Involuntary Sterilization of Women

The world’s eugenicists have found a few other ways to reduce the fertility of the masses.  People who are poor, sickly, disabled or have darker skin are and have always been their targets.  Yesterday I discussed how that vaccines have been co-opted as the sterilization method-of-choice.  Today I discuss how it is being implemented, and who the targets are.

Today, rabbis across the US are silent as the Nuremberg Code is being dismantled. From Nurses and the sterilization experiments of Auschwitz: a postmodernist perspective:

“The Nuremberg code originated because of some of humanity’s darkest deeds. …. these principles — though now expanded several times in the Declarations of Helsinki (1964 and 1975, with further revisions in 1983 and 1989) and the Belmont Report (1979) — were created to protect people from inhumane treatment carried out in the name of scientific research. If these principles are fully adhered to, people should be protected from experiments without scientific merit and without full understanding and consent.”

Rabbis are aware of Mengele’s experiments on twins, perhaps of other hideous experiments done to Auschwitz prisoners, but seem unaware of or to have forgotten one specific type of medical experiment – the sterilization experiments done with untested, unknown vaccines, on Jewish women who could not say no.

“Auschwitz was the largest and one of the most infamous of the camps and the site of numerous ‘medical’ experiments. This historical study uses primary source documents obtained from archives in England and Germany to describe one type of experiment carried out at Auschwitz — the sterilization experiments…

“The purpose of these experiments was to perfect a technique in which non-Aryans could be prevented from reproducing while still being able to work as slave laborers.”

This video describes how Native American women were targeted.

The hospital records show that both tubal ligation and hysterectomies were used in sterilization. Dr. Uri commented: “In normal medical practice, hysterectomies are rare in women of child bearing age unless there is cancer or other medical problems” (Akwesasne Notes, 1974: 22). Besides the questionable surgery techniques being allowed to take place, there was also the charge of harassment in obtaining consent forms.

In an incident of harassment at the Claremore facility, one woman was told by social workers and other hospital personnel that she was a bad mother and they would have to take away her children. They would then place the children in foster homes if she did not agree to the surgery (Akwesasne Notes, 1974: 22).

In one study conducted on the Navajo Reservation and sponsored by the PHS, researchers (who may have ignored the reports of such questionable sterilization procedures, or subtly adjusted their language to satisfy their sponsors) reported:
From 1972 to 1978 we observe a 130 per cent increase in the number of induced abortions performed. During this time the ratio of abortions per 1,000 deliveries has increased from approximately 34 to 77 (an increase of 126 per cent) (Temkin-Greener, 1981: 405). While not exactly within the confines of sterilization, the numbers indicate that the family planning program on the Navajo Reservation was definitely acquiring federal funds to carry on such a massive project.

The statistics concerning Navajo sterilization are just as interesting:
Between 1972 and 1978 the percentage of interval sterilization has more than doubled from 15.1 per cent in 1972 to 30.7 per cent in 1978 (Temkin-Greener, 1981: 406).

The report itself is clinical and methodical; however, the researchers did comment slightly about the relationship between patient and physician: Older women who become pregnant may be much less concerned about reducing their childbearing and may do so primarily when they are influenced by health care providers (Temkin-Greener, 1981: 406). There is room for speculation concerning how much influence these providers stressed in light of previously mentioned charges of harassment and deceit.

Once the word of sterilization spread through Indian Country, some tribal leaders carried on their own investigation. Marie Sanchez, a tribal judge of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, interviewed 50 women, 26 of whom reported that they were sterilized. One doctor told several women that they each had several children and it was time they stopped having children; others were told that they could have children after the operation (Dillingham, 1977: 28). The values that American Indians have toward the number of children a woman bears are quite different than that of white America.

There are many Indians who feel that population control should not apply to them. They believe the federal government has done enough to limit the number of Indians on this continent, and the idea of limiting the number of children is based on what whites feel is a comfortable amount.

Other researchers have found these general feelings to be true in regard to limiting family numbers. One group of researchers gathered data on urban and rural Omaha Indians in Nebraska to determine if either group had different opinions on family planning. The team cited each group’s reason for having children as:
…the family economic situation, the ability to care for the children now and later, family happiness, and the feeling that the couple had enough children were valid considerations in a decision to delay or prevent further pregnancies (Liberty, 1976: 63-64).

The research team also noted that the:
…freedom for the mother to work, and the belief that a small population is good for the country, were generally not sufficient cause [for birth control] (Liberty, 1976: 64).

Dr. Louis Hellman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs in the PHS, presented statistics confirming that 150,000 low income people were sterilized in the U.S. from federal grants (Akwesasne Notes, 1977: 22). These funds allowed the states to be reimbursed for up to 90 percent of the cost of indigent women. A report from the HEW states:
Voluntary sterilization is legal in all states. Although most states have no statute regulating voluntary sterilization, over half authorize the procedure either explicitly by statute, attorney general’s opinion, judicial decision or policies of Health and Welfare department or implicitly through consent requirements…(DHEW report, 1978: 89).

Because the states themselves are not following any set policies, it would stand to reason that IHS certainly does not either, and that is the evidence which reveals mismanagement of resources and people.

The HEW policies and programs regarding sterilization have been in place since 1966. Akwesasne Notes quoted the statistics released by HEW:
HEW now funds 90% of the sterilization cost of poor people. Since 1970, female sterilization in the U.S. has increased almost 300%. From 192,000 to 548,000 performed each year” (Akwesasne Notes, 1977: 31).

Researchers on the Navajo Reservation observed that the trend toward more female sterilizations had to do with the providers. The providers were responsible for the huge increase of people coming in and “agreeing” to surgery. The team further stated that the pattern of childbearing on the Navajo Reservation was very similar to those in developing countries (Temkin-Greener, 1981: 406). The exact meaning of the statement is unknown; however, there are examples of child bearing patterns that may shed light on their remarks: Between 1963 and 1965 more than 400, 000 Colombian women were sterilized in a program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In Bolivia, a U.S. imposed population control program administered by the Peace Corps sterilized Quechua Indian women without their knowledge or consent…(Akwesasne Notes, 1977: 31). In 1967 the American Public Health Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists conducted a study and found that 54 percent of the teaching hospitals nation-wide “…made sterilization a requirement for winning approval for an abortion” (Weisbord, 1975: 155).

The following statement further illustrates the paternalistic and authoritative attitude that many physicians have toward women:
Persons in the lower educational classes rely more on such operations [hysterectomies]; they have been least likely to control their fertility in other ways, and doctors may finally suggest this method (Westoff, 1971: 56).

A recent study [2002] conducted by the Philippine Medical Association on behalf of the Philippine Department of Health revealed that almost 20 percent of the tetanus vaccine sampled positive for the hormone human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), according to Human Life International. Vaccines containing the hormone immunize women not only against tetanus but also against pregnancy by inducing the body’s immune system to attack the hormone needed to bring an unborn child to term.

continuing

The tetanus vaccine tested in the Philippines was imported as part of a program against neonatal tetanus sponsored by the WHO. Similar vaccination protocols have also been observed in WHO programs administered in Mexico and Nicaragua. Tests of the vaccine in Mexico yielded similar results but none of those tests was performed as part of an actual investigation into the contamination.

So, we now have Thailand tribe members, the Philippines, Mexico, Nicaragua.  Let’s see where else:

In 1987, UNICEF officially endorsed “good quality abortion services” at the International Conference on Better Health for Women and Children in Nairobi, Kenya.
– In 1993, UNICEF boosted its quiet contribution to UNFPA’s open support for China’s “one-child family” policy—Beijing’s program to shrink its population with coerced sterilizations, late-term abortions and sometimes infanticide—from $2 million to $5 million.
– In 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG, a hormone that sterilizes and causes miscarriages in its recipients. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.
– In its 1997 State of the World’s Children report, UNICEF praised China as the most “baby-friendly” nation in the world, solely because of its legislation, despite widely distributed video documentation of “dying rooms” of starving babies in Chinese orphanages and widespread child labour.
– Also in 1997, the Vatican stopped its symbolic UNICEF donation, since the agency refused to provide a detailed accounting of its population control and pro-abortion programs.
– In 2000, UNICEF awarded Ted Turner with its Trick or Treat Partner Award, for his multimillion-dollar support of global population control programs.

29 countries eliminated MNT between 2000 & January 2013 — UNICEF

From the UNICEF website:

Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination Initiative:

The World Health Assembly first called for elimination of neonatal tetanus in 1989. In 1999, the goal was expanded to include elimination of the maternal tetanus. At that time, there were 57 countries that had still not eliminated MNT. The figure today stands at 59 with inclusion of Timor Leste in 2002 and South Sudan in 2011.

The goal of the initiative is to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT) through focus on the TT-SIAs. As of January 2013, 29 of these countries had achieved MNT elimination leaving 30 countries that still have not eliminated the disease.

 

MNT elimination in a country is defined as neonatal tetanus rate of less than one case of neonatal tetanus per 1000 live births in every district of the country. UNICEF and WHO’s role in this global effort is:
To advocate with partners including the national governments to commit to the goal of MNT elimination and support it through allocation of needed resources
To fund raise for the initiative to meet the gaps in funding needs for the target countries
To support national ministries of health in preparing technically and financially sound plan
To procure and deliver the TT vaccines and injections supplies for the campaigns and ensure cold chain maintenance
To provide technical assistance for implementation of high quality campaigns
To monitor progress towards MNT elimination
To validate (usually through community based mortality surveys) if elimination level has been reached in a country following the country’s claim of elimination.
To work with countries on strategies for maintaining MNT elimination including strengthening of routine immunization

Progress

Through the joint efforts of partners much progress has been made between 1999 and January 2013:
More than 118 million women have been immunized with two or more doses of TT vaccine
29 countries (Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Senegal, South Africa, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), and 15 States of India, all of Ethiopia except Somaliland, and almost 29 of 33 provinces in Indonesia have been validated to have eliminated MNT.
As of 2010, approximately 90% reduction of Neonatal Tetanus mortality has been achieved in the last 20 years.

Partners

UNICEF is committed to eliminating MNT as a public health problem, a goal shared by our partners, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), Becton Dickinson (BD), USAID, CDC, Immunisation Basics, Government of Japan and JICA, Save the Children, GAVI, P&G (Pampers), PATH, RMHC, the Gates Foundation, UNICEF National committees and governments throughout the world. Recently, the Kiwanis International has joined the partnership.

That would be an admirable goal, if it were not being accomplished by hiding a sterilization agent in the vaccines.  29 countries named have been treated with the same vaccine to become MNT free.

More than 118 million women have been immunized with two or more doses of TT vaccine 29 countries (Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Senegal, South Africa, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), and 15 States of India, all of Ethiopia except Somaliland, and almost 29 of 33 provinces in Indonesia have been validated to have eliminated MNT.

Let that sink in.  They have successfully sterilized many of those women and girls in those countries.  There are 30 more they are still working on.  Without their knowledge or consent.  That sounds a lot like genocide to me.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Involuntary Sterilization of Women

  1. Hello I am so thrilled I found your web site, I really found you by error, while I was looking on Askjeeve for something else, Nonetheless
    I am here now and would just like to say kudos for a remarkable post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through it all at the moment but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the excellent work.

  2. This genuinely is this sort of awesome write-up. I’ve been searching because of this files for just a significant though here and there finally stumbled upon your internet website. Thanks a good deal for submitting this, this features forced me to be out enormously. By the way where I enjoy the fashion with each of the weblog, looks good, did someone create it all yourself?

  3. Good web page! I love how it really is simple on my own eyes along with the data are very well written. I am wondering how I might be notified when a different post has been produced. I’ve subscribed in your RSS feed which need to do the trick! Have a great day!

  4. Hi, I do think this is an excellent website.

    I stumbledupon it 😉 I am going to come back yet again since I book-marked
    it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to guide others.

  5. Thank you so much for having the courage to post this. When you look at the whole agenda of population control, it can be terrifying.

    For instance, these people author white papers that talk casually about concepts like “anti-fertility vaccines” and engineering specific foods genetically to increase sterilization–such as cotton (the seeds and their oils are added to processed foods).

    And then, as you quoted, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; as always, they rationalize everything they do with the emotionally moving/distracting cover–“it’s for the children in Africa”–when they’re actually maniacally obsessed with sterilizing them!

    • Thank you!

      What “they” are doing over all is overwhelming when I think about it. In “bites” I can almost deal with it. That’s part of why I don’t write every day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s