Opinion by Daniel McKeon:“We do not need a censorship of the Press. We have a censorship by the Press”–Chesterton
Boycott the New York Times! (as if I need to tell you). The New York Times unabashedly ran a full-page anti-Catholic ad in response to the Hobby Lobby decision last week. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the HHS mandate via Obamacare that certain private companies must provide contraceptives and abortifacients under federally mandated healthcare coverage. Hobby Lobby already covers 16 forms of contraceptives, but opposed covering abortion-causing pills. Citing the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court ruled in the store’s favor. But, the decision caused a firestorm response from the Left who called it an “outrage,” “a war on women,” “an attack on liberty and a women’s freedom to control her body,” etc… Then, The New York Times brought out the big guns, launching a page-length anti-Catholic ad in its weekend edition. “All male, All Roman Catholic Majority on Supreme Court puts Religious Wrong over Women’s Rights,” it reads in large, black print across the top of the page. To the left of the lead—if you want to call it a lead—is an image of abortionist and Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger. In its report on the ad, the American Thinker gives important details about Sanger: “She was in the words of Arina Grossu a ‘racist eugenicist extraordinaire’ whose role in pushing these Nazi-like laws resulted in more than 60,000 sterilization of vulnerable people, including people she considered ‘feeble-minded,’ ‘idiots,’ and ‘morons.’ She also spoke to KKK women’s groups.” In her 2012 column, though, Michelle Malkin gives a more lucid image of Sanger, exposing Sanger for the evil force she was and is.
In her column, “To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit,” Malkin explains that in her autobiography Sanger says she started Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” Sanger elaborated, saying this would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” Malkin goes on to say while Sanger oversaw the mass murder of black babies, she recruited minority activists to front her death racket. Ironically, she cloaked black abortion with the feigned morality of black churches, selling these genocidal policies as community health, welfare services and women’s health. Sanger attacked programs providing medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers because they “facilitate the function of maternity.” Channeling Nietzsche and prefacing Hitler, she urged her abortion clinics to “breed a race of thoroughbreds,” such as Hitler sought with his Aryan race scheme. “Nationwide,” Malkin writes, “’birth control bureaus’ would propagate the proper ‘science of breeding’ to stop impoverished non-white women from ‘breeding like a weed,’” according to Sanger’s vision.
Also, Sanger told a reporter New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for city birth control programs. “It’s not only wrong,” she said, “it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control—even among its own members.” The New York Times has apparently heeded this call and taken up Sanger’s mantle. So, this is the Poster Queen of The New York Times, the face they want its readers to associate with its organization.
Malkin’s article is important because it links Sanger’s philosophy to the Obama Regime. She notes Obama’s science czar John Holdren is an outspoken proponent of forced abortion and mass sterilization. Holdren is also a self-proclaimed protégé of Harrison Brown. Malkin calls Brown a “eugenics guru.” She explains Brown envisions a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial insemination permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” Additionally, he urges his readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” Brown also famously equated the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.” How pleasant. “Listen carefully,” Malkin warns, “as the White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of ‘reproductive services’ for all. The language of access to ‘birth control’ is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.”
The ad calls for a repeal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “RFRA,” the ad claims, “radically redefines ‘religious freedom’ according believers extreme religious liberty, exempting them from laws they claim create substantial burdens on the their free exercise of religion.” Propaganda par excellence, no doubt. It claims RFRA, and by proxy Catholics and other Christians, redefines religious freedom, when in fact, they’re the ones redefining religious freedom. Obamacare forces Catholics to violate our religion. Our freedom to not participate in anything against the Faith—such as paying for and promoting contraceptives and abortion causing drugs—is by all means within our Constitutional rights. Remember the First Amendment? “Congress shall make no law,” it says, “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The ad ends with a call to arms. “Fight back,” it says, “Won’t you join FFRF in waking up America to the growing dangers of theocracy?” First, with Obama in the White House the only religion soon to be established by Washington is atheism, which it’s trying desperately to accomplish. Second, the Supreme Court based its Hobby Lobby decision strictly on the Constitution and our country’s rule of law.
It’s also important to note this ad was created and sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). “Join our national association of 20,000, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics,” the ad says at the bottom.
A few years ago History and Religious Studies professor, Philip Jenkins famously observed anti-Catholicism is the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America–the Obama regime and Left patently confirm this fact.
But, the good news is FFRF is a scant 20,000 strong, pathetically surpassed by the number of U.S. Catholics and other Christian denominations in the country. But, this does not mean we lay down arms and surrender and allow the slings and arrows of atheism to pierce us through. We too must fight by boycotting the New York Times and any other organization adverse to the freedom of Catholics and our brother Christians of other denominations. And, if you’re reluctant, recall Shakespeare’s King Henry V: “Tis true we are in great danger; the greater therefore should our courage be.”