Ruth Marcus, an editor with “The Washington Post,”  is under fire after writing an opinion editorial Friday titled “I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.”

Marcus, a mother of two, began the piece by saying,”There is a new push in anti-abortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong.”

Iceland Is ‘Eradicating’ Down Syndrome – by Eradicating the People Who Have It

She goes on to say that if she had found out during either one of her pregnancies that her unborn child had Down syndrome, she would have terminated the pregnancy, “without hesitation … tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been.”

Children with Down syndrome have “limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family,” wrote Marcus. She added, “That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company.”

Glenn’s take:

“Yes … she’s in good company,” agreed a very sarcastic Glenn. “All the Nazis agreed with [her.] The Nazis passed a law in 1939 that you could kill these lives that ‘weren’t worth living’ … They started with the Down syndrome babies, those were prime targets.”

“But listen to this,” added Glenn. “By 1941, the German people stood up against the elites, the doctors, the hospitals and the nurses, and said you can’t kill children with disabilities and Down syndrome. So, no, she actually doesn’t have a lot of people who agree with her. She does have the Nazis, but not the German people of 1941.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.


This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.

GLENN: So glad that you’ve tuned in today. Thank you so much.

I was really disturbed this weekend, all this weekend. I — I read an op-ed in the Washington Post about abortion and — and people who are standing against laws that say we shouldn’t kill those with Down syndrome.

I don’t — I don’t understand it. Look, if you don’t want to take care of a child with Down syndrome, okay.

But there are people that would take a child with Down syndrome. There are. Lots of them.

To just say that it’s — hey, it’s my right. I don’t want to have this child. Okay. All right. This is a child. It’s a child.

And I think we’re so much worse off without a child. But because we’re living in this post HEP modern world where there is no such thing as reason, there is no such thing as questioning, there is no such thing as truth, there is no such thing as reality, well, then, we can do whatever we want.

And this is really coming from the — the universities.

They’ve been pushing it. But they’ve been pushing these kinds of things for a long time. Remember, the eugenics movement came from Germany.

And the reason why it came from Germany over here — the reason how, in the 1880s, we started going to, you know, our elites went to school over in Germany. Our doctors went to school in Germany. And they were into this nihilistic, God is dead kind of thing. Misunderstanding what Nietzsche was saying.

Nietzsche actually was warning the people. God is dead. We’ve killed him. We’ve killed him. Now, what’s our God?

That’s a really important question. Now, what is our God? Because we are serving other gods. We are. Whether it’s a political party or money or our jobs or whatever, we’re serving another God. People who are saying, I think I can abort a Down syndrome child, you’re serving the God of yourself. I want my time. I want my life that I was promised.

You weren’t promised anything. And I think we’re worse off without these children.

I’m going to do a special tonight. I want you to watch at 5 o’clock. I want to show you the history and where this leads. Where this leads. Because I did a lot of homework this weekend. Because it was really — it really bothered me.

But I want to go back to — Stu, do you have the professor from —

STU: Yeah. Some of the audio from that.

GLENN: Yeah, do you have that?

STU: Roger HEP Scrutin.

GLENN: Yeah. Roger Scrutin. Okay. So Roger Scrutin is a professor that says, you know, we’ve got a problem.

Now, he’s speaking in Australia.

And he’s saying, we have a problem. And I want to talk to you about it. But I can talk to you about it here, kind of, if everybody will stay rational. But I definitely can’t have this conversation in America. So let’s play cut one.

VOICE: One of the first things that happens when a totalitarian government takes over, is that the universities are cleaned up. That’s to say, people who are doing that kind of thing, get thrown out. This is what happened when the Nazis took over the German universities and when the Soviets took over — the communists took over the Russian universities.

And it was the case in eastern Europe in my day, with the sole exception of Poland, which had universities, which were the only universities where every professor was on the right. That was because the communists were everywhere.

But on the whole, this is the first move that the totalitarian mentality makes, to stop that kind of free-minded open scholarship in pursuit of truth. And it may be there has to be something like that.

You know, maybe after all in the Middle Ages, maybe theology was like that.

But the interesting thing about medevial theology is that it encouraged the intellectual method, despite its requirement of orthodoxy.

GLENN: So it’s really interesting what he’s saying is, whenever there’s a totalitarian regime anywhere in the world, the first thing they do is take the universities. And the universities are meant to question, hold to the facts, and use scientific standards to be able to decide. And he is saying that we have rejected that, just the way they in some Europe, just the way they did in Russia, just the way they do in China, rejected those scientific standards. And we’re entering a new dark age.

And, you know, that might sound like hyperbole, to those who might be listening on the left. But it’s — can you honestly say that scientific standards have been adhered to — boy, this is controversial — for — for climate change.

I mean, I’m willing to look at the thermometer and say, okay. The thermometer is going up. The thermometer is going down. I’m not willing to project a weather pattern out over 100 years.

I’m not willing to look at weather or climate over 100 years because you’ve already been wrong.

STU: Well, you can look at it, you just to have apply the appropriate level of skepticism and uncertainty, which is not allowed.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Then also you cannot shun those who have a different opinion. Scientific standards rely on you to say, okay. Wait a minute. Question. Question. Question. Is there any new data? Is there anything that’s changing? Question. Question. Question.

We’re not questioning anymore. And that should scare everyone. We need to question these things.

Now, I’m willing to — I’m willing to say, okay. Global warming is happening. It makes sense to me that maybe man is playing a role in that. I don’t think man is insignificant.

But I also don’t think that the planets — the planet will destroy us before we can destroy it. And I don’t want that to happen. I want to do the things that we can do.

I’m willing to do those things. If you — without even proving. It’s good to take care of the planet. But if you prove to me that we are doing things, okay. So then, what’s the next step?

What’s the most effective thing we can do?

Well, stop eating meat. Get rid of farms. Okay. How come I’m not hearing that.

STU: Yeah. You very rarely do. And that’s the same source, the UN, that gives us all the rest of it.

GLENN: So it doesn’t happen because it doesn’t entail $14 trillion of wealth being redistributed. That’s why. There’s no wealth redistribution when it comes to the farms. None.

STU: You don’t need laws. You don’t need more control. You just do it, right?

GLENN: Just stop. Just stop eating meat.

STU: And, of course, they won’t. I mean, very rarely. It took Al Gore, what? Five or six — it was longer than that. Ten years before he supposedly converted.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It would be interesting to know if that’s actually true. But instead of being in a place where you can question things like that, we are in a place where the Australian government has provided a 19,000-dollar grant, to a playwright, who has written a play, entitled Kill Climate Deniers.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: The plot, a classic rock band takes the stage in parliament’s house main hall. And 96 armed eco terrorists stormed the building and take the entire government hostage, threatening to execute everyone, unless Australia ends global warming.

GLENN: Is that more akin to the Dark Ages or to the Enlightenment?

STU: Of course, the Dark Ages.

GLENN: Of course. Of course it is. And that’s exactly what we’re being dragged back into.

We fought hard Asman. We fought hard (?) to get out of the Dark Ages, where somebody said, I know the answer, and you don’t.

And I’m basing it on what was then known as something that you didn’t use any of your senses, you couldn’t see it, taste it, feel it, hear it. It was called nonsense.

And so we rejected all things that were nonsense. We fought hard to get out of the Dark Ages. And we are going back into it. And we are being led to slaughter.

And we — we got to turn this around. Now, listen to what he says about women’s studies, et cetera, et cetera.

VOICE: So we have been lucky (?), but is it the case that we still have them? We have seen the growth of an extraordinary number of new subjects in the university, in which the pursuit of truth seems to be secondary to something else. The other thing being the pursuit of some kind of political conformity.

If you take a subject like women’s studies — now, I know this is a controversial issue. But perhaps it can be talked about freely in this room. You can’t talk about it freely in America on the whole.

Anyway, there is a subject, it’s very difficult to imagine, that you would succeed in that subject, if you didn’t have either at the outset or certainly in the conclusion, feminist opinions.

Now, there is — it’s a subject constructed around an ideology. It might be that this ideology is grounded in truth. Who knows? But to question it is something which is essentially made impossible, both by the curriculum and by the way of teaching it. And I think you’ll find that there are quite a lot of subjects like that, growing in our universities, in which conformity to an orthodoxy takes precedence over intellectual method.

GLENN: He talks about, so what is the solution, that you replace the male hierarchy with female hierarchy? You replace the white hierarchy with the black hierarchy?

That’s not — that’s not scientific. That’s not thoughtful. That’s nothing. That’s truly nothing.