Unbelievable.  She says a woman of means will always have access to medical services and will always be able to control her bodily autonomy, and it flies right over his head that the same rights are denied to women without money.  We are so inured to the notion that only the rich deserve health care or rights in general, that Gershon has to jump straight to eugenics instead of granting rights to all women.

It’s only right that the rich do as they please.  Poor women have to give birth, regardless of desire, means, or health.

But it’s how everything works, and rightfully so.  Economic concerns are merely masking the real concern, which is stealing the precious bodily fluids of the affluent so that poverty scientists can figure out the secrets of success and, barring that, feast on their toned, tanned flesh while converting their Armani suits and Gucci pumps into tribal wear.

“But there is another view of the disadvantaged found on the left (and not only on the left). Instead of especially valuing the experience of the disadvantaged, some hope that public policy can thin their ranks. This is no longer pursued through the eugenic decrees that Holmes admired but through the advocacy of Medicaid abortions.”

Advocacy of Medicaid abortions hasn’t “thinned the ranks” of the disadvantaged for decades (except for the ranks of poor women who are unable to jump through the hoops meant to discourage them from seeking relief from unwanted pregnancy).  But things like standing by while New Orleans drowns have certainly done so — and in the case of “cleansing” New Orleans, assholes like Gerson probably cheered that on, at least until it looked unseemly enough to temper their public comments.

” It is a defining question for modern liberalism: Are these men and women “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” or are they citizens worthy of justice and capable of contribution?”

Um, Mr. Gerson sir, most current (admitted) “modern” (ha!) “conservatives” are highly focused on “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”, and don’t give a good goddamn whether they are “citizens worthy of justice and capable of contribution”. 

Liberals in America want to help the poor and disadvantaged get the support and resources they need to improve their lives, and hopefully no longer remain stuck in the trap of being poor and disadvantaged.

Conservatives just want the poor and disadvantaged to go away — either through lack of health care, street violence, homelessness, the plagues of crystal meth and crack cocaine, police violence, or the shear misery of unending, grinding, poverty.  And if they live close enough to allow a hurricane to do “god’s work”, that works too…

The irony here is the faux concern for people of low income most likely masks a willingness to use relentless child-bearing to keep people from clawing their way out of poverty.  It’s absolutely true that early 20th century proponents of birth control like Margaret Sanger both believed that having fewer children would help poor people and that society as a whole would benefit from “thinning the ranks”.  The latter claim has been rejected by progressives in the long march of history, but the former has been solidified as a theory.

Indeed, you can look at women’s own behavior for evidence.  Given the choice, women will not have more children than they can reasonably provide for without sacrificing their own ability to take care of themselves.  60% of women getting abortions already have children, and a major reason they’re getting abortions is so that the existing children don’t have to compete for resources. 

I don’t think most conservatives sincerely believe that more is always better, not in the slightest.  Most behave as if they believe—-correctly—-that it’s better to have a few children you can take really good care of than a dozen that you can’t take care of, because there’s not enough hours in the day.  That they are unwilling to extend to the poor the privilege of investing a lot in a few children so that those children have a better shot at life tells you they’re not concerned about people of few means, but actually that they see mandatory childbirth as a way for families living in poverty to stay stuck in it.

WTF is Gerson talking about?  Until today I thought Jonah Goldberg was the dumbest right-wing bloviator in print. 

It turns out Jonah is merely the least coherent.

On this same absurd talking point, Gerson follows Jonah Goldberg and Ben Domenech.  When it comes to populations that we don’t want to have too many of, those three would be a pretty good start for culling the herd.

I was anitwar during the late 60s.  I watched the southern marches against racism.  I learned from a nice woman exactly what sexism is. 

I came back from the Nam, crazy.  If you want instant violence, have some one rank someone else around me by race, religion, sex, and marital status.  I will use the heaviest object that I can to get your attention.  When you are down, I will explain to you slowly exactly why you got hit, then I will beat you unconsciousness.  You may never convert to human, but you will stop and check around you before you make another statement like that for the rest of your life.