Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval

reply to post by boncho


Don't want to get too far into this off topic discussion, but there was a time when whales fueled our homes, then peat, then coal, etc..

It would be foolish to assume that we would continue to use the same fuel sources, in spite of government interference.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


That seems like a pretty good size payday for the Drs who performed the procedures...

As for sterilization, well, I think it is a bold idea of the future especially for indigent people and violent criminals. Now I know that is not the popular thing to say but with all of the crazy crime and sickness in the world, not to mention overt poverty and subsidies out of control, it has to be addressed before the planet is taken over worse than it already is by the fools who do nothing but bring it down to barbaric levels.

If they get it together one day and can actually afford to raise their offspring then a reversal could be performed.

A tuba ligation is not a hysterectomy and can be reversed.

On the darker side, this would enable the prisons to hide the rape and sex that is reported to happen to female inmates...

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


I am opposed to any person being coerced by anyone, including doctors and family members, into having any medical procedure that person does not both need or want. therefore, I am opposed to forced sterilization of prison inmates.
on the other hand, and in contradiction to my above statement, I support the changing of both state and federal laws to require sterilization of both female and male felony inmates before paroled or released from prison.
paroled and released felony ex-convicts will be hardly able to financially support themselves and certainly not able to financially able to support a spouse and offspring. also, they don't need the problems and grief that would accompany raising an anti-social child. that is assuming they would care enough to deal with the anti-social offspring and are able to feel the grief.
also, mandatory sterilization would eliminate society's need to financially support the offspring, and provide the anti-social child with numerous special programs, none of which will effect the genetic based both attitude and behavior of the child. society is facing more population based problems every year. most of our environmental issues are population based, and soon shortages of both food and water will be reality.
therefore, I think mandatory sterilization of felony inmates should be legalized.

I am curious if any male inmates were sterilized? I think if more inmates would volunteer for this procedure and were rewarded with a lighter sentence or something it might prove helpful to all. Of course, forced sterilization is not the answer. (Then again, with the gmo/sterilization debate- we may not have to worry about exceeding carrying capacity very much longer).

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas

this is sickening,i thought eugenics of this sort was long behind us but sadly i was mistaken.

Nothing is ever really behind "us". Human beings don't change that much in that short of a time frame. And even if we did, the likelihood would be that we would grow more vicious and cruel as opposed to more enlightened and kind. We reward the worst aspects of human nature. Admittedly, this is what the eugenicists are trying to address but the irony is lost on them.

reply to post by LABTECH767

And there are many other pages that indicate that this breaches the intent of the international human rights law and there is sufficient to bring a case of a breach of human rights'.

In my opinion, the basic human right of the child for being brought up in good conditions certainly outweights the right to procreate. Popping out kids is not some personal matter, it is a thing that directly affects other unconsenting persons, from the kids themselves to the whole society. It is a right under normal circumstances, but basic human right that can never be restricted? BS. It does not matter what is written on some paper, it is morally and ethically wrong anyway. And I would not protest if it is also made legally wrong, with good enough checks and balances. Or at least incentivised through other means.

Ask the Chinese what they think about this basic human right. Most of them support their population control program (even with all its undeniable faults).

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.

There are no lines left to be crossed cause our government has crossed them all! God help the children of this once great land!

God help the elderly who fought for it.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by LABTECH767

 

And there are many other pages that indicate that this breaches the intent of the international human rights law and there is sufficient to bring a case of a breach of human rights'.

In my opinion, the basic human right of the child for being brought up in good conditions certainly outweights the right to procreate. Popping out kids is not some personal matter, it is a thing that directly affects other unconsenting persons, from the kids themselves to the whole society. It is a right under normal circumstances, but basic human right that can never be restricted? BS. It does not matter what is written on some paper, it is morally and ethically wrong anyway. And I would not protest if it is also made legally wrong, with good enough checks and balances. Or at least incentivised through other means.

Ask the Chinese what they think about this basic human right. Most of them support their population control program (even with all its undeniable faults).

edit on 8/7/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Though you are forgetting one thing the Chinese impose the restrictions on their entire population while here this is being imposed on a minority of those that have been incarcerated! For whatever their crimes may be they don't deserve to be singled out and sterilized unless it is imposed on all citizens of this country!

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom

Though you are forgetting one thing the Chinese impose the restrictions on their entire population while here this is being imposed on a minority of those that have been incarcerated! For whatever their crimes may be they don't deserve to be singled out and sterilized unless it is imposed on all citizens of this country!

With all due respect, you're forgetting one thing, too. You're forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that NOBODY was FORCED into sterilization.

The title says "Female inmates sterilized in California without permission" and you automatically become outraged without reading that the "permission" the author was talking about was permission from the state not permission from the patient.

Does everyone see how easy it is for the media to manipulate minds? One story, intentionally worded a certain way, makes most people jump to conclusions and have an emotional reaction. We can't take things at face value!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom

 

Though you are forgetting one thing the Chinese impose the restrictions on their entire population while here this is being imposed on a minority of those that have been incarcerated! For whatever their crimes may be they don't deserve to be singled out and sterilized unless it is imposed on all citizens of this country!

With all due respect, you're forgetting one thing, too. You're forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that NOBODY was FORCED into sterilization.

The title says "Female inmates sterilized in California without permission" and you automatically become outraged without reading that the "permission" the author was talking about was permission from the state not permission from the patient.

Does everyone see how easy it is for the media to manipulate minds? One story, intentionally worded a certain way, makes most people jump to conclusions and have an emotional reaction. We can't take things at face value!

edit on 8-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I did read the article and the title was "Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval"
The reason I was upset was because these woman were targeted and coerced!
Just because they had their permission does not mean this is what these woman wanted!
It also stated in the article that it's more appropriate to offer women a reversible means of birth control.
So why was it not offered to them? It seems to me this is more about sterilization then birth control!

Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

In the article it said that one woman was asked during her C-section after she was already sedated!

Since then, it's been illegal to pressure anyone to be sterilized or ask for consent during labor or childbirth.
"He said, 'So we're going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?' " Jeffrey said. "I'm like, 'Tubal ligation? What are you talking about? I don't want any procedure. I just want to have my baby.' I went into a straight panic."

Jeffrey provided copies of her official prison and hospital medical files to CIR. Those records show Jeffrey rejected a tubal ligation offer during a December 2009 prenatal checkup at Heinrich's office. A medical report from Jeffrey's C-section a month later noted that she again refused a tubal ligation request made after she arrived at Madera Community Hospital.

At no time did anyone explain to her any medical justifications for tubal ligation, Jeffrey said.

That experience still haunts Jeffrey, who lives in San Francisco with her 3-year-old son, Noel. She speaks to groups seeking to improve conditions for female prisoners and has lobbied legislators in Sacramento.

State prison officials "are the real repeat offenders," Jeffrey added. "They repeatedly offended me by denying me my right to dignity and humanity."
Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

Hello RalagaNarHallas and other posters in this thread, just a heads up that this thread and topic will be discussed on Reality Remix Wed. night at 10pm Eastern.

"Join ATS Members SheepSlayer247, Adjensen, NoRegretsEver, Druid42 & Beezer for two hours of their take on threads past and present right here on ATS! "

Here is the thread to pick which way you want to listen in.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by NoRegretsEver[/I ]on Wednesday night, July 31, 2013 I purposely tuned into ATS radio to hear the various opinions of this subject.
but I am very disappointed in the presentation that male sterilization is done by castration, either chemical or surgical. in fact male sterilization is a surgery named vasectomy, and in some case is reversible. also, vasectomy does not require any chemicals to compensate for that surgery.

 

I hope the next time I listen to ATS radio, the subject is presented accurately and fairly.

edit on 31-7-2013 by harkna because: i erred in first draft.