Well, at least she's probably against poverty...

... and thus very much simpatico with Catholic social doctrine.

"She" is the Secretary of State, who was asked the other day about her admiration for Margaret Sanger and her religious devotion to a secular doctrine often called "reproductive health". Via Catholic News Agency:

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about whether the Obama administration is seeking to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in other countries. Secretary Clinton responded to his questions, affirming that the U.S. government’s definition of reproductive health includes access to abortion.

Rep. Smith began his comments by criticizing Secretary Clinton’s reception of the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in Houston in March. Secretary Clinton said she was in “awe” of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and claimed her “life and leadership” was “one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”

Secretary Clinton also said that Sanger’s work was “not done.” Rep. Smith said Sanger’s work was indeed “transformational,” but “not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.”

“Sanger’s prolific writings drip with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live,” Rep. Smith said.

Noting that he had read many of Sanger’s articles and books, Rep. Smith characterized Sanger as an “unapologetic eugenicist and racist” who said “the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it” and also characterized eugenics as the “most adequate and thorough avenue” to solve “racial, political and social problems.”

Goodness, Rep. Smith, aren't words such as "exterminate" and "kill" a bit direct and forthright for such a personal, private matter? How about "human-induced life-culminating event" or "facilitated involuntary exsanguination", or, for those with a more metaphysical bent: "sudden soul transference transaction"?

Meanwhile, World magazine reports:

Inglis then questioned Clinton on why she didn’t condemn human rights abuses like forced abortions on her most recent trip to China. “They heard me say it already,” she said, referring to a trip there 14 years ago.

Yes, I'm sure the same government that is forcing 60 million Chinese to change their names in order to facilitate a government database is playing those fourteen-year-old tapes on a daily basis. Clinton also stated, "There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign policy." Which surely means she is against poverty, right?

Comments

[Dan Deeny]

Rep. Chris Smith is right to criticize Sec. Clinton for her support for Margaret Sanger's racist program. Have the Catholics in Congress said anything about this? And where is the Black Caucus?

[Ed Peters]

What monsters they are.

[LJ]

Congratulations to Rep. Chris Smith for getting some of the real ideology of Margaret Sanger on the record.

But today it may be said she was only a eugenicist, whereas much of the commentary from the earnest that I've heard this earth-week has been downright misanthropic.

I tried to cut down my CO2 emissions on earth-day but I couldn't hold my breath very long. I confess I did better with Lent than earth-day. Still, it is depressing. How are we to stop the steady advance of trees and plants and protect our concrete and steel if we can't stop the CO2 they need to live? The slogan, Starve a plant, Stop breathing is going to need a little work I think.

[Stephen Sparrow]

“one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”

Wow, there's an awful lot of folk who never saw the light of day who would love to put Clinton "on the mat" for that barmey statement.