Archive for the Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water Category

STERILIZE THE POOR? Michigan Columnist promotes putting BIRTH CONTROL in drinking water to ‘fight poverty’, can you say EUGENICS?

Posted in birth control in water, Eugenics, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water with tags , , , , , , , , on February 17, 2012 by saynsumthn

This Op-Ed should have never been printed and is an OUTRAGE- one must read it to see why:

Michigan is breeding poverty
• FEBRUARY 12, 2012 AT 6:47 PM

By:NOLAN FINLEY

Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.

Michigan’s social problems and the huge costs attached to them won’t recede until we embrace reproductive responsibility.

Last year, 43 percent of the babies born in Michigan were to single mothers. And even though Medicaid pays for birth control, half of the babies born here were to mothers on welfare. Eighteen percent were born to teenagers who already had at least one child. And nearly 1-in-5 new babies had mothers with no high school diploma.

In Michigan, poverty is as much a cultural problem as it is an economic one.

I spoke with an educator who is dealing with a single mother, mid-30s, with 12 children and a 13th on the way. The kids have an assortment of fathers with one thing in common — none married their mother. This woman’s womb is a poverty factory.

It wouldn’t matter if Michigan’s economy were bursting with jobs, the woman and her children would still be poor.

Who’s supporting these kids? If you’re a taxpayer, you are. The roughly 45,000 children a year born onto the welfare rolls is a major reason Medicaid will consume 25 percent of next year’s budget.

Those kids are more likely to grow up to be a strain on Corrections spending or welfare recipients themselves. And they’ll drain money from the schools and universities that could help break this cycle.

In the 1990s, Michigan considered penalizing women who had more babies while on welfare, but pro-life groups killed the idea out of fear it would lead to more abortions.
Now, says state Human Services Director Maura Corrigan, the state is trying other measures, including attacking school truancy and the new four-year limit on welfare benefits, which she says is already increasing participation in work training programs.

“We are trying to get at generational poverty,” she says. “We’re studying positive incentives to change.”

But she says the cultural breakdown is a strong tide to row against.

“We’re watching marriage move from being part of the social fabric to being merely optional,” says Corrigan, who devotes her personal time to working with disadvantaged children. “The kids I mentor don’t know people who are married.”

They do know people whose irresponsible behavior is being subsidized by their neighbors.

And as long as the taxpayers of Michigan keep paying for them, those babies will keep on coming.

You can contact Mr. Finley here: nfinley@detnews.com (313) 222-2064

Get the facts about eugenics- Watch Maafa21

New report by the United Nations shows EUGENIC population control efforts may not be working worldwide

Posted in Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Bernard Berelson, Black Genocide, Eugenics, Guttmacher, John C. Cutler, Lyndon B Johnson, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Medical Experiments, NSSM200, Planned Parenthood in African Nations, Population Control, Population Council, Ravenholt, Rockefeller, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2011 by saynsumthn

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

Then….In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

Followed by this statement, made by Planned Parenthood and the Eugenics Society’s Alan Guttmacher in a 1970 interview with the Baltimore Magazine ,
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

After years of “Sending in a colorful UN Force” and “Implementing NSSM200, the Eugenic master plan seems to be failing. In the spotlight are African Nations. According to a recent report by the United Nations: the New York Times is showcasing the “grisly numbers.”

In the NY Times article: U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century’s End, they report that “the population of the world, long expected to stabilize just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may hit 10.1 billion by the year 2100.”

And who is the main culprit? The NY Times and the UN Report continue:
Growth in Africa remains so high that the population there could more than triple in this century, rising from today’s one billion to 3.6 billion, the report said — a sobering forecast for a continent already struggling to provide food and water for its people.

And just whom does the New York Times go to for a response, none other than the Eugenics based Population Council: Frederic Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society and co-founder of the Population Council along with John D. Rockefeller. In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

Ever heard of John C. Cutler? He was the author of the controversial Guatemala syphilis study he served as both assistant surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service and deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization. The US recently apologized for Cutler’s actions after it was exposed that U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.Cutler’s wife , Eliese S. Cutler, told the University of Pittsburgh that John understood the importance of population control – which she called, one of her husband’s passions. John C. Cutler’s wife admitted that she has served on several boards, including Planned Parenthood, an organization whose founders (Margaret Sanger) , past presidents, and many board members were seeped in eugenics ideals which are very racist.. Eliese and her husband John both contributed to the Population Council .

So- that VERY same Population Council , now the “expert” on Population Control Issues had this to say to the NY Times:
“Every billion more people makes life more difficult for everybody — it’s as simple as that,” said John Bongaarts, a demographer at the Population Council, a research group in New York. “Is it the end of the world? No. Can we feed 10 billion people? Probably. But we obviously would be better off with a smaller population.”

The article continues:
The director of the United Nations population division, Hania Zlotnik, said the world’s fastest-growing countries, and the wealthy Western nations that help finance their development, face a choice about whether to renew their emphasis on programs that encourage family planning.
Though they were a major focus of development policy in the 1970s and 1980s, such programs have stagnated in many countries, caught up in ideological battles over abortion, sex education and the role of women in society. Conservatives have attacked such programs as government meddling in private decisions, and in some countries, Catholic groups fought widespread availability of birth control. And some feminists called for less focus on population control and more on empowering women.
Over the past decade, foreign aid to pay for contraceptives — $238 million in 2009 — has barely budged, according to United Nations estimates. The United States has long been the biggest donor, but the budget compromise in Congress last month cut international family planning programs by 5 percent.
“The need has grown, but the availability of family planning services has not,” said Rachel Nugent, an economist at the Center for Global Development in Washington, a research group.
Dr. Zlotnik said in an interview that the revised numbers were based on new forecasting methods and the latest demographic trends. But she cautioned that any forecast looking 90 years into the future comes with many caveats.
That is particularly so for some fast-growing countries whose populations are projected to skyrocket over the next century. For instance, Yemen, a country whose population has quintupled since 1950, to 25 million, would see its numbers quadruple again, to 100 million, by century’s end, if the projections prove accurate. Yemen already depends on food imports and faces critical water shortages.
In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, the report projects that population will rise from today’s 162 million to 730 million by 2100. Malawi, a country of 15 million today, could grow to 129 million, the report projected.

The implicit, and possibly questionable, assumption behind these numbers is that food and water will be available for the billions yet unborn, and that potential catastrophes including climate change, wars or epidemics will not serve as a brake on population growth. “It is quite possible for several of these countries that are smallish and have fewer resources, these numbers are just not sustainable,” Dr. Zlotnik said.
Well-designed programs can bring down growth rates even in the poorest countries. Provided with information and voluntary access to birth-control methods, women have chosen to have fewer children in societies as diverse as Bangladesh, Iran, Mexico, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

AND
“West and Central Africa are the two big regions of the world where the fertility transition is happening, but at a snail’s pace,” said John F. May, a World Bank demographer.

According to the United Nation’s report, High-fertility countries are mostly concentrated in Africa (39 out of the 55 countries in the continent have high fertility), but there are also nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.

It is always interesting to me how African nations are the culprits of the upcoming disaster of population explosions. Maybe this is why in America the Eugenics Founded Planned Parenthood Group targets Black Neighborhoods with their centers…as explains in the film: Maafa21.

The recently released documentary about Eugenics in America called- Maafa21 also focused on the way it targets third world countries. In the Maafa21 DVD evidence that the former Office of Population head for the United States, RT Ravenholt, says he wants to sterilize one-forth of the World’s population, and was “honored by Planned Parenthood” is just more proof of this eugenics agenda !

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Maafa 21 PT 11, posted with vodpod

Maafa21 exposes racism, eugenics, and elitism all connected to Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Posted in Abortion, Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Alva Myrdal, Alveda King, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Bill Gates, birth control in water, Black Abortion Stats, Black Babies, Black Church, Black Conservative, Black Deaths, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Neighborhood, Black Panthers, Black Pastor, Black Victims, Black Women, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Civil Rights, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, Clinton, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Conspiracy, Constitution, Darwin, Davenport, Democrat, Dr. James Watson, Ehrlich, Elaine Riddick, Elite, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Faye Wattleton, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Galton, Garret Hardin, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Haiti, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Huxley, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, LBJ, Leon Whitney, Levon Yuille, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, MLK, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Republican, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Urban League, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

Know the Truth- Get Maafa21 here

Eliese Cutler wife to John C. Cutler of Guatemala syphilis study was a former Planned Parenthood board member founded in eugenics

Posted in American Eugenics Society, Eugenics, free speech, Guatemala, Hispanic, John C. Cutler, Maafa21, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and Hispanics, Population Control, Population Council, pro-choice, Racism, Rockefeller, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 5, 2010 by saynsumthn


John C. Cutler, the author of the controversial Guatemala syphilis study spent much of his life as a physician largely in service to global public health. Prior to joining the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health for his “second career”, he served as both assistant surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service and deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization.

Cutler’s wife Eleise, a graduate of Wellesley College in Massachusetts, told the University that Cutler’s early work was in the field of venereal disease. He was a part of the group of physicians who developed VDRL, the venereal diseases research laboratory test, which has become the accepted test for the diagnosis of syphilis. We traveled all over the world together when he was doing research work in syphilis and gonorrhea,” Eleise explains. “He worked in a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, in New York and also in Guatemala. And, I was with him every step of the way.” Dr. Cutler’s research also took the two of them to India where, while working for the World Health Organization, he organized a venereal disease laboratory for South East Asia.

Eliese Cutler 2007 Planned Parenthood Board of Western Pennsylvania Board Member

Eliese Cutler 2007 Planned Parenthood Board of Western Pennsylvania Board Member

But the recent news that U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago, during those studies has promoted the United States to issue an apology to Guatemala.



** The image above has been removed from the website of the University of Pittsburgh, I grabbed it prior to them taking it down

Cutler’s wife , Eliese S. Cutler, told the University of Pittsburgh that John understood the importance of population control – which she called, one of her husband’s passions. John C. Cutler’s wife admitted that she has served on several boards, including Planned Parenthood, an organization whose founders (Margaret Sanger) , past presidents, and many board members were seeped in eugenics ideals which are very racist.. Eliese and her husband John both contributed to the Population Council and NOTE: Frederic Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society and co-founder of the Population Council along with John D. Rockefeller. In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

From the powerful documentary on Eugenics- Maafa21

The 1940’s was known as an era where many scientists endorsed the idea of eugenics. Eugenics was often used to promote the idea of population control for people which the Elites thought should not procreate. Many victims were sterilized against their will- such as these people in North Carolina.

Planned Parenthood was founded in 1942 by Margaret Sanger who was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had board members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“.

Margaret Sanger once said, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

In Margaret Sanger’s, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb 1919. Birth Control Review , Library of Congress Microfilm 131:0099B .
Sanger states, “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.

Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like.

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfitEugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit…

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

In addition, Planned Parenthood’s top award is called the Margaret Sanger Award, despite the fact that Sanger was an admitted Klan speaker. This is what Sanger wrote in her autobiography, “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When Dr. John C. Cutler arrived at the University of Pittsburgh in 1967, he became the head of the population division of the Graduate School of Public Health where he helped establish and coordinate major international health projects in West Africa and several third world countries. He was also instrumental in the development of a joint program with the University’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

Interesting to note is that John Cutler’s wife Eleise, served on the board of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, a group which was founded by , Margaret Sanger, as we proved above was a Klan speaker who was a long time member of the American Eugenics Society. Susan Reverby says that Cutler’s wife, Eliese Cutler, the former Planned Parenthood board member, assisted her husband in the administration of the experiment. According to Reverby , “She ‘got to know the patients and helped keep things straight,’ while also photographing them and the inoculations for the record.”

Eleise Cutler and her husband John supported population control and Eleisealsocontributed to Planned Parenthood’s research arm the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose founder was a Vice President of both Planned Parenthood and the American Eugenics Society.

*****Here you see an article documenting that John C. Cutler’s wife Eleise, served on the board of the eugenic founded Planned Parenthood:
The Pittsburgh Press – Feb 1, 1970 Planned Parenthood Official here fears famine in 5 years

Here – John C. Cutler promotes population control and small families along with Planned Parenthood.The Pittsburgh Press – Sep 10, 1970

And here Dr Cutler is a guest at a Planned Parenthood luncheon Here Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Jan 15, 1969

Here, John C. Cutler promotes Birth Control with Planned Parenthood,The Pittsburgh Press – Jan 20, 1970

As you watch the video and read the information below about the Guatemala syphilis study, keep in mind that John C. Cutler promoted Planned Parenthood ideas, his wife sat on their board, and he advocated Population Control an idea that was pushed by Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. Also keep in mind the fact that Planned Parenthood was funded by members of the American Eugenics Society such as Clarence Gamble, who also funded the North Carolina Eugenics Society which later eugenically sterilized several black women. Below is a testimony from such one of his victim’s Elaine Riddick from the documentary: Maafa21.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now for the information about – John C. Cutler:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

U.S. to Apologize for Shock STD Experiments , posted with vodpod

U.S. to apologize for STD experiments in Guatemala
Government researchers infected patients with syphilis, gonorrhea without their consent in the 1940s

U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.

Many of those infected were encouraged to pass the infection onto others as part of the study.

About one third of those who were infected never got adequate treatment.

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies for actions taken by the U.S. Public Health Service.
The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical,” according to the joint statement from Clinton and Sebelius. “Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices.”

The apology was directed to Guatemala and to Hispanic residents of the United States, according to officials.

“The people of Guatemala are our close friends and neighbors in the Americas,” the statement says. “As we move forward to better understand this appalling event, we reaffirm the importance of our relationship with Guatemala, and our respect for the Guatemalan people, as well as our commitment to the highest standards of ethics in medical research.”

In addition to the apology, the U.S. is setting up commissions to ensure that human medical research conducted around the globe meets “rigorous ethical standards,” according to the government statement.

A telebriefing with Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Affairs is expected Friday morning.

The episode raises inevitable comparisons to the infamous Tuskegee experiment, the Alabama study where hundreds of African-American men were told they were being treated for syphilis, but in fact were denied treatment. That U.S. government study lasted from 1932 until press reports revealed it in 1972.

The Guatemala experiments, which were conducted between 1946 and 1948, never provided any useful information and the records were hidden.

They were discovered by Susan Reverby, a professor of women’s studies at Wellesley College, and were posted on her website.

“In 1946-48, Dr. John C. Cutler, a Public Health Service physician who would later be part of the Syphilis Study in Alabama in the 1960s and continue to defend it two decades after it ended in the 1990s, was running a syphilis inoculation project in Guatemala, co-sponsored by the PHS, the National Institutes of Health, the Pan American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the Pan American Health Organization), and the Guatemalan government,” she wrote.

“It was the early days of penicillin and the PHS was deeply interested in whether penicillin could be used to prevent, not just cure, early syphilis infection, whether better blood tests for the disease could be established, what dosages of penicillin actually cured infection, and to understand the process of reinfection after cures.”

The prison inmates were deliberately infected by prostitutes, but were treated with penicillin afterwards.

According to Reverby’s report, the Guatemalan project was co-sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, the NIH, the Pan-American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the Pan American Health Organization) and the Guatemalan government. The experiments involved 696 subjects — male prisoners and female patients in the National Mental Health Hospital.

The researchers were trying to determine whether the antibiotic penicillin could prevent early syphilis infection, not just cure it, Reverby writes. After the subjects were infected with the syphilis bacteria — through visits with prostitutes who had the disease and direct inoculations — Reverby notes that it is unclear whether they were later cured or given proper treatment.

Reverby, who has written extensively about the Tuskegee experiments, found the evidence while conducting further research on the Alabama syphilis study.

CBS News reports that Cutler seemed to recognize the delicate ethical quandaries their experiments posed, particularly in the wake of the Nuremberg “Doctors’ Trials,” and was concerned about secrecy. “As you can imagine,” Cutler reported to his PHS overseer, “we are holding our breaths, and we are explaining to the patients and others concerned with but a few key exceptions, that the treatment is a new one utilizing serum followed by penicillin. This double talk keeps me hopping at time.”

Cutler also wrote that he feared “a few words to the wrong person here, or even at home, might wreck it or parts of it …

PHS physician R.C. Arnold, who supervised Cutler, was more troubled, confiding to Cutler, “I am a bit, in fact more than a bit, leery of the experiment with the insane people. They can not give consent, do not know what is going on, and if some goody organization got wind of the work, they would raise a lot of smoke. I think the soldiers would be best or the prisoners for they can give consent.”

Apparently difficulties in transmission, as well as in replicating results, added to concerns over the study, and it was dropped after two years.

Cutler went on to participate in another Syphilis Study at Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, N.Y. (although in that case the subjects were informed about the nature of the inoculations administered to them).

John C. Cutler is one of the founders of the Family Health Council of Western Pennsylvania in 1971, where Planned Parenthood operated as a member.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (also known as the Tuskegee syphilis study or Public Health Service syphilis study) was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service. Investigators recruited 399 impoverished African-American sharecroppers with syphilis for research related to the natural progression of the untreated disease.

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance.

Here the US issues an apology:

And never forget the way we targeted Blacks for sterilization under the term: Eugenics.

In fact, since records have been made public in many states- they show over 60,000 people were sterilized against their will – most of them black.

Find out more about how the US has and continues to promote Eugenic Experiments on an entire class of people Watch the documentary Maafa21 (Clip Below)

Read apology: joint statement issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeliushere

Maafa21 racism and abortion movie: the film Planned Parenthood does NOT want you to see !

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Black Babies, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Davenport, Elaine Riddick, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Fairchild, Forced Sterilization, Frederick OSborn, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, Leon Whitney, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Lyndon B Johnson, Maafa21, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, Movies, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Quotes, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Video, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2010 by saynsumthn

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.

It is called Maafa21, a Swahili word which means “A terrible tragedy” and used to define the time of the middle passage during the slave trade and “21st century” because it reveals the “Maafa” has not ended but is still being carried out today through abortion.

Maafa 21 shows the connection from slavery and eugenics to birth control, abortion and black genocide today and is routinely called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.” Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life he has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

Maafa21 proves with irrefutable documentation that abortion is simply an extension of racism and eugenics targeting blacks for centuries. After watching Maafa21, viewers often comment that it “connects the dots.”

Maafa 21 features noted African American leaders such as Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Pastors Johnny Hunter and Clenard Childress leaders of the nation’s largest African American pro-life organization LEARN, Dallas Pastor Stephen Broden and others. Maafa21 was the featured film in the March 2010 Jubilee Film Festival in Selma, Al. to commemorate the right to vote and remember the historic “Bloody Sunday” anniversary of the Bridge Crossing Civil Rights march from Selma-to-Montgomery In addition, Maafa21 was featured in the 2010 Real Life Film Festival in Sudbury, Ontario. Audiences across the United States are gathering for showings of Maafa21 in homes, churches, theaters, Universities, and community centers.

The 2.5 hours of stunning documentation included in Maafa21 was gathered from original transcripts, video, books, libraries, and the papers of the American Eugenics Society, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and many others. We encourage you to view Maafa21’s “credits section” to see just how credible the information presented in Maafa21 is.

Gripping Interview:

Don’t miss Maafa21’s emotional interview with an African American Woman
who was eugenically sterilized by the State of North Carolina’s Eugenics Board

The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.
It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.
It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.
Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.
So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …

Sample quotes from the film:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg July 2009

Under the cover of an alleged campaign to ‘alleviate poverty,’ white supremacist Americans and their dupes are pushing an all-out drive to put rigid birth control measures into every black home. No such drive exists within the white American world.” Black Unity Party, 1968

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

N.C. eugenics survivors seek justice

Posted in Abortion, American Eugenics Society, birth control, birth control in water, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black Victims, Black Women, Civil Rights, Elaine Riddick, Eugenics, Forced Sterilization, Maafa21, North Carolina Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 29, 2010 by saynsumthn

The ultimate betrayal
Indy Week 3/24/2010 by Lara Torgesen

It has been 40 years since Elaine Riddick heard the words, but she still remembers them like yesterday: “The doctor told me I had been butchered.”
In 1968, at just 14 years old, Elaine became one of the thousands of victims of North Carolina’s forced sterilization program. Quietly and efficiently operating from 1929 until 1974, the program’s purpose was to weed out the “unfit” of society by stopping them from reproducing.

Elaine is sitting in a quiet apartment high above the noise of Atlanta traffic. A well-dressed, poised and dignified African-American woman in her mid-50s, it is difficult to imagine her as the young girl that she describes.

As a teenager in tiny Winfall, N.C., Elaine had already known poverty and violence. She had witnessed her father cutting her mother’s throat from ear to ear in an alcohol-induced rage. She remembers frequently missing school. When she did show up, she was dirty and unkempt. She sometimes stole food from other children’s lunches because she was always hungry. At just 13 years old, she was raped and impregnated by a neighbor’s brother who was in his 20s. Elaine remembers that he threatened to kill her if she told anybody.
Elaine was 14 when she gave birth to what was to be her only child, a son, in 1968 at Chowan Hospital in Edenton. She doesn’t remember much about her hospital visit, but she was told that she almost died and had to stay in the hospital a week longer than her son.

For the next few years, Elaine says she remembers having frequent stomach pain and hemorrhaging so severe that at 16 she was admitted to a hospital. The doctor gave her little information, but she remembers he remarked that she’d been “butchered.”

However, Elaine didn’t know what that meant until, at 19, she went to a doctor again. By then she was married and she and her husband wanted to start a family. After talking with the doctor and one of her sisters, she finally realized that she had been sterilized right after her son’s birth five years before.

Like Elaine, tens of thousands of people across the country were victims of eugenic sterilizations. But North Carolina was something of an anomaly. Most of the states with eugenic sterilization programs dismantled them after World War II when the horrors of the Holocaust were uncovered. North Carolina, however, ramped up its program in the postwar years, increasingly targeting poor black women during the ’50s and ’60s.

By the program’s end in 1974, North Carolina ranked third among the states for number of eugenic sterilizations performed—at least 7,600 over 45 years. It was also the only state in which social workers were empowered to start the sterilization petitioning process. The Eugenics Board of North Carolina—comprised of five bureaucrats who met monthly in Raleigh—approved 90 percent of the sterilization petitions, often deciding cases within 15 minutes and without interviewing the individual to be sterilized. More than 70 percent of the victims were sterilized for “feeblemindedness,” a vague term open to the board’s interpretation—from supposedly possessing a low IQ to being “promiscuous,” “rebellious” or even “untidy.”

According to the petition filed with the board for Elaine in 1967, she needed to be sterilized because of her “inability to control herself and her promiscuity.” The petition adds that there are “community reports of her ‘running around’ and out late at night unchaperoned.” It concludes that Elaine can “never function in any way as a parent.” Her diagnosis: “feebleminded.”

Elaine had obtained her medical records after consulting with the ACLU, who worked with her to file a lawsuit against the state for $1 million in damages on the grounds that her constitutional rights had been violated—which she lost. She underwent a reversal procedure that didn’t work. And she tried to save a marriage with a man who called her “barren” and “a waste.”

“He said I should have died,” she remembers. At 27, she finally divorced him and decided to go back to school. She got an associate’s degree, even though she had never completed high school. “They never asked to see my transcript,” she says.

But even a college degree could not erase the stigma she felt from her sterilization and years of verbal and physical abuse. She married another man in Georgia and suffered more abuse. Elaine blamed herself for both abusive husbands because she wasn’t able to give them children. And, she says, she internalized the “feebleminded” label placed on her by the state, believing “I was too dumb and stupid.”

Elaine continued to suffer from pain and bleeding, and finally underwent a full hysterectomy. For years she took anti-depression medication and says she was always hiding, hurting and crying: “I would never smile.”

She avoided her family and people from her past. “I felt like they knew about me,” she says. “I had ‘sterilization’ written all over my forehead and back.”

And she felt betrayed by her government. “They talk about a child’s right to education and a good life. They didn’t have the same rules for me.”

While the program in later years most often targeted poor black women, it didn’t begin that way. Early on, the program focused on people in mental hospitals and training schools, which admitted those believed to have developmental disabilities or psychiatric disorders.

“It’s something that you never forget,” says Agnes, a white elderly woman who lives in Raleigh. (She wishes to remain anonymous because no one else knows about her sterilization.) Although her hair is white and her voice fragile, she appears much younger than her 82 years. She sits at her kitchen table in her well-maintained home, and her eyes begin to tear as the memories from 60 years ago begin to surface.

In 1949 she was 21 years old, married and had just given birth to her second child, who was born with cerebral palsy. She knew that something was wrong but couldn’t pinpoint it. She felt angry and depressed all the time. She wouldn’t eat. She cursed at her husband and her doctor, faulting him for her newborn’s problems. At one point she attempted to jump out the window of their home.

What might be recognized as postpartum depression today was deemed a “mental breakdown.” Agnes was sent to Dorothea Dix State Hospital in Raleigh, where she remained for eight months. “It seemed like 50 years to me,” says Agnes, adding she “wasn’t the best patient.”

She received more than 25 electrical shock treatments during her hospital stay. It’s been more than 60 years, but Agnes still shudders as she recalls being strapped to a table with a mouth guard in place and feeling the electricity course through her body. Then she would be taken back to her ward, tied down with sheets to her hospital bed and covered with ice chips. She also remembers being sent to solitary confinement for weeks at a time as punishment for “bad behavior.”

While at the hospital, Agnes complained of a recurring pain in her side, which the doctors suspected could be appendicitis. She says she clearly remembers hearing them discuss their plans, “They said, ‘If we have to operate on her for her appendix, why don’t we just go ahead and do a sterilization?'” When she asked them why, they simply told her they didn’t want her to have any more children.

“It wasn’t their choice,” she says. “That should have been my choice.”

Agnes did not consent to the procedure, nor did her husband. In fact, he wasn’t even aware she’d had surgery until the following day when she told him about it. The sterilization greatly saddened both Agnes and her husband, who died about eight years ago. They were young and planned to have more children. For years, Agnes had a secret hope to become pregnant despite her sterilization. She would sometimes look longingly at someone else’s baby. “I felt like, if this was my baby I would just be so thrilled.”

Elaine and Agnes, though separated by generation and race, and now by hundreds of miles, are connected by history: they are both survivors of North Carolina’s eugenic sterilization program. There are two bills in the Legislature that, if passed, would help make amends for North Carolina’s eugenic past. One would provide a one-time cash payment of $20,000 to each of the estimated 2,800 victims expected to still be alive, as long as they come forward themselves and can be verified to have been part of the program. (State Rep. Larry Womble initially proposed $50,000, but the most recent House bill reduced the amount.) The other bill addresses health and counseling benefits for victims as well as ethics training for government employees and a directive for the state’s K–12 schools to teach about North Carolina’s eugenics program as part of its state history curriculum. No other state has made this type of effort. Yet, considering the uniqueness of the state’s sterilization program, the extra effort seems warranted.

To be fair, most North Carolinians knew little or nothing about the state’s forced sterilization program at the time it was happening. Few sterilization victims spoke up about what happened to them, and the records of the Eugenics Board were closed to the public. However, in the late 1990s, Dr. Johanna Schoen, a professor of women’s history at the University of Iowa and a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill, was researching the history of birth control, sterilization and abortion when she was granted access to the board’s previously sealed records.

Recognizing that the stories of thousands of victims desperately needed to be told, she shared her research with a team of reporters at the Winston-Salem Journal, who combined Schoen’s research with their own investigative reporting and published a five-part series in the winter of 2002–2003 titled “Against Their Will.” The series detailed the flagrant abuses that occurred during the program’s tenure. For example, more than 2,000 of the victims were ages 18 and younger. A 10-year-old boy was castrated. The board sometimes backdated approval for procedures that had already been performed. Young girls were sterilized for perceived promiscuity or rebelliousness. Welfare recipients were sometimes threatened with loss of benefits if they did not agree to sterilization.

Not surprisingly, the Journal’s series was shortly followed by a formal apology from then-governor Mike Easley for the state eugenic sterilization program. Easley appointed a blue-ribbon committee to study compensation for program survivors, and that committee developed several recommendations—everything from increasing public awareness to providing outreach services to survivors through monetary as well as health and education benefits. In 2003, it seemed that North Carolina was well on its way to making some sort of amends for a regrettable chapter of its history. However, because of staff changes at the Department of Health and Human Services and lack of resources, most of the recommendations were left to collect dust for several years.

When State Rep. Womble (D-Forsyth) received a phone call from the Winston-Salem Journal in 2002 asking if he knew about the state’s eugenic history, he said he didn’t. Once he learned the details, he was flabbergasted and angry that such a program had ever taken place and vowed to do something about it. “It’s been a long battle,” says Womble. “First we had to take the law off the books.”

That’s right. The sterilization law remained on the books until 2003, although the Eugenics Board was disbanded in 1974. After the law was finally removed, thanks mainly to Womble’s efforts, the state developed a traveling museum exhibit describing the program. A historical roadside marker recognizes the program’s victims. It was unveiled in downtown Raleigh last year. And, most recently, Charmaine Fuller Cooper of Durham was appointed executive director of the new N.C. Justice for Victims of Sterilization Foundation, which will examine options for restitution for the survivors and collaborate with other state agencies in carrying them out (see sidebar story).

Among the many regrettable aspects of the state’s eugenic program, perhaps the most unforgivable is what happened to children in state training and reform schools. Willis Lynch, now in his mid-70s and living in Littleton, was just a child when he was sterilized during his time at a state training school in the late 1940s. He was the third of seven children being raised by a single white mother on welfare. Although they were desperately poor, Willis fondly remembers how his mother once pulled together enough money to buy him a guitar. He taught himself how to play.

But when Willis was 12, the pressure of taking care of seven children on her own became too much for his mother. Willis was sent to Caswell Training Center in Kinston, and a few of his siblings were sent to other institutions. He remembers learning that he needed some kind of medical procedure. “Momma told me I had to have an operation before I could get out of school.”

His mother was probably told so by authorities. A 1935 report from the Eugenics Board states, “None of the inmates of Caswell Training School should be released before being sterilized, except in the few instances where normal children have been committed through error.”

Willis didn’t know what the operation was for or why he needed it, but he complied. He says he remembers lying on the operating table as a nurse prepared him for the procedure. She asked him about his music. Fourteen-year-old Willis was singing her a song as she slipped the anesthesia mask over his face.

No one ever explained to Willis what had happened to him, but eventually he figured it out on his own. Later in life, he married a woman who already had two children, but Willis says he would have very much liked to have his own biological children. He went on with his life, and music remains his passion. He plays and sings Hank Williams-style songs every Friday night at a local country jamboree. But he says his sterility was always something in the back of his mind. “I always wondered what my kids would look like—how they would be if they was my own.”

Willis assumed he was sterilized because people thought he was “mean” and “they didn’t want my kids running around.” He was able to obtain his medical records from Kinston and learned that the doctors had tried but failed to get his mother sterilized as well. It represents a chapter of his life he’d rather forget. “But you can’t forget things like that.”
It’s not only victims from that period who remember the program with horror. Robin Peacock, now in her early 80s and living in Raleigh, was a social worker in the area of child welfare services in the 1960s and early 1970s. She says that during those years she didn’t understand the purpose and rationale given for the state eugenics program. “At one point my concern turned to rage when working with a young couple who had come to the agency to apply to adopt an infant. At that time, we looked into causes of sterility. In talking with the wife, she confessed that in her early teens she had been sent to one of the state’s training schools for juvenile delinquents. While there, and without her knowledge, she had been sterilized. The memory of that painful conversation has remained with me over 40 years.” Hundreds of children who passed through the doors of state training schools ended up sterilized. Caswell Training Center had the most, with nearly 600 sterilizations. The State Home and Industrial School for Girls was second, with 300 sterilizations. It was assumed that these North Carolina children would grow up to be unfit parents, so they were sterilized before they ever had the chance.

As a man, Willis is an exception to the rule of forced sterilizations. For the most part, men and boys were a small percentage of the victims of sterilization. Eighty-four percent of the sterilization victims overall were women. And by the 1960s, nearly all of the sterilization victims were female. Women bore the brunt of the sterilization law, even though it was readily acknowledged that a tubal ligation for females was a more invasive surgical procedure requiring significant downtime for women than was a vasectomy for males, especially before the advent of laparoscopic surgery.

Eugenic sterilizations for women were secured and performed at a remarkably rapid pace, at a time when women in the general population had an extremely difficult time accessing birth control, sterilization and abortion. Most hospitals followed the “120 formula.” In order to be considered for elective sterilization, you multiplied the woman’s age by the number of children she had, and the number had to reach or exceed 120. So if a woman was 30 years old and had four children, for instance, she might be allowed to have a tubal ligation. Even then, she would often need the endorsement of two doctors plus a psychiatrist to obtain the procedure. There were also policies in place requiring both doctor and spousal permission for a woman to use birth control.

“In general, the whole policy [surrounding women and reproduction] was so contradictory,” Schoen says. “It displayed a deep distrust toward women’s choices…. The underlying message in these policies geared toward women is that they are not equipped to make their own responsible decisions.”

In Schoen’s book Choice & Coercion, she writes about parents who would sometimes petition the board for sterilizations of their daughters because they feared a pregnancy would ruin their family’s reputation. In one especially troubling case, a father sought sterilization for his 14-year-old daughter and admitted he had incestuous feelings for her. An examination revealed that the girl had had intercourse. The petition was approved. We do not know what became of this young girl—first betrayed and possibly abused by her own father, then betrayed and abused by the state.

Schoen’s book also notes cases when women themselves actively sought eugenic sterilization and sometimes were successful, other times not. Shirley was a white woman in her 30s who had suffered from mental illness for years, had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals and had given up three children for adoption and could not care for the fourth. She actively sought eugenic sterilization in 1966 to relieve her constant fear of pregnancy. Her husband, however, objected to the procedure, thinking he might want to have more children in the future and hoping Shirley might be cured of “not wanting more children.” So the board turned down Shirley’s petition. They deferred to the male head of the household as the person best capable of making the decision.

If the eugenic sterilization program in practice was discriminatory based on a person’s gender, class or race, it was especially so for those individuals who stood at the intersection of all three. Never an attractive program, by the early 1950s eugenics in North Carolina managed to take an even uglier turn. Noninstitutional procedures rapidly increased. With social workers empowered to petition the board for sterilization of their cases, black women from welfare families were increasingly targeted for the procedure.
click to enlarge

Nial Cox Ramirez, a 64-year-old black woman now living in Union City, Ga., was one of them. In 1964, 18-year-old Nial became pregnant. She was from a poor family, and she recalls a white woman with a briefcase (“the Devil from hell”) frequently visiting the family’s home and telling the girl she needed to agree to sterilization or her entire family would lose its welfare benefits.

“She would tell me, ‘If your mother loses her check, your brothers and sisters will starve and it will be all your fault.'” Nial was faced with a stark choice: sacrifice her future family to save her current one.

She agreed to the procedure following the birth of her daughter but tearfully pleaded with the doctor to spare her—to not sterilize her and to just say that he had. The doctor told her he had no choice. Perhaps to make her feel better or to relieve his own guilty conscience, he told Nial that the procedure was temporary and she could get it undone later on. “He told me a bald-faced lie. He knew it was permanent.”

Nial’s daughter, Debra Chesson of Riverdale, Ga., is still angry and heartbroken about what happened to her mother in North Carolina more than four decades before. In a letter dated Nov. 18, 2008, to Rep. Womble, she writes: “The memories are very painful and have left her with feelings of inadequacies which hurt me too … These people (the Survivors) should not have to prove what was done to them was wrong. It was! It violated not only their civil rights but their God given rights….”

Being young, African-American, unwed and pregnant was apparently enough evidence to classify Nial as “feebleminded,” but the lynchpin was that she resided in a home that drew a welfare check and received visits from a social worker. Presumably, there were girls and boys from wealthy and middle-class white as well as black families who could have also been characterized as “feebleminded.” But they are largely absent from the group that ended up sterilized. Many North Carolinians who might have otherwise ended up under the doctor’s knife didn’t—for the simple reason that their families had money and clout.

The eugenics program of North Carolina was part of a much larger pattern of sterilization abuse across the South. A class action lawsuit filed in federal court from Alabama in 1973 revealed that an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 poor women in the United States had been sterilized annually under federally funded programs. Nearly half of these women were black, numbers far exceeding the percentage of African-American women in the general population. This number of sterilizations equals the rate reached by the Nazi sterilization program in the 1930s.

“It wasn’t just a North Carolina issue. These kinds of population control policies tend to target socially devalued people,” says Dr. Dorothy Roberts, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and author of Killing the Black Body. “The message is that certain people shouldn’t be having children. They are blamed for their own low social status.”
Mary English, a black woman now in her late 50s from Fayetteville, was married with three children when she started having health problems at age 22. Her doctor suggested she participate in a “program” in which she would undergo a procedure and not have to worry about birth control anymore. He told her the procedure was easily reversible should she decide to have more children in the future. According to Mary, the doctor had her sign a blank piece of paper authorizing the procedure. A few years later, when she went back to get the procedure reversed, she was informed that it was, in fact, permanent. “He got me and all my friends,” she says of the doctor’s blank-paper program.

Unfortunately, Mary’s name does not match with any of the records from the Eugenics Board stored in the state historical archives. Her doctor was apparently “going rogue” and operating outside the appropriate legal channels for eugenic sterilizations. Mary will not qualify for compensation when and if it is ever paid. We have no way of knowing how many others may have been coerced or otherwise misled into sterilization outside of the state’s legal program. Mary is still trying to figure out how to obtain some measure of justice.
click to enlarge

In the 1930s and ’40s, African-Americans represented 23 percent of North Carolina sterilizations. That grew to 59 percent between 1958 and 1960 and finally to 64 percent between 1964 and 1966. Dr. Roberts says the policies surrounding women and reproduction, especially African-American women, have been shaped by a long-standing mythology. “There’s the myth of the ‘Jezebel,’ or the black woman who is mainly characterized by her unrestrained promiscuity and subsequent irresponsible childbearing.”

This myth, she says, was developed during the time of slavery in the South and was used as a way of legitimizing her rape and exploitation as a breeder to perpetuate slavery.

The Jezebel character later morphed into the “Welfare Queen,” the black woman who deviously has babies to get a fatter check. “These myths helped legitimize white oppression and perpetuate racial inequality,” Roberts says. “When you think about it, these forced sterilizations were very violent, brutal assaults on these women’s bodies. The mythology helped to justify their assault because it was being done not only for the ‘good’ of society but for the ‘good’ of the victim as well.”

Dr. Roberts points out that it’s interesting to note what was happening historically while black women made up an increasingly larger percentage of eugenic sterilizations. The civil rights movement, desegregation in the South and inclusion of African-Americans as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) recipients greatly heightened racial tensions and fears among whites in the South.

“For centuries, black mothers were viewed as naturally inferior, deviant beings who transferred a deviant lifestyle to their children—dooming each succeeding generation to a life of poverty and delinquency. A persistent objective of American social policy has been to monitor and restrain this corrupting tendency of black motherhood.” Roberts contends that the regulation of black women’s reproductive decisions has often been overlooked in discussions of racial oppression, yet it has been a central aspect of racial oppression in America.
Sadly, more than half of the forced sterilization victims have already died, without ever receiving any kind of acknowledgement that what happened to them was wrong. But for the estimated 2,800 individuals still expected to be alive today, there is still a chance to do what’s right. Sharing their stories, acknowledging the past and trying to learn something from it is a start. The $20,000 compensation being considered for survivors is not a hefty sum when you think about what the trade-off has been. Still, it is something, and it should be paid while the survivors are still surviving.

In the letter from Nial’s daughter, she writes about how her mother is on a fixed income now and struggles to pay her medical bills. “No, a monetary settlement will not turn time back and make everything go away but it will help her present and future. It will make her life and the lives of all the other survivors easier … [It] will not ease my mother’s or the rest of the survivor’s internal pain but it will ease their living.”

At 82 years old, Agnes is not sure she’ll live to see when or if the proposed compensation is paid. She appreciates the efforts being made in North Carolina to reconcile its eugenic past by acknowledging what she and thousands of others in our state went through. “It’s nice to know there are people out there that really care about your rights.”

Elaine, Agnes, Willis and Nial wonder why the American values of equal protection and individual liberty did not apply to them, and there are no simple answers to give them. They were caught within an ideological framework that said it’s acceptable to toss aside ethics and trample over the most basic of human rights if someone is perceived to not meet certain social expectations.

Now in her mid-50s, Elaine Riddick is one of the younger survivors of North Carolina’s eugenic sterilization program. From her apartment on the 32nd floor of an Atlanta skyrise, she has a beautiful view of the entire city. She says she has been able to obtain some measure of peace, which she attributes to her faith in God and finally letting go of the self-blame that she carried for years. Her adult son, Tony Riddick, whom she describes as “brilliant,” still lives in Winfall and owns his own computer electronics company.
Elaine has a loving boyfriend who, she says, takes good care of her and has a positive relationship with her son and siblings. Still, sometimes the cruelties from her past come back to haunt her. “Sometimes I think, what is happiness? Am I really happy? I don’t think I will ever be happy, because of what they took from me.”

For more on Eugenics and how it targets African Americans, watch the documentary: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Listen to Elaine Riddick tell her story in the film: Maafa21: Elaine’s Testimony begins at 9:03

Fluoride: Friend Or Foe? Fluoride Opponent Says Chemical Is Harmful To Our Health

Posted in Black Genocide, Fluoride, Population Control, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 22, 2010 by saynsumthn

By Stephany Fisher, CBS Atlanta Anchor
March 9, 2010

ATLANTA — It’s in the tap water we drink and many of the foods we eat.

For decades, we’ve been told that it helps fight cavities, but there are critics who say this chemical is doing more harm than good.

“I’ve worked with a lot of dangerous things in my career. I don’t get real worked up over chemicals or I could have never done my job — this one scares me,” said Daniel Stockin, a health advocate whose background includes toxics assessment.

What could it be? Arsenic? Lead?

No, it’s fluoride — the kind you brush your teeth with, and the kind that’s been added to Atlanta’s city water supply since 1969. Every public water district in Georgia is required by law to do so.

“When we started to fluoridate 50-plus years ago, water was the only source for the fluoride, then they really quickly said hey, let’s put it in toothpaste, and then it started to show up in the foods made with fluoridated water,” Stockin said.

Stockin became concerned about fluoride in 2004 and helped start The Lillie Center — a public health training firm that is now working to end fluoridation.

For the last five years, Stockin and his partners have spent nearly all of their time and money spreading the word about fluoride and its potential negative health effects, one of which is dental fluorosis.

Dental fluorosis is caused by ingesting too much fluoride from various sources, as the teeth are being formed.

In mild cases, it appears as white or brown stains on the teeth. In more severe forms, it can include indentions or pitting of the teeth. The damage is irreversible.

“A lot of folks think it’s just ‘Oh, I have bad hygiene or I’ve got cavities,’ and they have no idea that these stains and these pits are actually caused by the fluorides they’ve ingested,” Stockin said.

Atlanta chiropractor Hamilton Wetzel is one of the many Americans diagnosed with a mild case of dental fluorosis.

“There are some distinct white marks across there and a couple brown spots as well,” Wetzel described.

Now he wants to make sure his baby daughter, Willow and the new baby due in April, don’t suffer the same consequences.

“Hopefully they don’t have the staining on their teeth, hopefully they don’t have the health effects that I had,” Wetzel said.

Stockin invited Wetzel to participate in the Lillie Center’s latest project — a campaign to educate the community on the potential side effects of of ingesting fluoride.

“If you listen on TV today to these ads for drugs and they have 30 seconds or so of side effects that they’re required by law to talk about, but for some reason, people haven’t been told the side effects of fluorides,” Stockin said.

Stockin claims the effects of fluoride reach far beyond our teeth. He says our bodies retain about half of the fluoride we ingest and that it accumulates over time.

“If fluorides do this to teeth, which are the hardest surfaces in your body, what do we think they’re doing to our soft tissues,” posed Stockin.

The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control have endorsed water fluoridation since 1950 and while they admit that fluoride can be toxic in excessive quantities, the ADA maintains that at optimal levels, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent dental decay.

But, when we tried to ask the tough questions, the CDC and State Dental Director Elizabeth Lense, denied our requests for interviews.

We were instead referred to the CDC’s Web site and the American Dental Association’s “Fluoridation Facts” — an article that was last reviewed in 2005.

Stockin says much of that information is outdated, and some of it is just plain wrong.

“It’s bad science, it’s outdated science,” Stockin said.

In fact, Stockin and other experts say fluoride doesn’t need to be ingested at all, that it works best when applied directly to the teeth, via toothpaste or mouth rinse.

“If I went to a doctor and said I have issues with sunburn and he said, ‘Here’s some sunblock for you, drink this to prevent sunburn,’ what would I say? I’d say, ‘that makes no sense,'” Stockin said.

Not a new argument, but more and more communities are beginning to jump on the anti-fluoridation bandwagon, such as Corning, N.Y., Bellingham, Wash. and Juneau, Alaska. Voters in each of those cities rejected the addition of fluoride to their water supplies.

Meanwhile, Atlantans continue to drink fluoridated water, as mandated by the state and many have tough questions for the people who made that choice for them.

“Why are they doing it after there’s been a lot more research coming out that shows that it’s not necessary,” Wetzel said.

Stockin added, “If people insist on fluorides, let them buy fluoridated toothpaste and spit it out rather than all of us ingesting this thing and then having to deal with the health consequences of that?”

Stockin says there’s a lot of new information that hasn’t been widely publicized, including the fact that the CDC is now encouraging parents to use low-fluoride or non-fluoridated water to mix with baby formula.

The National Research Council says infants and babies ingest three to four times the amount of fluorides as adults on a body weight basis, which can lead to an increased risk of dental fluorosis.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, babies don’t need fluoride during the first six months because they don’t have teeth.

Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Support
Mon Jun 9, 2008 9:56am EDT

Fluoride may damage bones of kidney patients

NEW YORK, June 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that kidney patients are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects.

The kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reports the NRC.

Fluoride is added to US water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is also in foods, beverages, drugs and dental products.

The National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions. The NKF advised monitoring children’s fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease. But NKF now admits, “exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not quantify fluoride content.”

The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement goes further: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

“More than 20 million Americans have CKD, and most don’t even know it. More than 20 million others are at increased risk for developing CKD,” NKF reports.

“There is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to the way in which fluoride is metabolized and eliminated from the
body, resulting in an increased burden of fluoride,” concludes Kidney Health Australia in a paper NKF recommends reading.

NKF’s fluoridation support was dropped when a lawyer, an academic dentist and public health professional, Daniel Stockin, alerted it to NRC’s findings.

“An easy way to reduce the uncontrolled flow of fluoride into our bodies is to stop water fluoridation,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State
Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “But it takes political will to reject fluoridation.”

The American and Louisiana Dental Associations erroneously claim the National Kidney Foundation supports fluoridation. However, even the ADA reports that “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”

Chronic kidney disease is a growing health problem in the United States occurring more often in African-American populations, says the Centers for Disease Control.

More fluoride/kidney information here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/index.html

References: http://tinyurl.com/6yo9ws

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Daniel Stockin, the Lillie Center, MPH stockin2@yahoo.com 706-669-0786

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

SOURCE: The Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 69, No. 4, Fall 2009
Fluoride Ingestion Is Related to Fluid Consumption Patterns.
Sohn W, Noh H, Burt BA.

Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences & Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, MI, USA.

Objectives: There have been few reports regarding variations of fluoride intake by fluid consumption patterns. The purpose of this study was to estimate fluoride intake among children in the United States based on their fluid consumption patterns. Methods: Fluid intakes of children aged 1-10 years from plain water, beverages, and water from foods were assessed in a 24-hour recall diet survey as a part of the third National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994). The amount of fluoride ingested from fluids in NHANES III was estimated from several assumptions about the concentration of fluoride in drinking water and beverages. Logistic regression analysis was conducted using SAS((R)) and SUDAAN((R)). Results: Children at the 75th percentile or higher of F intake from fluids (not including water used in cooking) ingested 0.05 mg F/kg/day or more, and children at the 90th percentile or higher ingested 0.07 mg F/kg/day or more. This finding held across all age groups. There was substantial variation in the estimated amount of fluoride ingestion depending on the children’s fluid consumption patterns as well as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. African-American children ingested significantly more fluoride than White children in bivariate analysis. This association remained significant after accounting for fluid consumption pattern and other confounding factors in the model. Conclusion: Our results raise concerns that some children are ingesting significantly more fluoride than others depending on sociodemographic factors and fluid consumption patterns. Additional research is warranted to investigate the variation in the amounts of fluoride ingestion by these factors and its impact on fluorosis prevalence in different population groups.

For more on eugenics and population control – view the home page of this blog !