This exhibit, known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), puts images of aborted fetuses next to pictures of universally recognized forms of genocide, including victims of the Holocaust in Europe and of lynchings in the southern United States. At first, many people might call this comparison a stretch, while others would say it is downright offensive. Yet let us consider what the common justification for all these evils was and is: that the victim is somehow subhuman, or at least not on par with those deemed to be “persons.” The unborn child is not recognized as a human person, even though he or she is a biologically human entity with his or her own unique DNA. That child is not just human; he or she is a distinct person who just happens to be in the earliest stages of human development. But if we strip away that personhood, the victim is no longer human, and thus the act of destroying “it” is no longer immoral. Hitler and the Klan also considered their victims to be of unequal status relative to the “superior races”; their victims were thought of as being devoid of either personhood or humanity altogether. Furthermore, we ought to recognize that such a comparison could be deemed “offensive” only if one is under the impression that we are dehumanizing victims of genocide and trivializing that tragedy. On the contrary, we affirm not only their humanity, but the humanity of the unborn child. This recognition of this being’s humanity is precisely what makes abortion so tragic and so evil.

Abortion’s connection to genocide runs even deeper than that. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” In the book, Pivot of Civilization, p. 187, Sanger is quoted as saying: “We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever- increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Naturally, Sanger’s solution to the perceived problem of “Negro overpopulation” was to become active in the American Eugenics Society (AES) and to found her own organization (which at the time was called the American Birth Control League, later Planned Parenthood) by which she could subtly eliminate those who in her mind were undesirable. (From Maafa 21, a recently produced documentary about abortion and eugenics.) Furthermore, the writings of AES affiliates influenced Adolf Hitler himself to develop his own master plan to “purify” the human race. (From “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics,” by Edwin Black; an article from a historical project belonging to George Mason University.)

Today, Sanger’s goal of targeting racial minorities is still being realized. Black women are targeted the most by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers (apx. 56% of all abortions in the US), with Hispanic women coming in second at apx. 32%, thereby accounting for 88% of all abortions in our country (Maafa 21). While these statistics differ from those currently available from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Walter Hoye’s Issues 4 Life Foundation had discovered that AGI had actually published misleading statistics to try to hide the fact that abortion targets minorities at an extraordinary rate. (For this reason, AGI only provides a statistic that combines the total number of abortions from 1973 – the year of Roe v. Wade – to 2005.) How can we allow ourselves to believe that preventing the births of minority groups so disproportionately can be considered anything other than genocide, especially when you take the origins of Planned Parenthood into account? Abortion truly is America’s hidden genocide, and a legal one at that.
Though the genocide aspect of the display has been the same everywhere that the event has been held, the Berkeley exhibit differed from all other past installations. This year, both BSL and CBR were proud to debut new signs that put images of aborted fetuses next to images of President Barack Obama. Each of these signs was accompanied by a quote stated by Obama. These quotes were such that most people would agree with in principle, but they were highly ironic in light of the positions Obama has taken with respect to abortion. We sought to highlight Obama’s astonishingly duplicitous rhetoric, as well as to make his unbridled support of abortion known to those who may not have been aware of it. Those who follow right to life issues know that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion president in our nation’s history, but his carefully crafted rhetoric makes many think that he is a moderate on the issue who is truly concerned with finding “common ground.” Some will say that this approach is inherently partisan; we hold that it is merely a straightforward analysis of President Obama’s own words. Those who were offended were probably upset by the fact that the man who is revered by so many in Berkeley has been exposed as a deceiver.
Despite the hotheaded reactions and a counter-protest consisting mostly of students from a women’s studies class (at the behest of their professor) and members of Berkeley National Organization for Women (BNOW), GAP staffers were pleased to have many enlightening conversations with countless students. The fact is, Berkeley is no longer the liberal bastion it is often believed to be. Today, it is a very apathetic campus, and it takes a large scale event to get people to talk about issues that matter. These curious students held all sorts of beliefs on abortion, from staunch pro-lifers to staunch abortion supporters, and many who were uncertain. Yet what was particularly pleasing was the fact that these students were very willing to engage in rational dialogue. Even some of the counter-protestors eventually engaged with us in a very respectful discussion, for which we are very grateful. Of course, most of them continued to demonstrate their unwillingness to engage in rational dialogue, preferring to resort to the shouting of slogans. (“My body, my choice!”). One young woman, rather than join the shouting, wore a sign reading “I had an abortion/It was GREAT!” showing utter disdain for human life. This revealed a great deal about the nature of the two sides: the pro-lifers always kept their calm, and were happy to debate rationally and civilly with people.

The counter-protestors were happy to scream themselves into a state of acute laryngitis. I think many people realized that most of the abortion advocates were not really interested in having meaningful discussion. They were there simply to make a scene, which actually worked in our favor, since many more students came our way as a result of the ideological clash. Ultimately, our primary objective was to change hearts and minds, because before the battle against abortion can be won in the courts and in legislatures, it must be won in the conscience of the people. We are confident that we took great strides toward that end as a result of the Genocide Awareness Project.

Senator Leno, who takes pride in being the first openly gay man to serve in the state senate, may be referring to Milk’s perceived legacy as a trailblazer and martyr of the LGBT movement. Milk shattered a perceived barrier for gays, becoming the first openly gay politician elected in the United States. In November of 1978, former Supervisor Dan White assassinated both Milk and Mayor George Moscone.

Milk’s instantaneous martyr status spurred San Francisco’s gay community to “come out,” but in a manner that was less than peaceful. In May of 1979, White was sentenced for the voluntary manslaughter of both Milk and Moscone. Homosexual activists, who had deemed the sentencing as discriminatory and overly lenient, took to the streets of San Francisco and initiated the violence now known as the “White Night Riots.” This vigilante reaction caused the city hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage, as well as various injuries to both police officers and rioters. Similar forms of hostility reemerged in 2008, when supporters of Proposition 8 became the victims of vandalism and verbal and physical abuse at the hands of gay activists. Perhaps in Leno’s mind, this sort of aggressive lawlessness constitutes a legacy worth celebrating.

But what about Harvey Milk himself – are his deeds worth emulating? Here’s a sampling of some of his lesser known actions:

• Milk was a sexual predator of minors. At age 33, Harvey Milk had an ongoing homosexual relationship with an adolescent named Jack McKinley: “…sixteen-year-old old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure…within a few weeks, McKinley moved into Harvey Milk’s Upper West Side apartment and settled into a middle class domestic marriage. At thirty-three, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him” (Source: Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street, pp. 30-31).

• After Milk and McKinley’s relationship had ended, Milk coldly dismissed a suicide threat from his former lover: “…the phone rang. As soon as Harvey heard the voice, he rolled his eyes impatiently at Jim. ‘It’s Jack McKinley,’ he said. He paused and listened further. ‘He says he’s going to kill himself.’…‘Tell him not to make a mess,’ Harvey deadpanned. Jack hung up” (Source: Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street, p. 126).

Milk advocated having several uncommitted sexual relationships at the same time, saying, “As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. We should be developing our own life-style. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time” (Source: Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street, p. 237-238).

• Milk publicly lied about his military career for many years: “He had not suffered this disgrace, he told a later campaign manager, but he knew the story would make good copy. If anyone said something to Harvey about his fondness for such stunts, he would gesture wildly as he launched into a lecture. ‘Symbols, symbols, symbols,’ he insisted. Sure, he had not been kicked out of the military…The point of the story was to let people know that service people routinely do get kicked out. Besides, he once confided, ‘Maybe people will read it, feel sorry for me, and then vote for me’” (Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street, p. 78-79).

• Milk called cult leader Jim Jones (of Jonestown Massacre, “Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid” infamy) “a man of the highest character.” Milk also lobbied President Jimmy Carter to let Jones have custody of a six-year-old boy, who Jones later poisoned (Source: Harvey Milk letter to President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 19, 1978).

This is the gritty truth of the man who Senator Leno would like to have glorified before California’s schoolchildren. What’s worse is that schools would be encouraged to adopt “Harvey Milk Day” into their curriculum every May 22 (Milk’s birthday) without parental consent. Parents may then have to choose between having their children miss a complete day of education or have them forced to sit through indoctrination that goes against the family’s moral values. In this way, we will continue to see the erosion of parents’ rights to be the primary educators of their children in all matters, especially those pertaining to the instillation of morality. We must ask ourselves whether Sacramento politicians want the public education system to be a partner with parents in creating the next generation of an educated and well-prepared America, or if they seek to have the system compete with parents by exposing children to a controversial social agenda that may be against a family’s core beliefs.

Though Gov. Schwarzenegger had already vetoed this same legislation in October of 2008, Senator Leno has proved to be determined enough to push on until California students are subjected to learn about this hero of the gay community. If Harvey Milk is a “hero”, one can only hope that pedophilia, lying in order to get ahead, indifference in the face of tragic death, and misrepresentations of character will not become the newest “virtues.”