Quoted: Richard Nixon on Abortion
Excerpted by Latoya Peterson
On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”
—”From Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate,” The New York Times, June 23, 2009
(Thanks to Tristin for the tip!)
(Image Credit: Associated Press)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
perpetual explosion wrote:
Wow. Just wow. I knew this couldn’t be good, coming from Nixon and everything, but this takes it to a new level of creepy wrongness.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 8:56 am ¶
Lisa wrote:
Oh. My.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:07 am ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:
Yeah… my wife told me about this story. She said, “did you hear about that messed up Nixon story?” and I guessed right away that it was some tape with a racist comment. That’s classic Nixon. We already knew he was a scumbag. It’s the fact that they tried to sanitize his image after death that bugs me the most.
He equates biracial children with rape. What an idiot. Yet another thing to add to the list of things not to like about him… him and all the other presidents who probably uttered statements like this in the white house.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:14 am ¶
lizzelizzel wrote:
Yikes!
Nixon – The dead president that just keeps on giving! Ugh, what a legacy.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:38 am ¶
Mr. Noface wrote:
It’s like Nixon went out of his way to portray himself as man with no redeeming qualities, in those tapes. Watch, soon there will be tapes relased with Nixon stating just how much he hates puppies and kittens.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:57 am ¶
Ray wrote:
This was on NBC last night and Racialiicous was the first thing I though of!
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 10:10 am ¶
RMJ wrote:
Can’t be but so surprised. It’s so nice of RMN to leave us concrete evidence though! I wish GWB had a recorder running throughout his years in the WH so we could go back and directly cite his fuckups.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:03 am ¶
netawerd wrote:
Sorry to break the news to everyone that ALL members of the establishment shared his views and many continue to do so today, especially those seeking to heroicize him.
Considering the current Democratic and Republican leadership include many who got their start in the Nixonian era – either working for the man or against him -how can anyone still stay we are a post-racial America?
However, the increasingly (recognized) interracial nature of love and sex in America will simply never again be (legally) stifled by corrupt old white men. More permissiveness – check! Openly Interracial – check! Legal abortion as a causative factor – perhaps.
(And, I highly doubt he is talking about a black woman and white man scenario.)
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:13 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
i read this at work this morning and was SO shocked.
im not naive (sp?), i know thats how many people felt back then and that there are plenty of those folks still kickin around. it’s just so difficult to comprehend–particularly for me since i was born to a white mother and black father in 1976–this dude was basically saying my existense is a natural offense to humanity and that i shouldnt be…
moreover, i was also incredibly offended in the way that comment was just so non-chalantly laid out there. like that was a minor thing that warranted less attention than whatever else was on the tape. *when i read that comment, i forgot the rest of the article*
all i could really do is say, wow…
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:44 am ¶
maggie wrote:
Since implied in the statement “a black and a white” is a black man and a white woman, it’s really despicable. He is not only saying that mixed race children (and, therefore, the muddling of the white race) are undesirable — he is presuming that the (white) women carrying such pregnancies would naturally want to abort them, suggesting that their impregnation, and perhaps even the sex that caused it, were against their will.
We may not be [read: aren't] post-racial, but progress is made in some ways faster than in others. Afterall, one product of just such “a black and a white” was already 11 years old when Nixon said these words.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
“suggesting that their impregnation, and perhaps even the sex that caused it, were against their will.”
Or that vulnerable impregnable white women were driven into temporary insanity by suggestive Communist rock music played during hippie dope-smoking rituals.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
@michelle~ you and I are the same age. I grew up in NC.
Growing up, all of the black adoptees I knew were products of a white mom/black dad union, including one of my best friends. It broke my heart when she told me she wanted to know “why” – other than being mixed- she was given up.
It speaks to what America is (not was).
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Well, at least the man was consistent. An asshole jackass across the board.
Without prosody it’s hard to know whether he was likening “a black and a white” to rape or whether rape was just an after thought ( as in “or that other thing, you know, rape”) that came to mind once primed for Bad Things by the idea of “a black and a white.” Vicious no matter what.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
jo wrote:
Juvenile as the gesture may have been, my fondness for that anonymous dude who took a whiz on Nixon’s grave just keeps on growing.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶
ghettoManga wrote:
NICE!
dick, you’re so darn TRICKY!
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:24 pm ¶
k. emvee wrote:
@Marcus Kwame
I think the nuance in the tape is that Nixon was not equating interracial childen with rape – he was saying that having an interracial child was less desirable than having a child resulting from rape.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:34 pm ¶
Jay wrote:
Marcus & Maggie,
He did not imply more than what he said. I don’t agree with the implication of rape producing a biracial baby, or the implication of a white woman and black man in his statements.
The premature accusations and jumping to conclusions based on what is not said is what sheds a negative light on an argument of an issue.
Base the argument and commentary on what is actually said and you’ll be taken more seriously.
I’m definitely not defending the guy- I think he was a creep, if not also a crook, as were a whole lot of people.
The positive aspect I realize on this whole thing is that 99.99% of the USA would not condone that statement today, as opposed to a much lower percentage in the early 70’s.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 1:33 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
@Jay:
“The positive aspect I realize on this whole thing is that 99.99% of the USA would not condone that statement today, as opposed to a much lower percentage in the early 70’s.”
Too bad that 99.99% does not represent the number of white folks that may still think it inasmuch as it is now considered taboo to say certain things publicly. Folks are still constantly being caught saying racist things in circumstances they think are private. See Rusty DePass
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:
@ K. emvee and Jay,
You guys may very well be correct. Either way, I don’t see how much of a difference it makes. The line between him “equating” the two scenarios and him “saying that having an interracial child was less desirable than having a child resulting from rape” is a thin one.
While I do recognize the importance of nuance, I think we can all agree that this is a case of him expressing ugly racist sentiment. So I stand by what I said about him.
and Jay, you said, “Base the argument and commentary on what is actually said and you’ll be taken more seriously.”
I posted to add my voice to the discussion. That’s what this is about right? Different people adding their voices and ideas to a discussion. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don’t. How did it get to be about being “taken more seriously?”
I respect your opinion, but I think the figure of 99.99% of the USA not condoning the statement today is a bit overly-optimistic. America has definitely made progress in regards to interracial relationships and racism, but we are NOT post-racial and if you ask anyone in an interracial relationship about their experiences with racism they would give you a much different figure than 99.99%.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
99.99% does sound extraordinarily generous and quite unrealistic. I’d estimate a 70-90% range. It’s hard to do reliable polling.
My cousin (who is white) told me a depressing story last year about a business client. They saw an interracial couple walking down the street, he said they ought to be shot, and also said he was sure her father had raised her so she would never go out with a black man.
And this wasn’t some crazed backwoods hick. He was a very successful businessman from the Northeast. Since my cousin has a Southern accent, he just assumed he could unload all this racist bile on her.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶
aconerlycoleman wrote:
My reaction was”uh huh…”
I have written papers (a thesis even) on his role in the US federal campaign against Black militancy. In the National Security Council documents, the racism is virulent. The assumption that Blacks were more “susceptible” to the ‘foreign’ influence of communists was just insulting to me.
In light of all the research I have done, I am not surprised that he said this. That is not to say that it elicited a “WTF?” from me about 30 seconds later.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
aconerlycoleman wrote:
I guess I was insulted by that assumption because they never thought that the disenfranchisement and the increasing and simultaneous disaffection and politicization of African-American peoples living under de facto and de jure segregation might be a factor.
M thoughts when I saw that quote were- why did he air the possibilities of “miscegenation”/race-mixing with the possibility of rape? And in what twisted mindset did it make sense to make these statements?
There seems to the implication that interracial unions preclude consent (esp. on the part of the woman- who is implicitly White).
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Asianlawyer wrote:
I’m not suprised. Most people of his generation of whatever political persuasion held this view. His comments are abhorrent but I don’t judge historical figures outside the context of their time. I’ve always had a soft spot for Nixon because in many ways he actually was a good President.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
Medea wrote:
@ Asianlawyer
I don’t buy that argument–this was only thirty years ago, and there were plenty of people who didn’t share Nixon’s views. My parents were adults in 1973, and they managed to avoid believing that women impregnated by someone of a different race should have abortions.
In what ways was he a good president?
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
maggie wrote:
@Jay
This disagreement reminds me of the discussion, often raised in response to racist political cartoons/satire/comedy, about when the “intent” behind racist statements and actions is no longer the issue because it is unable to be disassociated from whatever grander historical context inevitably influences the statement/event and perceptions thereof. A post at Shakesville, in the aftermath of the February NY Post cartoon, said:
“Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express racism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how people of color have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed racism even if the speaker’s intent was not to oppress people of color. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of racism, intentionally or not.
So: Toss out the idea that intent determines racism. And the idea that any of us, or any of the things we say or do, can exist in a void.
What we’re then left with is the idea that if something fits into a historical pattern of racism, unavoidably invokes such a pattern, and/or can be overtly quantified as marginalizing people of color, it is an expression of racism.”
Granted, no one here is debating whether or not Nixon’s comments were racist — we all know they were. But I’m wondering if this notion of the irrelevancy of intent is applicable when making the claim that, say, regardless of whether or not Nixon meant to imply that many black man-white woman relations were presumably nonconsensual, by suggesting that white women carrying mixed race children would have greater need for access to abortion services he is nonetheless invoking a historically racist narrative (that of the black rapist and white female victim).
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
Uugh! This Nixon statement is racist and dehumanizing. And to think this type of attitude was more openly prevalent in the US just a little over thirty years ago. And I agree with those who say that such attitudes still exist unfortunately. They’re just not as openly prevalent today as they used to be.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
La Reyna wrote:
I’m not surprised at all at Nixon’s anti-interracial(Black man and White woman)remark. That’s a sentiment prominant Whites have held for centuries. Remember the incident in Maine three years ago when Katelyn Kampf’s parents abducted her and tried to force her to abort her biracial child. Or the racist/sexist remark by a Michigan sheriff nearly 20 years ago when he said that he was against all abortions except when it involved a Black man and a White woman.
These people are just evil and racist. Unfortunately, attitudes still exist to this day.
La Reyna
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 7:47 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Well, let’s all watch Nixon spinning in his grave over the current occupant of the Oval Office. What an obnixious man Dick was!
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
SarahNicole wrote:
@atlasien: Or that vulnerable impregnable white women were driven into temporary insanity by suggestive Communist rock music played during hippie dope-smoking rituals.
ahahahahahahahahahaha I’m just *sure* that’s what caused my birth.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶
erre wrote:
I could just vomit.
And then, Pro-life??? My ass!!!
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 10:37 pm ¶
Asianlawyer wrote:
Medea,
1973 was not a long time ago, agreed. I should have clarified and stated people of his generation i.e. the World War II generation as opposed to Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Gen Yers, and Millenials. The WWII generation grew up during a time when the races did not mix in most parts of the US and where immigration of non-whites was severely restricted. While some people in that generation grew out of their prejudices many of them did not.
As far as Nixon’s accomplishments: the EPA, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, Worker Safety Regulations, School Desegregation, Affirmative Action…etc. He also opened relations with the PRC and initiated a thawing of relations with the Eastern Bloc and got us out of Vietnam (by 1973 most of our troops were gone). Nixon also proposed a National Health Insurance Plan and a Guaranteed Income Plan. I concur with Chomsky who called him the last real liberal in the White House.
Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:51 pm ¶
sandeep wrote:
lovely (sarcasm), but then, its still open. perhaps it was more social commentary than necessarily his view that a black and white combo would be unusable, but more that perhaps society would not accept it and he was merely giving the nod to perhaps the circumstance that might have befell a pregnant woman from time to time in that day and age. meaning perhaps he was commenting on how it was well known that in many parts of the country the pregnancy would be pressured to be aborted. thats what i get out of it anyway.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 12:17 am ¶
Denise wrote:
i think these comments of nixon are horrid.
neither a child of rape nor a biracial child is any
less a child than any other. and should no more likely be aborted than any other.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 7:02 am ¶
Jess wrote:
@Medea– while I wouldn’t make Nixon a hero (I think he did a lot of damage) he did sign the Clean Air Act, set up the EPA, and open relations with China. That’s what a lot of people think of.
Every president, every person, is a mixed bag. I mean, Nixon was raised a Quaker.
Anyhow, his views are certainly abhorrent to most people now, and I think it is important to remember how far we’ve come in a relatively short time. I mean. there are countries where people who look no different from each other were willing to blow each other up over insults that occurred centuries ago (I’m looking at you, Yugoslavia).
So in that sense we’re actually doing pretty well, as these things go. Race war fantasies of white supremacists to the contrary.
Think of this: why did any civil rights legislation get passed at all with folks like this in office?
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 8:17 am ¶
Jennifer wrote:
The rape part wasn’t really Nixon’s addition. The other person on the tape offered it up as another reason that abortion might be warranted after Nixon brought up the inter-racial thing. From the AP story: “Speaking to Charles Colson after the January 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the president said: “I admit, there are times when abortions are necessary, I know that.” He gave “a black and a white” as an example.
“Or rape,” Colson offered. “Or rape,” Nixon agreed.”
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 8:17 am ¶
McMurphy wrote:
Richard Nixon an “idiot” you must be joking.It’s well accepted that Nixon was one of America’s most intelligent presidents.It’s not for no reason he was called “tricky Dicky”
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 12:56 pm ¶
Jonah Hex wrote:
Well, he’s definitely not PC, but hey, we all know there are plenty of black folks out there saying the same thing.
Good sizing up of the issue by Jess above.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 1:02 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
What does “black folks” saying this have to do with a POTUS saying this? What is the discursive purpose of the (unstoppable) “black folks say/do this too” meme here? Honest question.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶
Jonah Hex wrote:
Smooth out, A.D..
The talkbacks were smelling a little too self-righteous, and just wanted to remind the troops that Nixon’s remarks were not merely a “Nixon thing”, nor a white, generational, or antique view, but can be commonly found across the broad spectrum these days.
Just a reminder to the outraged.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Jonah Hex
Hey, hey, hey – relax. They’re just questions. (See how annoying that is? Come on. Let’s not.)
I think a vast majority of the people here are well aware that racism still exists. I would gather that’s in part why we’re here.
But I don’t think these remarks were posted or that most find them troubling because they’re singular – they aren’t. We can all Google ‘Stormfront’ and find much worse with ease. And I don’t think the fact that they may be echoed elsewhere by “black folks” or young people or whomever means readers shouldn’t feel justified in having a strong reaction to them here.
I also don’t think a majority of Americans believe that keeping abortion legal is a good idea if only to “deal with” biracial pregnancies. I strongly disagree that this kind of thinking would be a common finding across a broad spectrum these days. This idea is much more than just “not PC.”
@ Jennifer
I’m not sure which source to believe. The AP gets things wrong (and not infrequently, although they are quick to correct) but so does the Times.
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶
Jonah Hex wrote:
Oh, I think you might be rather surprised at the contrast between the fine, idealistic sentiments people utter, and claim to hold, and then the actual behavior they practice on the ground, A.D..
I’ve lived & worked in various parts of the US over the years, as well as traveling overseas, and observed that all racial/ethnic groups out there take a rather dim view of bi-racial pregnancies, and often, if not usually, move to end them.
Lets not kid ourselves in thinking there has been some sort of grand social transformation, or movement away from the use of abortion by every group to terminate bi-racial pregnanncy.
Abortion is as widely used now to deal with the issue as it was during the Nixon era.
I neither support, nor condemn, the practice, but will not try and deceive myself as to how the matter actually continues to play itself out in the here & now.
Don’t allow the vision & goal to hide or deny blunt reality, regardless of how distasteful or wrong you may find it.
Far too much fantasizing going on these days.
Posted 26 Jun 2009 at 3:18 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Jonah Hex
So, if I’m reading you correctly, you believe that most bi-racial pregnancies are terminated and precisely because they’re bi-racial pregnancies?
And all of that based on anecdote? I don’t think the fantasy is my own.
But it’s always interesting to hear what some people believe about these things.
Posted 26 Jun 2009 at 5:32 pm ¶
Jonah Hex wrote:
I believe so, in those settings outside of committed marriage, A.D..
Posted 26 Jun 2009 at 11:42 pm ¶
emma wrote:
So basically, our 37th president would have aborted our 44th president. This makes me think of all of the terrible fits racists are having over the Obamas living in the White House and it makes me smile a big, big, BIG smile.
Posted 28 Jun 2009 at 1:24 am ¶
sdotb wrote:
At first I was surprised, but then I realized he said what many racists think.
Posted 19 Sep 2009 at 4:23 am ¶