The War on the Disabled


Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879)

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Visitations from Margaret Sanger’s ghost are making their way into the news. The Patron Saint of Dilatation and Evacuation, and heroine of the Left’s educated class, has been summoned through intonations of Eugenics and “reproductive rights,” and apparitions where the disabled, “feeble-minded” and “unfit” dwell are becoming increasingly frequent. She once wrote…


“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.”

Margaret Sanger was the activist/philosopher whose push for birth control–people control–provided the basis for social movements such as “Eugenics,” the NAZI ideal of “racial purity,” and the abortion lobby, and who associated openly with the KKK. Although her history predates Roe vs. Wade and the cultural tsunami of abortion-on-demand, Margaret Sanger had a problem with the existence of those to whom she referred as “feeble-minded” and “unfit.” Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate people with disabilities from the face of the earth. Sanger has long been dead but students of her school of thought are found populating the Democrat party and unfortunately her ideas about the “unfit” and the expendability of human life have inveigled themselves into corporate and governmental policies.


The IPAB, or Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Obamacare law, is not designed specifically to discriminated against the elderly and disabled. But in every model of socialized medicine that has ever existed the rationing of medical care has become an ingrained function of huge government/medical partnerships. In the UK, for example, medical care is regularly withheld from the elderly and people with disabilities. This policy, whether inferred or written in granite, is an outgrowth of Eugenics and its related philosophies which base the value of a human directly with the usefulness of that human to the greater society. People with disabilities often do require greater expenditures for educational, medical, and sometimes social services. They are the least efficient of all people and so, in the thinking of Margaret Sanger, the architects of socialized medicine, and population control social engineers, they are also the most expendable.




Last week American Airlines stopped a California family from boarding an airplane with their 16-year-old son who has Down syndrome because, according to American Airlines, he posed a “security risk.” The parents of this young man apparently had upgraded to first-class and requested that the boy be seated next to one of them. The airline then refused to allow the family on the flight. According to a representative from American Airlines, the boy was agitated and running around prior to boarding. This young man it seems is an experienced flyer, having flown on commercial jetliners dozens of times without incident. The parents of this boy theorized that the pilot was alarmed by the boy’s size–he is moderately overweight which is not unusual in children with Down syndrome–or that one of the first-class passengers took umbrage at being seated next to an individual with Down syndrome.

Cases of medical discrimination against children and adults with various cognitive disabilities such as autism and Down syndrome have been documented for years in the UK. Their National Health System has been beset with a record of discrimination against such individuals. Heart transplants and other critical cardiac measures are among the services commonly withheld from individuals with Down syndrome in the UK. These decisions are not made based on outcome or cost, but appear to be purely discriminatory based on the relative valuation of individuals who require more support and more attention than the “normal” population.

A twenty-three year-old Pennsylvania man with autism was recently denied a heart transplant. The young man who has a chronic and dangerous heart condition must take medications to help him manage the emotional and behavioral symptoms of his autism, and the potential for complications from drug interactions was put forth as one excuse for the decision. This seems like a tenuous rationale for withholding a life-saving operation since most adults in the United States take at least one or two prescription medications on a regular basis. The physicians who made the decision to deny surgery to the young man with autism refused to comment because they thought that public discussion of his case would be “unkind.”


Abortion has become the intervention of choice to deal with children whose lives may be complicated by a congenital or acquired disability. I use the words “may” and “potentially” because prenatal tests designed to detect such disabilities have often read as false positives. The Medicaid systems in some states are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to cover the surgical abortions of late-term babies if they test positive for a condition such as Down syndrome. In fact, it is reported that nine out of ten children that are aborted following prenatal genetic testing test positive for Down syndrome. The gradual eradication of people with Down syndrome is taking place before our eyes. To this former Special Education teacher who has a special appreciation and affection for her “Downs kiddos,” this is a human tragedy of unimaginable scope.

Cases of discrimination against people with disabilities are legion, and they are nothing new. A case from 2009 in which Abercrombie and Fitch was fined for such an act when they refused to allow a parent to accompany their daughter who has autism into a fitting room illustrates that some people with disabilities require additional care and that societal norms are not always achievable when special needs are present. I’ve worked for over a decade in Special Education so I’m very cognizant of the rigors involved in providing for the needs of a child or adult who has learning problems, physical disabilities, or who otherwise requires tender loving care above and beyond that of a self-sufficient person.

The war against the disabled is real and ongoing. The “war on women” publicized by certain political factions is not real. The difference between a life-saving heart transplant denied to a man with autism and the inability of a thirty-something co-ed to pay for her own contraception is the difference between death and a ten-dollar bill. Margaret Sanger and her brain children, the philosophical founding fathers of Planned Parenthood and the “final solution” of the German NAZI party of World War II, are alive and well and can be found in the “death panels” of Obamacare as well as many other places if we only care to look.,,,,,,,,,,,,,


3 Responses to The War on the Disabled

  1. Daniel Osborn
    @dtorev September 30, 2012 at 7:29 am

    I work with developmentally disabled adults in a care facility. I am in very good physical condition and hold a rank of black belt in Tae Kwon Do. There is very little I am afraid of physically, but Obamacare frightens me! I fear for the fate of these wonderful guys that I help everyday. Rationing is inevitable under this plan, and if we would open our eyes we could see this! It's already occurring in UK and other places. Soon to follow after rationing will be the elimination of people groups which are seen as a drain on the healthcare system. Thank you for pointing out how much we have already gone in that direction. If, as it has been written, a society is measured by how it treats the weakest among us, then we are sadly not close to measuring up to the level of a decent society and may God open our eyes before it is too late!

  2. KKG October 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Rationing is already occurring and has been occurring for a very long time. As long as a company stands to make a profit by denying care, it will happen. Except you all seem to want to blame the government and ObamaCare (yes, he does!) instead of the people who are getting rich off of people who are sick. I don't understand that, and I never will.

    • Alan_Levesque October 20, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      What many fail to understand is that an insurance policy whether it is health insurance or homeowners is a legally binding contract. The proper term for an insurance policy is actually "contract of insurance." It spells out as all contracts do, what is required of both parties to the agreement. It has conditions and exclusions written into it. While there will surely be cases (especially with health insurance) where coverage is erroneously denied, most carriers follow the policy to the letter and either grant or deny coverage based on the policy language. Insurance carriers are very hesitant to do anything that will bring about a "bad faith" lawsuit as in many areas there are no limits to the amount that can be awarded the plaintiff at trial. In most cases where a company has "denied care" it is due to a policy exclusion or the fact that the policy holder has reached their lifetime cap. It is also important to remember that the carrier isn't actually denying care but is simply not paying for that care. It would be great if insurance companies just paid for everything every time someone got sick but they would quickly go out of business if they did. That is why there are exclusions and conditions in the policies. They have to limit their losses.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Have a conservative business, group or cause? Why not advertise with the Daily Pamphlet? Spread the word about your organization to like-minded conservatives! We have a host of options sure to fit your budget and you will benefit from our ongoing promotional efforts!

What we offer:

Banner Ads

Featured Backlinks

YouTube Video Ads


Have questions? send us an email at: