Eugenics was born in America at the beginning of the 20th century and reached fruition under Hitler. It's the idea that human genetics can be improved by the state through selective breeding.
Kitty Werthmann, who lived under Hitler's rule in Austria, related what she saw there in the late 1930s to a Tea Party crowd Friday night. She said that the mentally ill were executed and that non-Aryan women were subjected to forced abortions. At the time they didn't know about the mass execution of Jews in concentration camps, but it was the logical extension of Hitler's crazed plan to purify the German race.
She warns that she sees the roots of the same tree growing in the United States.
Eugenics is a platform in Progressivism, and early 20th century leftist political philosophy.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of the pro-abortion legalization organization known as Planned Parenthood, said, "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Progressive hero George Bernard Shaw wrote, "The only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man."
Hitler, leader of the National Socialists (Nazis) took that advice to heart.
In the 1970s, President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, went so far as to seemingly approve of using sterilants in public drinking water to control population growth.
State-sponsored eugenics isn't in America yet. But we are certainly handing the government tools to accomplish it if some radical ever gained power in this country. And, as Werthmann points out, totalitarianism happens slowly and gradually.
For example, consider this scenario. My wife and I are expecting a baby; we're in the first trimester. The state of California gives a "highly recommended" blood test at this stage in the pregnancy to determine if the fetus is at risk for Down's Syndrome or other diseases. If the test comes back positive, we will be educated on our "options" to terminate the pregnancy. We said no thanks, it won't affect our decision either way. But it was pushed and pushed.
Why does the state have an interest in our pregnancy? Because if something is wrong and we go through the pregnancy, the state may be on the hook financially through social programs.
Is it far fetched to imagine then, in a world with universal healthcare where the government is on the hook for every medical cost, that they would attempt to limit those costs? Since they are already in the business of doing blood tests, they could determine which babies are at a higher risk of diabetes, or cancer, or heart disease. It is outside the realm of possibility that one day they might assess a high fee on the parents to continue with the pregnancy? As government nears bankruptcy, could it happen someday that these pregnancies would be prevented from being carried through?
We are far removed from that scenario now. But we are certainly at risk of it if we continue heading in this direction and ignoring the warning of eyewitnesses to history like Kitty Werthmann.