Wealth & Money Quote by Alveda King

King’s line is built like a courtroom argument dressed in pastoral certainty: start with a startling statistic, anticipate the rebuttal, then redefine the moral terms so the rebuttal can’t survive. “Perhaps as many as 75 percent” is doing rhetorical work, not mathematical work. The hedge (“perhaps”) lowers the bar for proof while the high number lands the emotional punch. It’s a familiar advocacy move: imply a pattern of targeting without having to litigate the data in the sentence itself.

The subtext is where the quote sharpens. By foregrounding “areas with high minority populations,” King is invoking a long American history of coercive reproductive policy, eugenics, and mistrust of medical institutions. That context is real and politically potent; it also functions as a moral trap for pro-choice opponents. If you contest her framing, you risk sounding indifferent to racial exploitation. If you accept the premise, you’re already halfway into her conclusion that abortion is predatory.

Her pivot to “abortion apologists” is a deliberate delegitimization. “Apologists” doesn’t mean “people who disagree”; it means moral cover-up artists. The final sentence clinches the theological ethic she’s advancing: poverty is not just an economic condition but a test of communal duty. “Serve the poor” is recoded from access and autonomy to protection and obligation, and “their children” is a linguistic adoption of fetal personhood that collapses any debate about pregnancy into a debate about killing.

Intent-wise, this is less about persuading the undecided than about recruiting outrage: it welds anti-abortion politics to a racial-justice register, asking listeners to see clinics not as healthcare infrastructure but as extraction.