THE RAINBOW SWASTIKA - Scattered Seed Ministries

sources claim that Margaret Sanger was indeed a Theosophy devotee, which would explain
many of her convictions, but I have not yet found documentation for this claim.]
Nazi Germany was not the first country with racial purity laws. The US Supreme Court
sanctioned forced sterilization of "undesirables" for over 40 years - the only difference being
that racial desirability was evaluated by social/health criteria rather than by ethnic/religious
background. Following the Supreme Court ruling on "Buck v. Bell" (1927), in which Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the "Eugenics Laws" of several states, these laws were
adopted by a total of 30 American states between 1927 and 1933. Before the landmark case,
17 states had already enacted compulsory sterilization laws, beginning with Indiana in 1907.
These laws followed the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" of the Eugenics Record Office,
(founded in 1910 and directed by BC League's Harry Laughlin) which called for forcibly
sterilizing "criminal mental patients, retarded, blind, deaf, diseased, alcoholics, and
dependents on society"; these laws also required segregation of the physically and mentally
disabled in state-run institutions (where sterilization took place routinely). The State of
Virginia added "unwed mothers, prostitutes, petty criminals and children with disciplinary
problems" to their list. [As we know, Hitler rounded up the Jews only after legislating forced
sterilizations and abortions, euthanasia, elimination of the physically and mentally disabled,
and disposal of social misfits. The U.S. legal system must therefore be held responsible for
encouraging Nazi eugenic policy, having enacted similar laws before Hitler even came to
power. The Nazi Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Disease did not come
into being until 1933.] The U.S. eugenics laws were repealed by the Supreme Court only in
1972. [see the _Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia_, The American Life League, Chapters 53
and 105, on line via the Web]
After the Nazis took eugenics to its logical and horrifying conclusions, American eugenics
saw the wisdom of going "underground", promoting what their British counterparts
admiringly called "crypto-eugenics": working through gradual, incremental education and
media exposure to increase public tolerance (and with it legal sanction) for selection
programs. It is part of the crypto-eugenics strategy to educate people that "quality of life"
takes priority over life itself. "Society legalizes abortion to enhance the quality of human
life." (Dr. H.G. Whittington, writing on abortion counseling strategy) "Upon the quality of
human life all else depends." (Stoddard, _Rising Tide_ p.i) [Today, we are so accustomed to
the mantra "Quality of Life" that many fail to notice the growing list of conditions that
supposedly "threaten quality of life" - or the fact that most of them are less a threat to a
fulfilled existence than to society's bank accounts. Evaluating "quality of life" by monetary
cost is one of the most insulting, dehumanizing, materialistic travesties of our society... and
not a word of protest from the NA philosophers who loudly denounce materialism as a global
evil! So much for New Age integrity.]
The first resistance to selection which the crypto-eugenicists tackled was abortion, which
after decades of effort has finally resulted in the fetus being accepted as an unresponsive
subhuman by most sectors of society - except for the deeply religious Jew or Christian, the
informed anatomy student, and the reasonably alert pregnant woman. Second on the list is
euthanasia, or "assisted suicide", which is only now beginning to show fruit. The next
"selection" process to be introduced is infanticide. Moving gradually from early-stage
permissiveness, legislation in the U.S. has been steadily pushing abortion limits which have
now reached to the very moment of birth; "partial-birth abortion" was recently (Aug. 2000)
sanctioned by the Supreme Court in a controversial 5-4 decision (which incidently invalidates
contrary laws in 30 states and the sensitivities of 2/3 of the American public). From there, it
is a short step to the proposal which seemed lunatic less than 3 decades ago: "Most birth