Skip to comments.Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval
Posted on 07/08/2013 1:03:07 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Link and title only. [Gannett]
Can this possibly be true?
Sounds like a practice of the Third Reich..
Doesn’t it, though?
Bad ideas never seem to die, do they?
Actually, it’s far more accurate to say that ‘ideas never die’, whether good or bad. Sooner or later, some long-forgotten notion turns up, gets repackaged, and marketed anew.
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the Sun.” -Ecclesiastes 1:9
Doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 female inmates from 2006 to 2010 without required state approvals, The Center for Investigative Reporting has found
Great Idea. The women agreed and gave consent. No different than women who discuss sterilization after childbirth in the outside world.
leftist utopia IS prison
Whether they consented is one of the factors in dispute.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of.
- Justice Ginsburg
This makes for a great history lesson, a teachable moment perhaps.
It seems that people are forgetting that we had the Fabian Socialists and Eugenics as government policy under both Wilson and Roosevelt. This isn’t a NAZI problem it is a problem that stems from the earliest Progressive movement in America.
If Planned Parenthood had worked as originally conceived by Margaret Sanger, there would be no blacks left in America, but then somebody realized that they needed the votes. The left is a friend to power not mankind. Victim-hood is a very slippery slope.
Actual Eugenics must be prevented as the horror it is, of course.
After reading the article, I do not see where anyone “forced” anyone else to have tubal ligation surgery. Since when is it a crime against humanity to offer that particular surgery to someone, while at the same time, to give them compelling reasons to accept? I smell lawyers trolling for major payouts.
Do you guys really think OB-GYN’s do not offer this surgery to patients outside of prison?
We had a debate about this when Bill Clinton nominated a Nashville doctor for Surgeon General who had done involuntary sterilizations on poor non-white girls.
The kind of program he was involved in was the subject of Senate hearings in the 1970’s with liberals like Ted Kennedy crying foul.
Ah hell, they consented by going to jail.
Imagine if this had been a Republican-led mandate. The first thing out of the box would be a mention of how many black and Hispanic women were affected, “War on Women”, yada yada.
sad not many know our own dirty/disgusting history.
Depends on exactly what those compelling reasons were...
...like you don’t want to have that guards baby?
What is even more scary...go read the comments section.
They’d rather practice eugenics than dis-incentive the welfare system that encourages these women to have babies for dollars.
The top medical manager at Valley State Prison from 2005 to 2008 characterized the surgeries as an empowerment issue for female inmates, providing them the same options as women on the outside. Daun Martin, a licensed psychologist, also claimed that some pregnant women, particularly those on drugs or who were homeless, would commit crimes so they could return to prison for better health care.
“Do I criticize those women for manipulating the system because they’re pregnant? Absolutely not,” said Martin, 73. “But I don’t think it should happen. And I’d like to find ways to decrease that.”
So they don’t want them getting free healthcare.
Good reminder that the Bible is always a perfect source for truthful information. Praise the Lord.
The fact is, the type of people who got sterilized are the ones who outbreed the rest of "us," and who always throw their political support behind "them." So if it's a grand eugenic plot by the Left, they have their targets all wrong.
Our welfare system has been dysgenic (reverse eugenic) from the get-go by creating financial incentives for the worst dregs of society to have the most children.
Even if they call it choice.
Congratulations, you just summed up what is wrong with the entire planet, moron.
It sounds like the practice the Third Reich copied from the United States.
If true, this is hardly something new for California.
Many socialist, political/regulator class folks are in favor of eugenics, because they want to prevent competition for their fat, government-derived incomes from debt/revenues.
Good highways and trains running on time are not evil.
What's wrong with sterilizing welfare recipients after their first child? I would force them to love and care for their offspring rather than look at them as how many numbers of checks they can force the Gibsmedat to write out.
You may think me cruel. Put yourself in the shoes of a child welfare SLAVE! What kind of outlook on life do they have? Momma created me for another 500 bucks a month?
Go on call me cruel.
Or to breed a prole that can never rebel.
I’m sure she’s grinning in h*ll.
Lots of stupid people on Free Republic.
Read the dang headline, folks: “Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval.”
What information is missing? “... without approval OF THE STATE.”
The “female inmates” wanted the procedure. The state, however, didn’t explicitly provide their “approval.”
Sheesh, buncha idiots taking over FR.
They’ve got the weapon; they just haven’t figured out the right target.
Sterilization is maiming, in the literal dictionary sense: it's a destructive act intended to disable.
It is not wrong to spay a dog, or to neuter a cat, but that is because they are irrational creatures unable to control their sex instinct. This is not true of human beings, who have a mind and a will, and, in that respect, bear some trace of the image and likeness of God. It is a sacrilege and a barbarity to maim them, these fellow-creatures with human hearts and souls, and human responsibilities.
A better option might be to punish fornication and require just restitution of child-raising costs from the fly-by-night inseminators. Paying their debt to society --- hell, paying their debt to their own offspring --- might after all spark thoughts about the serious implications of paternity.
We could put them to work planting trees and building homes in the aftermath of our annual Western wildfires. Working in mines (bring back coal, for Pete's sake!) Building the Great Wall of TexMexia at our southern border.
There's plenty of work. There's meaning in working for your family: there's dignity in it. Moreso than chop-chop with the knife.
1. It’s called “informed consent,” not “succumbing to constant pressure from the people who hold your life and freedom in their hands.”
2. Some inmates have denied that any level of consent was given.
Uh huh..... NOT IT!
Full disclosure: my brother was incentivized to get a vasectomy by the State. It’s a good thing that he took the money.
The task before us, is to rebuild human beings.
Yeah, I'm the monster.
I'm not talking about sterilizing just the women. Men too! If the momma wont give up the donor, no check!
Sterilization nowadays is not the cruel thing it was 40 years ago. It can be done so it is easily reversible. If anything mandatory welfare sterilization will bring parents closer because it will instill life value to the child beyond a cheap monthly payment.
I’d appreciate more details, if you’re free to disclose them.
Progressives never change. While this doesn’t seem to be state sanctioned, it appears as though several of the doctors were ideologues and let their worldview guide their actions.
I’m not objecting to sterilization because it’s cruel. I’m objecting because it’s maiming. And doing it to somebody without consent is a serious violation of medical ethics (no doctor should consent to do it) as well as, legally, battery.
No problem. My older brother was born with a minor brain injury, made poor decicions in high school, got a girl pregnant and married her, went on welfare, had another child ... and his caseworker offered him a financial incentive if he’d get a vasectomy. My brother thought that was a great deal (he couldn’t really care for his two kids, who ended up being adopted by my parents), so he took the money and had the procedure. He’s fine with it — it allowed him to be less restrained with his sexuality, and he made a few easy dollars. Was my brother, whose brain doesn’t work quite right, “coerced”? Maybe. But we’re all fine with it.
Can’t have the guards getting caught impregnating the prisoners.