{"id":204332,"date":"2019-06-15T12:59:55","date_gmt":"2019-06-15T17:59:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=204332"},"modified":"2021-07-14T21:41:54","modified_gmt":"2021-07-15T02:41:54","slug":"funding-abortion-wealthy-americans-eugenics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/funding-abortion-wealthy-americans-eugenics\/","title":{"rendered":"Could the funding of abortion by wealthy Americans be rooted in eugenics?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A common pro-choice claim is that white men are the driving forces behind pro-life laws. They argue that these men don’t care about women and only want to control them. The problem with that theory is that many of these pro-life laws are backed by women<\/a>, sponsored by women, and even signed into law by women — because pro-life laws aren’t\u00a0about controlling women at all, but rather about saving the lives of innocent human beings and helping women to avoid the horrific effects of abortion. On the other hand, it seems to be that a large number of wealthy white individuals — many of them men — have come forward to throw their support and their money behind making sure poor minorities can still get abortions.<\/p>\n

Historically, minority leaders have viewed the push for abortions in their community as a sort of Black genocide thrust upon them and sold to them as “freedom” by the majority in power. The question is, were those leaders correct?<\/p>\n

Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr.<\/a>\u00a0has been a donor to the University of Alabama, giving more than $30 million over the years to the school which his father attended. After pledging another $26.5 million to the university last year, the relationship between the two began to crumble and the school returned the large donation.<\/p>\n

Culverhouse says that the money was returned because he called for a boycott of the school after Alabama passed a law banning abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. However, the university says<\/a> that Culverhouse had made “numerous demands” about the workings of the law school, and that the decision to return the money was part of an “ongoing” conflict. The chancellor reportedly recommended the board return the money on May 28, before Culverhouse called for the boycott.<\/p>\n

Either way, Culverhouse says he\u00a0believes<\/a>\u00a0the state’s abortion ban is “an attack against women” and “an affront to the rule of law itself.” He even missed the irony in his own statement that the university’s decision to return the money “will hurt future students.”<\/p>\n

“Less money will be available for scholarships, and there will be fewer resources for the school to use to educate young minds and help them grow,” he said. He fails to see that his support for abortion means those young minds will be wiped from the planet before they even get a chance to shine.<\/p>\n

David Humphreys<\/strong><\/p>\n

David Humphreys is a wealthy businessman who just gave a $1 million check<\/a> to a new political action committee called the Committee to Protect the Rights of Victims of Rape & Incest. The committee is working to overturn Missouri’s new pro-life law protecting human beings from being killed after eight weeks gestation.\u00a0Humphreys had also pushed for a referendum along with the ACLU of Missouri to prevent the law from taking effect on August 28, and instead, send it to Missouri voters to decide in the general election in 2020. That effort failed.<\/p>\n

“Our campaign began to ensure women and underage minors who are the victims of rape and incest are protected,” said Humphreys<\/a>. “This is a significant step forward in the fight to protect those who have already been victimized by rape or incest. We are committed to that goal.”<\/p>\n

Except Humphreys is wrong. Abortion after rape adds more<\/em> violence to a rape or incest survivor’s life. Not only does abortion in these situations actually protect the attacker, but the victim often suffers even more after the abortion. Planned Parenthood has a horrific history<\/a> of committing abortions on rape victims delivered to them and paid for by their rapists, and then sending those victims back to the abusers. They have also been caught helping sex traffickers<\/a>. In addition, some studies have shown that more than 73 percent<\/a> of women pregnant after rape choose life for their babies, and many women who have had abortions after rape have spoken of their\u00a0regret for that decision<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“The rape was nothing compared to the abortion,” said a post-abortive woman named Nina<\/a>. “[…] No one realizes how much that event damaged my life. I hate my rapist, but I hate the abortionist too. I can’t believe I paid to be raped. This will affect the rest of my life.”<\/p>\n

But Humphreys, like many abortion supporters, likely believes that women should have abortions after rape because those innocent human beings are wrongly perceived as<\/a> somehow evil — the “rapist’s baby,” “devil spawn,” or “carrying the evil gene.”<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Justice Clarence Thomas gives epic history lesson on abortion and eugenics<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett<\/a> are two other wealthy white men who put their money behind abortion when instead, they could put their great wealth and misguided generosity into helping women who are facing unplanned pregnancies by offering to help with daycare costs, etc. Why aren’t they urging or donating to college campuses to offer childcare or family housing on campus? With all their wealth, they could do tremendous good; instead, these men are continuing to perpetuate the false idea that abortion is the only choice for certain women.<\/p>\n

As previously noted<\/a> by Live Action News, “while minorities in the United States are working for equality, Gates and Buffett are helping to ensure easy access to abortion, which has been devastating to the\u00a0African-American population.”<\/p>\n

Do poor people really want taxpayer-funded abortions? The answer is no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A 2016 poll<\/a> by Politico and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that 58 percent of likely voters oppose using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion through Medicaid – the government program that pays for health care for low-income people. This is important because it highlights how Democrats<\/a> running for the presidency in 2020 are out of step with Americans, since they each support taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions on low-income women.<\/p>\n

But what’s even more important to point out is that this poll found that “voters making more than $75,000 were more supportive of using Medicaid funds for abortion services (45% favor) than those making $25,000 or less (24% favor).”<\/p>\n

This means that wealthier people want abortions for low-income people to be paid for with taxpayer dollars while the people who more likely to be on Medicaid don’t<\/em> want taxpayer dollars paying for abortions — which would imply that women who are on a lower income don’t want abortions<\/em><\/strong>. So why are wealthy, white individuals pushing for it?<\/p>\n

Obianuju Ekeocha, the founder of Culture of Life Africa, noted in her book<\/a>, Target Africa:<\/p>\n

“Africans by and large believe that sex is sacred, that human life is precious from womb to tomb, that children are blessings, that motherhood is desirable, and that marriage between man and woman is life-generating. These are the basic family values that our parents and grandparents transmitted to us. They are embedded in our customs, enshrined in our laws. […] To take them away from us amounts to invasion, occupation, annexation, and colonization of our people.” [29]<\/em><\/p>\n