Eugenics: Over 1,000 Female Prisoners In California Forcibly Sterilized Because ‘It’s Cheaper Than Welfare’

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,103
2,648
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
by Cassy Fiano-Chesser

A horrifying scheme described as modern-day eugenics has come to light, thanks to the bravery of a victim-turned-whistleblower.


Kelli Dillon was given a 15-year prison sentence after killing her abusive husband in self-defense; while in prison, Dillon says she was lied to about a medical condition and was then forcibly sterilized without her knowledge or consent.

Scott Hechinger, a Brooklyn public defender, tweeted about Dillon’s experience. In 2001, while imprisoned at Central California Women’s Prison, the world’s largest women’s prison, Dillon was told she needed surgery to remove an ovarian cyst.


Five years later, Dillon began to experience symptoms of menopause at age 24, and it was only then that she discovered she had been given a hysterectomy without her knowledge or consent. She quickly sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) but lost.

Instead of giving up, Dillon worked with a team of filmmakers who followed her for seven years to tell both Dillon’s story and the stories of other women who suffered the same injustice.



The documentary, “Belly of the Beast,” was released late last year, and the statistics noted by the filmmakers are disturbing.

Women are currently the fastest-growing prison population, and the vast majority of these inmates are already mothers in their childbearing years.

The majority are Black, and most are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Sadly, 92% of these women have been victims of violence and abuse in their lifetimes.

In California, over 1,000 female prisoners were forcibly sterilized, most of them Black. Many of these women were falsely told they had cervical cancer or had hysterectomies unknowingly performed on them after they gave birth.


Erika Cohn, director and executive producer of the documentary, found out about these atrocities through Cynthia Chandler, the attorney who represented Dillon and helped her pass SB1135, a bill that bans sterilization in prison for birth control purposes.

For Cohn, the information was particularly disturbing as a Jewish woman:

“To me, that really screamed eugenics,” she told the Business Insider.

“When I learned about this different kind of genocide that was happening through imprisonment, that was happening through forced sterilizations behind bars, I knew that I wanted to get involved.”

Cohn added, “There’s layers upon layers upon layers of how these procedures happen. And the one thing that remains consistent is that these are coercive illegal sterilizations.”

According to Dillon and Hechinger, doctors said forcibly sterilizing Black inmates was better than them leaving prison and going on welfare.

“That is one of the things that has happened to the African American Black woman: We’re seen as welfare recipients. And we’re seen as burdens on the system,” she told The 19th.

“If you can perpetuate that lie, and perpetuate those issues, then it’s easier to get not only the buy-in for the agenda and the policy to sterilize us, but you can also get the person who thinks they have a moral high standard of preserving life … you can get them to buy into that b——t too.”

Sadly, the story of California inmates being forcibly sterilized is not rare. Tennessee inmates were coerced into sterilization on a regular basis, bribed with time off of their jail sentences, a program that only came to an end in 2019.

These are modern continuations of a long-time effort to sterilize inmates, who — among others — were deemed “defective” or “unfit” to have children.

Also read: Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than Every Other Cause Of Death Combined: 19 Million Since 1973

When Dillon was originally put in prison, she had two toddler sons whom she rarely was allowed to see. Her hope was that once she finished her time in prison, she would be able to start her life over again, find love, and have more children. Yet the knowledge of what happened to her nearly destroyed her.

“It took a moment for me to actually open up and tell my story because it is the most painful part of my life,” Dillon told the Daily Beast.

“When I think about it, I am choked up. It still comes up in the middle of my throat like a ball to the point where I almost cannot find my voice, even though my voice may seem strong and I seem boisterous and courageous—but that is not what I’m feeling on the inside.”

Eugenics: Over 1,000 Female Prisoners in California Forcibly Sterilized Because 'It’s Cheaper than Welfare' (humansarefree.com)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: mandrill

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,570
5,017
113
Shocking. Clear sign of fascism.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,570
5,017
113

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,651
60,829
113
The US Prison system has been a nightmare for a long time.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
Interesting. A system of private for profit prisons abuse people's rights and your default is to blame 'progressives'.
Why don't you look up eugenics and come back to comment, then?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,103
2,648
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Eugenics and the master race of the left – archive, 1997
30 August 1997 Forced sterilisations in Scandinavia have shocked the world. But the great founding fathers of British socialism, reports Jonathan Freedland, had dreams almost as vile as those of the Nazis



They will be searching their souls in Stockholm tonight. And in Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen, too. All over Scandinavia, people are facing up to the stain now spreading across their snow-white self -image, as they discover that their governments spent decades executing a chilling plan to purify the Nordic race, nurturing the strong and eradicating the weak.

Each day victims of forced sterilisation, now deep in middle age, have stepped forward to tell how they were ordered to have “the chop”, to prevent them having children deemed as racially defective as themselves.


Branded low class, or mentally slow, they were rounded up behind secure fences, in Institutes for Misled and Morally Neglected Children, where they were eventually led off for “treatment”. One man has told how he and his fellow teenage boys planned to run away rather than undergo the dreaded “cut in the crotch”. Maria Nordin, now seeking compensation from the Swedish government, remembers sobbing as she was pressed to sign away her rights to have a baby. Told that she would stay locked up forever if she did not cooperate, she relented – spending the rest of her life childless and in regret.

In Sweden the self-examination has already begun. A government minister has admitted that “what went on is barbaric and a national disgrace”, with more than 60,000 Swedish women sterilised from 1935 until as late as 1976. What has shocked most observers is that all this was committed not by some vile fascistic regime, but by a string of welfare-minded, Social Democratic governments. Indeed, the few voices of opposition came from Swedish conservatives.

But the reckoning cannot be confined to Scandinavia: Britain has some soul-searching of its own to do. What’s more, as in Sweden, the culprits are not long-forgotten fire-breathers of the far right. On the contrary: eugenics is the dirty little secret of the British left. The names of the first champions read like a roll call of British socialism’s best and brightest: Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes, the New Statesman even, lamentably, the Manchester Guardian. Nearly every one of the left’s most cherished, iconic figures espoused views which today’s progressives would find repulsive.

Thus George Bernard Shaw could write: “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”. Later he mused that “the overthrow of the aristocrat has created the necessity for the Superman”. The revered pacifist, disarmer and philosophical titan, Bertrand Russell, dreamed up a wheeze that would have made even Nazi Germany’s eugenicists blush. He suggested the state issue colour-coded “procreation tickets”. Those who dared breed with holders of a different-coloured ticket would face a heavy fine. That way the high-calibre gene pool of the elite would not be muddied by any proletarian or worse, foreign, muck. The New Statesman agreed, explaining in July 1931: “The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics.” The bottom line is bleak but clear. Eugenics, the art and science of breeding better men, is not just the historical problem of Germany and now Scandinavia, nor even of the jackbooted right. It took root right here in Britain – pushed and argued by the left. Indeed, contempt for ordinary people and outright racism were two of the defining creeds of British socialism.

The trouble began with Charles Darwin. His breakthrough work, The Origin of Species, did not restrict its impact to the academy and laboratories. Instead it transformed the very way mankind understood itself in the 19th century, its message fast spilling over into the realm of political ideas. Suddenly the religious notion that all life was equally sacred was under attack. Human beings were like any other species – some were more evolved than others. The human race could be divided into different categories and classes. When Karl Marx took on the task of charting human development and defining the class structure, he acknowledged his debt – dedicating an early edition of Das Kapital to none other than Charles Darwin.

From the beginning, socialism regarded itself as the natural ally, even the political version, of science. Just as biologists sought to understand animals and plants, so scientific socialism would master people. According to Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, and a recognised authority on early ideas of human merit, progressives believed the only enemies of Darwin were reactionaries, the religious and the superstitious. Science, by contrast, represented progress. Crucially, these early leftists regarded science as an utterly neutral tool; something could not be scientifically right and morally wrong. In this climate, says Wooldridge, “eugenics became the political correctness of its day”. If you were modern, you believed in it.

The result was a Darwinian commitment to improving the quality of the nation’s genetic stock. Many of the reforms admired by today’s leftists were not, in fact, borne of a benign desire to improve the lot of the poor, but rather to make Britons fitter – to guarantee their survival as one of the globe’s foremost races. Thus the Webbs pushed for free milk in schools not because their hearts bled for undernourished kids, but because they were alarmed by Britain’s performance in the Boer war, where troops had taken a good kicking at the hands of the black man: the Webbs believed a daily dose of calcium would improve the bones and teeth of the future working class.

The contemporary left has a similarly misguided and sentimental view of Marie Stopes’s campaign to bless the women of King’s Cross and the rest of working-class Britain with contraception. The unrosy reality is that Stopes, Mary Stocks and the like were not motivated by a kind of proto-feminism, but rather by the urge to reduce the numbers of the burgeoning lumpenproletariat. This rather awkward fact was exposed earlier this year with the release of a long-suppressed essay by the father of liberal economics, John Maynard Keynes. He endorsed legalised birth control because the working class was too “drunken and ignorant” to be trusted to keep its own numbers down: “To put difficulties in the way of the use of (contraception) checks increases the proportion of the population born from those who from drunkenness or ignorance or extreme lack of prudence are not only incapable of virtue but incapable also of that degree of prudence which is involved in the use of checks.”

Many progressives were drawn to the hope that science could build up the strong parts of the nation, and slowly eliminate the weak. Dozens of them signed up for the Eugenics Society, which in the 1930s rivalled the Fabians as the fashionable salon of London socialism. Labour MP Ellen Wilkinson even wanted the society to form its own committee of Labour sympathisers. HG Wells could not contain his enthusiasm, hailing eugenics as the first step toward the removal “of detrimental types and characteristics” and the “fostering of desirable types” in their place.

For these early thinkers, eugenic socialism posed no contradiction: indeed, it made perfect sense. As Wooldridge points out, “the Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning”. If socialism was about organising and ordering society from the centre, then its most extreme advocates believed in extending that control – all the way into the wombs and testes of society’s weakest members. What they wanted was a neat, clean, planned Utopia: eugenics was just one part of that dream.

One other doctrine was crucial – profound elitism. It strikes the 1990s ear oddly, but these leading lights of British socialism had no patience for equality. The communist and one-time editor of the Daily Worker, JBS Haldane, considered equality a “curious dogma … we are not born equal, far from it”. Many on the left were members of the upper middle-class or lower aristocracy, convinced their higher intellectual capacities had to be preserved from proletarian infection. One popular idea of the time was to encourage artificial insemination – not to help the infertile, but to impregnate working-class women with the sperm of men with high IQs. Beatrice Webb was sure her genetic material was worth preserving, describing herself as “the cleverest member of one of the cleverest families in the cleverest class of the cleverest nation of the world”. She and her fellow travellers envisaged a world run by an elite made up of people like her, able to determine who could reproduce and who could not. Always fond of gazing into the future, HG Wells pictured a caste of all-powerful super-talented Ubermenschen, who would wear Samurai-style dress, and order the affairs of the planet.

Eugenics and the master race of the left – archive, 1997 | Politics past | The Guardian
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcpro
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts