Should US Be Able to Help Women Around the World?

One of Bernie Sanders’ talking points is that women around the world have the right to have abortions and use family planning methods.

He is being smeared as a “eugenicist” for these common sense observations.

“And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. The Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd. I think especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it’s something I very, very strongly support.”

Makes sense to me.

Reproductive Choice does not equal Eugenics.

The ones who sit around sniffing Sharpies don’t care though.


If you agree with the article’s premise that the overpopulation problem is a myth, I suppose it’s easy to characterize Sanders as a eugenicist.

Personally, I’d rather he talked about how to help women here in America. There is a lot that needs to be done. And it isn’t being done. Maybe Bernie should worry about issues here in the US.


I think he is. Climate change is global, not national.

Bernie had 4 children.

He directed his comments at black and brown populations.

Is overpopulation of white europeans an issue?

1 Like

Both things can be done.

We already spend money on NGO’s. The lifting of restrictions that bar them from talking about reproductive choice doesn’t cost a penny more.

Yeah, nothing about his platform helps women here in America. Not universal healthcare, universal childcare, publicly funded college, universal pre-k, federally funded family leave, etc.


Who does that idiot think is going to pay for all that ■■■■■

With birth control only, not abortion

I really don’t think the linked source is accurate.

Mr. Sanders, as quoted, seems to advocate birth control first and foremost in developing world countries— “where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have”. Why, then, is he being depicted as a baby killing eugenicist?

If his idea of helping the impoverished through barrier & hormonal methods that prevent unwanted conception in the first place, what is the problem?


Well, he does talk about that stuff. A lot.

In this case, he was specifically asked about this narrow subject at some sort of town hall. At least he specifically answered the question and didn’t just automatically divert to something else.

Anyway, I will never vote for him, wish he wasn’t running, and he won’t be the nominee.


American women have every privilege from 100% coverage for birth control and preventive care in health insurance to affirmative action in university admissions and jobs they might not otherwise get.

I agree with Mr. Sanders if his objective in the developing world is to prevent unwanted conceptions.

It’s literally not an issue. Their birth rates are going down.

1 Like

giving woman more freedom is good thing.

More power to him.

He and his wife probably wanted & paid for them.

He is addressing the issue of women in developing world countries who want to control their fertility.

1 Like

Myself, as a straight white male of European descent will soon be marginalized to a point of irrelevance, so we should definitely vote in our best interests, the rest be damned.

We could easily get 400 billion a year from cutting the defense budget.

Raise taxes on those making over 1 million a month.

Put a AMT on corporations making over 500 million annually.

Ivanka has begun an initiative to actually help women around the world.


1 Like

So me.