MSNBC Panel Suggests Racist Motivation by Pro-lifers, Goal of ‘Reproducing Whiteness’

Brad Wilmouth, Media Research Center, June 17, 2013

On Saturday’s Melissa Harris-Perry on MSNBC, substitute anchor Ari Melber hosted a panel of liberals fretting over Republican efforts to restrict abortion, with one guest even theorizing that Republicans are motivated by a racist desire to prevent white women from having abortions as a way of “reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege.”

Melber seemed quite accepting of University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet’s preposterous idea of pro-lifers being motivated by racism as he responded:

And you’re talking not only then about a potentially religious view about life, you’re talking about social control. I mean, that goes to some of these programs that are different than just necessarily a position that people disagree with. They also say, no, we need to go into the doctor’s room, we need to tell women under threat of, as I mentioned, criminalization of their doctor’s conduct or as a prerequisite to doing anything, how they should analyze their medical care, whether to have an ultrasound. Do you think that is a piece of it, too, the social control, Raul?

Without noting that a disproportionately large percentage of women who have abortions are minorities, Assistant Professor Tillet theorized that Republicans are in a “panic” because of the growing number of minorities and characterized “women of color” as being “caught in the fray” when Republicans try to restrict abortion. Tillet:

Well, I think, the Census just released data, so part of it is the changing racial demographics in the United States. For the first time in American history, children born under the age of five are racial, the majority of them are racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.

So I think that there’s a kind of moral panic, a fear of the end of whiteness that we’ve been seeing a long time in that I think, you know, Obama’s ascension as President kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. And so I think this is one response to that sense that there’s a decreasing white majority in the country and that women’s bodies and white women’s bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. And so I think it’s just a kind of clamping down on women’s bodies, in particular white women’s bodies, even though women of color are really caught in the fray.

As the group discussed the issue, there notably was an image of a giant uterus with the GOP elephant symbol inside it displayed on screen behind them.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Aborticide racial statistics are all over the place.

    What I do know for sure is that both this MSNBC theory and the Freakonomics theory can’t both be true at the same time.

    • Puggg

      Race/Ethnicity

      Among the 29 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2009, non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.7% and 35.4%, respectively), whereas Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other races category accounted for smaller percentages (20.6% and 6.3%, respectively). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (140 abortions per 1,000 live births), whereas non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (477 abortions per 1,000 live births). Among the 24 areas that reported by race/ethnicity every year during 2007–2009, abortion rates decreased for all racial/ethnic groups. The abortion rate decreased 7% for non-Hispanic white women (from 9.1 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 8.5 in 2009) and 6% for Hispanic women (from 20.5 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 19.3 in 2009) but only 1% for non-Hispanic black women (from 34.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2007 to 34.2 in 2009). In contrast, abortion ratios decreased among non-Hispanic white women but not among women in any other racial/ethnic group. For non-Hispanic white women, the abortion ratio decreased 3% (from 143 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 138 in 2009), whereas the abortion ratio increased 4% for non-Hispanic black women (from 481 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 501 in 2009) and 2% for Hispanic women (from 192 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2007 to 195 in 2009). Data also are reported separately by race and by ethnicity for 2009 and for 2000–2009.

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w

      I added the bold.

      If these stats are good, then the MSNBC theory has to be wrong and the Freakonomics theory (abortion reduces crime) could be right.

      • http://www.paradisegone.com/ r j p

        … non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (477 abortions per 1,000 live births).

        There is some reason for this. If I had to guess it would be that a birth every so often allows them to remain on welfare, but they don’t want to have more than one newborn at a time because they would find that to be too much work before they can unload it on Head Start or public schools.

        • HJ11

          How can we encourage them to up that ratio to 1,000 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies?

          Maybe we can produce ads of young Blacks all having fun together–like ads for cigarettes–with slogans such as: “Birth control and abortions let us have fun!”

      • Romulus

        We don’t have to be scientists to figure that one out. Less groids, less crime. Cause and effect.

    • Romulus

      I’ve read both. Of course,we know who the authors are. It really p!$$#d me off his southern demagoguery monologue in the first book. I loathe what abortion has done to our communities, but if it helps us ,by “helping them”. I’ll say hurray. Im more pro-life choice. If you don’t want the consequences, keep your d@m legs closed. In the instances of rape and incest, im all for it. Im sick of fools punching out children that Mr. and Mrs John q. Taxpayer end up on the hook for. How about cropdusting an aerosol contraceptive over the hood and barrios.

    • me

      Freakonomics was a great book! If Bantus want to lead the country in abortions, I’m okay with that. Latinos are second in the abortion race? Heck, yes! If the liberal Marxists are too stupid to realize this fact, I’m okay with that, too. Let’s keep this little factoid away from them, okay?

      • Romulus

        Agreed. Let’s start using our formidable intelligence quotients strategically.
        I love my hobbies, yet im becoming more active to the cause. Im tired of being the silent majority.

    • JohnEngelman

      I favored the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision until I read Freakonomics. According to the authors, the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 was the main reason for the decline in the rate of violent crime rate since 1991.

      The kind of females who are most likely to have abortions are also most likely to give birth to boy babies who grow up to become violent street criminals. They are likely to be poorly educated, unmarried, unemployed, unemployable, and of low intelligence.

      A potential mugger who was aborted in 1994 would have been eighteen in 1992.

      Now I favor free abortion on demand, and an end to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

      I wish the ghetto thugs who mugged me had been aborted.

  • David Ashton

    Of course, the converse is the problem. Abortion is encouraged among whites by those who favour reduced reproduction of the Evil Race. It is quite common for our enemies to anticipate counteraction in various ways by this sort of propaganda, which is of course self-revealing in motivation.

  • HJ11

    No abortions for Whites. Free abortions for non-Whites. Seems like a sound policy to me.

    • Stentorian_Commentator

      True. Like the blogger at Unamusement Park, I’m pro-life for whites, pro-abortion for everyone else. The mental poison that has been implanted in the minds of white women fills me with dread. Too many are convinced that they must have the right to kill off their own children in the womb. That’s why I’d recommend any GOP candidate to emphasize immigration control/enforcement, trade balance (tariffs if necessary), and ending affirmative action. I think the GOP’s hope, and ours, is that if they can get enough white guys excited about their platform, and harp on those issues and not social issues, then the white women might be influenced to join them. Still, at this point, that’s a slim hope.

      • The__Bobster

        White women are less likely to abort their children if they see a future for them.

      • Eddie Lutz

        Think of all those millions of blacks aborted. Now imagine how many lives have been saved as a result due to prevented murders, drug overdoses, rape-traumatized suicides. It’s at least a wash.

      • Sherman_McCoy

        Give generously to your nearest inner-city Planned Parenthood.

        • Romulus

          I we did that on the radar, whoa-look out! Rachel Maddie would be all over it like cheese on a matzoh.

    • Funruffian

      We need to take up Hanoi Jane on her offer that she would pay for any woman’s abortion. Let’s send Hanoi (Traitor) Jane a few pregnant Shaniquas, Jewannas, Tyreeces, etc. After which, these She-gorilla incubators can get a lifetime pass for free abortions for their sistahs.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    There are black pro-life activists who complain that abortion is disproportionately used by blacks. They explicitly want to keep blackness reproducing. I wonder if MSNBC talking heads would find that offensive? Or are only Whites fit for genocide due to our uniquely evil traits?

    • The__Bobster

      While that is true, it’s because Nubian princesses use abortion as their only method of birf control. Thus, they have more tootsie rolls to abort.

  • John Smith

    It’s pure ignorance, of course. Imago Dei has always been a central theme of Christianity. It has zero to do with racism. But then racism is just a word used for most everything by the left today. If you don’t believe women should murder their unborn babies, then you’re racist. If you don’t ride public transportation, you’re racist. If you don’t like skittles, you’re racist. Etc…

    • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

      As someone who has no choice but to ride public transportation, I can guarantee that if you’re White and live around a significant black or brown population, riding public transport will make you a “racist”. Your eyes get pried open, bit by bit, until reality becomes undeniable. It’s no accident that the most liberal parts of the USA are those with the fewest NAMs.

  • MekongDelta69

    Yeah – too bad, brain dead, anti-white, MSNBC leftists…

    • The__Bobster

      I’m sure PMSNBC types abort most of their unborn children. Fortunately for us.

  • Jefferson

    [QUOTE] substitute anchor Ari Melber hosted a panel of liberals fretting over
    Republican efforts to restrict abortion, with one guest even theorizing
    that Republicans are motivated by a racist desire to prevent white women
    from having abortions as a way of “reproducing whiteness, white
    supremacy, white privilege.”[/QUOTE]

    All of the anti-abortion billboard ads and bus stop ads I see in my city show a picture of a Bantu baby along with a message saying that we must save babies who look like that from being aborted.

    The vast majority of the anti-abortion movement in the United States are NOT made up of racially aware Whites.

    • MekongDelta69

      Just fyi

      If you want to use quotes, don’t put: [QUOTE]xyz[/QUOTE].

      Use and the equivalent at the end. (No spaces.)
      [It just depends if AmRen/Disqus supports it.]

  • anarchyst

    Ari Melber . . . surely one knows that this dual-nationality hack holds his allegiance to the “tribe” and pushes his “multiculturalism” and “diversity” screed on us “goy” . . . Nothing to see here, move along. . .

  • ncpride

    If the time ever comes when there is a concentrated effort to reverse our declining birthrate to save ourselves, no doubt these nutters will be howling like banshees. How dare we not die out graciously!

  • Puggg

    I could train a Macaw parrot to be an MSNBC host:

    “Bawk. Racism!”

    “Bawk. White supremacy!”

    “Bawk. White privilege!”

    • blight14

      Isn’t the term ‘white supremacy’ redundant?

  • http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/ 1776is1984

    who even watches MSNBC anymore? for real?

  • Spartacus

    “…Salamisha Tillet…”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    That’s where I stopped reading the article. Anybody named Salamisha will never utter a single idea that actually makes sense.

    • Non Humans

      Off to the shredder with that resume.

  • libertarian1234

    It’s a beautiful example of pure, unadulterated black hate that is rife within the black communities all across the country.

    But, even worse than hate, it is an example of raw black stupidity, which reveals this woman to be so dim-witted she connects unrelated ideas with one another that have no common thread.

    I hope Penn. University is proud that she was highlighted on O’Reilly’s Factor in front of millions of people who now have a disturbing example of what an AA hire looks like by a university who regards color of more importance than qualifications.

  • Eddie Lutz

    Liberia: No white privilege, no white racism, no white supremacy.
    Let’s start a repatriation fund.

  • MarcusTrajanus

    Notice the dehumanizing way they talk about us, it’s not White people, it’s “whiteness”. It’s not a type of human being they want to exterminate, it’s an idea.

  • AllSeeingEyeSpy

    Ya gotta admit. . in Amerika, something about this makes a bit of backward-sense. It could be completely true. Women of color are much more likely to abort babies, yet ‘racists’, white racists, are against abortion because they think this lowers white numbers. Since everyone believe that which is the opposite of the truth, it does make a lot of sense in a way.

  • Funruffian

    MSNBC has it backwards. The Pro-lifers are the ones trying to protect the Negro race from abortion. It’s the Pro-Choice people who want to stop Negro population from growing at alarming rates through abortion.
    MSNBC (Morons Supporting Negroes Bashing Caucasians)

    • evilsandmich

      I used to be a hard-core prolifer, and yes, racism is one of the best flags that pro-lifers feel that they have to run up the pole. Too bad that the people that they’re looking to protect don’t care, and that other people who might be partial to their cause stop caring.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    “… and that women’s bodies and white women’s bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege.”

    So, essentially they’re equating two white people pro-creating and creating a family as being synonymous with the pursuance of white supremacy and white privilege?? This is MADNESS. There is a lot of rhetoric out there, but this deliberately attempts to create an environment where whites can be labeled ‘racist’ simply for impregnating other whites.

  • Erasmus

    “Melber seemed quite accepting of University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet’s preposterous idea of pro-lifers being motivated by racism

    I had to Google just to be sure, but from her name and the ridiculousness of her comment, I was sure “professor” Tillet probably has a sister named LaTronda, (or something similar), and a brother named D’Looshus.

    If nothing else good can be said for our times, we really are living in a satirist’s goldmine.

  • HJ11

    Some commenters seem to be upset that MSNBC equates some Whites being against abortion as being “racist.” White racism is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. If you are blessed to have been given the White racism gene, be very happy–this is a survival gene and means that you will be less likely to engage in bedroom genocide and other acts that will make you and your line go extinct.

    All praise to the White racism gene! And, if you do have a strong sense of White identity–a clue that you may have been blessed with this gene–please, please try to find mates with the same gene and produce many children who may inherit it from you.

    It’s time to replace weak seed genes in our White gene pool with White racist genes!

  • WR_the_realist

    I’m glad to hear that those left wing MSNBC nuts favor blacks aborting their babies.

  • blight14

    We should collectively appologize to Margaret Sanger for not heeding her infinite wisdome…..we’re paying dearly for that mistake……

  • /.murphy

    Here’s a little observation: people who talk endlessly about “race” are just plain nutty. Those of us who are well-traveled recognize that “race” is an invented term, and that there really are no “races.”

    Sure, you can find two people who appear extremely different from each other, such as a person from Nigeria and a person from Denmark. But it’s just as easy to find all kinds of people who account for every shade of skin tone and every facial feature between that Nigerian and Dane. So the people who always worry about “race” are people who have never been anywhere outside their narrow little world… and you know what else? …They’re not going anywhere, either.

    As I write this, there’s an advertisement for a book called “White Identity” displayed next to it. What a load of nonsense! Although I am of European origin, I correctly recognize that my culture is not “White,” nor is it “Italian” or “Greek” or “German” or “Polish.”

    • HJ11

      You’re more than a little nutty, you’re completely nuts.

      Maybe, you need an introductory course in evolution and genetics.

      BTW, if you have a dog, what breed is it? If you don’t think there are races, then logically you must not believe in breeds of dogs.

      • /.murphy

        Every breed of dog is still 100% dog. If you must assign a “race,” then that’s it: DOG. Not to be confused with CAT.
        LOL

        • HJ11

          So, you don’t believe there are breeds of dogs? How about varieties of roses?

          You see, denying that there are races of humans is to deny the reality of evolution which is about constant divergence, and it happens in all organisms.

          The way it works (in simplest terms; to save space) is that some members of a species will be isolated from other members of the species. They may then become a deme. A deme may become a race. A race may become a subspecies. A subspecies may become a species–incapable of breeding with the original species. (some of these terms: deme, race, subspecies, are sometimes used in a different order or are sometimes treated as synonyms, but this is of no moment here).

          Evolution is a constant divergent march toward specieshood–so long as there is no gene flow with the original species. And, specieshood will generally happen faster if there are different evolutionary pressures between the isolated group and the main species.

          This is all pretty simple Darwinian stuff, and Darwin–a naturalist who observed nature (never forget this)–wrote about this most famously concerning the finches of the Galapagos islands, who apparently all began with one or two finches who then diverged into several different species with different eating habits, different appearances, different habitats.

          Whites have diverged from darker mankind, and those among us who are isolated and have no gene flow from outside are on the way to specieshood if there is no gene flow.

          • /.murphy

            It’s great to refer to Darwin, but your beliefs are way out of date. If you brought yourself up to date on molecular genetics and anthropology, you would see that ALL humans are genetically so close that we are ONE race, and that NO single group of extant humans is either (a) pure, or (b) not closely and intimately related to ALL others. It’s all about DNA polymorphisms, and those show that neither of the peoples you artificially label “white” and “dark” are pure, but are in fact mixtures of many past groups of humans. That’s where science stands. Race is a myth, and DNA evidence is the proof.

          • robinbishop34

            Boasian anthropology and DNA evidence are like oil and water.

          • /.murphy

            That’s not so.

          • MikeofAges

            Boasian anthropology is social creed which one may live according to if one wishes. That’s all it is.

          • HJ11

            Of course no one is “pure.” DNA is DNA. We all ultimately came from that singularity–that first DNA molecule that made the leap from non-living minerals to living minerals. We all carry the same DNA and we are all made of the same stuff.

            You will note I didn’t use the word pure. You apparently threw that in as a straw man

            You can analyze a piece of tissue from an elephant and say that an elephant is the same as a mouse because its basic chemicals are the same.

            However, an elephant and a mouse are obviously not the same.

            Why? Because the genetic code that each carries has made them different. It is the order of the DNA that matters.

            And, you are completely wrong about race. Not only are all humans not of the same race, we may actually be of different species (depending on how the term species is defined).

            The reality of DNA is that a very tiny difference–sometimes as little as one “letter” change along a strand of DNA–can make all the difference in the world. Nature fine tunes life with very minor changes at the DNA end, but these minor changes can often act like a tiny flinch at the trigger of a rifle and cause a major difference at the target. Another way of saying this is that nature doesn’t fine tune life with a sledgehammer, but with a very precise tool.

    • Funruffian

      You obviously are completely ignorant to modern biology and the genetic, physiological and physiognomy differences between modern day hominids. Sure, “Race” is a coined term just like thousands of other terms. It doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
      I don’t know what to make of a person who posts here picture wearing a ridiculous brim hat. If you wish to post here at AMREN then feel free. Many of our members will have a field day shredding your comments.

    • MikeofAges

      Snowblind.

    • evilsandmich

      They’re not going anywhere, either

      Just like your argument.
      [Sorry for feeding the trolls, couldn't resist]

  • /.murphy

    Talk about illusions! You’re confusing “race” with economic status. President Obama’s two daughters, for instance, have precious little in common with African-American girls who grew up in the projects in Atlanta, except for skin tone.

    • MikeofAges

      Meritocratic democratic universalism verbatim. One of the tenets of your brand of it is that there is no possible valid criticism of meritocratic democratic universalism. Just as a thought experiment then, propose an argument against your viewpoint.

      • /.murphy

        Meritocracy is a political system that respects Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest.” That is the nature of evolution. The strong survive; the weak die off.

        To reuse my example, the Obamas’ daughters are likely to thrive in America, and go on to earn much higher than average incomes in their lives, yet their counterparts in the Atlanta ghetto may just as likely die of violence or drugs, or never attain a position of much merit in their lives. The Obama girls’ success, in part, will be due to the opportunities they received and of which they diligently took advantage, following closely in the footsteps of both parents, who came from less-than-average roots.

        Incidentally, the people who are most offended by the idea of meritocracy are the LOSERS.

  • HJ11

    Eeek! It looks like some sort of strange bird has landed on her head and has its wings lowered over her ears.

    What a poor, sad creature she is.

  • MikeofAges

    In “1984″, behind the curtain, Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia were all in it together. Actually, they constituted a world cartel which on rare occasions engaged in a bit of limited real warfare. Only the masses of Third World, which were shifted around between the three power blocs according to the exigencies of the world situation, knew the truth. Dividing the world between three blocs, Oceania (the Commonwealth and North America), Eurasia (Russia and Europe) and East Asia (eponymous), where would someone get an idea like that anyway?

    Actually, since George Orwell’s day, I see only one development which might alter Orwell’s scheme. South Asia might become a secondary bloc of its own accord, except that the silly penchant of Muslims for wanting to run everything might get in the way. Especially in the way of bloc which incorporated Israel, the Arabs and India. How powerful would that bloc be? Then again, who knows what’s going on behind the curtain? Some signs that the South Asian bloc already is up and running.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      Israel and India are already almost allies. Israel produces some very good weapons. India is Israel’s biggest weapons customer. Why is this? Muslims.

      • MikeofAges

        Geopolitical pressure to form a South Asian power bloc in the face of the actual power bloc – Oceania (U.S. and the Commonwealth), Eurasia (Russian and Europe) and East Asia. Arabs will stay out because of their religion but may be forced in behind the scenes. In Orwell, the power blocs were fiction. Today they are much closer to reality.

        I think Africa (different part for different reasons, it’s a big place) and most of the Asian archipelago will align with South Asia simply to avoid domination by the noxious chinese. Another possible secondary power bloc is South America. Mexico, I imagine, would align with North America.

        Another possible future is the “world lit only by fire” option. In this scenario, Electromechanical-Cybernetic-Biotechnic civilization collapses, and the world goes back to feudalism. I imagine the possibility of telegraphy, steam power and cross ocean travel and commerce surviving on a limited basis. Spark gap telegraphy (radio) could continue to exist and allow for real-time intercontinental communications. Not impossible. We are prone to assume that in the end “the orange ball will always get bigger and bigger and higher and higher”. But not necessarily so.

  • MikeofAges

    So they live by giving each other degrees, awards and appointments. What’s new?

  • /.murphy

    Part of their ancestry lies in Africa, and it has become an accepted convention in America to refer them in that fashion. That doesn’t mean they are substantially different from anyone else, genetically speaking.

  • ravitchn

    Many who do not approve of abortion theoretically would not mind blacks continuing to have more abortions than whites. Count me as one of them. Fewer unwanted black babies raised by crack parents would give us fewer future criminals,

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    I’m glad to see that the other side has as many if not more conspiracy theory mongering crackpots than our side.

    How I wish the pro-life movement was actually a secret movement of white nationalists and racialists to increase the white population. However, it’s not.

    Sometimes, MSNBC, a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, people are who they are, advocate what they advocate and believe what they believe for precisely and only the reasons they say they do.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    I was never a pro-lifer, and sometimes I wish I’d never been born, but as a husband and father, I have never hit Sayaka nor spanked or scolded Ariadne. After my ex-father’s willful cruelty, I just don’t have it in me. That buck stops here.

    I believe in personal responsibility when it comes to the decision as to whether or when to have children. I was always careful with lady friends, but Ariadne was deliberate.

    Abortion is and should be a last resort in pregnancy, but not every woman or girl gets to decide these things. If poor Channon Christian had been allowed to live, would anyone here want her to bear the hate-child of the horror inflicted upon her?

  • evilsandmich

    likely have never been to Liberia

    I’ve been through Detroit a few times, close enough.

  • /.murphy

    Liberians in Detroit? Hey… you’re starting to sound like one of those KKK people. Are you a Grand Poo-Bah? Or just a Pompous Windbag?