Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to work to persuade me that people in the 1920s were racist. But that quote, in context, might easily be read as "we don't want them to think this [because it isn't true]". I wouldn't be surprised if Sanger didn't like black people, but based on the evidence you're throwing out in dribs and drabs she expected them to stop having children because that would make them better off . Let me ask you straight…
You are doing everything in your power, including a vigorous waving of hands - "maybe she meant something else" - to defend a known racist eugenicist. What game are you playing here? Planned Parenthood is doing it's best to create as much distance between itself and Sanger, yet you're here defending her. Why?
You're out-of-context quoting someone who has been dead for no less than the better part of a century, and based on the evidence that you've drawn my attention to she was a tireless advocate of sensible family planning. I think that deserves some defence.
You said PP distanced from her because of her racist views. Ok, fair enough, everyone in history was basically a racist so that seems like a fair call. But her work as a 'eugenicist' seems to be commendable and most of what you have been bringing up today has ranged from commendable to reasonable in context. From what I've seen here it seems to me that this woman lived a life well spent. I'm not seeing anything that doesn't look like a reasonable option in the modern era - it is still the case that educated and wealthy families generally go with fewer children and are more likely to plan out their family for example. I support free and easy access to abortions.
> "maybe she meant something else"
I'm happy to be a bit stronger than that. She obviously meant something else. Voluntary access to family planning tools and training black ministers has to be one of the worst schemes to eradicate out the black community that I've ever encountered. It strains credulity, in fact.