Oh man. The 3rd sentence there hasn’t aged well.

There is no doubt whatsoever about where the hate is. – The Wellesley protesters are not only childish, but crude and ignorant. It is disturbing in the extreme that this kind of rude behavior is tolerated. Sad time for “Higher Education”. ~

“Elrod also touched upon the anti-abortion movements’ eugenic origins as a method of ensuring a continued white majority in America. If this is meant to describe Students for Life of America (SLA) it is a lie; it does however give a good description of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. She wrote: “We do not want 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.” I’ll leave it to the reader to interpret the statement.

“I don’t understand why the administration approved this particular speaker,” Meier said. Of course the article makes it perfectly clear: “The following day, President Paula Johnson sent a school-wide email addressing concerns about Hawkins. President Johnson shared that, although she does not personally agree with Hawkins’ views, the College would not be canceling the event.” It would be scary to think that free speech is only for those who have the power to reject the ideas of others.

“A simple Google search would tell you she is not a safe person to have on this campus and would really cause mention (sic) harm to a lot of our sibs and our physical health as well.” From the tone of the article I believe that The Wellesley News would be one of the sites found.

The hate ascribed to SLA seems to appear in the defacing of the poster shown, in the quotes given and possibly the writer of the article.

“… she … would really cause mention (sic) harm to a lot of our sibs and our physical health as well.” Let me reiterate and expand on part of my first paragraph. By design, an abortion results in the unnatural destruction of human life.

If anything, the anti-abortion movement has anti-eugenic origins while the pro-abortion movement is motivated by desire for eugenic capabilities…as evidenced by the forthcoming SCOTUS re-evaluation of Roe on the reasoning that a right to abortion for any reason permits eugenically motivated abortions. In addition, a disproportionate number of aborted babies are non-white, thus preventing the replacement of a white majority with a non-white majority.

I presume the assertion that the anti-abortion movement is motivated by eugenic objectives follows from the idiotic reasoning laid bare in https://vtdigger.org/letters_to_editor/abortion-isnt-eugenics/. Shifting the focus of the debate to the realized outcomes of forced-birth is a clever tactic but still yields a fallacious argument.

Do some real research before you pen your next article instead of slurping up the manure your kook professors spoon feed to you.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/06/abortion-as-an-instrument-of-eugenics/
https://www.hli.org/resources/the-difference-one-racist-made-margaret-sangers-world/

P.S. A good way to prevent forced-birth is to not get pregnant.