If Women Are Even Half As Evil As Clarence Thomas Thinks We Are, We Shouldn't Be Having Babies In The First Place


On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a mixed decision on two abortion-related Indiana laws. The first was a law requiring that fetal remains from abortion be cremated or buried, and that was upheld by the court in a 7-2 decision. The second was a law banning the termination of a pregnancy on the basis of the fetus's race or sex, or because said fetus has a disability or disease of some kind. The court was unanimous in declining to even review a lower court overturning that portion of the law. Which is good, because that is ridiculous.

Still, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 20-page concurring opinion noting that while he agreed with the decision not to review the law regarding prohibiting abortions for now, that "this law and other laws like it promote a State's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics."

For most of the 20 pages, Thomas rambled on and on about the history of eugenics and his belief that Margaret Sanger was an evil racist eugenicist who promoted birth control to black communities because she wanted them to stop having children altogether.

Sanger herself campaigned for birth control in black communities. In 1930, she opened a birth-control clinic in Harlem. Then, in 1939, Sanger initiated the "Negro Project," an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities. Noting that blacks were "'notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a "caste" system,'" she argued in a fundraising letter that "'birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.'"

In a report titled "Birth Control and the Negro," Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as "'the great problem of the South'"—"the group with 'the greatest economic, health, and social problems'"—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, "'We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'"

This particular Sanger quote has often been used by morons throughout the years to "prove" that Sanger was a racist, and that therefore birth control itself is racist. Somehow it does not occur to them that perhaps she didn't want people to think that because it wasn't true. Sanger also did not think that black people themselves were a problem, she merely recognized that they were dealing with some pretty serious problems, as a result of slavery, racism and Jim Crow laws. Which they very obviously were.

Margaret Sanger was not specifically bringing birth control to black communities because she wanted to get black people to stop having children. That was not a thing, no matter how many times people say it. Sanger was working with NAACP founder W.E.B. Du Bois—who was, quite famously, a black person—to bring birth control to black communities. Why? Well, being able to control the circumstances under which you have children is really important in terms of controlling your own destiny, for one, but also because black women at the time—as now—had an extremely high maternal mortality rate.

Last year 40,000 Negro mothers and babies died in childbirth in this country.

They died, for the most part, as a result of inadequate medical attention, poor living conditions, improper diet and many other ills, which taken together made for mothers who were poor maternity risks from the start.

It is fair to suppose that most of the women who died were wives who loved their husbands--wives who were eager to live, to make homes and to raise their children. The answer to this love was 40,000 deaths. 40,000 deaths which might have been prevented had these births been planned instead of left to chance. — Margaret Sanger, 1946


Though Thomas notes Sanger's collaboration with Du Bois, he claims it doesn't matter, and that it doesn't even matter what her actual intentions were, because some people who thought birth control was a good idea were eugenicists.

Defenders of Sanger point out that W. E. B. DuBois and other black leaders supported the Negro Project and argue that her writings should not be read to imply a racial bias. But Sanger's motives are immaterial to the point relevant here: that "Birth Control" has long been understood to "ope[n] the way to the eugenist."

And yes, Sanger was into "eugenics," but not to the extent of being into weird Nazi shit. Her belief was that if people were able to only have babies when they wanted them and were able to care for them, that we would have a better society over all. Wow! What a crazy idea!

Even if she were into racist eugenics, even if she were a terrible, evil, racist person, that would not make birth control itself terrible, evil or racist. If we are going by that measure, pretty much anything that started in the late 19th-early 20th century would also have to be considered terrible, evil and racist. The entire study of criminology was founded on scientific racism. For real, that shit was started by a Northern Italian dude named Cesare Lombroso who believed that you could figure out who was a criminal based on the shape of their heads. And who had these "criminal headshapes"? Black people! And Southern Italians, whom he believed were more prone to criminality because they were just too close to Africa to not be part black, rather than because the unification of Italy in 1871 had left them broke AF. It just made sense! Logic!

I don't think we're going to throw out the entire field of criminology because that dude sucked. That would be weird, and also it would limit the amount of good television shows in existence.


These are things that anyone with an internet or library card ought to be able to figure out on their own. The real issue here is that Clarence Thomas clearly thinks that women are evil.

And if I thought women were as evil as Clarence Thomas clearly thinks we are, I would think that none of us should be allowed to have babies.

Because what he is suggesting in this 20-page response is that there is a real danger that women are going to go around having abortions for the purpose of doing evil eugenics. I say "women" here, despite the fact that trans men and non-binary folks can also have abortions, because this all has less to do with opposition to abortion than it does with a specific fear of the cruelty and selfishness of women and a belief in the redemptive power of motherhood.

Let us consider this for a moment. Let's say there are just piles of women out there, in this country, having abortions due to the fetus's sex or race. Why on earth would you want these people to be parents? I sure wouldn't! That is messed up! Personally, I cannot imagine that there are so many of these people out there as to necessitate a law, but I also do not have the low opinion of women that Clarence Thomas has.

The availability of abortion and yes, even birth control, deprives people of a certain mindset (like Thomas) of what they feel is an incredibly appealing and satisfying narrative. They want the opportunity to see a selfish, shallow, cruel, or vain woman transformed into a selfless angel through the corrective magic of forced motherhood. They are angry at the idea of that narrative being taken away from them. In fact, they see it as ultimately hurtful to the woman to not "allow" her to the opportunity to become a better person by sacrificing in this way.

In his concurrence, Thomas spends a lot of time specifically addressing the prevalence of abortion in the black community.

Eight decades after Sanger's "Negro Project," abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. The reported nationwide abortion ratio— the number of abortions per 1,000 live births—among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.

What he's really getting at here is that he believes that black women are somehow less capable than white women when it comes to deciding for themselves whether or not they want to give birth. That is ... unbelievably insulting.

Allow me to also note that a particularly high percentage of the people who try to use this argument as a way to prove that the legality of abortion itself is somehow racist are the same people who like to complain about supposed "Welfare Queens" having babies just to scam the government for more money. In fact, Justice Thomas famously falsely accused his own damn sister of being such a person.

Clarence Thomas is not afraid of "modern-day eugenics." That is ridiculous. He might as well be afraid that phrenology is going to come back into vogue. This concurrence has nothing to do with abortion or eugenics and everything to do with Thomas's belief that women are either cruel or stupid and that this cruelty and stupidity ultimately hinders our ability to make a moral or informed choice about our own bodies and whether or not we should give birth.

So screw him.


Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Robyn Pennacchia

Robyn Pennacchia is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning angel of a human being, who shrugged off what she is pretty sure would have been a Tony Award-winning career in musical theater in order to write about stuff on the internet. Previously, she was a Senior Staff Writer at Death & Taxes, and Assistant Editor at The Frisky (RIP). Currently, she writes for Wonkette, Friendly Atheist, Quartz and other sites. Follow her on Twitter at @RobynElyse

Donate with CC

Arkansas Republican Senator and evil Pinocchio turned into a real live boy Tom Cotton appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the attacks on oil tankers on the Gulf of Oman. And while the world is still trying to confirm IF Iran perpetrated the attacks due to conflicting accounts (the US says it was Iran with mines; the Japanese shipping operator says it was a “flying object"), that hasn't stopped GOP politicians like Cotton from trying to turn this into the justification they've been looking for, for great good glorious WAR.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You have long been defined as a hawk on Iran. You see these recent attacks, these are commercial vessels not military installations. What kind of response is warranted?

: Well Iran for 40 years has engaged in this kind of attacks going back to the 1980s. In fact Ronald Reagan had to reflag a lot of vessels going through the Persian Gulf and ultimately take military action against Iran in 1988. These unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike.

: Are you- you're comparing the tanker war in the '80s to now and saying that that's the kind of military response you want to see?

COTTON: We can make a military wreck- response in a time and in a manner of our choosing. But yes, unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The goddamn “Tanker Wars"?! Oh ... you mean when, during the Iraq-Iran War, we waited until Kuwait formally asked for our assistance to escort Saddam Hussein's oil? When Reagan, without approval from Congress, reflagged Kuwaiti vessels? When Reagan got us involved in the Iraq-Iran War leading to a daylong naval battle between Iran and the US, known as Operation Praying Mantis? The conflict we jumped into that led to our mistaking an Iran Air commercial jetliner for an Iranian F-14, shooting it down and killing all 290 people onboard, including 66 children? That's what you want to repeat, Tom Cotton?! Also, whatever happened to our ally, Saddam Hussein?

They say that those who don't learn from history repeat it. Tom Cotton is here to prove Republicans never learn. Watch the video below for yourself:

Cotton says "unprovoked attacks to oil profits" from Iran "warrant a retaliatory military strike"

While Tom Cotton was justifying a war with Iran on CBS, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was having a surprisingly harder time on “Fox News Sunday" than he did on CBS when he transparently insinuated what the Trump administration really cares about with Iran ( "Texas Tea").

Pompeo: Trump doesn't war with Iran but will "defend American OIL interests"

Seems Pompeo was upset that his “beating the drums of war" shtick was being interrupted to have to answer about Trump admitting (more like bragging) it was okay to take foreign assistance (and then walking it back when all the killjoys said it was illegal). After playing the ABC News clip, Chris Wallace asked a very pointed yet direct question. Pompeo's answer, however, was far from both:

WALLACE: Is accepting oppo research from a foreign government right or wrong?

POMPEO: Chris, you know you asked me not to call any of your questions today ridiculous ... You came really close right there. (awkward giggle) President Trump has been very clear. He ... he clarified his remarks later. He ... he made it very clear. Even in his first comment. He said "I'd do both." He said he'd call the FBI ...

WALLACE: He said "Maybe I'd do both."

POMPEO: President Trump has been very clear. That he will always make sure that he gets it right for the American people and I'm confident he'll do that here as well.

It was at this moment Pompeo thought he was golden because he's on Fox News and they never follow up! But clearly he forgot Chris Wallace doesn't play like that.

WALLACE: At the risk of getting your ire, the President told "Fox and Friends" on Friday, and I agree, he kind of walked it back...

POMPEO: He didn't walk it back.

: Yes, he did. Because he said "maybe" on Thursday. And then on Friday, on "Fox and Friends," he said "he'd listen first AND then if the information was bad that he would take it to the FBI or the Attorney General." But he also made it clear to George Stephanopolous that he did not see this as "foreign interference." And I want to play a clip of the President's own words ...

Then Wallace played ANOTHER clip of Trump's idiotic words back to Pompeo. Then he asks Pompeo one more time:

WALLACE: He says "it's not interference, it's information." The country, sir, and I don't need to tell you, has a long history dating back to George Washington in saying that foreign interference in our elections is unacceptable. POMPEO: Chris, President Trump believes that too. I have nothing further to add. I came on to talk about foreign policy and I think that's the third time you've asked me about a Washington ... piece of ... silliness. That's just, that's just a story that's inconsistent with what I've seen from President Trump do every single day.

After an awkward pause and visible anger in Pompeo's face (really, do watch), Chris Wallace calls it a day ... but remembers to remind Pompeo he's a thin-skinned baby:

WALLACE: I will leave it there. I think I only asked you twice but that's alright Mr. Secretary. Thank you. Thanks for your time and Happy Father's Day, sir.

Watch the video below for yourself.

And that's all for this week in Trump's collusion and "wag the dog"/Saudi oil interest war chants. So let's end with a couple of pictures of my new puppy, Harley Quinn!

Might as well have one last nice thing before our next war or stolen election. Have a week!

OH LOOK AT THE PUPPY. Also give us money to pay the freelancers, if you are able, thank you we love you.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Donate with CC

Spinal Tap - Gimme Some Money

Some dick is suing your Wonkette! If you are able, will you please send money?

1. Pick "just once" or "monthly."

2. Pick an amount, like say "all of the money."

3. Click "paypal" if you are paypal or "stripe" if you are not paypal.


5. Carry on with your day, and with new posts below!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc