(Ezekiel Loseke, Headline USA) A Massachusetts Democratic Committee Chair argued that killing disabled children in the womb is good because it saves tax dollars, echoing the eugenic arguments of past abortion supporters.
Michael Hugo, the chair in question, made the argument on Feb. 7 as he was attacking pro-life pregnancy centers at a City Council meeting in Framingham, Mass., according to LifeNews.
Hugo claimed to be speaking on behalf of the Framingham Democratic Committee when he spoke on the issue.
“Our fear is that if an unqualified sonographer misdiagnoses a heart defect, an organ defect, spina bifida, that becomes a very local issue because our school budget will have to absorb the cost of a child in special education, supplying lots and lots of special services to children who were born with the defect,” he said.
Hugo had thought about these comments thoroughly, as he had sent an email outline his position to other council members and a news outlet.
“As for those who say that our council has no business dealing with a ‘state issue,’ we ask if the state is going to cover the medical costs for a fetus that had sound medical reason to be terminated?” his email read.
“Is the state going to cover the costs of special education for a down’s syndrome affected child? Is the state going to pay for the extraordinary medical expense of a child with an atrial septal defect? How much does Framingham’s Public School Department pay for unreimbursed special needs school transportation, specialized education and durable supplies?”
Hugo, apparently, was afraid of the implications of his statement, as he begged reporters to not cover it.
“To publish this would be compounding the mistake I made and would be hurting additional people by calling additional attention to my regretful statement,” he said to sources covering the event.
Hugo’s eugenic comments fit well within the progressive political thought. Progressive Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes sounded just like Hugo in his infamous Supreme Court Decision of Buck v. Bell.
Holmes justified forcibly sterilizing an intellectually disabled woman in that case.
“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind,” he wrote. “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, agreed with Hugo and Holmes.
“Their lives are hopeless repetitions,” she wrote. “All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.”