Written by: Carole Novielli
What happens when a state or a judge for that matter orders the bodies of young children to be forever altered under the guise of medicine? Well, I think we already know because history is a great teacher. After all, under eugenics programs targeted at poor whites and a majority of minorities we witnessed the abuse of state eugenics courts who ordered the surgical sterilization of men, women and children (too young to consent) in the name of public health. And, while some were complicit in this monstrous part of our history, many others said and did nothing to stop it. Today, the James Younger case out of Texas parallels this tragic time in history and reveals how the state can potentially yank children from a parent and pump them full of hormones to force them to become another gender.
Jamers Younger (Image: SaveJames.com)
Past is reflection of the Present:
“Unnamed patient records from the 1920s document hundreds of individuals in their late teens and early 20s sterilized for…feeblemindedness, or mental deficiency. A notable percentage of these young patients were typed as masturbators or incest perpetrators if male and as promiscuous—even nymphomaniacal—or having borne a child out of wedlock if female,” noted a report on coercive sterilizations, ironically titled, Sterilized in the Name of Public Health.
This targeting of vulnerable children continued for years. Wallace Kuralt who influenced the opening of a Planned Parenthood facility in North Carolina, headed a coercive eugenic sterilization program in the state when he served as Mecklenburg County’s welfare director from 1945 to 1972. Eugenics has been a cornerstone of Planned Parenthood’s history, and its ugly roots continue to be revealed. According to a report by the Charlotte Observer:
Kuralt retired almost 40 years ago and died in 1994. His key aides also have died, and memories have faded of the decisions that changed hundreds of lives. Some women came forward willingly. Some patients were little more than children who didn’t understand what was to take place. Today, it is impossible to tease out the exact mix of good intentions and overzealous execution, prejudice and paternalism that let such a crusade run unchecked.
A coercive program put in place by the German Nazi Party also targeted children-unable to consent.
Nazis plan to sterilize children under eugenics program (Image: NYTs Jan 5, 1934)
In the 1970’s, a lawsuit was filed to petition federal agencies to draw up guidelines which would prevent the economic coercion of poor women seeking medical care under Medicaid and other programs. A 1973 report by the Aiken Standard report on the case states that, “The action amends a suit seeking to prevent the forced sterilizations of minors and mental incompetents, stemming from three minors, two of whom were allegedly sterilized without their consent and one who received experimental birth control shots in Alabama.”
Aiken lawsuit to stop forced sterilization of children
In referring to the aforementioned Mecklenburg County case, the Charlotte Observer also discussed the issue of “consent,” writing, “Records show patients signed consent for 317 of the 430 sterilizations brought by the Welfare Department. Those without consent were often the youngest patients. All told, the department got sterilization orders for 54 children 16 and younger. The youngest was a 10-year-old girl with a mental age of 4 who had begun menstruating the year before. The parents, who signed the consent for surgery, “appear to give her good supervision but she frequently eludes her parents and wanders away,” the summary says.”
What about today?
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 a judge will make the final determination on whether the mother of a young seven year-old boy, James Younger, can begin the process of chemically altering his gender to “transition” him into being a girl. You heard correctly- 7 years-old – a child that can hardly consent nor understand the consequences that could change his life and his body forever. The case has garnered a ton of attention over the last year but exploded on social media this week after the boy’s father, Jeff Younger, lost his battle in court to protect his son from this experimental procedure.
James Younger with his father Jeff Younger (Image: SaveJames.com)
According to the Daily Caller, “Jeff Younger said his son is happy being a boy and does not desire to be a girl, according to The Texan. James Younger’s pediatrician mother, Anne Georgulas, as well as counselors and therapists who testified on her behalf, told the court that the 7-year-old is transgender and had expressed to each of them that he wished he were a girl.”
LifeSite News, has been following the case and reported that, “Dr. Georgulas [the boy’s mother] has been telling James he’s a girl since he was three. She enrolled him in kindergarten as a girl named “Luna.” He uses the girls’ restroom and all of this classmates believe he is a girl. Dr. Georgulas wants to subject James to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as well as legally force his father to treat him as a girl. ”
“Multiple character witnesses for Mr. Younger testified that James presents as a boy when he is with his father and that they have never seen reason to believe James wants to be a girl,” LifeSite News also reported.
On Monday, a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors in a Dallas court ruled against granting Younger [the father] sole managing conservatorship over James and his twin brother Jude, reported the Daily Wire, adding:
According to the LifeSiteNews, Georgulas has been granted authority to move forward with puberty blockers, which can cause chemical castration, and, potentially, hormones, if she so chooses.
The case is raising questions about the ability for young children to “consent” to permanent and often surgical changes to their bodies.
History has shown us that courts and the medical community have made troubling decisions for others in the past. It wasn’t that long ago when the State was forcefully sterilizing men, women and children under eugenics programs that continue to haunt society to this day. In many cases, children who were forcefully castrated or sterilized with “permission” of their parents have since decried the ghoulish experiments.
In the summer of 1923, 16 year-old Carrie Buck was raped and became pregnant. She was unmarried and the daughter of an inmate at the Lynchburg Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. After her foster parents dubbed her she “peculiar” since birth, Carrie was classified as “feebleminded.” According to Facinghistory.org:
On March 28, 1924, Carrie Buck gave birth to a daughter, whom she named Vivian. A few months later, Carrie was admitted to the Lynchburg Colony. Not long after her arrival, Virginia passed a law allowing involuntary sterilization of those labeled as “feebleminded.” Officials at the Lynchburg Colony decided to sterilize Carrie Buck under the new law with the approval of Albert Priddy, the superintendent of the colony. But first, he and his colleagues arranged for her to appeal the decision in the Virginia courts. Although the appeal was in her name, Carrie Buck had no voice in the process. Priddy and other eugenicists were in charge. They hired an attorney for her as well as one for themselves. The two lawyers were in constant contact with one another and with Priddy before and during trial proceedings even though such collaborations are unethical.
The case, later known as Buck v. Bell, was first heard in the Circuit Court for Amherst County on November 18, 1924.
At the trial Aubrey Strode, the lawyer for Priddy and the Lynchburg Colony, offered “scientific evidence” that Carrie Buck ought to be sterilized. The evidence came from the Eugenics Record Office and was prepared by Harry Laughlin.
Laughlin, who never met the young girl, was published by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in her Birth Control Review. He also signed the Citizen’s Committee on Planned Parenthood and in 1936, according to researcher Paul A. Lombardo, “Laughlin received an honorary degree from the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg as “a pioneer in the science of race cleansing.”
Laughlin’s “evidence” claimed that Carrie came, “from a shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of people…”
After watching her seven-month-old daughter for a short time, a nurse decided that the baby was “not quite normal.” Based on this testimony, the judge decided that Carrie’s mother, Carrie herself, and her infant daughter were all “socially inadequate.”
Irving Whitehead, Buck’s lawyer, did little on her behalf. He called no witnesses to dispute Laughlin or other “experts” who favored sterilization. Not surprisingly, a judge upheld the decision to sterilize Carrie Buck. Whitehead promptly filed an appeal on her behalf in the Virginia Court of Appeals. It was just eight pages long, compared with the 44-page document the colony’s lawyers prepared. In November 1925, the appeals court also ruled against Buck.
In April of 1927, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. By then, Albert Priddy was dead. The new superintendent of the Lynchburg Colony was his former assistant, a Dr. Bell. So the case that began as Buck v. Priddy went to the Supreme Court as Buck v. Bell. The justices saw only the records from the original trial and the appeals court. Based solely on what they read in the court transcripts, they voted 8-1 to uphold the sterilization of Carrie Buck.
Oliver Wendall Holmes
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, stated in part, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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.”
Carrie Buck was sterilized in October 1927.
In 1928, Virginia officials also sterilized Carrie Buck’s sister. She was told that the operation was to remove her appendix. Only in 1980 did she learn why she was never able to have a child. “I broke down and cried,” she said. “My husband and me wanted children desperately. We were crazy about them. I never knew what they’d done to me.”
The ruling encouraged other states to enact sterilization laws. By 1930, 24 states had passed similar measures and about 60,000 people were sterilized under these statutes. Virginia alone sterilized more than 7,500 people between the Supreme Court ruling in 1927 and 1972 when the law was finally replaced.
As recent as the 1960’s state decisions which forever altered children reached deep into the heart of North Carolina and impacted a young Black teen by the name of Elaine Riddick.
Riddick’s tragic story also included a horrific rape as a young girl where she became pregnant.
NC state social worker Sue L. Casebolt discovered her pregnancy and referred Elaine’s case to the state’s Eugenics Board. One of the prominent supporters of the NC eugenics program was Clarence Gamble, a director of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood. Casebolt had been installed as the Executive Secretary of the North Carolina Eugenics Board in 1961 and was on the board in 1968 when it approved the sterilization of Riddick.
According to ABC News, “Riddick’s illiterate grandmother, was told that they were doing a “procedure” that was necessary to help the young girl and signed the sterilization papers with an “X”. The state authorized and paid for the procedure, and without her consent or even her knowledge, Riddick was sterilized shortly after giving birth. She was 14 years old.”
In an interview in the documentary film on eugenics, Maafa21, Riddick stated:
“I asked the State of North Carolina why they did this to me…They sterilized kids, my understanding…-as young as eight years of age. I don’t know what an eight year-old can do that could cause them to do this to them? The only reason I can give myself is that [it’s] because they’re Black.”
According to Maafa21:
At a board meeting held three weeks later, she stated that she intended to keep a file on every child whose name reached her desk so that they could be picked up as soon as they reached childbearing age.
Sue Casebolt on eugenics board that sterilized Elaine Riddick (Image credit: Maafa21)
“I did not find out that they had sterilized me until I was nineteen years old,” Riddick states in the documentary film on eugenics, Maafa21.
“They cut me open like I was a hog,” Riddick emotionally told lawmakers in a hearing on reparations for eugenics victims.
Lillie Ann Buelin was also a victim of the terrible NC Eugenics Program, she told DigTriad.com that welfare workers told her that if she didn’t go to school they would operate on her and have her sterilized. She says they also tested her and labeled her retarded.
“I was just 13 years old,” she emphasized.
In 2005, NBC News reported how, “Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.”
The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren’t yet available in the marketplace.
The practice ensured that foster children — mostly poor or minority — received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.
According to a report from the Catholic News Agency (CNA), “Pediatric endocrinologists are warning that despite a lack of medical tests to determine its safety, U.S. doctors are increasingly injecting children who have gender dysphoria with a powerful hormonal suppressant normally used to treat prostate cancer.” And, a recent NBC News report highlighted a study that, “found that transgender women, who are assigned the male sex at birth, were twice as likely as cisgender men or women to have the blood clot condition venous thromboembolism. Transgender women on hormone therapy were also found to be 80 to 90 percent more likely to have stroke or a heart attack than cisgender women.”
A review of several studies, by the BMJ, concluded, that “There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn…The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research, and treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition…”
On Thursday, Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh tweeted, “And yes puberty blockers are chemical castration. It’s the same drug they use to chemically castrate sex offenders. Yes this is shocking and hard to believe but it’s also true. This is the world we live in now. Wake up and start paying attention.”
Matt Walsh tweet over James Younger (Image: Twitter)
Public outrage over the ruling in the Jeff Younger case prompted Texas Governor Greg Abbott to tweet on Wednesday that, “FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.” But, according to the Washington Examiner, “There are no laws currently preventing a legal guardian from giving a minor puberty blockers or hormones.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweets about the James Younger transgender case (Image: Twitter)
It also prompted Texas Representative Rep. Chip Roy to draft a letter to to the US Attorney General over his concern for the “lack of research studying the long-term impacts of the experimental use of medical treatments for so called gender dysphoria on young children, including hormones on children as young as 8 and double mastectomies on girls as young as 13…”
Rep. Roy then tweeted, “A 7-year-old shouldn’t be subjected to barbaric medical procedures because of an irresponsible adult.”
Rep Chip Roy sends letter to US Justice Department over transgender issue (Image: Twitter)
That sentiment was repeated by Washington Examiner columnist Brad Polumbo who wrote, “A 7-year-old boy cannot be transgender. At least, not with anywhere near the certainty necessary to justify life-altering, potentially irreversible physical changes such as hormone therapy or puberty blockers.”
This is insane and has understandably led to conservative backlash and widespread denunciation. As Kaylee McGhee observes, “[T]his is the logical conclusion of the transgender movement: Affirm our agenda or lose your rights to freedom of speech, association, conscience, and even your parental rights.”
McGhee is exactly right, which is why gay people should denounce transgender radicalism and separate ourselves from a movement that would strip away parental rights and force confused children into radical, life-altering decisions, all in the name of adults’ ability to show off how “woke” they are.
Polumbo continued, “First, let’s dispense with the narrative that a 7-year-old can even be transgender at all. Such a young child cannot even truly understand what sex and gender are, let alone sexuality or gender identity. Of course, a child can experience gender confusion: Many children do, and if James wanted to go by the name Luna, wear dresses, or so on, his parents would be wrong to shame him or otherwise stifle him. But that’s a very far cry from making radical, permanent physical changes based on the whims of a young child who, as McGhee notes, doesn’t even meet the medical criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Moreover, numerous studies show “that a substantial majority [of gender-confused kids] — anywhere from 65% to 94% — eventually ceased to identify as transgender.”
But, those stats did not dissuade the boy’s mother who, according to the Washington Examiner, secured a letter of recommendation for transition for James from a woman associated with a gay children’s therapy center, the Examiner reported.
“This is a letter of recommendation that my client, James Younger, aka Luna, begin the process of becoming a patient of the GENECIS clinic so that she can receive a full psychological assessment for gender dysphoria and potentially take hormone blockers,” said a letter from Rebekka Ouer from Dallas Rainbow Therapy.
A judge is set to rule on the matter Thursday October 24, 2019.
(NOTE: Reprint permission granted if article published in full with credit to the blog/author)
Saynsumthn's Blog 
