Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

‘Gendercide’: Anti-Abortion Group Releases Undercover Expose Purportedly Showing Planned Parenthood‘S Complicity In ’Sex


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 29 May 2012 - 01:58 PM

Whether you are pro or against, this is just sad.....




Live Action, a pro-life group based in San Jose, California, went undercover to discover a troubling trend that is occurring across the globe — sex-selection abortion (the process of purposefully terminating a pregnancy based solely on the child’s gender). While this phenomenon is known to be occurring in China, among other nations, the organization claims that it’s also happening here in the United States of America.
In part one of a new video series entitled “Gendercide: Sex Selection in America,” the group, which also launched ProtectOurGirls.com to accompany the sting operation, visits an Austin, Texas, Planned Parenthood for an undercover investigation. The findings may disturb you.
“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose said in an interview with The Daily Caller on Monday. “First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”
It was in April 2012 that Rose’s group investigated these abortion clinics to see what would happen if employees were asked about aborting based on gender. In part one, which was released this week, a Planned Parenthood employee named “Rebecca” can be seen speaking with the undercover woman, who makes it clear that she only wants to abort her child if, indeed, it is a female.
“In this video, what is astounding is that Rebecca, the Planned Parenthood counselor, starts arranging with the actor about how to get a late-term abortion,” Rose continued in her interview with the Daily Caller. “To wait until her pregnancy is so developed that — and using Medicaid for this, using the state to pay for the ultrasound to determine the gender, and then to do a late term abortion if it was a little girl.”
As Rose notes, the employee seems completely unfazed by the woman’s gender-based plans and proceeds to discuss the legalities of abortion, specifically the time-frame during which the baby’s sex is detectable and how much time the woman has to go through with the procedure.
Posted Image
The conversation between Rebecca and the actress also turns to Medicaid, which the employee claims can be used to help the potential patient determine the sex of her baby so that she can later abort if it is a female. This, of course, would purportedly be done covertly (i.e. without telling doctors of the intent to abort) so that the sonograms can be covered by government insurance before letting doctors know of the intention to abort.
“I have actually applied for Medicaid — got on Medicaid — as if I was going to continue my pregnancy. Went through the OB/GYN and then me and my husband decided that we were going to go ahead and terminate,” Rebecca explained, recounting her own experience. “We terminated, and I still stayed on Medicaid and just got on birth control. Right after I got on birth control, I just stopped using it.”
Then, the faux patient asked, “So, um, so then I could, um, then we could probably, you’re thinking, if we did that, we could probably get pregnant again soon after?”
Rebecca answered affirmatively and said that she has had four children and two abortions and that getting pregnant again soon after is absolutely permissible.
Source: http://www.theblaze....ction-abortion/

Also, here are some quotes from the founder of "Planned Parenthood" - I 'm pretty sure they don't use these motto's today - but shocking that this is how some people thought less than 100 years ago!


On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace."Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in theBirth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12


More here: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Those may have been taken out of context...
http://womenshistory...et_sanger_2.htm

Edited by Heretic, 29 May 2012 - 03:44 PM.

  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#2 CanuckRow

CanuckRow

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,910 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:03 PM

craps fracked

Edited by Templeton Peck, 29 May 2012 - 03:27 PM.
censor bypass

  • 1
Posted Image

#3 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:36 PM

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace."Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in theBirth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12


More here: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm


Context is everything....... and one only has to check out Diane Dew to suss out her underlying agenda for quoting the comments above .........OUT of context.

People need to read the comments made by Margaret Sanger IN context.....

I am disappoint, H.......

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 29 May 2012 - 07:16 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#4 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:43 PM

Looking past the pro life propaganda of this sting/video, it's terrible.

A few things to consider:

- Legalised abortion, like legalised anything, will result in those who act on the extremes, pushing limits and doing things others will find enraging and reprehensible. That's to be expected. There are obviously a wide range of reasons women terminate their own pregnancies, this is one of them. Taking this issue as a reason to ban abortions would be an enormous straw man.

- Woman's voluntary expulsion of a fetus is still a rightful choice, killing a pregnant mother and the fetus she carries is not. Does this really need to be explained? It may not be the most sensible thing from a moral perspective, but from an objective one.. duh?

Personally, and this is my subjective, yet probably highly offensive opinion... the type of women that selectively terminate a pregnancy based on gender (which is already 3+ months into it depending on how many ultrasounds are done and how well positioned the fetus is to observingly recognize gender), I have no problem admitting if they somehow become infertile as a result of infection or something else, or even die, I would applaud it. frack 'em.

I've found my children to be more than just a personal blessing, if certain women don't value life of the child they created, I will find myself in agreement with them and not value their life either. May you rest in peace without reproducing at all, thank you, good bye, and good riddance.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 May 2012 - 02:52 PM.

  • 3
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#5 Amish Rake Fighter

Amish Rake Fighter

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,778 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 08

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:44 PM

Planned Parenthood has it's roots in the Eugenics movement, it's founder was a hardcore racist who was involved in "The Negro Project".

She denounced him publicly but Hitler was a big fan of Margaret Sanger

Do your own research, Canada was knee deep in this as well. Our founder of universal health care, Tommy Douglas has a pretty dark history in Eugenics.

Edited by Amish Rake Fighter, 29 May 2012 - 02:44 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#6 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:44 PM

Planned Parenthood has it's roots in the Eugenics movement, it's founder was a hardcore racist who was involved in "The Negro Project".

She denounced him publicly but Hitler was a big fan of Margaret Sanger

Do your own research, Canada was knee deep in this as well. Our founder of universal health care, Tommy Douglas has a pretty dark history in Eugenics.


You need to do a little more research of your own.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 29 May 2012 - 02:47 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#7 Amish Rake Fighter

Amish Rake Fighter

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,778 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 08

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:50 PM

You need to do a little more research of your own.


Speak for yourself, I'm never done learning
  • 0
Posted Image

#8 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:53 PM

I've found my children to be more than just a personal blessing, if certain women don't value life of the child they created, I will find myself in agreement with them and not value their life either. May you rest in peace without reproducing at all, thank you, good bye.


Just clarifying something..... you are referring to women who selectively terminate a pregnancy based on gender or any woman who terminates a pregnancy for any other reason?

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 29 May 2012 - 02:53 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#9 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 May 2012 - 02:55 PM

Just clarifying something..... you are referring to women who selectively terminate a pregnancy based on gender or any woman who terminates a pregnancy for any other reason?

I clarified that in the previous paragraph you chose not to quote.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#10 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:13 PM

Planned Parenthood has it's roots in the Eugenics movement, it's founder was a hardcore racist who was involved in "The Negro Project".

She denounced him publicly but Hitler was a big fan of Margaret Sanger

Do your own research, Canada was knee deep in this as well. Our founder of universal health care, Tommy Douglas has a pretty dark history in Eugenics.

this is from CFIF.ORG

the Sterilization of America: A Cautionary History
"It is better for all 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…Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
— Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Buck v. Bell, 1927

Eugenics, a word all but removed from America’s lexicon after World War II, is the "science" of improving the human race through controlled breeding. Much like the Trail of Tears, Tuskegee medical experiments, or the Japanese internment in this country, the word harkens us back to a shameful time most would just as soon forget.

That task is made easier by today’s politically-correct, sanitized text books in the nation’s school systems; they will ensure the next generation of American utopians will never know the pseudo-science which spawned Adolph Hitler’s horrific acts of ethnic cleansing was developed in American laboratories, and upheld by the highest court in the land.

Origins

At the turn of the 20th century, the American industrial machine was moving full steam ahead, fueled by a burgeoning working class and an endless influx of immigrants, mostly from southern and eastern Europe. In an age of invention, scientists, doctors and economists were elevated to elite status, as they churned out the latest economic and social theories of the day. Eventually, Social Darwinism gave way to a new philosophy, Progressivism.1

Progressive reformers sought a larger role for government to address the growing inner-city issues of crime, poverty and hunger that Industrialization left in its wake. For these social "visionaries," who looked toward science to solve the problems caused by a rapidly changing world, eugenics was a ready-made tonic — prostitution, alcoholism, ignorance, birth defects, poverty, crime, could all be blamed on defective genes.

By 1883, Sir Francis Galton of Great Britain (Charles Darwin’s cousin) had coined the term eugenics — literally meaning "well-born" — to apply to his groundbreaking theories on genetics and social engineering. Galton believed his "moral philosophy" could improve the human species through encouraging society’s best and brightest to have more children.2

In the early 1900s, prominent American biologists Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, influenced by Galton, led other scientists and physicians in developing a radical brand of eugenics that argued for government to weed out degenerate members of the proletariat. Under the auspices of "social responsibility," involuntary sterilizations, genetic manipulation, race segregation and imprisonment were justified in order to save America from the high cost of treating defective individuals, who were responsible for the nation’s social ills. In addition, immigration of "undesirables" could be curbed through selective genetic screening and strict immigration quotas.

Scientists and researchers with agricultural backgrounds flocked to the new field of eugenics. Inspired by animal and plant breeding practices, official records offices were opened by Davenport, Laughlin and others, to collect and catalog human pedigrees. Much like a public library, organizations such as the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) and the American Breeders Association (ABA), filled endless rows of card catalogs with detailed information on family lineages and physical and personality traits, such as moodiness or stubbornness. Also documented were mental and behavioral traits, such as alcoholism, epilepsy and depression. These offices also consulted young couples on suitable marriage partners and other matters of family planning.3

The medical and scientific community worked overtime rolling out new studies to keep up with the need to support eugenicists’ latest claims. Researchers, trained by eugenicists, combed asylums, prisons and orphanages across the country with questionnaires on family genealogies. Experts fanned out to cover the lecture and exhibit circuits with the slogan: "Some Americans are born to be a burden on the rest."4

Steve Selden, author of Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America, documents the effects eugenics had on popular culture. Hollywood movies covered the subject, as did religious services and well-known authors in books. State Fairs hosted "Fitter Families Contests," alongside the prized sow and biggest pumpkin contests. School curriculums from grade school to higher education included eugenics; top universities such as Harvard, Columbia, Cornell and Brown all offered courses on the "science."

Eugenical Sterilization Law

In 1907, Indiana became the first state to pass a law permitting involuntary sterilizations on eugenic grounds; at least 30 states would follow suit. Many of them simply adopted a model "eugenical sterilization law," crafted by the ERO’s Harry Laughlin, which called for compulsory sterilizations of the "socially inadequate." By the mid-1920s, more than 3,000 people had been sterilized against their wills. These included the homeless, orphans, epileptics, the blind and deaf. Also sterilized were those who scored poorly on IQ tests, who were diagnosed as being "feebleminded."

During that time, Congress also got into the act. Hearings were held by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in the House of Representatives to investigate claims that eastern European countries were intentionally "exporting" degenerates to the America. Effective lobbying by Harry Laughlin, an "expert agent" for the committee, led to the passage of anti-immigration laws with strict country quotas that favored northern and western European nations.5

Three Generations of Imbeciles

In 1924, a teenager in Charlottesville, Virginia, Carrie Buck, was chosen as the first person to be sterilized under the state’s newly adopted eugenics law. Ms. Buck, whose mother resided in an asylum for the epileptic and feebleminded, was accused of having a child out of wedlock. She was diagnosed as promiscuous and the probable parent of "socially inadequate offspring."

A lawsuit challenging the sterilization was filed on Ms. Buck’s behalf. Harry Laughlin, having never met Ms. Buck, wrote a deposition condemning her and her 7-month old child, Vivian. Scientists from the ERO attended the trial to testify to Vivian’s "backwardness." In the end, the judge ruled in the state’s favor.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Buck v. Bell (1927), ruled 8-1 to uphold the sterilization of Ms. Buck on the grounds she was a "deficient" mother. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an adherent of eugenics, declared "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

According to University of Virginia historian Paul Lombardo, evidence was later revealed that supports the claim that Carrie Buck’s child was not the result of promiscuity; Ms. Buck had been raped by the nephew of her foster parents. School records also indicate her daughter Vivian was a solid student and had made the honor roll at age 7. A year later, Vivian died of an intestinal illness.

The Aftermath

By the late 1930s, the study of eugenics began to lose its luster in America. Increasingly, independent scientists began disproving eugenicists’ claims. Earlier data was revealed to be skewed and biased towards Americans of western European descent, particularly those inhabiting New England states. By 1939, financial support from individuals and foundations, such as cereal maker J.H. Kellogg and Mrs. E.H. Harriman, the wife of a railway magnate, had dried up and the Eugenics Records Office was forced to close its doors. However, involuntary sterilizations continued in this country through the late 1970s.6

May 2, 2002, marked the 75th anniversary of the shameful Buck v. Bell decision, which has never been overruled and was cited in a federal appeals case as recently as last year.7 The Court’s action in Buck led to the forced sterilization of more than 65,000 Americans by 1979.8 To mark the anniversary of the Buck decision, Virginia Governor Mark Warner formally apologized for his state’s role, saying: "The eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state government never should have been involved."

As for the legacy of Harry Laughlin, his model law was adopted by Nazi Germany in 1934 and led to the sterilization of 350,000 German "feebleminded" people. In 1936, Laughlin was honored with a degree from the University of Heidelberg for his efforts in eugenics. By 1940, Germany adopted a policy of euthanasia for German children and adults with birth defects and mental disorders. In 1941, "special actions" were ordered to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirable elements."9

What Tomorrow May Bring

The eugenics issue has begun to rear its ugly head once again on the politically explosive issues of immigration quotas, embryo research and human cloning. Bioethicists and religious opponents lob accusations at genetic scientists, saying they are "playing God" or seeking to create "designer babies." Germany, which is still haunted by its history of Nazi eugenics, has banned its scientists from most embryonic research and creating cloned embryos. Meanwhile, in France, political opponents of ultra-nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen, accuse him of eugenic-like anti-immigration policies.

Many in this country are also weary of rampant immigration. Pat Buchanan’s latest book, The Death of the West, warns of a "clear and present danger" from declining birth rates and uncontrolled immigration of peoples of "different colors, creed, and cultures." In the wake of September 11, dozens of Americans of Middle-eastern descent were the targets of unwarranted reprisals.

If we are not careful, the current push in this country for biometrics -- the use of genetic markers, facial recognition, hand-scanning, fingerprint scanning and eye scanning for identification purposes -- may provide a database for future generations who, ignorant of the past, may be condemned to repeat it


i was watching a show a while ago that stated at it's peak there were over 30 states sterilising people based on the testing of their "intelligence quotient .


Edited by puckinloveicehockey, 29 May 2012 - 03:14 PM.

  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#11 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:18 PM

14 June 2011 Last updated at 02:20
Sterilisation: North Carolina grapples with legacy

By Daniel Nasaw BBC News, Washington
Posted Image Ms Riddick, now 57, suffered decades of depression and illness
More than 60,000 Americans were sterilised, many against their will, as part of a eugenics movement that finished in 1979, aimed at keeping the poor and mentally ill from having children. Now, decades on, one state is considering compensation.
In 1968, Elaine Riddick was raped by a neighbour who threatened to kill her if she told what happened.
She was 13, the daughter of violent and abusive parents in the desperately poor country town of Winfall, in the US state of North Carolina.
While she was in hospital giving birth, the state violated her a second time, she says.
A social worker who had deemed her "feeble-minded" petitioned the state Eugenics Board to have her sterilised.
Officials coerced her illiterate grandmother into signing an "x" on an authorisation form. After performing a Caesarean section, doctors sterilised her "just like cutting a hog", she says.
"They killed my kids," Ms Riddick says. "They killed mine before they got to me. They stopped it."
Continue reading the main story
Sterilisation in the UK and Europe

While eugenics is now recognised as a pseudoscience - and after the Nazis, one with murderous consequences - it was once a respectable branch of the social sciences.
The term 'eugenics', meaning "good birth", was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, an English scientist who pushed the University College London to found a department to study the field.
Sir Winston Churchill once called for forced sterilisation of "the feeble-minded and insane classes".
While eugenic sterilisation never became official policy in the UK - in part due to opposition from the Catholic church - Finland, Norway, and Sweden adopted the sterilisation laws in the 1930s.
Between 1933 and 1945, more than 400,000 Germans were sterilised under Nazi "racial hygiene" laws, according to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Nearly four decades after the last person was sterilised under North Carolina's eugenics programme, a state task force is seeking the 2,900 victims of sterilisation officials estimate are still alive.
The group hopes to gather their stories and ultimately to recommend the state award them restitution. But with public coffers under severe pressure amid a flagging recovery, it is not clear the legislature will agree.
"I know I can't make it right but at least I can address it," said North Carolina state legislator Larry Womble. He hopes "to let the world know what a horrendous thing the government has perpetrated on these young boys and girls".
America's sterilisation movement was part of a broad effort to cleanse the country's population of characteristics and social groups deemed unwanted, an effort that included anti-race mixing and strict immigration quotas aimed at Eastern Europeans, Jews and Italians.
Beginning with Indiana in 1907, 32 states eventually passed laws allowing authorities to order the sterilisation of people deemed unfit to breed. The last programme ended in 1979.
The victims were criminals and juvenile delinquents, women deemed sexual deviants, homosexual men, poor people on welfare, people who were mentally ill or suffered from epilepsy. African Americans and Hispanic Americans were disproportionately targeted in some states.
'Coerced'
"In general it was the dispossessed of society," said Paul Lombardo, a historian and legal scholar at Georgia State University and editor of A Century of Eugenics in America.
Continue reading the main story
Sterilisation petitions
  • An 18-year-old girl, separated from her husband who had "manifested anti-social behaviour"
  • A black 25-year-old rape victim who showed "abnormal sexual tendencies"
  • A 16-year-old girl who had earlier been committed to a state institution for "sexual delinquency" and whose aunt "signed consent"
  • A white married mother of three, whose family had been "finally dependent for many years" and has "a history of inter-marriage with Indian and Negro"
  • A 15-year girl deemed "feebleminded"; parents reportedly consented
North Carolina Eugenics Board, 25 October 1950
The laws were plainly coercive, scholars say, though some incorporated a veneer of consent - illiterate farmhands given forms to sign, institutional inmates told they would not be released with their bodies intact, poor parents told they would be denied public assistance if they did not approve the removal of a wayward daughter's fallopian tubes.
Motivating the laws, Prof Lombardo said, was indignation at the thought that people who had violated sexual mores would subsequently end up needing public assistance.
"We have in this country have always been extremely sensitive to notions of public stories of inappropriate sexuality," he said.
"We exercise that most dramatically when it comes to times in which we think we're spending individual tax money to support people who violate those social norms. It's our puritanical background, running up against our sense of individualism."
Supreme Court approval
The racial context was inescapable as well.
"The fewer black babies we have the better, that's what some people said," Prof Lombardo said. "'They're just going to end up on welfare.'"
Posted Image The state eugenics board issued orders to sterilise poor North Carolinians with bureaucratic efficiency
Also implicated in American sterilisation laws was the classical eugenic notion that as with horses, authorities could use genetic principles to improve society through selective breeding.
In a 1927 US Supreme Court decision that upheld the laws, storied jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "It is better for all 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."
All told, scholars estimate more than 60,000 Americans were sterilised under eugenics laws in the 20th Century.
North Carolina's law stood out for the wide net it cast.
Telling their stories
Most states would only order sterilisation of institutional inmates or patients, North Carolina's allowed for people within the community - typically social workers - to petition the state to have someone sterilised.
Posted Image Rep Womble says the eugenics programme "borders on genocide"
Of the 1,110 men and 6,418 women sterilised in North Carolina between 1929 and 1974, state health officials estimate about 2,900 could still be alive.
In recent years several states have re-examined their forgotten legacies - prodded in some cases by newspaper investigations - and extended official apologies.
North Carolina did so in 2003, but Mr Womble has continued to push for monetary compensation to the victims.
This month, a state task force created by his legislation will hold a public session at which surviving victims are expected to tell their stories.
The group will eventually make a recommendation for compensation to the governor - $20,000 per person has been suggested.
But the state is facing a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) budget shortfall. The conservative Republicans in control of the state legislature are already poised to slash transport, healthcare and education funds, so it seems unlikely lawmakers will authorise as much as $58m in reparations.
Posted Image Some illiterate patients signed an X on forms consenting to be sterilised
"My hope is that the state will recognise that there's never going to be a good time for compensation," says Charmaine Cooper, executive director of the Justice for Sterilization Victims Task Force, the state body.
Among those expected to testify is Ms Riddick, who now lives in Atlanta. She describes the prospect of a $20,000 payment as an insult.
"I am very angry," she says. "God said be fruitful and multiply. They did not only sin against me, they sinned against God
  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#12 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:35 PM

Context is everything....... and one only has to check out Diane Dew to suss out her underlying agenda for quoting the comments above .........OUT of context.

People need to read the comments made by Margaret Sangster IN context.....

I am disappoint, H.......


:( sorry,...please provide the in context link.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#13 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:42 PM

:( sorry,...please provide the in context link.


Update?

http://womenshistory...et_sanger_2.htm
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#14 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:30 AM

When you mess with the balance, the results can be catastrophic.
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.