This progressive is delighted to see y'all taking on Mao and Che. Bonehead lefties who invoke them without knowing what they're talking about burn me.

But icons 13 & 14 misrepresent Margaret Sanger by quoting her out of context. And icon 16 is misleading advice, as there are many websites which not only quote Ms Sanger out of context, but fabricate false quotations and other bogus information.

Yes, like a lot of people of the 1920s, Sanger was undeniably a eugenicist, who hoped to see the human species improved through stronger, healthier, smarter people having more children and weaker, sicker, less intelligent people having less. Today, we rightly find that thinking disturbing, because we are more open-eyed about the racism et cetera implicated in judgments about who is “fit” to have children, and because we have seen eugenic thinking entangled with the horrific genocides of the 20th century. It is right and proper to reject eugenics, and to criticize Sanger for her allegiance with that school of thought. Lefties who know enough to know about Sanger also know enough to know this.

But all that said, Sanger was emphatically not sympathetic to racism or genocide, as googling her might lead you to think. Her core principle was reproductive freedom, that all people had the right to effective contraception or to bear children as they chose for themselves in their own circumstances. This frequently brought her into conflict with her allies at that time, but she was principled on this point.

Here's the context (http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html) for quote #14:

Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months.

This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five.

Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

Sanger is clearly invoking an irony, as though given the problems faced by children in large families, as though their high rate of mortality ranks least among many problems.

Here's the context (http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/planned-parenthoods-statement-on-margaret-sanger/) for quote #13:

It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table.
....
The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.

She is clearly saying that she does not want a false impression to circulate, not saying that her true intent must be kept secret.