defends Brooklyn bishop Nicholas DiMarzio's view of Margaret Sanger as an advocate of racially-based “reproductive health.”
Hudson's column responds to the attack on Bishop DiMarzio by Commonweal magazine's Paul Moses.
Bishop DiMarzio's Jan. 23 comments marked the 40th anniversary of “our national shame,” the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States. He drew attention to the pro-choice movement's roots with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
It is commonly charged that Sanger's birth control and eugenicist policies were aimed at reducing the African American population in the U.S.
“Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate,” Bishop DiMarzio wrote in his column.
In his response, Hudson noted that the bishop “is not the first pro-life leader who has underscored the tragic irony of an African-American president advocating abortion when abortion has been responsible for a drastic reduction of live births in his own ethnic community.”
Moses' Jan. 25 blog post took issue with Bishop DiMarzio's writing, saying he was misrepresenting Sanger.
However, Hudson observed that “Regarding his defense of Margaret Sanger, Paul Moses is clearly wrong.”
“Sanger viewed birth control as a way of 'eliminating the unfit' and specifically targeted African-Americans in her crusade for racial cleansing,” he underscored.
Hudson examines several extensive quotations from Sanger, demonstrating that she indeed wanted to reduce the black population. He also refers to comments of the Princeton professor of law Robert George to back up his position.
“In a media environment where any slander about Mother Teresa is tolerated, but journalists run to the defense of Margaret Sanger’s racism, the bishop is right to call for 'more direct conversation,'” Hudson concluded.