Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval


www.sacbee.com

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.

At least 148 women received tubal ligations in violation of prison rules during those five years – and there are perhaps 100 more dating back to the late 1990s, according to state documents and interviews.

From 1997 to 2010, the state paid doctors $147,460 to perform the procedure, according to a database of contracted medical services for state prisoners.

Th
(visit the link for the full news article)

cironline.org...
www.upi.com...
livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
additional links

faculty.utep.edu... pdf on history of eugenics

www.uvm.edu... history of eugenics in ca
edit on 7-7-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
this is sickening,i thought eugenics of this sort was long behind us but sadly i was mistaken. i am at a loss for words at how this kind of behavior is even encouraged let alone tolerated and implemented in this way.

its almost like they are trying to be the pound if you come in they will do their best to make sure you leave only after you been "fixed"

i hope the people that did this get broguht to justice and have the keys thrown away as this kind of crap should not be happening in this day and age

comments section of the article is filled with gems such as "well they are criminals who cares?" this is rediculous with exactly how easy it is to end up in jail/prison these days

how can they justify this? how is this even apparently a policy for our jails?

www.sacbee.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
wow i thought they would be scared of lawsuites but no just read into the bush family and what they have done to sterilize women in south america and africa .

this is not the first time inmates have been used for medical trials and tortured in america land of the free



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
another interesting article on the issue
www.uvm.edu...

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States American eugenics refers inter alia to compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states that led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. Many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were mentally disabled or ill, or belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living on the margins of society. American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program, which between 1934 and 1945 led to approximately 350,000 compulsory sterilizations and was a stepping stone to the Holocaust. Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the "Euthanasia" murders) became more widely known after World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s. While Germany has taken important steps to commemorate the horrors of its past, including compulsory sterilization (however belatedly), the United States arguably has not when it comes to eugenics. For some states, there still is a paucity of reliable studies that show how and where sterilizations occurred. Hospitals, asylums, and other places where sterilizations were performed have so far typically chosen not to document that aspect of their history. Moreover, until now there has never been a website providing an easily accessible overview of American eugenics for all American states.


over 60,000 people either disabled/mentaly ill or just undesirables or underprivileged forcibly sterilized against their wishes,the above article is a pretty good read


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


These women had this procedure voluntarily….they weren’t forced.


Crystal Nguyen, a former Valley State Prison inmate who worked in the prison's infirmary during 2007, said she often overheard medical staff asking inmates who had served multiple prison terms to agree to be sterilized.



One former Valley State inmate who gave birth to a son in October 2006 said the institution's OB-GYN, Dr. James Heinrich, repeatedly pressured her to agree to a tubal ligation.

"As soon as he found out that I had five kids, he suggested that I look into getting it done."


There is a big difference between being ‘forced’ and the perception of coercion.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by billdadobbie
 


i am unaware of what bush suposedly did do you have a link(not doubting just asking)

only other place i had heard of us doing this was to puerto rican and native american women and i only learned of this from taking classes on puerto rican history.thank you for your reply



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


if it was so innocent why are people getting in trouble for doing it with out authorization? coerce some one who is an inmate long enough and eventually they will either cave to pressure of the ones in control telling them what to do.
either way that was the title and i had to use the exact one for posting here per the t an c
you think its ok to pressure women into tubal litigation just due to the amount of children they have?Or the fact that they are inmates?

pretty sure that is chinas standard operating procedure not the usa's and i hope they fire the lot of these doctors
from original source

Former inmates and prisoner advocates maintain that prison medical staff coerced the women, targeting those deemed likely to return to prison in the future. Crystal Nguyen, a former Valley State Prison inmate who worked in the prison's infirmary during 2007, said she often overheard medical staff asking inmates who had served multiple prison terms to agree to be sterilized. "I was like, 'Oh my God, that's not right,' " said Nguyen, 28. "Do they think they're animals, and they don't want them to breed anymore?" Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

same source but this shows specifically why they are getting in trouble

Federal and state laws ban inmate sterilizations if federal funds are used, reflecting concerns that prisoners might feel pressured to comply. California used state funds instead, but since 1994 the procedure has required approval from top medical officials in Sacramento on a case-by-case basis. Yet no tubal ligation requests have come before the health care committee responsible for approving such restricted surgeries, said Dr. Ricki Barnett, who tracks medical services and costs for the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp. Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy
so the sterilizations were done outside of the standard procedure so yeah i have a problem with it



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It is definitely treading a very dangerous line.
That is why forced sterilization was banned in CA in 1979.
One woman viewed the procedure as a positive move in her life. Some say they were coerced into having the procedure performed, but no examples are provided of how they were coerced.
In some'cases, the procedure was warranted due to the fact that the women had been through multiple pregnancies that were Cesarian section deliveries. Having another pregnancy may have threatened the life of the mother.

If they explained the reasons once to the woman, and she didn't agree to the procedure, then they should have dropped it. But some women say they were repeatedly urged to have it performed... that is wrong to do.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The women wanted the surgery. They got it for free. They are happy. The state is happy because it won't have to take care of any more kids from them while they are in jail. Win/Win. So what's the problem??



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


yeah asking once sure but repeatedly asking them over and over until they caved is more what i have a problem with,if they want it sure fine and dandy but dont force or coerce any one into having a medical procedure they do not want to have just because "society" thinks they shouldn't be breeding any more .

thank you for your well worded reply



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


because the procedures violated the law as they did not go through the proper channels and review boards required to do such things to inmates? i mean they have a board that handles this kind of thing and none of these cases were brought before that board there for are illegal



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 



if it was so innocent why are people getting in trouble for doing it with out authorization? coerce some one who is an inmate long enough and eventually they will either cave to pressure of the ones in control telling them what to do.

either way that was the title and i had to use the exact one for posting here per the t an c
you think its ok to pressure women into tubal litigation just due to the amount of children they have?Or the fact that they are inmates?


I’m just saying that coercion is a subjective term. These woman had to sign for the procedure.





Federal and state laws ban inmate sterilizations if federal funds are used, reflecting concerns that prisoners might feel pressured to comply. California used state funds instead, but since 1994 the procedure has required approval from top medical officials in Sacramento on a case-by-case basis. Yet no tubal ligation requests have come before the health care committee responsible for approving such restricted surgeries, said Dr. Ricki Barnett, who tracks medical services and costs for the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp.


Yes, that is the only problem I see…apparently they didn’t know.

The 16-year-old restriction on tubal ligations seemed to be news to them, Barnett recalled. And, she said, none of the doctors thought they needed permission to perform the surgery on inmates.
"Everybody was operating on the fact that this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do," she said.

Not knowing isn’t justification but this doesn’t mean that these women are entitled to any recourse because ultimately they subjected themselves to the procedure. These procedures might well have been approved had they been submitted. I'm not sure what all the outrage is....because of a procedural mistake?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Not that I agree with the procedures, but what do you suggest should happen when female inmates have 5-7 children and are multiple repeat offenders? What happens to these children while mom is serving her term? Should the inmates be given chemical contraception which they may or may not be compliant with? Whats the solution?
The article stated that homeless women would do crime to get back into the system, and many times they were already pregnant.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the world, this is a clear breach of international human right's laws and need's to be taken up an the international court of human right's.
These doctors should be struck off and the source of the payment tracked back to whom gave approval, that or those individual's then need to be prosecuted under the international code of human rights as they are undoubtedly criminal's whom believe in the eugenics policy that was totally discredited and met international condemnation after the second world war.


Why do we never hear of breaches of human rights in the USA being tried at the international court as the USA is a fully signed up member of the charter so is bound by international law to enforce it.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Good. Crime can't breed. What a relief.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 



Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the world, this is a clear breach of international human right's laws and need's to be taken up an the international court of human right's.


REALLY?


I didn’t know that failing to follow California law is a breach of international human rights.


You do realize that the procedure was voluntary, don’t you?

Never mind.......



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


because historically people tend to do things to prisoners that cant be done to the general populace,and as there is a procedure and a process that has to be done to do such a medical procedure and that process was ignored it makes it seem like the doctor had an agenda to either limit how many kids a woman inmate could have upon release or limit their ability to breed for being repeat offenders. both of which i have a problem with as i don't think any one should be telling people they can or cant have more kids (doctors can advise it would not be healthy to have more kids but not tell a person they do not have a right to reproduce)

perhaps im just taking it a bit more personally as if eugenics had been allowed to continue i would not have been born as most likely my birth mother would have been deemed unfit for reproduction for a variety of reasons

i will agree with you though "coerced" or in the case of the articles title "forced" are relative terms and good point for bringing that up,but i look at it this way these are inmates they do not have the normal options people on the outside have IE a woman on the outside of jail who didn't want her dr asking her to be sterilized all the time has the option to request another doctor where as in most cases in prisons staff and funds are limited as well as options for different staff so that also is a reason i kind of have a problem with it if that makes sense?

you are also very much correct that once the procedure is done the only recourse they have is to get it reversed as with a signed medical document they cant exactly complain that it was done TOTALY against their wishes but i do think it is shady that this doctor was doing it all on his own with out consulting the group designed to prevent or at least manage this kind of thing thank you for your reply and sorry if i came off as overly hostile earlier was not my intent



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 



because historically people tend to do things to prisoners that cant be done to the general populace,and as there is a procedure and a process that has to be done to do such a medical procedure and that process was ignored it makes it seem like the doctor had an agenda to either limit how many kids a woman inmate could have upon release or limit their ability to breed for being repeat offenders. both of which i have a problem with as i don't think any one should be telling people they can or cant have more kids (doctors can advise it would not be healthy to have more kids but not tell a person they do not have a right to reproduce)


In theory I agree with you but that’s not the case in this scenario. They weren’t forced to have the procedure nor were they told they can’t have more children. You’re reading into this something that isn’t substantiated by the story.



i will agree with you though "coerced" or in the case of the articles title "forced" are relative terms and good point for bringing that up,but i look at it this way these are inmates they do not have the normal options people on the outside have IE a woman on the outside of jail who didn't want her dr asking her to be sterilized all the time has the option to request another doctor where as in most cases in prisons staff and funds are limited as well as options for different staff so that also is a reason i kind of have a problem with it if that makes sense?

They may have the perception that they were coerced but the story doesn’t back that up. I quoted the comment earlier that they were “asked” about having the procedure (maybe several times but nevertheless they were simply asked). I don’t believe that is truly coercion, do you?

edit on 7-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

While it wasn't forced, it sounds like the doctors did sort of pressure the women into doing it.




One former Valley State inmate who gave birth to a son in October 2006 said the institution’s OB-GYN, Dr. James Heinrich, repeatedly pressured her to agree to a tubal ligation. “As soon as he found out that I had five kids, he suggested that I look into getting it done. The closer I got to my due date, the more he talked about it,” said Christina Cordero, 34, who spent two years in prison for auto theft. “He made me feel like a bad mother if I didn’t do it.”


The procedure still was voluntary, and not forced, which is a pretty huge part of the story that isn't in the OP.

Now look, I think it is highly unethical to perform eugenics, or sterilizations, but let's try to keep ethics out of the discussion real quick. If we were going to sterilize someone, who would really be the best people to target??
Criminals with 5 kids are the best target.
I really do not like thinking like that, but I try to look at things from all perspectives. Of course, I vehemently oppose such practices.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Not that I agree with the procedures, but what do you suggest should happen when female inmates have 5-7 children and are multiple repeat offenders? What happens to these children while mom is serving her term? Should the inmates be given chemical contraception which they may or may not be compliant with? Whats the solution?
The article stated that homeless women would do crime to get back into the system, and many times they were already pregnant.


If an inmate has 5-7 children and is still a repeat offender, how does sterilizing mom help the innocent children she already has? What is the point that beyond which a criminal is having too many children? Three? Four? Who decides that? Incompetent parenting happens in all socioeconomic levels, so why not go after the white collar inmates? What sorts of crimes qualify you for targeted sterilization? I understand, but not necessarily agree with, the argument that this reduces the burden placed on states for welfare assistance, but this is a really blurry and dangerous area to be heading (IMO).





top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join