"Margaret Sanger used abortion and the language of "woman's rights" as a cover for her real cause which was eugenics . Many, many people would not have existed if she had her way."

I have heard this bull over the years but it's not true.

Margaret Sanger believed in population control through the use and availability of contraceptives for all woman and that's not Eugenics. In fact I ran across a copy of her book 'Woman and the New Race", 1920. When she talks of race, she means the 'human race' or what she calls the 'American race'. She does not refer to woman of any particular color or race.

She did NOT advocate for abortion. Sanger advocated for contraception as means to control population, in order for all women including the poor,and working class from burden of large families which kept them economically deprived and was harming their health. If more had been done earlier, we would not have the global warming problems we have today.

Margaret Sanger spoke on on woman's rights and how the use of contraceptives could free women to have more control of their lives. Her argument recognizes that wealthy women often had control of their reproductive health, but working class and poor women did not. By having access to contraceptives, Sanger argues all women would be relieved from the burden of to many births.

"It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide", Margaret Sanger.

In fact because Margaret Sanger mentions the Catholic Church as obstacle to the use contraception in her writings, the Chruch begin a campaign against Sanger in communities of color.

Antis like Randel Terry talk about the pro-choice community as if they do not have families and children, when in fact most are functional families while, Randel Terry and man males who protest out side health clinics that provide abortions services are dysfunctional males.

I have no problems calling it this way, making a decision on two lives that are inside of 1 body, and the owner of that 1 body has the legal rights to make the decision.

A few years ago I did a "search" on the National Right to Life's website on the words "female", "woman", "woman" and "girl". Only "girl" hit, in reference to a baby girl. The only graphic of a "female" was 1/2 a womb, with a totally intact little baby inside of it. Women literally did not exist.

Pro life groups think women have too much power in this, and by erasing their roles in a pregnancy, they work hard to make sure women are completely powerless once they become pregnant.

I have thought many many hours about this, and have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with abortion is to keep all decision-making power in the hands of the pregnant. No good will come to women by letting other powers in.

Do the people who think a Catholic university shouldn't give honorary degrees to people who support the legal right to abortion also think current students should be given that same test before getting their pieces of paper? Hell, Obama hasn't had an abortion and he never said he liked abortion. I guess the students I heard supporting Terry's movement on NPR also think that their own classes should be subject to the same standards? Maybe they should all have to sign an affidavit saying that they haven't had an abortion or (if male) ever had a female partner who had an abortion?

But why stop there - maybe degree-seeking students should also have their medical records scrutinized. Just to make sure they are moral enough to deserve a degree. And why stop at abortion - wouldn't a birth-control prescription also be a problem? Or having ever voted for a pro-choice candidate?

The possibilities are boggling, really. I suppose Notre Dame realized that - and realized that refusing to allow the President to speak would have been a one-way pass to complete irrelevance as an institution of higher learning.

(Not to mention - President of the fucking country! You know, the yellow-ribbon, my country right or wrong country? And I was a traitor because I didn't want to go to war with people who never hurt us? Ouch, it hurts to try to parse this stuff. Crazy, crazy world.)

Do they have any idea what kind of police state would be required in order to properly implement what the radicals like Randall Terry want? These are one dimensional people.

As discussed on other threads, Gallup released data this week showing that for the first time in fifteen years of polling, more than half of all Americans (51%) call themselves "pro-life." By 60-37, Americans favor a ban on "most" or all abortions.

So stunned was Gallup by the results that, per their report, they took two separate surveys and cross-checked another polling outfit running comparable inquiries. Support for a ban on most or all abortions carried majority support among both men and women, and was up at least 8% across both Protestants and Catholics compared to one year ago.

It is fitting that this news occurs against the backdrop of a presidential speech at Notre Dame. Giving credit where credit is due, the U.S. Catholic bishops deserve praise for standing tall against FOCA (the president's proposed legislation to legalize abortion to the moment of birth). The pope deserves credit for publicly releasing his woodshed moment with Nancy Pelosi during her visit to Rome last year. The pope reminded her that public officials who are Catholic have an absolute moral duty to fight legalized abortion.

Additional credit goes to Sarah, Todd, and Bristol Palin, for serving as positive role models testifying to the wonder of life. More than one liberal I know was shocked to the point of angered tears over Palin's appearance last year after her VP debate with a down syndrome baby in her arms. As well they should be. Critics of the Prophets, and John the Baptist, had similar reactions. The sight of the child was itself a form of condemnation, against guilty hearts.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court itself stands confounded because it wrote back in 1992 that society -- though opposed to abortion in 1973 -- now embraced it, and would continue to evolve and accept the Court's resolution of the matter. That didn't happen. On the contrary.

Furthermore, it isn't about Randall Terry. Or honorary degrees. It's about little babies in the womb. Should they be loved, and given a chance to live? Or violently hacked to death with the utmost vicious cruelty?

One final note. A bi-partisan one. Early American history. In Georgia, slavery was banned until 1750, and George Whitefield c. 1740 started an orphanage. Ben Franklin, a noted liberal, was reduced to tears by a Whitefield sermon and donated generously to help orphaned children. That kind of 1740's sentiment -- respect for all people (regardless of race), and empathy for the rejected, the abandoned, or the unwanted child -- could capture this country once again. In fact, one could argue it already has.

This week was a very fine week for America. Fine enough to bring me back for a final word (notwithstanding some jokes by a related contributor on another thread). Mark it down with several others like it in our history. This too was one for the books.