Murder Disguised as Care

Elizabeth • 10 days ago

I don't understand how it is possible for the government to force someone to do this. Will they forcibly take the woman to the hospital? If the government is allowed to drag citizens to the hospital to perform procedures on them that they do not want, -- what is even happening in this place?

How far away is this government from being in a position to decide that it doesn't want this or that type of child to be born, just because they are not desirable? This is madness, right?

Richard W Comerford Elizabeth • 10 days ago

Ms. Elizabeth:

"Will they forcibly take the woman to the hospital?"

In New England from about 1930 to 1976 the government did exactly that; targeting the Roman Catholic descendants of the French and Indians for forced abortions, sterilizations and frontal lobotomies among other horrors.

This Harvard Professor, who was literally a card carrying Nazi, led the effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

These horrors were carried out in the name of Eugenics: http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelbe...

Harvard is still targeting the Roman Catholic descendants of the French and Indians

Medical Kidnapping: Justina Pelletier's Ordeal | National Review
Search domain www.nationalreview.com/2017...

Another Harvard Professor, Senator Warren (Pocahontas) has failed to even comment on, never mind condemn the Eugenic horrors perpetrated by Harvard upon New England's oldest inhabitant.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Elizabeth Richard W Comerford • 9 days ago

That's really horrifying-- and I don't remember learning much about that in our American history class, at all.

Thank you for answering.

Mr Grumpy Elizabeth • 9 days ago

They will forcibly take her to the hospital and force their way into her womb. Weep for my country.

...
Elizabeth • 9 days ago

Thankfully today,

"On Monday, three appeal judges overturned a decision issue by Justice Lieven, which would have forced an intellectually disabled woman to abort her child, after the woman’s mother requested a review of the ruling. Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Peter Jackson reversed the decision in London’s Court of Appeals today. The reasons for this decision have not yet been released, but we do now know that this mother and her baby will be safe and she will be allowed to continue her pregnancy."
...

Dominic Lombardo • 9 days ago

You know, I read through the comments, and I am surprised that not one of the comments referred to the clear parallels between this case and the infamous U.S. Supreme Court 1927 decision in the case of Buck v. Bell, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s equally infamous and repulsive comment in his majority opinion: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

radicalrepublican Dominic Lombardo • 9 days ago

Who prevailed on that case?
I never heard of it but I'm not a lawyer! Good post thanks.

Dominic Lombardo radicalrepublican • 8 days ago • edited

The Commonwealth of Virginia (in the person of Dr. John Hendren Bell, the superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded ("I'm not making this up, you know!!!")) "won" that case.

The Supreme Court in that case voted 8-1 in favor of sustaining the Commonwealth of Virginia's compulsory sterilization law (which, by the way, was repealed in 1974). The one dissenter was Justice Pierce Butler (a Catholic, by the way); he did not pen a dissenting opinion. The 8 in the majority were Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland, Edward T. Sanford, and Harlan Fiske Stone - a mixture of Democrat and Republican appointees.

By the way: Carrie Buck became pregnant in the first place (and gave birth to a child) as the result of having been raped in 1923 by a nephew of her adoptive mother. Her family had her committed apparently as a way of covering up and "hushing up" the very real and brutal crime of which she was an innocent victim.

Here is some more of Injustice Holmes's arrogant, elitist, and strongly pro-eugenic majority opinion:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."