Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 5

Originally Sanger based the advocacy of birth control on feminist ideals
What evidence is there for this? Did Sanger really think feminist ideals supported eugenics? Citation is needed.Poodleboy (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You could ask User:Jason_from_nyc who added that text in this edit on 11 August 2015. MFNickster (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's alright to remove the intro sentence as User:The Banner has done in this edit . However, the reference for that sentence was in the Kevles' book, page 90: "Before the war, Sanger had linked birth control with feminism." I thought I'd contextualize the evolution of Sanger thought but that might be better done in the main body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What was her reasoning, which feminist ideals? Did the reasoning parallel her support for eugenics?Poodleboy (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been awhile since I did my research. As I understand it, her original emphasis was solely on empowering woman. Birth control gives woman the power to postpone child-birth and have a full sexual life. She always maintained those principles going forward, however, after her exile in England she appended a broader purpose to her advocacy. It was also good for society. Or more exactly, good for the human race. Thus, woman, for their own well-being will also bring about a betterment for society and the human race. Limiting births will enable woman to raise healthier children, and that's good for them and society. The title of her book "Pivot of Civilization" refers to the pivotal role of woman. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Jill Lepore, The Secret History of Wonder Woman, Vintage, 2015, which contains an extensive discussion of Sanger’s feminism and its impact, and is unambiguous that Sanger’s intent and philosophy were deeply infused with and inseparable from feminism. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Brothers and sisters
Isn't it encyclopedic to mention a person's brothers and sisters? Of 11 children, Margaret had 10 brothers and sisters: Ethel, Henry George McGlynn, John, Joseph, Lawrence, Mary, Nan, Richard, Robert, and Thomas. Is this controversial? Progressingamerica (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, the number of siblings is mention. Names are usually just given when they are relevant or have their own article. The Banner talk 16:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that list siblings, such as Drew Brees, John D. Rockefeller, and Washington Irving. I would agree with the original edit to add add them to this article too for consistency. 71.40.136.76 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The big difference is that some of the siblings of Rockefeller and Irving are notable in their own right. (The article about Brees does bot mention siblings but children). The Banner talk 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Her views on abortion
Since Sanger and the organization she founded are so frequently attacked by "pro-lifers" and so ardently praised and defended by "pro-choicers", it seems kind of strange to me that her views on abortion aren't a subtopic in this article. Are they even mentioned? Motsebboh (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The word abortion appears 15 times in the article. Her views are discussed as they arise in the biography. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Scanning the article I see that these mentions are concentrated in the "Overview" and "Social activism" sections. For the most part, they talk about her feelings against unsafe and self-induced abortion. One sentence says that she thought abortion was "sometimes justified" but should "generally be avoided". In terms of the modern debate which was already beginning before Sanger died in 1966 (by which time "safe abortion" was a medical possibility), this really doesn't tell the reader much. Even certain activists on opposite sides of the issue today could agree that abortion is "sometimes justified" and that it should "generally be avoided". Motsebboh (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But if gives an adequate overview of her beliefs. The Banner talk 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that available properly sourced Sanger quotes about abortion should be included if for no other reason than to show her ambivalence about the procedure.  Motsebboh (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do some research on her views, and add it to the article if it offers anything new! I wouldn't use the Geni link if I were you; it just references Wikipedia. MFNickster (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I welcome Motsebboh's research into secondary sources on this matter. Our article says "She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal.[citation needed] She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided." This suggest that if abortions were safe and legal her opposition would disappear. I haven't found evidence of that. In her Autobiography she does visit other countries where abortion is common and often legal. Her travels to France she was impressed with the limitation of family size mainly by contraceptives. “All individual Frenchwomen considered this knowledge their individual right, and, if it failed, abortion, which was still common.” In Weimar Germany she spoke with a doctor and asked “[isn’t abortion] a ridiculous substitute for contraceptives?” “To my horror he replied, ‘We will never give over the control of our numbers to the women themselves.’” As a feminist she was appalled. But it was the USSR, in the 1930s where abortion was legal and widely available that sheds light on her views. She notes that despite their “fine technique for abortions …in my opinion it is a cruel method of dealing with the problem because abortion, no matter how well done, is a terrific nervous strain and an exhausting physical hardship.” She repeatedly cites the dangers of abortion as a motivation for birth control regardless of the legal status. I don't see her ever entertaining the possibility of safe legal abortion. Still, we can't do original research by going to her autobiography. We have to rely on the biographies done by others. Take a look at the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What Jason said. We've got to be very careful in how we interpret and contextualize someone's quotations. Whenever possible, we want to rely on professional biographers to properly understand a quotation in the context of a person's entire body of work. In this case, a quotation comparing the merits of abortion to those of contraception should not be taken as a judgment on abortion alone. Ibadibam (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WE don't have to do much in the way of interpreting and contextualizing those quotations assuming that secondary sources already do this. If those interpretations differ we simply present that to the reader. Motsebboh (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Louise or Louisa?
Encyclopedia Britannica spells her middle name as "Louisa", so does the New York Times. Should this wiki page be corrected? 


 * Great question & please remember to sign your posts on talk pages . There are also sources which use Louise, such as The encyclopedia of Birth Control and the CDC. When I google her name with Louisa it autocorrects to Louise. But, i suppose the most telling is the two archives which hold her collection use Louise.Five Colleges NYU In my opinion I'd keep the article the way it is.Frederika Eilers (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Impartiality of source in Eugenics Section
In the Eugenics section, there is a sentence that says: "Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program. " I checked the source, but I'm skeptical about the impartiality of the source and the somewhat defensive tone of the article. Should this be something to be concerned about?Akim17 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree the author is defensive, criticises students, and internet sources. The argument is framed in response to media (even current media right wing) depictions of her alongside Hitler, although it never actually names the media it is analysing saying they didn't want to "go to the trouble to track them down". In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the war, and gave money to the American Council Against Nazi. In a dream she is hiding from Hitler. Meanwhile Nazi's burned her books. She was known as a eugenicist, as was Hitler, though very different. Sanger simplified popular eugenics for the masses, these were held beliefs by Doctors like Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, and Leon Whitney.The article deputes the connection to Ernst Rudin as another author published by her journal, which she no longer ran at the time but in which she also wrote an article for.


 * Note that this was recently deleted from the African american section: "In contrast with eugenicist William Robinson, who advocated euthanasia for the unfit, "


 * In sum, I suppose she was racist/ableist but not genocidal? And if you think birth control is the same as abortion, it might make sense. But, this is very difficult in terms of WP:NPOV. This might rightly go in a "controversy/criticisms" section. I'll change it to read:"In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the war, and gave money to the American Council Against Nazi." -- because that seems fact based, at least more specific than "denounced".Frederika Eilers (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you judge a work out of 1922 against 2016 knowledge and society? The Banner talk 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you reverted too much. In, William J. Robinson doesn't support " euthanasia for the unfit." Our foot note says "in his book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), Robinson wrote: 'The best thing would be to gently chloroform these [unfit] children or give them a dose of potassium cyanide.'" The full quote in the book is "From the point of view of abstract justice, and of the greatest good not only to the greatest but to the whole number, the best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or to give them a dose of potassium cyanide, but in our humane and civilized age such measures are not looked upon with favor. So the State is taking care of them." Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, yeah that needs to go - taken out of context in a way that totally changes the meaning. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to have derailed the initial question by including that recent deletion (which i agreed with b/c its not about Sanger). When the changes were reverted it also removed my change of replacing "Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program" with "In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program; and donated to the American Council Against Nazi". I will put it back, since no one seems to be commenting on that. I agree, the media comparisons are unfair and should be contextualized (with 1922, not today) as the newsletter's author tried. Although, after I looked up the other scientists their relationship to nazi's is debate-able as well.  Frederika Eilers (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The last quarter of her Life?
It's odd that there is almost nothing in the article about the last twenty-or-so years of Sanger's life. I'm hardly an expert on it, but I know that she was still involved in some notable controversies, particularly her notion that postwar Europe should completely stop reproducing for a decade:. Also, nothing about her later life personal struggles: an over-reliance on pain medication (acknowledged by her doctor son) and dementia in her last few years. Motsebboh (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Added paragraph to Eugenics section
I consulted two books to clarify Sanger’s view on eugenics in the context of the idea as it was evolving during her heyday. According to Peter C. Engelman, “Sanger, in the late 1910s and early 1920s, steered the movement away from its radical, feminist beginnings in an attempt to gain medical and scientific approval for the health and eugenic benefits of birth control.” (p.xxi) Carole Ruth McCann, argues “As a reputable science, eugenics provided the birth control movement with an authoritative language through which to legitimate women’s rights to contraception. By situating birth control within the eugenic terrain of racial betterment, Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control … as she also pointed out, eugenicists and birth control advocates put ‘emphasis upon different methods.’” (p.100)

Both authors, however, differentiate between different strains of eugenics and note that the popular view of eugenics was quite different from the view we hold today. McCann notes that “… popular movements, such as those for sex education, sanitation, prenatal culture, prevention of venereal disease, and pure milk for babies, appropriated eugenics to their causes.” (p.14-15) Sanger’s view added an economic component. “Sanger’s articulation of the economic ethic of fertility served as a counterargument to the rigid hereditarianism of eugenic ideology … Eugenicists tended to represent cultural and class differences as the fixed biological characteristics of race. … Sanger disputed this eugenic hereditarianism, arguing that environmental differences, such as economic deprivations, were the principal causes of social degeneracy. Racial betterment, or social progress, depended upon an environment that sustained mental and physical health. Application of the economic ethic of fertility would help to support such an environment. … Through out the 1910s and 1920s Sangerists constantly had to rebut the eugenically invectives that old-stock women should increase their fertility before they committed race suicide. … [for example] Theodore Roosevelt …” For Sanger this would result in a “cradle competition” between the classes. Instead society would be better if “women were allowed to adjust their fertility to match their family income …” (p16-17)

The notion of a eugenics based on improving environmental factors is known as Lamarckism, the notion that acquired traits could be passed on; this was soon to be abandoned in the field of biology. McCann explains “Drawing primarily from radical British eugenicists, Sanger’s articulation were not biologically determinist. She located the causes of racial decay in economic environmentalism and conventional sexual morality. … The scientific authority of eugenics lent weight to Sangerist challenges to the conventional religious condemnation of contraception as unnatural. Eugenic expertise for population studies lent weight to Sangerists’ data against the medical profession’s charges of amateurism. … Using eugenic logic and nomenclature, Sanger constituted women who used contraception as authors of racial betterment, thereby linking birth control to the racial maternalism of welfare feminists. … Sangerists resisted the eugenicists’ equation of poverty with ethnic inferiority and the extreme proposals of white supremacists who wished to increase fertility rates of white, middle-class women.“ (p.101)

McCann points out “… most lay people [in the 1910s] still held some version of belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Thus within Progressive ideology, the relationship between environment and heredity was quite elastic.” (p.102) “Mendelian genetics … by the late 1920s discredited most of the specific hereditarian principles underlying eugenic theory, the American eugenics movement increasingly ignored any influence that the environment might have on human traits, taking all socially important characteristics to be biologically determined. In Britain the eugenics movement was torn asunder by disagreements over Mendelian genetics.” (p.103) Sanger derived her eugenic ideas from the radical wing of the British eugenics movement, in particular from Havelock Ellis. (p.104) Engelman notes: “Neither Sanger nor the [birth control] movement as a whole defined fitness in racial terms, as did a number of leading eugenicists who assumed that race and ethnicity determined behavior and then manufactured or modified research results to prove it. [Americans] Charles Davenport … Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant relied on flawed intelligence tests and dubious ‘scientific’ observations and genetic analysis about specific racial groups to declare certain races, blacks and Jews especially, inferior.” (p.135)

Engelman says: “Sanger’s concerns centered on the economic status and health conditions of new immigrants and the country’s ability to absorb, educate, and employ them, rather than on immigrant’s particular ethnicity.” (p.135, see also Chesler p.195-6) McCann says Sanger “always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms.” (p.117) Sanger’s views were based on “an ‘economic ethic’ … of having only as many children as one can afford.” (p.13,16-21)

From this study I inserted the following paragraph in the “Eugenics” section: ''Sanger’s view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one’s progeny. Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors. Instead she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one’s economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race. Sanger’s view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport who took a racist view of inherited traits. She continually rejected their approach.'' Jason from nyc (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Mention of speech before Klan auxiliary
Joppa Chong, just for the record, the article does mention Sanger's speech to the Ku Klux Klan auxiliary in the section on the American Birth Control League. Motsebboh (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is based on original research. I don't see the episode discussed by the major biographies or books on the history of the birth control movement. It should be removed. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The bit about Sanger speaking before a Klan women's auxiliary group, you mean? Of course it should remain. This isn't supposed to be a hagiography. The material here is sourced to her autobiography which could be considered a primary source, but it can also be found in acceptable secondary sources such as this one: ; the article titled Birth control breaks into the South. Motsebboh (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is a biography and her biographies don't give undue weight to trivia. That meeting belongs in the article on conspiracy theories that were created after she died and we have such an article. The ref you gave supports this. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WEAK! She obviously didn't consider it too trivial to include in her autobiography. Here's another mention of it in a reliable source: Motsebboh (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also useful: Paul Kengor citing Sanger's autobio, Alveda King and others. –Joppa Chong (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

C'mon guys get serious. Motsebboh gives us a comic book as a reference. Joppa Chong, your reference is an article addressing the Black genocide conspiracy theory and as such it should be covered in that article. Neither the Chesler nor Baker biographies considered the KKK meeting note worthy. Now, Motsebboh, you ask a good question about Sanger including the meeting in her autobiography. She also included her meeting with Gandhi which we don't mention. Let's compare. She meet with women of the KKK but not the male leadership or policy makers. With her meeting with Gandhi and Nehru, she is meeting India's future leaders. Both the Chesler and Baker bios have 5 pages. I say we delete the KKK and insert her meeting with Gandhi. Anyone? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I say why not have both? It's not as if we are obliged to sacrifice one for the sake of the other. Incidentally, Peter Bagge is a well known and highly regarded illustrator/writer; so much so that The Guardian saw fit to review his comic book take (a positive one) on Sanger's life. The fact is that there are plenty of reliably sourced references to Sanger's speech to the Klan women. For what it's worth here, probably not much, I happen to think the fact of this speech says very little about her racial views but a whole lot about her rather solipsistic personality. Motsebboh (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Her Autobiography is 500 pages and we can't have everything. We require editing but we can't do original research. Her biographers (academic, for example) chose her talk to Gandhi as being significant and not her talk to each and every arbitrary group of women on how to use birth control. Those that pick her talk to the Klan are involved in pushing a conspiracy theory or refuting one. This was not an issue during her life and she was not involved in any conspiracy. That's why it's called a conspiracy theory; it has no credibility to any reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Sanger's most intimate biographer, Sanger herself, recalled her presentation to the Klan women as "one of the weirdest experiences" she ever had in lecturing, and since there are all sorts of references to it in reliable sources (whether some of these are refutations of conspiracy theories really doesn't matter) I think we should keep it. By all means, however, feel free to add material on Sanger's meetings with famous people. By the way, I wonder why Sanger received an invitation to speak to a Klan group in the first place; not the kind of people we'd expect would be interested in birth control for their own members . . . perhaps her comments about certain immigrant groups struck a chord with them. Motsebboh (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read her Autobiography and the reason would be clear. When she talk to various groups (unions, socialists, churches) the leadership (men) were hostile to the idea of birth control. But she found when she talked to the woman they begged her for information to keep their children to manageable numbers. Thus, no matter what the politics or religion, woman were interested in keeping their family size to reasonable levels. As I pointed out, she didn't talk to Klan leadership, as you might expect if she wanted an alliance in the way you insinuate (and insinuations are all there is even in the Kengor article.) She was showing that all woman, regardless of politics and religion, want birth control. Read the whole Autobiography if you want to know why she mentions it. There are no reliable sources that take that meeting as relevant to her views on matters of race. It is inflammatory to have an unexplained reference taken out of context and it should be removed promptly. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You may read Sanger correctly but you don't read me very well. I'm not suggesting that Sanger wanted to form an alliance with the Klan to diminish the Black or other ethnic populations. I'm suggesting that possibly certain Klan members wanted to enlist Sanger in this kind of cause; which is not at all the same thing. No, I think Sanger would have addressed Nazi women, Bolshevik women, Trotskyite women, etc. on birth control, not because she was any of those things but because she was a zealot and an egotist. It seems to me, however, that there is a simple solution to an "out of context" mention of her talk before the Klan auxiliary. Add context. I'm sure that there are reliable sources that refer to the wide variety of groups Sanger personally addressed. In that context a Klan's women auxiliary would simply be a good example. Motsebboh (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s true that Sanger saw birth control as a panacea for all the world’s ills. Ellen Chesler, in her bio of Sanger, notes how Sanger abandoned radical politics after WWI (p162) and moved to the center politically (p197). Chesler writes, “[H.G.] Wells was publicly enthusiastic but protected himself in his introduction [to Pivot] with the caveat that if not fully justified in calling birth control ‘the pivot or cornerstone of progressive society,’ Margaret correctly understood that had become a test issue between …” (p197) Sanger was willing to preach the gospel of birth control to anyone and everyone. Chesler is critical of Sanger’s ongoing associations (not one-off meetings) despite Sanger’s public statements of their differences. But these are well-known “scientists” in eugenics. I plan on putting more in the article on that issue. Let’s drop the silly KKK stuff. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your suggestion and combine them. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. I still want to note that Kengor's essay keeps distance to so-called conspiracy theories. He does mention the WKKK meeting which might appear incidental but in order to cover Sanger's attitude towards intolerance, this could be a crucial aspect. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Angela Davis erroneous?
There's probably another Apologetic around. We haven't got a source calling an Angela Davis statement regarding Sanger's black people extermination remark erroneous, not to mention a consensus. So we cannot present it as a fact that Davis was wrong. –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire source article is about how these conspiracy theories about the Negro Project are wrong. If you don't want to use "erroneous" because the source only uses it for D'Souza's fabricated quotes, we could use "incorrectly", "falsely", or any number of synonyms, but I have no idea why "Sanger was really Hitler" seems to be the hill you want to die on here! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories are wrong but that isn't what the "entire source article is about", and I don't read Joppa Chong as saying that "Sanger was really Hitler". The very awkward last sentence of the "Race" section should be redone. D'Souza and Davis don't even need to be mentioned by name. The main point is that Sanger's unfortunate wording in her letter left the door open for detractors on both the right and left to read genocidal intentions into it. Motsebboh (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The source article is titled "Birth Control or Race Control? Sanger and the Negro Project" and it appears to be all about misconceptions (to be generous). We have a whole article on Black genocide conspiracy theory which has large sections on birth control and on abortion. This article is about Sanger's biography not about other people's conspiracy theories. We really should just have what she thought and not fringe hysteria. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sanger was really Hitler" is not known to me. For now, the section Margaret Sanger (not the best headline) disqualifies criticism in spite of WP:NPOV but it's silent i.e. about Sanger's role as a Ku-Klux-Klan guest speaker. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...to promote birth control for white people, yes. Are you just ignorant, or are you propagating this nonsense deliberately? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whose propaganda? Sanger was eager and among her own kind of people at the KKK convention. We should remain careful about what Davis actually said (source missing) and leave assessments to the reader instead of relying solely on NY University-affiliated Margaret Sanger Papers Project website. It states that the project's Advisory Board includes descendents of Margaret Sanger, former Planned Parenthood (Sanger's org) presidents, and someone tied to the pro-choice group Family Care International. This composition doesn't sound well-balanced. –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Joppa claims "Sanger was eager and among her own kind of people at the KKK convention." There is no evidence to suggest that. There is plenty of primary source material suggesting the contrary. Read her autobiography for an account of the meeting in question. Please don't make these statements if you are not familiar with the material. Gerntrash (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposed abortion
Stop me if you've been over this before, but shouldn't the article point out that she opposed abortion? She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious," a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children.  She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.  Much of this is supported by this article from a RIGHT-WING, PRO-LIFE web site--which you would expect would OPPOSE MS in every possible way-- (RedState) http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/  I'm assuming there's a good reason the Wikipedia article doesn't already mention this, so I'm not gonna insert it yet, but I'd like to know what the good reason is.  Thanks!  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does say that she opposed abortion. Redstate is not a RS so if you want to add more about this you would obviously need to find a better source. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Right you are, it does say that, and I don't know how I missed it! My error.  Thanks.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not an improvement
I had reverted a lot of edits of User:Ihardlythinkso but he decided to reinstate them. To my opinion, it was really not an improvement of the article. But the editor is showing off a massive battleground mentality. Please, review my revert. The Banner talk 13:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked you on your Talk to be specific, there were at least 14 net changes in my edits, most all of them re WP:MOS. (For example, blockquotes for quotations 40 words or more per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. What would be your rationale for reverting that? Removing periods at the end of sentence fragments per MoS. Adding periods to complete sentences per MoS. Putting periods outside quotations per MOS:LQ. Correcting a misspell, "woman's rights" → "women's rights".) What is your problem(s), for the third time, be specific. Your knee-jerk reversions and hostility have already been noted, why don't you drop that. --IHTS (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is you going on the attack. I do not feel the need to respond on your rude behaviour, that is why I have asked other to review my revert. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have yet to be specific, there were at least 14 net changes you reverted, you haven't given rationale for even one. So I can't work w/ you either -- you've given no idea what was basis for your reversion. Your curt "not an improvement" is itself insulting, since probably 13 of the 14 changes were right out of MoS. Do you think your own behavior has been collaborative?! --IHTS (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think another WP editor will back up your reversion of 14 net changes? And I did put some work into them, they were all made thoughtfully. So what is your difficulty? --IHTS (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to spent time on your battlefield behaviour. So I await the comments of others. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like you're both a little more hostile about this than the situation warrants: the typographical changes look to have been positive, and I agree with moving the sentence about her being widely recognized for birth control up. The block quotes do bother me, as they lend emphasis to things Sanger said or wrote that I'm not sure are deserving of that much emphasis, and may have been added by someone who is hostile to singers legacy in an attempt to make her look bad (which is a longstanding problem with the article). But the solution there is probably to trim or remove undue quotes, rather than formatting changes. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree w/ everything you mentioned. --IHTS (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of IHTS's changes are either neutral or improvements, but "She is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement." is probably better at the end of the lede section since it is not a title or position she actually served, but more of a summary seen in historical retrospect. The lengthy quote about chronic maturbators could use both a trim and a bit of historical context, but I am no expert on that. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ you also. The reasons I moved that sentence to the 1st para of the lede are 1) from MOS:LEDE: "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.", and 2) there was already some text qualifying notability in the 1st para, so it seemed/seems a bit redundant (and also a bit odd/out of place) to attempt to restate again at end of lede in last sentence. --IHTS (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe this is right (i.e. widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement) but we should look for a citation that says this. We might even say she was the key figure that made it happen but again we need sources. By the way, we could use a similar statement in the "legacy" section about her contribution to the spread of birth control and more than halving of the fertility rate worldwide. I haven't found a statement summing up her influence. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Doubt that this editis an improvement, as he was changing a link to a completely other subject. Beside that, his blockquotes put far to much emphasis on the quotes and give them undue importance with their higher visibility. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article text was " women's rights movement " "women's rights movement" which I did not change. A redirect exists for it, perhaps your argument is with the redirect? But I'm not sure how good that argument would be, since as you say, the article subjects are "completely [different] subjects". (One is about history of women in U.S., the other is about women's rights, same as the redirect says.) So there was nothing inappropriate about my change, the link better corresponds to the article text. WP:LINKCLARITY says to avoid misleading links, which was my editsum. Sanger is represented in both articles. But one is about history, one is about rights. --IHTS (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The original link was to History of women in the United States. What you left was women's rights movement, a redirect to Feminism. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already know that. Try reading for meaning my above post. And quit edit-warring! The issue has been explained here, w/ no objections save you & your edit warring (which also reverted my simple MoS fixes, again! -- I corrected my spelling mistake re word "self-induced" however, sorry on that). --IHTS (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still you were changing a link to another subject without any prior attempt to discussion. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC) And you can quit your bullying and false accusation. That is not helping the discussion.
 * Really? I corrected per WP:LINKCLARITY. If you advocate piping a different subject than the article text ("women's rights") and its redirect ("women's rights"), then the onus is on you to defend, not me. I explained the change above. You haven't discussed at all, you just revert-war. While also violating 1RR on an article you requested page protection for. And called me a bully on your talk. Hypocrisy much? --IHTS (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still see no discussion about changing the links.
 * And about the bullying, this is clearly not intended to smooth the discussion. Nor is a comment like Are you one of those type of editors who does knee-jerk bad-faith reverts?. Or this edit Are you intenionally being ass-holish? You want more of your non-constructive editing? For the sake of the article, I will not reply on you anymore, unless you change attitude. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't mind abusing this Talk page w/ personal-behavioral accuses, you don't mind abusing rollback to blindly undo 14 separate net changes w/o explain, you don't mind getting all ad hominem & accusing of bullying while you violate 1RR after requesting article page protection, you don't mind opening a thread then not waiting for consensus before reverting again. Attitude? Hypocritical. --IHTS (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as prominence of the blockquotes, that would be what, due to subject matter? Or length? Or both? (Interesting.) The editor responsible for those things is not me. You shouldn't bury long quotes in unblockquoted text, it is difficult to read surrounded by other body text, and I suppose the reason there is MoS about blockquoting quotes 40 or more words is that. Am in agreement w/ the other editors that the content needs to be trimmed if it is over-prominent. (Or paraphrased, or whatever.) Unless WP:IAR is used to keep excessively long quoted text. (IAR s/ be used only exceptional circumstances. It is always easier to do nothing, but how will this article have chance of ever getting promoted beyond 'C' status if no work is put in via IAR?) --IHTS (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Views on race (part 1)
Margaret Sanger received money from Nazi Germany in support of her liquidation of minority races from 1933 to December of 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:CDA6:12ED:AAB9:B0EE (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence? MFNickster (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no evidence. Her major supporter was John D. Rockefeller Jr. and other like him as our article states and his BLP notes. Jason from nyc (talk)

Read "Birth control and racial betterment" by Margaret Sanger. She quite clearly spells out the future of the black race and its liquidation by use of abortion. The Nazi connections to Margret Sanger were so close they changed the name of her killing group during WW2 to separate from those Nazi connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense and no reliable source supports this. Review the talk above and in the archives as the Black genocide conspiracy theory was refuted dozens of times. We have a whole article on it: Black genocide conspiracy theory. (edit conflict) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Birth Control and Racial Betterment" says nothing about blacks, or abortion, or Nazis. In it she even says sterilization is not adequate to reduce the misery of the "unfit" (i.e. too many unhealthy, unwanted, uneducated and impoverished children) and that birth control is preferable. If you can find even ONE reference in which she advocates abortion, I'd be very interested in seeing it. MFNickster (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Over 13 million black children have died from MArgret Sangers final solution for the black race.

This happened in 1942 just after the Nazis declared war on the USA in December of 1941. As it would be treason to accept money from Hitlers Nazis they had to change the name to get more money from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection
Rare to protect a talkpage, even temporarily. Regrettably necessary in this case. Apologies to any legitimate IP editors who wanted to contribute here; please feel free to come back when the protection expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Views on race (part 2)
In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.

Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context?

It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded."

Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.

Like Many Modern Feminists, Sanger Ignored Race and Class

Would the NAACP's house organ, Crisis Magazine, print articles by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Would Planned Parenthood publish articles penned by fetal protectionist South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham?

The articled published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W. E. B. DuBois on her "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger Ôs views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements.

What, then, is Sanger's legacy?

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has grown to an organization with 129 affiliates. It operates 875 health centers and serves about 5 million women each year. Planned Parenthood has been a leader in the fight for women's right to choose and in providing access to affordable reproductive health care for a cross-section of women. Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views.

In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around "women's issues" and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together.

Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic.

That's reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How can you suppress all the factual negative input your "site" has received???? Revisionist history - just like Papa Joe Stalin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318060012/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2157&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2157&ResourceType=Building

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

KKK supported
When Sanger died in sept of 1966 the klu klux klan declared a national day of morning. Sanger efforts to kill off the black race was way more effectivethan anything than the KKK ever did. The KKK flower arrangement was the biggest at her funeral by far.


 * This is an absurd lie sourced to neo-Nazi gossip sites, and popular among those who know all about KKK mourning days. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Margret Sanger was a 40 year member of the KKK from her May of 1926 speech to the Woman's branch of the KKK  till September 1966 at her death. She received life membership for giving the speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:BD1A:25C7:F0AE:8DEE (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No sources, because untrue. Interesting, though, how you are so well informed about internal affairs of the ku klux klan! MarkBernstein (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I should be I have a PHD in history and did my doctoral thesis on Margaret Sanger and her Nazi and KKK connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:3517:8C7A:6809:6555 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. If you did have a doctorate in History from a legitimate university, I'm confident you'd know the value of solid sources and have little trouble providing them. You'd also have noted the incongruity of these supposed connections between Sanger and the KKK, given the extremely well-documented and personal connections between Sanger and W. E. B. DuBois (one of the founders of the NAACP and author of The Souls of Black Folk), Sanger and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (later the recipient of the first Sanger Prize), and other black leaders.  You'd also be familiar with the history of this canard as a talking-point in American Neo-Nazi propaganda, and know how to disassociate yourself from that movement.  You might also know that, in English, the names of months are capitalized and that the word “efforts” is plural. An essay by Terry Krepel, former editor of Media Watch, describes ''A Right-Wing Professor’s Disinformation Campaign Against Margaret Sanger" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/a-right-wing-professors-d_b_8101086.html. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please talk about improving the article, not about our volunteer editors. Thanks! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312071953/http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-w.e.b.-dubois to http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-w.e.b.-dubois
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317231816/http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/library/topic/contraception/margaret_sanger to http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/library/topic/contraception/margaret_sanger

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Info about her kids?
This is odd. I came here to find some info about her children, but, well, nothing but the sound of crickets. (Silence.) Did I miss it? There is good stuff at https://books.google.com/books?id=vbQa8tnhr1EC&pg=PA7#v=snippet&q=children&f=false. Why isn't it being used? Sorry, I know that I am allowed to edit this article, but I am awfully busy with some other writing, so I cede the responsibility to somebody else interested in making this a better article. Yours in Wikdome, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned in the article in the section "Early life". <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing the Legacy Section?
Any thoughts on explicitly mentioning "Women of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America"? The reason why I am requesting this is that my book is referenced several times throughout the article but has no mention under the "Legacy" section. EllenChesler (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit for last line of this section:

"In spite of such controversies, Sanger continues to be regarded by historians and reproductive rights activists as a force in the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement."

Is this acceptable or do you want a footnote to specific people?Hmprescott (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Work with the African American community
"New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign...." The MSPP's interpretation of the controversial Sanger quote is widely accepted among historians and probably correct; however, the cited newsletters reveal that the MSPP is a pro-choice organization with an ideological investment in defending Sanger's legacy. For example, the first citation, "The Demonization of Margaret Sanger" repeatedly refers to anti-abortion organizations as "anti-choice groups," a pejorative epithet rejected by anti-abortion advocates. It also acknowledges that Sanger's grandson was both the president of Planned Parenthood of NYC and a member of the MSPP's advisory board at the time the newsletter was written. I suggest that the innocent explanation for Sanger's "exterminate" quote should remain, but a more neutral source should be used: e.g., http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/ or http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help with appropriate sourcing.)

In addition, the second half of the sentence, "conspiracy theorists have fraudulently attempted to exploit the quotation 'as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will'," is tendentious, and I suggest that it be deleted or carefully reworked. The source of the quote in this passage is again the MFPP. On the other hand, both Time (linked above) and the Washington Post describe the controversial Sanger sentence as "inartfully written." Sanger's "exterminate the Negro" quote is certainly capable of honest misinterpretation as well as "fraudulent exploitation." Omitting the former explanation for the misuse of Sanger's words while using the language of an ideologically slanted reference to assert the latter smacks of bias. 173.73.58.75 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * no. No contemporary misinterpreted Sanger's unambiguous and daring embrace of Civil Rights. Reliable sources agree that the misinterpretation is a right wing conspiracy theory. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree about her support of African American Civil Rights. The problem is with the discussion of her one quote, "We don’t want the 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," and the biased source for that discussion. It seems to me that present-day readers ignorant of historical context could and do misconstrue this particular quote in good faith. Her association with racist members of the contemporary eugenics movement also seems to have contributed to the fairly widespread misapprehension that Sanger herself was racist. If reliable, non-partisan sources exist for the claim that the racist interpretation of Sanger's quote was put forth by conspiracy theorists, these sources should be cited instead of MSPP, and the group that originally promulgated the conspiracy theory should be named, if possible. Claiming that the political use of this misinterpretation is strictly a right-wing phenomenon is also inaccurate, as Angela Davis was also misled by Sanger's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.58.75 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why would people be more deeply swayed by Sanger’s supposed and superficial association with some eugenics fans, than with her lifelong and extremely famous association with the founders and leaders of the Civil Rights Movement? I see no objection, however, to adding the Washington Post and Time as additional sources. Since this canard is constantly re-introduced here at frequent intervals, either coincidentally or by a systematic campaign by one or more puppets, additional sourcing might make it clear that the misinterpretation so often advocated by extremist and terrorist groups is not encyclopedic. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Re why people would be swayed - nearly everyone suffers from confirmation bias. I'll put my hand up: I'd never read enough about Sanger's biography to know of her Civil Rights connections, but as a pro-lifer, I never before questioned the popular (in my circles) sound byte that Sanger was particularly interested in suppressing black births. When I came across an article that seemed to contradict that assumption, I came to Wikipedia to get the facts. I'm extremely grateful to have been corrected, but I'm not grateful that I had to check multiple references to become convinced because Wikipedia's sole source for its rebuttal of my erroneous beliefs was full of language insulting people like me and questioning our motives. That is why I suggested the changes above. An encyclopedia can best serve the truth (and in this case defend Sanger's legacy from ignorance like mine!) if its readers feel assured that it is not written to serve a political agenda.

Once again, the MSPP references in this paragraph should be replaced, not just supplemented, by unbiased ones, and the reference to "fraud" and "conspiracy" should be deleted or supported by better sources. MSPP seems like an essentially reliable source of scholarship on Sanger's life and work, but it cannot be trusted as a source on pro-life interpretations of Sanger for the same reason that a group that refers to pro-choice people as "anti-life" cannot be trusted as a source on pro-choice advocates' motives and ideas - even if the rest of its scholarship is sound.

I don't want to derail this topic's focus on these suggested edits, but if you regard Sanger's association with the eugenics movement as "supposed and superficial," you may be suffering from some confirmation bias of your own, MarkB. The "Eugenics" section of this article makes interesting reading.67.108.126.82 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What part(s) do you consider insulting? MFNickster (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I’m familiar with the intellectual history of eugenics, 67; in the future, kindly restrict your commentary to proposed edits, not editors. The Wikipedia article already includes many sources that confirm Sanger’s deep and abiding involvement with the civil rights movement, but you are free to add additional sources if you like; they are not difficult to find. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the cited MSPP articles repeatedly refers to anti-abortion groups as "anti-choice." This term is offensive and inaccurate: pro-life advocates obviously do not oppose all choice, just the particular choice to procure an abortion. The "anti-choice" epithet is used by some in the pro-choice movement to frame the debate in their preferred terms and to characterize pro-life advocates as inimical to women's freedom. No pro-life group accepts this term, and organizations that use it sacrifice their credibility as impartial evaluators of the claims and motives of pro-life groups.


 * The second reference from the MSPP is much more even-handed and avoids inflammatory language and accusations. It also refrains from accusations of fraud, conspiracy theory, and intentional deception on the part of those who have misinterpreted Sanger's words. I'd be OK with keeping this particular MSPP reference, but it does not support the fraud and conspiracy claims of this paragraph, which I still believe should be removed.


 * (OP here - I finally made an account.) Madesci (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article could not be any more biased than it already is. Thankfully, the Polish wikipedia entry about Margaret Sanger is more reliable. May I aks where is the quotation about the "human weed"? Even if it appeared, am I right to suppose that someone will make a convoluted attempt to rationalise this phrasing and attest--with the aid of equally partisan MSPP--that this sort of narration was prevalent at the time and she was, despite all evidence, inculpable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.121.210 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this quotation? "We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds. In a home where there are too many children in proportion to the living space, the air and sunlight, the children are usually overcrowded and underfed. They are a constant burden on their mother's overtaxed strength and the father's earning capacity. Such homes cannot be gardens in any sense of the word." (Radio WFAB Syracuse, 29 February 1924) One place where you can find that quote is on Wikiquote. However, since it has nothing to do with race, it's irrelevant to this discussion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding work with the African American Community, would including material on Martin Luther King, Jr's receipt of the Margaret Sanger Award be appropriate here? http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/family-planning-special-and-urgent-concern  Hmprescott (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

husband
Was her husband William Sanger Jewish ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C40:14C:7D5C:5D40:2CF:132 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Atheist
Sanger was a well known atheist. This is not even mentioned. <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i> • <i style="color: Green">Talk</i> 01:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidence? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Annie Laurie Gaylor's book Women Without Superstition discusses it. So have several people in public lectures such as Jennifer Hecht. Also, many of the writings by Sanger were particularly anti-religious. She even coined the phrase "No gods, no masters". If that isn't a blatant statement of atheism, I don't know what is, haha! <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i> • <i style="color: Green">Talk</i> 02:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sanger Abortion Connection in the lede
This statement is in the lede: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion, although Planned Parenthood did not begin providing abortions until 1970, after Sanger had already died.

As no legal abortions could be done prior to Roe V Wade, this statement is a red herring and seeks to discredit the accusers by throwing up a false statement.

A more accurate statement pulled from the information within the current text which defines Sanger's espoused anti-abortion philosophy, would be something like: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. However, Sanger clearly drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was staunch anti-abortionist through the bulk of her career."

Opinions? Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * This changed text seems correct to me, except that I'd suggest replacing "staunch anti-abortionist" (which I think overstates the case) to simply "opposed to abortion". Another quibble: legal abortion in certain American states (such as Hawaii and New York) was possible before Roe v Wade.  Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and clarification. I think all mention of when it was approved is a moot point - as your clarification further points out. I'll post a revision of that sentence. Ckruschke (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sanger's early support of abortion
Hi. I've reverted your removal of the following


 * Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights.

which you suggested was unsupported by the source, and I wanted to explain why. The source says:


 * In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days. (p271)

I think this is fairly clear support for the statement in our article. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't found anything in The Woman Rebel specifically "supporting abortion rights," though she seems to have been opposed to illegal abortion mostly because of the danger to the mother.
 * Here is a search link for the term 'abortion' in the Margaret Sanger Papers project:
 * http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/search.php?subject=abortion
 * MFNickster (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that the source supports the claim in the article... I don't know if it's a reference to that period alone, or to specific material published in TWR. However, this sort of thing does occur in her early writings:
 * Woman's experiences must be many and varied, but above all she must assume control over her own body that she alone shall decide her needs and if motherhood is among them--let her accept it, but if not--then let her reject it at any cost.
 * which may be what Chesler was getting at. Later, she seemed to vehemently distance herself from that line of thought. Basie (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'd prefer something a little less vague. MFNickster (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is zero evidence that she ever supported abortion. In fact, there is much evidence that she opposed it, highlighting the fact that birth control would reduce abortion rates. It is misleading to include such a claim in an encyclopedia article about her. Until significant evidence is presented, I am removing the claim. If significant evidence comes to light that she significantly supported abortion, then the claim (supported by evidence) can be added. Gerntrash (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact, here is Sanger in ""The Woman Rebel" and The Fight for Birth Control," [Apr 1916], where she specifically addresses the issue: Margaret Sanger, ""The Woman Rebel" and The Fight for Birth Control," [Apr 1916 . ] Gerntrash (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I read it wrong, but I read that as if Sanger is deeply concerned with illegal (and substandard) abortions and the fact that there is no legal, safe option.
 * During fourteen years experience as a trained nurse, I found that a great percentage of women's diseases were due to ignorance of the means to prevent conception. I found that quackery was thriving on this ignorance, and that thousands of abortions were being performed each year-- principally upon the women of the working class. Since the laws deter reliable and expert surgeons from performing abortions, working women have always been thrown into the hands of the incompetent, with fatal results. The deaths from abortions mount very high.
 * I do not see any objection against abortion on its own. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, are we discussing the proposition that Margaret Sanger was at first supportive of abortion, then later changed to be hostile of it, or are we discussing the proposition that Margaret Sanger was hostile abortion at all? This thread started with the former. If we are transitioning to the latter, then there is much more evidence for her hostility to abortion per se. I'm worried about scope creep here. FecundityBlog (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly interested in what the source says. I presume none of us here are Sanger scholars of any note, so as per usual for Wikipedia our job is to summarise the available reliable literature. So for me, the question is not "do I believe Sanger ever supported abortion?", which strays into OR territory, but rather "does a reliable source say she ever supported abortion?" This is why I reverted the removal of the claim from the article and brought it here for discussion. This article attracts many changes from editors who hold strong views on one side or another, so I think it's important to do a fair bit of WP:BRD to attempt to maintain neutrality. Basie (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Good. Let us stay on topic with the original proposition and avoid scope creep. FecundityBlog (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the claim in the article that Sanger supported abortion rights early in her career as inconsistent with my knowledge of her views. I'm actually at the library right now about to check out the Chesler book to read the cited pages. My plan was to read the Chesler sections cited, examine the alleged support for the claim, and discuss the evidence here, then possibly remove the claim from the main article. It looks like Gerntrash beat me to removal of the claim from the main article. I'll continue with my original plan because it dovetails with an article I'm writing about Margaret Sanger's views on abortion. FWIW, I do think it is inaccurate to claim that Sanger supported abortion early in her career, then changed her opinion, based on what I've read thus far. I'll return with more details once I've read Chesler and made more progress in my research for my article. I may be surprised and reverse my tentative opinion. FecundityBlog (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have read the cited pages of Chesler. Pages 12–14 do not discuss Margaret Sanger's views on abortion. I went back and read the whole introduction chapter to be sure. Pages 81–88 also do not discuss Margaret Sanger's views on abortion. I went back and skimmed all of chapter 4 "The Personal Is Political" chapter to check again. Only page 271 mentions Margaret Sanger's views on abortion. This is the sentence quoted above. The full text of its paragraph is reproduced below.


 * Many doctors also feared, or perhaps themselves shared, the public's still common confusion between contraception and abortion. Health professionals, especially in cities like New York, were increasingly concerned about their inability to reduce the country's appallingly high rates of maternal mortality, and they blamed the problem in part on the numbers of women dying from complications of illegal or self-induced abortion. In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days.


 * The claim that Margaret Sanger endorsed abortion in her Woman Rebel days has no citation so verification necessarily ends there.


 * I don't think this source supports the sentence in the main article. At the very least, the citation should be amended to only refer to page 271 and the text of the article should be rewritten along the lines of "Early in her career when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel, Sanger endorsed abortion, but later reversed this endorsement."


 * I think the cited source is so weakly in support of the claim in the main article that I would be amenable to the claim being removed, but I don't see a clear case for this given Wikipedia policy. We have an off-hand, uncited comment, but one made in a published and thus reliable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) source. FecundityBlog (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a few days and no further discussion has happened. I'm going to go ahead and make the modifications I outlined as "at the very least" above. FecundityBlog (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As the claim is such an important one and as the evidence for the claim is weak at best (as FecundityBlog has delineated and confirmed what I originally said) and as the evidence against the claim is great, I have reverted the article to remove the claim. If strong evidence emerges to support the claim that she ever supported abortion, then that claim can be reinstated with reliable evidence cited. Gerntrash (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)