There isn’t much love lost these days between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Or Elon Musk and Bill Gates. The world’s three richest men have clashed over COVID, climate change, and space travel—and yet all three seem aligned in their financial support of abortion. In the wake of last month’s leaked Roe reversal, Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla all announced they will pay for affected employees to travel out of state to procure an abortion. Though Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates no longer helm the companies they started, they did set the social course that Amazon and Microsoft now follow. According to Gates, “a reversal of Roe v. Wade would set us back 50 years and disproportionally impact the most vulnerable women in society.”
Bill Gates is quite adept at spouting vacuous tropes about social responsibility while pushing policies that seem to invariably line up with his corporate interests. In that regard, he’d make a fantastic movie villain: the billionaire founder of a multinational tech behemoth and head of the globe’s largest philanthropic organization (along with an ex-wife, who left him in part for his refusal to disassociate with Jeffrey Epstein). Bill Gates positions himself as humanity’s benevolent savior, but he channels more Lex Luther than Superman. Gates credits Dr. William Foege with formulating his global health priorities—the same Bill Foege who then became the only medical professional to back the disgraced perpetrators of the most infamous medical fraud in modern history. Coincidence? Perhaps. But even if Bill Gates’ global agenda is more misguided than malevolent, it hardly matters in the end.
When Bill Gates complains that the fall of Roe will disproportionally impact “the most vulnerable women in society,” he’s almost certainly using most vulnerable as a euphemism for poor and/or black. But what, specifically, will befall the “most vulnerable” should Roe be overturned? Here’s another way of expressing Gates’ concern: If legal abortion isn’t federally mandated, fewer poor babies and fewer black babies will be killed in the womb. Is it just me, or does Gates’ assertion sound a bit more sinister when you strip away the euphemisms?
Statistically, the abortion rate of rich women is much higher than the abortion rate of poor women. Rich women are also more likely to use birth control. If that strikes you as incongruous, then you have fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between birth control and abortion. It turns out the former is a gateway to the latter, not a meaningful deterrent. Bill Gates either knows this to be true and doesn’t care or is simply ignoring the data. Neither is a good look.
Rich men have always assumed that it’s a lack of capital that makes poor women less likely to use birth control and less likely to have abortions. At some level they’re right, but not for the reasons they think. For most people, an infusion of wealth changes their moral calculus, and the change is rarely for the better. It’s not just that rich women can afford an abortion and poor women can’t. It’s also that rich women—who tend to be more educated—are more conditioned to justify morally-suspect behavior. The apostle Paul once said that the love of money is a root (or the root) of all evil. That’s something to consider whenever you hear rich men singing the praises of abortion.
Do Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk love money? I have no idea. That’s not a question I can answer—other than to say that at certain levels, we are all lovers of money. The poor can be just as guilty as the rich, but it’s probably safe to posit that the hyper wealthy love money more than those in the main since they’ve given up so much to get it and have experienced all the power and prestige it bestows. Yes, they’ve also had to live through the very real burdens of enormous wealth, but few have shown the resolve to actually give it up. “One thing you lack,” Jesus told the rich young ruler, and the rich young ruler walked away in sorrow. Too much money and too little money are both serious problems.
Forbes published a list last month of the world’s largest donors to abortion-rights groups. Sitting atop that list is Warren Buffett—another rich white dude who has poured $2 billion into an industry that disproportionally kills poor black babies. Michael Bloomberg has given another $82 million, the Gates Foundation has donated $81 million to Planned Parenthood alone, and George Soros has kicked in $17 million—which seems quaint by comparison. Imagine if it were Donald Trump funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to an organization that was exterminating black children at five times the rate of white. Would that raise any eyebrows?
To be fair, there are some white women on the list too—mostly the former wives of rich white men. MacKenzie Scott, who divorced Jeff Bezos in 2019, made a $275 million donation this year to America’s largest abortion business. And Barbara Picower has channelled $125 million of her husband’s ill-gotten gains to a variety of pro-abortion organizations. Scott’s gift was the largest single-donor contribution in Planned Parenthood’s history, though the abortion giant gets about twice that each year from American taxpayers—without giving us any choice in the matter.
It’s hardly surprising that Amazon and Microsoft would carry water for the abortion industry, but Tesla?! Isn’t Elon Musk supposed to be the savior of conservatives around the globe? Doesn’t Musk—father of eight—decry the looming threat of underpopulation and lament the wealthy’s aversion to children? Yes, so why would Tesla get in bed with Planned Parenthood? Though Musk “would prefer to stay out of politics,” he describes himself as a political moderate who only finds himself right of center because the whole spectrum has shifted beneath his feet. The right has stayed put. Musk has stayed put, but the left has left the building. Or fallen off a cliff, and as they drag the center further to the left, they claim it is everyone else who is moving. This doesn’t pass the smell test—as evidenced by the left’s full-scale embrace of issues that weren’t even on the mainstream radar a decade ago. Defund the police. Gender reassignment for kids, Open borders. Mandated lockdowns. Critical Race Theory, Men competing in women’s sports—along with the censorship or cancellation of all dissenting opinions. Meanwhile, the only issue the right has really moved on is gay marriage. And the move has been to the left.
In some measure, Elon Musk is undergoing a political journey similar to that of Dave Rubin, Clay Travis, and Joe Rogan. And perhaps even Bill Maher. These men have all moved comparatively to the right as the world has been pulled further to the left. The unconventional alliances that have emerged mean that Musk et al now find themselves more broadly aligned with those who oppose abortion than those who support it. But even though the’ve been largely disavowed by their former allies, none have been willing to publicly disavow abortion. That, apparently, is a bridge too far. But why? Why forsake the lesser ills of the left—like the sexual indoctrination of children—but hold fast to their greatest ill, which literally tears children to pieces?
This is admittedly speculative on my part, but my suspicion is that the men in question are hesitant to give up their libertarian support of abortion because it’s the only issue they have left to fall back on. It’s their last holdout, the last connection to their former ideology. Should they ever give it up, they’d have nothing left to point to and say, “See, I’m not a crazy right-winger.” In fact, Rubin, Rogan, and Travis have all appealed to their support of abortion as proof that they shouldn’t be classified as conservative—though Rubin has admitted that of all his political opinions, his support of abortion is the most tenuous.
There’s also this. If you were a large amoral corporation, flush with cash but short on workers, would you rather your female employees be home on maternity leave or un-pregnant and working? Would you rather them juggle the demands of family or be socially unencumbered? If abortion is a morally-neutral procedure—as progressives claim it is—is that even a question? For all the ideological separation between Elon Musk and Bill Gates, or Microsoft and Tesla, sometimes business is just business. Sometimes pragmatism trumps ideology. Is it any wonder then that so many corporations are now offering to off their employees’ unborn children? Even Apple—whose founder was born to a college student and then placed for adoption—has joined their ranks. So much for thinking different. In the decade since Steve Jobs breathed his last, Apple has become just another establishment brand that seems to care more about virtue signaling than innovation.
Bill Gates ominously warns that reversing Roe will set society back 50 years, but what does he even mean by that? Microsoft and Apple are both 50-year-old companies, or thereabouts. Microsoft launched in 1975, Apple in 1976. The personal computing revolution which has ensued isn’t going away. Technology marches on, and no matter what Bill Gates says, ending the federal protection of abortion won’t send us back to some dystopian dark age. It just means that individual states will no longer have to sanction child sacrifice, which is a very good thing.
There was a time, no doubt, when Bill Gates was just an engineer—when all he cared about was computers. He was content to keep his head down and stick to his field of expertise. Then he became fabulously wealthy and fabulously enlightened. It was only then that Gates went full Rockefeller and began lecturing the common folk on the importance of preventing the procreation of poor black women—though he would never express it in such explicit terms. Sorry, Bill, but we’ve seen this film before. Here’s what The New Atlantis says about the birth of corporate philanthropy:
America’s first general-purpose philanthropic foundations — Russell Sage (founded 1907), Carnegie (1911), and Rockefeller (1913) — backed eugenics precisely because they considered themselves to be progressive… Alexis de Tocqueville’s idea that America was ennobled by everyday, charitable citizens stepping forward to solve their own problems became less attractive than a new view of social change: objective, nonpartisan professionals and experts could grasp and manage more efficiently and scientifically the complexities of modern industrial life than individuals ever could. Foundation grants would pave the way for this transfer of authority: as one Rockefeller report put it, the foundation’s funding was designed to “increase the body of knowledge which in the hands of competent technicians may be expected in time to result in substantial social control.”
John D. Rockefeller bankrolled the “science” of eugenics all the way to the Supreme Court. Six years before Hitler ascended to the German chancellorship, America’s highest court ruled 8-1 in Buck v. Bell that forced sterilization was constitutional so long as it was done for eugenic purposes. According to The New Yorker, America’s “forward thinkers” of 100 years ago devoted themselves “partly to provid(ing) care for a vulnerable population and partly to remov(ing) it from the gene pool.” Sound familiar? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the majority, declared, “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” And what of those who criticized the bogus pseudoscience of eugenics? In the words of Justice Holmes, they are “the thick-fingered clowns we call the people.” Apparently the ruling class has never tolerated the questioning of “established” science.
Edwin Black observed in 2003 that “had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies,” eugenics would have been little more than ‘bizarre parlor talk.” And yet 60-70 thousand “unfit” Americans were forcibly sterilized thanks to the philanthropy of rich white men. The Buck decision is broadly considered the worst in history, and yet it somehow remains on the books. It even provided precedent for, you guessed it, Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the right to privacy does give Americans the right to abortion but doesn’t give them the right to refuse state-mandated vaccines or sterilizations. A pillar of wisdom and valor he was not. Black’s article for SFGATE continues:
[Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Harriman] were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims… The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
The Rockefeller Foundation has never apologized for releasing eugenics upon the world. The closest they’ve come is a 2021 statement in which they declare that they are “currently reckoning with [their] own history in relation to eugenics.” Meanwhile, their “About Us” page proudly asserts that their philanthropic ambitions have been “unchanged since 1913” (when they were seeding the “science” that would lead to the Holocaust). After vowing to learn from the “uncomfortable truths” of their past—which all stemmed from their devotion to the progressive goals of 100 years ago, they immediately declared their allegiance to the progressive goals of today: equity, inclusion, green energy, etc. “We understand,” they assure us, “that the work we engage in today does not absolve us of yesterday’s mistakes.” They do believe, however, that “advances in science and technology [will allow them to] reimagine the future.” At the very least, their penchant for ominous utopian promises is unquelled. The Carnegie Institution also issued a statement last year—which was a bit more forthright:
There is no excuse, then or now, for our institution’s previous willingness to empower researchers who sought to pervert scientific inquiry to justify their own racist and ableist prejudices. Our support of eugenics made us complicit in driving decades of brutal and unconscionable actions by governments in the United States and around the world. As the President of the Carnegie Institution for Science, I want to express my sincere and profound apologies for this organization’s past involvement in these horrific pseudoscientific activities.
Today, the Rockefeller Foundation is joined at the hip with the Gates Foundation. When COVID struck, they collectively shamed the world for not pouring more money and influence into vaccine deployment. The AP reports that in September 2021, “leaders of the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations [warned] that without larger government and philanthropic investments in the manufacture and delivery of vaccines to people in poor nations, the pandemic could set back global progress on education, public health, and gender equality for years.”
As it turns out, they were entirely wrong about the threat COVID posed to Africa. “The coronavirus was expected to devastate the continent,” The New York Times reports, “but higher-income and better-prepared countries appear to have fared far worse.” Only 14% of sub-Saharan Africa received any kind of Covid vaccination, and yet two-thirds of the population have the antibodies—indicating that “the antibodies are overwhelmingly from infection.” The vaccines, apparently, weren’t needed. Gates, himself, finally conceded that COVID’s threat to the young and healthy was entirely overblown. “We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate,” he said last month, “and that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like (the) flu is.” Are we really to believe that Bill Gates was ignorant of the fact that there was never any evidence to indicate that COVID was a serious threat to the young and healthy—or is it possible he has a vested interest in pushing vaccines? Back in 2016, The Guardian observed the following:
Using their immense wealth and influence with political and scientific elites, organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others are promoting solutions to global problems that may undermine the UN and other international organisations… [A new study by the Global Policy Forum] claims many foundations enable rich countries and their corporations to achieve their own ends in developing countries, from setting up public-private partnerships with pharmaceutical companies to promoting certain sorts of corporate farming and the use of biotechnology for health and agriculture… According to the report, the Gates foundation is now the second largest donor to the World Health Organisation after the US, as well as one of the world’s largest single investors in biotechnology for farming and pharmaceuticals… “There is a revolving door between the Gates foundation and pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the foundation’s staff had held positions at pharmaceutical companies,” the report adds.
So Bill Gates invests billions of dollars into pharmaceutical companies, hires their people, and then uses foundation grants to pull the strings of health organizations around the world. Did it bother him that the COVID vaccines turned out not to prevent contraction or transmission? Apparently it didn't. When Gates himself contracted COVID last month, he followed the establishment script to a T: "I'm fortunate," he proclaimed, "to be vaccinated and boosted.” Why, exactly, was he fortunate to be vaccinated and boosted? That he didn’t say. I suppose it's possible that Gates' intentions are all above board and his devotion to even ineffectual vaccines is truly altruistic, but how would we know? It's Gates’ radical commitment to abortion that gives me the greatest cause for concern. How do you trust the integrity of a man like that? How do you trust the moral compass of someone who is willing to kill the most helpless members of the human community for the greater good? Last century’s titans of industry seemed to share Gates’ distaste for poor minority babies, but those rich white men constrained themselves to birth control and sterilization. Today’s corporate philanthropists have added something even more sinister to their eugenic toolkit, but nobody seems to be paying attention. Progressives have turned more than half the country into the supposed victims of systemic injustice, while ignoring those who actually are the victims of systemic injustice. And in the case of our rich white philanthropists, they're not just ignoring the injustice of abortion. They’re actively propagating it.
Michael Spielman is the founder and director of Abort73.com. Subscribe to Michael's Substack for his latest articles and recordings. His book, Love the Least (A Lot), is available as a free download. Abort73 is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, a 501c3, Christian education corporation. If you have been helped by the information available at Abort73.com, please consider making a donation.