Chinese citizen Pan Chunyan's baby was born dead, "black and blue all over," after government thugs grabbed her from a grocery store and forced her to have an abortion. According to Monday's New York Times:

Pan Chunyan was grabbed from her grocery store when she was almost eight months pregnant with her third child. Men working for a local official locked her up with two other women, and four days later brought her to a hospital and forced her to put her thumbprint on a document saying she had agreed to an abortion. A nurse injected her with a drug.

China's "one-child policy" is something that our progressive vice president "fully understands" and won't second guess.

Addressing social and budgetary challenges faced by the U.S. and China in the wake of respective population booms, Biden told his audience, "Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family."

He added that the problem he had with the policy is that it is unsustainable in that retirees are supported by fewer workers.  Not that it's pure evil, mind you, just that they shouldn't kill quite so many people that it impacts pensions.

Naturally, the Obama Administration issued a "clarification," saying that it "opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies" and the vice president finds them "repugnant." A Biden spokeswoman said that he was arguing that the one-child policy is "unsustainable" and therefore was criticizing it. Even if she's right, that means he only thought to criticize it on public finance ground and not on moral grounds.

Clarifications notwithstanding, the attempt to aggressively limit population growth is a hallmark of the Left--not just with Communists and National Socialists, but with progressives.

Margaret Sanger, one of the early leaders of the Progressive Movement, wrote that we should "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to the offspring." She also believed that "the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Sanger's "no-child policy" didn't stop Hillary Clinton from saying she admired her "enormously" when receiving the Margaret Sanger award from the country's number one abortion provider. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton said she is a progressive in the style of the "progressive era at the beginning of the 20^th century"--Sanger's era--one "that we need to bring back to American politics."

What is that number-one abortion provider? Sanger's Planned Parenthood, an organization so sacred to progressives that they declare war on any group that dares to challenge it. Please note at this point that the organization overseeing China's one-child policy is the "National Population and Family Planning Commission." If nothing else, progressives are great and giving bad things happy names.

Sometimes they're more blunt. President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, floated the idea of forced abortions, forced sterilizations and government oversight of human population levels.

In a 1977 book, he and two other environmentalists wrote, "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

The trio discussed possible government programs to regulate the population.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

That's not far off from Pan Chunyan's forced-abortion injection.

Holdren's book continues with advocating a two-child policy:

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

Are modern Progressive Democrats calling for forced population control in this country? No, but as Biden says, maybe they wouldn't second-guess it.

So far we've seen that the number one progressive in the United States, President Obama, saw fit to add to his administration a scientist who one advocated forced sterilizations. The number two progressive, Hillary Clinton, greatly admired a woman who advocated forced sterilizations, and said her entire political ideology is rooted in bringing back the movement that first championed population control in this country. The woman that she and other progressives identify as one of their movement's founders, Margaret Sanger, laid the framework for the country's biggest abortion provider and it remains one of the most fiercely protected organizations on the Left.

While they are unlikely to call for forced birth control anytime soon, is it a stretch to imagine that one day they may attempt to control population growth with a penalizing tax? Many taxpayers already get a credit for having children--how long before progressives flip that around and impose an additional tax on, say, any child after the third. Or perhaps, they can merely provide insurance coverage for the first two children and it's a 100% out of pocket cost after that? On the surface, they could make a pretty convincing argument: Now that government is in charge of health care, we all share each other's burden. Is it fair to ask people with no children to help pay for couples that have six? Shouldn't people kick in a little more if they want to have an "excessive" number of children?

Now that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said that the government has the power to penalize any behavior with taxation, won't taxation as a form of birth control be the next logical step in the century-old progressive campaign to limit populations?

President Obama's Health Care Act and the subsequent Supreme Court stamp-of-approval clears any legal obstacles to the longstanding progressive vision of government control over "family planning". Forget about forced abortions or sterilizations--why go to all that trouble when it's legally possible now to just impose massive financial penalties on people that have "too many" children? 

It's one thing to give too much information on abortion, as a pro-life group recently did when it displayed four-foot-tall pictures of aborted fetuses at Moorpark College, and it's another to pretend like abortion is completely benign.

Sadly, we live at a time when such upsetting tactics make the news instead of the millions of deaths of children at the hands of their parents and doctors, but somewhere along the way people lost the ability to think critically.

A great example can be found in the comments section of the Star's coverage of the story. "Sunflowers" wrote:

I as a woman should have a right to make a decision as to whether an abortion is right for me. It is my body.. If my child is deformed, not developing right, has serious health issues, I should have a right to end that fetuses life. Also, in the event of a rape, I should be able to end a pregency.. That should be no one elses decision

That's a typical response from the pro-choice crowd, but it's a hollow argument that's easily destroyed. The writer concentrates on health issues and rape as a justification for abortion of a child--note that she admits it's a child and not merely tissue or a clump of cells as abortionists would have you believe.

The major problem with her argument is that the vast majority of abortions aren't for health reasons and aren't due to rape--more often, children 's lives are ended for the mother's convenience.

Let me say that again. Mothers are ending the lives of their children--her word--for convenience. By the millions. And that's not a big story for some reason, but it is when people show graphic images of the dead babies.

Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. "Sunflowers" must believe most of those are due to rape and catastrophic health reasons, but as I said, critical thinking skills aren't encountered all that often these days.

Common sense alone should tell you that something else is at play here, but here are the facts that just blow "Sunflowers" out of the water.

The facts show that 92% of women cite "social" or "other" reasons for having their abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute tells us that three-fourths of women terminate their unborn children because they can't afford it, three-fourths say it would interfere with work or school, and half don't want to be a single parent.

Well, I guess they should kill their child then, to use "Sunflowers" word again.

What all the facts tell us is that the phony heath/rape/incest argument conveniently ignores why 9 in 10 women have abortions.