Real Time Web Analytics

Forced Vaccines and Sterilization A History Of Eugenics

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

 

 

Here is a collection of articles dealing with  sterilization through vaccines and surgeries in current and past programs used by governments to perform these atrocities .  The point of this article  is to show that Governments have had a  history of sterilization through surgeries and vaccines. The mainstream media is doing a great job right now  trying to push this message of forced vaccinations. Our children are already being forced in many areas of this through and its becoming mandatory in many colleges. My life has been touched personally by vaccination programs in colleges. If  the state in the twentieth century is able  kill 262 million people called democide U. of Hawaii’s own number. Then its real easy to say government definitely is capable of putting hormones and toxins in vaccines that cause many illnesses, sterilization and death.

The medical mafia makes us believe there isn’t risks but I ask you this can we trust our government on this when they have performed secret experiment after secret experiment. Please look at the correlation between eugenics, vaccines and sterilization all of these issues tie together hand in hand. When we are told by Government and mainstream media we must vaccinate I question the motives and I try to look at every angle and go all the way with the information. If Pharmaceutical companies, elite and government have run these programs over and over is it so hard to believe that these programs are still happening. Bill Gates openly talks about reducing population through vaccines, these issues are related because we are all under a giant eugenics operation.

RESIST DAILY or BECOME a SLAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

IndiaGazette

At Least 8 Women Dead After State-Run Mass Sterilization Program in India

VoA – News Wednesday 12th November, 2014

at least 8 women dead after state-run mass sterilization program in india

Indian officials say at least eight women have died after undergoing sterilization surgery at a government-run health camp in the central state of Chhattisgarh. The commissioner for India’s Bilaspur district, Sonmani Borah, said 24 of the more than 80 women who underwent sterilization on Saturday have been hospitalized. He said the women were sent home after their surgeries, but some were later admitted to a hospital in Bilaspur after falling ill. Borah said “reports of a drop in pulse, vomiting and other ailments started pouring in on Monday from the women who underwent surgery.” Local governments in India often offer incentives to couples volunteering for sterilization to try to control the country’s billion-plus population. Authorities in eastern India came under fire last year after a news channel unearthed footage showing scores of women dumped unconscious in a field following a mass sterilization.

EUGENICS IN 2013? FEMALE INMATES FORCIBLY STERILIZED

From 2006 -t 2010, at least 148 female inmates were forcibly sterilized by doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, says a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Some 100 more women may have been subjected to the procedure as far back as the late 1990s.

Women who were housed at either the California Institution for Women in Corona or Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla (which is now a men’s prison) were signed up for the procedure while they were pregnant. Those who refused say they were repeatedly asked to undergo the surgery, a tubal ligation. One woman indeed says that she was asked while she was strapped to the surgical table for a C-section.

Prison Officials Say They Did Not Know Approval Was Required Before Performing Sterilizations

Because sterilization of inmates is banned under federal and state law if federal funds are used – on the basis that prisoners may feel pressured to undergo the procedure — California has used state funds. Since 1994, approval by top medical officials in Sacramento has been necessary before the operation is carried out.

But Dr. Ricki Barnett, who tracks medical services and costs for the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., says that the state’s Health Care Review Committee has not received any such requests for approval since she joined the agency in 2008.

In 2008, an Oakland-based prisoner rights group, Justice Now, filed a public records request and contacted the office of state Sen. Carol Liu, who was the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Women and Children in the Criminal Justice System. Barnett was then asked to research the matter in 2010. When she met with health administrators from the two prisons, doctors, nurses and contracting physicians, she learned that not a single one of the doctors was aware they had to have the state’s permission before performing the sterilizations.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/almost-150-women-forcibly-sterilized-in-california.html#ixzz3RDK6x6ql

 

 

NATIVE VOICES FORCED STERILIZED OF NATIVE AMERICANS

1976: Government admits forced sterilization of Indian Women A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office finds that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 American Indian women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO finds that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.   Two years earlier, an independent study by Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four American Indian women had been sterilized without her consent. PInkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.”

Federal-Tribal Relations
Monday, 10 November 2014

Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used to Sterilize Women

   

Less than a year after the United Nations unveiled a sweeping population-control plot aimed at reducing the number of people in Kenya, a supposed UN “vaccine program” is under fire by doctors and Catholic bishops for deliberately sterilizing millions of women. The explosive revelations were released after medical researchers and the Catholic Church found a sterilization agent in tetanus inoculations being foisted on Kenyan women by two UN agencies in cooperation with the national government. Incredibly, it is not the first time that international vaccine campaigns by the UN targeting Third World populations have been exposed as covert sterilization and eugenics programs. Some critics have even referred to the latest plot as race-based genocide. In a statement released last week by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the medical organization said it had ordered laboratory tests of tetanus vaccines being administered in Kenya by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with [sterilizing agent Human Chorionic Gonadotropin] HCG just like the one used in the South American cases,” Dr. Wahome Ngare said in a statement for the Catholic doctors group that helped expose the scheme after the test results came back positive. “Further, none of the girls and women given the vaccination were informed of its contraceptive effect.” Read More
FORCED STERILIZATION OF BLACKS Margaret Sanger “THE NEGRO PROJECT”
In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as “More children from the fit, less from the unfit.” Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. “The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,” she wrote.Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded.” Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation’s slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context?It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation’s history, we are the people most frequently described as “unfit” and “feebleminded.”Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger’s words are especially repugnant in a racial context.The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger’s reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger’s work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder’s reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.Read More

    THE STERILIZATION OF AMERICA
The Sterilization of America: A Cautionary History “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” —

      Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in

Buck v. Bell

    , 1927

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

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

Origins

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

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

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

Eugenics Today: How Vaccines Are Used to Sterilize the Masses

21st Century WireStill, most people are in denial that these kind of elitist programs actually exist…
Elites like the Rockefellers, and dynastic underlings like Bill Gates, seem obsessed with vaccines and the proliferation of dispensaries – particularly in the Third World. Such an elitist ‘health’ project is disguised behind deceptive labels:“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”This 2-in-1 report by Aaron Dykes and Jurriaan Maessan provided the detail and the depth – please read and share this article…
.

How the Rockefeller Foundation Quietly Funded the Anti-Fertility Vaccine

.
Aaron Dykes
Truthstream Media

The Rockefellers, one of the world’s wealthiest families, have been the largest financial backer of Eugenics and other population control measures.


Author Jurriaan Maessan stumbled upon some very compelling and important research back in 2010 while digging through annual reports for the Rockefeller Foundation that conclusively prove that it funded numerous research projects into the development “anti-fertility” vaccines, with its origins in scientific research dating back to at least 1968, and with successful research conducted by at least 1988. There now exists several methods to sterilize both men and women by injection, as well as to terminate pregnancies and/or induce spontaneous abortions.

This is highly significant research because the Rockefeller family, dating back to oil baron John D. Rockefeller, has been on the cutting edge of financing Eugenics policy and research. Rockefeller and other primarily Anglo elites based in the U.S. East Coast and England fostered /festered a whole paradigm of social policy centered around the quack science that asserted that the superiority of some gene stocks over others was provable, while seeking various ways to reduce the populations of the “lesser” genetic groups of the world.Read More

  EUGENICS STERILIZATION LAWS

Paul Lombardo, University of Virginia

While some eugenicists privately supported practices such as euthanasia or even genocide, legally-mandated sterilization was the most radical policy supported by the American eugenics movement. A number of American physicians performed sterilizations even before the surgery was legally approved, though no reliable accounting of the practice exists prior to passage of sterilization laws. Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920s.

Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people supported in institutions or “maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws.

By 1924, approximately 3,000 people had been involuntarily sterilized in America; the vast majority (2,500) in California. That year Virginia passed a Eugenical Sterilization Act based on Laughlin’s Model Law. It was adopted as part of a cost-saving strategy to relieve the tax burden in a state where public facilities for the “insane” and “feebleminded” had experienced rapid growth. The law was also written to protect physicians who performed sterilizing operations from malpractice lawsuits. Virginia’s law asserted that “heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime…” It focused on “defective persons” whose reproduction represented “a menace to society.”

Carrie Buck, a seventeen-year-old girl from Charlottesville, Virginia, was picked as the first person to be sterilized. Carrie had a child, but was not married. Her mother Emma was already a resident at an asylum, the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and the Feebleminded. Officials at the Virginia Colony said that Carrie and her mother shared the hereditary traits of “feeblemindedness” and sexually promiscuity. To those who believed that such traits were genetically transmitted, Carrie fit the law’s description as a “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring.” A legal challenge was arranged on Carrie’s behalf to test the constitutional validity of the law.

At her trial, several witnesses offered evidence of Carrie’s inherited “defects” and those of her mother Emma. Colony Superintendent Dr. Albert Priddy testified that Emma Buck had “a record of immorality, prostitution, untruthfulness and syphilis.” His opinion of the Buck family more generally was: “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.” Although Harry Laughlin never met Carrie, he sent a written deposition echoing Priddy’s conclusions about Carrie’s “feeblemind-edness” and “moral delinquency.”

Sociologist Arthur Estabrook, of the Eugenics Record Office, traveled to Virginia to testify against Carrie. He and a Red Cross nurse examined Carrie’s baby Vivian and concluded that she was “below average” and “not quite normal.” Relying on these comments, the judge concluded that Carrie should be sterilized to prevent the birth of other “defective” children.

The decision was appealed to United States Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., himself a student of eugenics, wrote the formal opinion for the Court in the case of Buck v. Bell (1927). His opinion repeated the “facts” in Carrie’s case, concluding that a “deficient” mother, daughter, and granddaughter justified the need for sterilization. The decision includes the now infamous words: 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.

Recent scholarship has shown that Carrie Buck’s sterilization was based on a false “diagnosis” and her defense lawyer conspired with the lawyer for the Virginia Colony to guarantee that the sterilization law would be upheld in court. Carrie’s illegitimate child was not the result of promiscuity; she had been raped by a relative of her foster parents. School records also prove that Vivian was not “feebleminded.” Her 1st grade report card showed that Vivian was a solid “B” student, received an “A” in deportment, and had been on the honor roll.

Nevertheless, Buck v. Bell supplied a precedent for the eventual sterilization of approximately 8,300 Virginians. Borrowing from Laughlin’s Model Law, the German Nazi government adopted a law in 1933 that provided the legal basis for sterilizing more than 350,000 people. Laughlin proudly published a translation of the German Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny in The Eugenical News. In 1936, Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg as a tribute for his work in “the science of racial cleansing.”

The second Supreme Court case generated by the eugenics movement tested a 1935 Oklahoma law that prescribed involuntary sexual sterilization for repeat criminals. Jack Skinner was chosen to test the law’s constitutionality. He was a three-time felon, guilty of stealing chickens at age nineteen, and convicted twice in later years for armed robbery. By the time his case was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1942 some 13 states had laws specifically permitting sterilization of criminals.

The opinion striking down the sterilization law in the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) was written by Justice William O. Douglas. He highlighted the inequity of Oklahoma’s law by noting that a three-time chicken thief could be sterilized while a three-time embezzler could not. Said Douglas: “We have not the slightest basis for inferring that … the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses.”

Despite the Skinner case, sterilization of people in institutions for the mentally ill and mentally retarded continued through the mid-1970’s. At one time or another, 33 states had statutes under which more than 60,000 Americans endured involuntary sterilization. The Buck v. Bell precedent allowing sterilization of the so-called “feebleminded” has never been overruled.

 

 

 

 

About Nathan Laurenson

Editor at The Daily Resistance, Citizen Journalist, Activist and Co Host Of Battle Of New Orleans Radio On 990 AM WGSO Airs 8pm Wed.| Resist Daily