a reliable scholar that a major private health insurance company is contemplating the policy of requiring amniocentesis or other acceptable forms of antenatal diagnosis for all pregnant women holding a policy with the company. If a diagnosis of congenital defect is made, insurance will be dropped on the potential child. In other words, abortion will be required ... We have a legal obligation to protect the unborn from the cruel and unusual punishment of genetic disease. Surely we need ponder whether the abnormal merit our protection, even in utero. We now have the possibility, which means the responsibility, of deciding whom we will admit to the human community.

Kenneth Vaux, Professor of Ethics at Baylor College of Medicine. Biomedical Ethics. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Pages 51, 58 and 59.

The Ultimate Goal: Compulsive, Sterile Sex.

Paul Ehrlich of Zero Population Growth has recommended with a straight face that the Federal government allocate funds to develop mass sterilizing drugs that could be added to the water supply in all major American cities to curtail or destroy fertility. Dr. Mary Calderone of Physicians for Social Responsibility takes this atrocity one step further: she has stated that she wants both contraceptives and aphrodisiacs added to the water supply.

What a noble vision! Unlimited compulsive, animal-like, sterile sex. Is this the best that Calderone and her peers envision for the human race? Is this their idea of the pinnacle of human evolution?

Include us out!

The Results of Coercion in the United States.

No woman is forced to abort a pregnancy in this country ... It must be stated as fact that no one is forced to submit to an abortion, that the power of the state has not been used in a coercive manner, and that Americans have not been forced or propagandized into supporting that which offends their religious beliefs or their moral convictions.

'Rabbi' Charles D. Mintz of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights.[36]

Advocation and Implementation.

Some may claim that coercive programs such as those practiced in the People's Republic of China could never be instituted in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Bitter experience has already proven such people wrong many times over.

Under a utilitarian worldview, it is simply not possible to advocate eugenics and coercive population programs without implementing them.

Already in this country, we forcibly abort the mentally handicapped, coercively sterilize the unwanted, and systematically euthanize the inconvenient. Such individual actions, because they are so universally repulsive, are committed under a cloak of the strictest secrecy. Only the family, the doctors, and the judges know, and they aren't telling.

Only when some ghastly foul-up is committed, only when the well-oiled wheels of death squeak loudly, does the truth reach the light of day.

Forcibly Aborting the Handicapped.

For example, a mentally handicapped teenager was aborted in her second trimester on October 22, 1981, at the Reproductive Health Services abortuary in St. Louis. She died following complications due to the abortion.

She did not give her consent to the abortion. In other words, the abortion was committed in the absence of her freely willed choice. Yet the owner of the abortion mill Judith Widdicomb was the Executive Director of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). And Frank Susman, a local American Civil Liberties Union lawyer and "regular attorney" for the clinic, had petitioned a local court for the abortion.[37]

Keep in mind that the NARAL and the ACLU proclaim loudly to anyone who will listen that they champion "free choice." But, as always, actions speak louder than words. When the opportunity comes to force abortions on those who cannot resist, these and other pro-abortion groups are the first to take advantage of the situation.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, pro-abort groups are the greatest danger to "free reproductive choice" in the world today.

Pushing Sterilization on the "Undesirables.'

American population controllers generally confined themselves to theorizing and philosophizing until the early 1920s, when state and local governments began to "test" (purely for academic or fiscal reasons, of course) some of their more apparently innocuous schemes. These plans, of course, targeted those who had the weakest voices; the poor and the institutionalized.

Eventually, of course, the population controllers and eugenicists discovered the simplest and most effective way of preventing the "less desirable classes" from reproducing widespread involuntary surgical sterilization.

The first American law mandating the sterilization of 'undesirables' was passed at the end of World War I. The operations were performed in "mental health facilities" on "unwed mothers, prostitutes, petty criminals and children with disciplinary problems."[38]

In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the Court's Buck v. Bell decision upholding the widespread enforced eugenic sterilization of poor Black women in several states. In his opinion, Holmes wrote that "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."[39]

Justice Holmes had once remarked that "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand."[40]

By 1933, thirty states had enacted laws that mandated sterilization for the poor.[41] These laws were modeled on the Model Eugenical Sterilization Law, promulgated by Harry H. Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Record Office. This legislation called for the sterilization of criminals, mental patients, the retarded, the blind, deaf, diseased, and alcoholics, and for dependents upon society the homeless, orphans, and tramps.[42]

The Nazis, of course, were corresponding with their American counterparts, and simultaneously enacted the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Disease. This law was the basis for Hitler's race purification program, and was directly patterned after the American Model Eugenical Sterilization Law.[43]

Forty years later, a Federal court found that, under these laws, 100,000 to 150,000 women were sterilized annually without their knowledge or consent under these federal programs. From 1924 right up until the early 1970s, more than 7,500 poor men and women were forcibly sterilized in the State of Virginia alone every year.[38]

After the initial sterilization programs had been enacted with little fuss from the public, other eugenicists, sensing that their "window of opportunity" had arrived, demanded that the American eugenics program "progress" even further, and as quickly as possible. Frederick Osborne called for the mandatory segregation of those persons with birth defects and mental disabilities in state-run institutions. Even if such unfortunates recovered, a condition of their release would be mandatory sterilization. Osborne also demanded mandatory sterilization of all those who carried hereditary disabilities (which would account for more than 20 percent of the population), and mandatory contraceptive use by all those whose family history indicated a predisposition towards serious hereditary defects (another twenty percent of the nation's population).[44]

The Programs are Gone, But the Racism Remains.

Vestiges of these racist eugenics programs still linger to this day. The federal government continues to fund 90 percent of the cost of sterilization of poor women under Medicaid and other family planning programs, but will not pay for infertility treatments. And poor women are now being coerced into using the implantable abortifacient NORPLANT.

And, of course, we still have many influential pro-abortion pro-eugenics scientists calling for enforced sterilization and abortion. Dr. Cecil B. Jacobson, Chief of the Reproductive Genetics Unit of George Washington University Hospital, asserts that "I can't imagine any reasonably responsible person arguing against the abortion of mongols ... If we could tell what fetuses are going to be affected with cancer in their 40s and 50s, I would be for aborting them now."[45]

And, in a 1979 symposium significantly sponsored by the March of Dimes, 'bioethicist' Joseph Fletcher claimed that "People who carry genetic disease should be prevented from having children. We ought, in conscience, to have a humane minimum standard of reproduction, not blindly accepting the outcome of every conception. And we ought to act on our genetic information to prevent the birth of children below that minimum."[46]

The only reasons we do not hear more about these quotes is that these people move in influential circles that most of us never breach, and that the Neoliberal media hushes up their indiscretions so that the public never hears about them.

For more information on the racism of abortion (including the court-ordered use of sterilizing and abortifacient 'contraceptives'), see Chapter 78.

Although the practice of enforced sterilization has largely been stamped out, it is interesting to note that Neofeminists commonly use it as a red herring by tying it to abortion 'rights.' Despite the fact that they were responsible for the atrocity of forced neutering, one of the favorite slogans of the Neofeminists is 'NO FORCED STERILIZATION! NO COMPULSORY PREGNANCY!"

Conclusions.

The quotes and actions of Planned Parenthood and the population controllers prove conclusively that they are anything but "pro-choice." They are now irrevocably on record as favoring mandatory abortion and forced sterilization for women who "breed excessively."

In other words, PP and its contemptible ilk obviously favor not just 'abortion on demand,' but also 'abortion on command!'

For information on how our children are being prepared for such measures, read Chapters 113 and 137 of Volume III, "Home Schooling" and "Sex Education."


References: Forced Abortion.

[1] Steven W. Mosher. Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese. New York: The Free Press. 1983, 317 pages, hardback, paperback. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. Mr. Mosher, a Chinese-American scholar who was denied his Ph.D. because he revealed details of China's forced-abortion policy, outlines various Chinese government policies and their impacts on the common Chinese worker and rural dweller. Chapter 9 of his book, "Birth Control: A Grim Game of Numbers," deals with China's forced-abortion and one-child policy, which leads also to female infanticide when the first baby is a girl. Chen Muhua's quote is on page 224.

[2] Qian Xinzhong, Minister in Charge of the State Family Planning Commission. "China's Population Policy: Theory and Methods." Studies in Family Planning. December 1983, Part I, pages 295 to 301.

[3] Selig Newbardt, M.D., and Harold Schulman, M.D. Techniques of Abortion. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1977 (Second Edition), Page 9.

[4] Steven W. Mosher. "Thinking Clear: Forced Abortions and Infanticide in Communist China." Human Life Review, Summer 1985, pages 7 to 34. Page 33, footnote 9.

[5] B. Nossiter. "Population Prizes from U.N. Assailed." New York Times, July 24, 1983.

[6] Wenming Su (editor). Population and Other Problems. Beijing Review Special Feature Series #1. April 1981, 95 pages.

[7] Conversation between syndicated advice columnist Ann Landers and the Chief of Staff of the Peking Hospital. Described in Vital Signs. "An Offer That Can't Be Refused?" National Right to Life News, October 1974, page 15.

[8] Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihn. "Thoughts About the Family." Human Life Review, Winter 1980, pages 73 to 85, footnote 9.

[9] John S. Aird. Slaughter of the Innocents: Coercive Birth Control in China. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1990, 196 pages. An excellent and detailed look at the history of coercive population policies in China since the Revolution of 1949.

[10] Steven W. Mosher. "A Mother's Ordeal." Reader's Digest, February 1987, pages 49 to 55. A heartrending first-hand account of how one mother is forced to abort her third-trimester baby. Another article that describes how poison is injected into the fontanelles of newborns is Alex Shoumatoff. "The Silent Killing of Tibet." Vanity Fair, May 1991, pages 76 to 80.

[11] Michael Weisskopf, The Washington Post, January 6-8, 1985.

[12] This information was gleaned by the author from personal interviews with more than thirty citizens of the People's Republic of China during their visits to the United States.

[13] Steven Mosher. Broken Earth. New York: Free Press, 1983.

[14] Michael Weisskopf. "China's Birth Control Policy Drives Some to Kill Baby Girls." The Washington Post, January 8, 1985, page A1.

[15] "China's Population Policy is Proving to Be Effective." Beijing Review (English Edition), November 6-12, 1989, pages 42 to 44.

[16] Steven W. Mosher. "China's Coercive Population Program Continues: Part II." National Right to Life News, December 17, 1987, page 7.

[17] "Forced Abortion, Infanticide Reported in Tibet." The Wanderer, April 6, 1989, page 2.

[18] Richard Glasow, Ph.D. "Pro-Aborts Work Overtime to Break RU-486 'Quarantine.'" National Right to Life News, November 30, 1989, pages 6 and 11.

[19] Mary Meehan. "Women as Guinea Pigs." National Catholic Register, April 30, 1989, page 4.

[20] Debra J. Saunders, Los Angeles Daily News. "NOW's Shrillness Becomes Embarrassment to Feminism." August 7, 1989, page D4.

[21] Jim McFadden's Introduction to the Human Life Review, Summer 1985, page 3.

[22] "Interview: Garrett Hardin." Omni Magazine, June 1992, pages 56 to 63.

[23] "Rich Boy Ted Turner Pushing Population Control." ALL News, April 1984, page 40. Also see International Dateline, November 1983.

[24] "Honors and Accolades: Third Annual Awards Dinner a Smashing Success." Better World Letter, Volume 4, Number 4.

[25] International Items. "Successful Infanticide Earns Praise in China." June 11, 1983, page 31. The New York Times praises China's mass killing of newborn girls.

[26] Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, quoted in "The Week." National Review, September 20, 1985, pages 12 and 14.

[27] "The Week." National Review, May 27, 1988, page 15.

[28] Chinese embassy aide Shi Chengxun. Quoted in the Washington Post, January 11, 1985, and the Conservative Digest, March 1985, page 31.

[29] Jin Mingai, mayor of Daijiawan village. Quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times News Service. "Birthrates in China Beg Question: Where Are the Girls?" The Oregonian, Sunday, June 23, 1991, page A14.

[30] Quote in Ann Scott Tyson, Christian Science Monitor News Service. "China Seeks New Image for Population Effort." The Oregonian, January 27, 1989, page A8.

[31] Yi Ding. "Opposing Interference in Other Countries' Internal Affairs Through Human Rights." Beijing Review (English translation), November 6-12, 1989, pages 14 to 16.

[32] Xiao Shuzi, quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof. "Chinese Region Uses New Law to Sterilize Mentally Retarded." New York Times, November 21, 1989, page A1.

[33] Washington Times, May 21, 1990. Quoted in "Chinese Sterilization of Retarded Proceeds Apace." ALL About Issues, June-July 1990, page 10.

[34] C.S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Page ix.

[35] New York Times News Service. "China Adamant on Birth Control." The Oregonian, March 17, 1989, page A9.

[36] 'Rabbi' Charles D. Mintz. Quoted in "Abortion and the Holocaust: Twisting the Language." 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, 100 Maryland Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 543-7032. 1987, 24 pages. This booklet is stylishly written and laid out on only the best paper. It features five short essays by apostate 'Jews' and phony 'Christians' that are masterpieces of Doublethink and propaganda. This booklet should be mandatory reading for any pro-lifer who wants insight into just how clever and downright sneaky pro-abort propaganda can be.

[37] "Girl Dies Following Abortion in Clinic of National Abortion Rights Action League Executive Director." National Right to Life News, November 9, 1981, page 12.

[38] Stephen J. Gould. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton, 1981. Page 335. Also see the Washington Post of February 23, 1980, "Over 7,500 Sterilized in Virginia."

[39] United States Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200 (1927), at 207.

[40] Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoted in Richard Hertz. Chance and Symbol. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Page 107.

[41] Robert Lipton. The Nazi Doctors. New York: Basic Books, page 23.

[42] Allen Chase. The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pages 316 and 349.

[43] Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F.Supp.1196(D.D.C1974), remanded for modification, sub nom Relf v. Matthews, 403 F.Supp.1235 (D.D.C.1975). Also see the "Women's Guide to Reproductive Rights." American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, 1981. Page 23.

[44] Frederick Osborne of the American Museum of Natural History, Preface to Eugenics. New York, Harper and Row, 1940. Page 35.

[45] Cecil B. Jacobson, Chief, Reproductive Genetics Unit, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, D.C. Psychology Today, September 1975, page 22.

[46] 'Bioethicist' Joseph Fletcher, during his address of the second national Symposium on Genetics and Law, held in May of 1979 in Boston and sponsored by the March of Dimes.


References: Forced Abortion.

Howard M. Bahr, Bruce A. Chadwick, and Darwin L. Thomas (editors). Population, Resources, and the Future: Non-Malthusian Perspectives.
Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah 84601. A general examination of the myths associated with overpopulation and big families. This book also examines some of the Draconian population control policies of the past, present, and those seriously proposed for the future.

Human Life International. Project Population Myths.
36 pages, June 1992. This fact-filled booklet aggressively debunks the eight primary myths set forth by the population controllers: The earth cannot feed us, the exponential growth rate is a population time bomb, planet Earth is too small, excessive population is incompatible with national economic health, Earth does not have enough natural resources, contraception and abortion are necessary, population growth causes severe environmental impacts, and the Chinese forced-abortion program is a good policy. Available from Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879.

Jacqueline R. Kasun, Ph.D. The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control.
1987, 338 pages. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, or from Green Hill Publishers, Post Office Box 738 Ottawa, Illinois 61350, telephone: (815) 434-7905. One of the most popular myths of our time is the Malthusian notion that the world's population is exploding, so that disaster is inevitable (even imminent). Therefore, the population control fanatics state as fact that governments and individuals have the duty to control procreation, no matter what means are necessary. The population controllers use billions of our tax dollars to advance U.S. "contraceptive imperialism" all over the world. This book examines and effectively debunks the basic assumptions of the international population control network.

Steven W. Mosher. Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese.
New York: The Free Press. 1983, 317 pages, hardback, paperback. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. Mr. Mosher, a Chinese-American scholar who was denied his Ph.D. because he revealed details of China's forced-abortion policy, outlines various Chinese government policies and their impacts on the common Chinese worker and rural dweller. Chapter 9 of his book, "Birth Control: A Grim Game of Numbers," deals with China's forced-abortion and one-child policy, which leads also to female infanticide when the first baby is a girl.

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Annual Report.
Detailed information on the UNFPA's activities, to include current programs, the organization's opinions regarding current general world population trends, and future plans (generally over the next five years). Population control programs are described by sectors, regions and countries. Special headquarters activities and global projects are also described. Order from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries Around the World.
Issued annually in English and French. 932 pages. Includes information on multilateral organization assistance, bilateral agency assistance, regional organization assistance, and non-governmental organization and other assistance in more than one hundred developing countries throughout the world. Each citation includes basic demographic data, the government's view regarding population control measures, mortality, morbidity, international migration, fertility, nuptiality, and family information. Each citation also has a detailed list of information on each population control program going on in the country. For instance, the 1989/1990 Annual listed information on 114 projects in the People's Republic of China alone. Order from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.


© American Life League BBS 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia published by American Life League.


Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com