Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …
Oct 232015

Sir Francis Galton. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society. [2.1]

ENLARGE [2.2] Faces and Races, illustration from a eugenical text, Racial History of Mankind. Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

[2.3] Harry H. Laughlin and Charles Davenport at the Eugenics Record Office. Courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives.

Sir Francis Galton first coined the term eugenics in 1883. Put simply, eugenics means well-born. Initially Galton focused on positive eugenics, encouraging healthy, capable people of above-average intelligence to bear more children, with the idea of building an improved human race. Some followers of Galton combined his emphasis on ancestral traits with Gregor Mendels research on patterns of inheritance, in an attempt to explain the generational transmission of genetic traits in human beings.

Negative eugenics, as developed in the United States and Germany, played on fears of race degeneration. At a time when the working-class poor were reproducing at a greater rate than successful middle- and upper-class members of society, these ideas garnered considerable interest. One of the most famous proponents in the United States was President Theodore Roosevelt, who warned that the failure of couples of Anglo-Saxon heritage to produce large families would lead to race suicide.

The center of the eugenics movement in the United States was the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Biologist Charles Davenport established the ERO, and was joined in his work by Director Harry H. Laughlin. Both men were members of the American Breeders Association. Their view of eugenics, as applied to human populations, drew from the agricultural model of breeding the strongest and most capable members of a species while making certain that the weakest members do not reproduce.

Eugenicists attempted to demonstrate the power of heredity by constructing pedigree charts of defective families. These charts were used to scientifically quantify the assertion that human frailties such as profligacy and indolence were genetic components that could be passed from one generation to the next. Two studies were published that charted the propensity towards criminality, disease, and immoral behavior of the extended families of the Jukes and the Kallikaks. Eugenicists pointed to these texts to demonstrate that feeblemindedness was an inherited attribute and to reveal how the care of such degenerates represented an enormous cost to society.

The ERO promoted eugenics research by compiling records or pedigrees of thousands of families. Charles Davenport created The Family History Book, which assisted field workers as they interviewed families and assembled pedigrees specifying inheritable family attributes which might range from allergies to civic leadership. Even a propensity for carpentry or dress-making was considered a genetically inherited trait. Davenport and Laughlin also issued another manual titled How to Make a Eugenical Family Study to instruct field workers in the creation of pedigree charts of study subjects from poor, rural areas or from institutionalized settings. Field workers used symbols to depict defective conditions such as epilepsy and sexual immorality.

The American Eugenics Society presented eugenics exhibits at state fairs throughout the country, and provided information encouraging high-grade people to reproduce at a greater rate for the benefit of society. The Society even sponsored Fitter Family contests.

ENLARGE [2.4] Kallikak family of New Jersey Normal and Degenerate Lines (enlarge to view additional eugenical pedigree charts). Courtesy of Paul Lombardo.

ENLARGE [2.5] Eugenics Display. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.6] Winners of Fittest Family Contest. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.7] Harry H. Laughlin photograph. Courtesy of American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.8] Comparative Intelligence Chart. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.9] Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (enlarge to view additional Virginia legislative acts). Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

In 1914, Harry H. Laughlin attended the first Race Betterment Conference, sponsored by J. H. Kellogg. The same year, in his Model Sterilization Law, Laughlin declared that the socially inadequate of society should be sterilized. This Model Law was accompanied by pedigree charts, which were used to demonstrate the hereditary nature of traits such as alcoholism, illegitimacy, and feeblemindedness. Laughlin asserted that passage of these undesirable traits to future generations would be eradicated if the unfortunate people who possessed them could be prevented from reproducing. In 1922 Laughlins Model Law was included in the book Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. This book compiled legal materials and statistics regarding sterilization, and was a valuable reference for sterilization activists in states throughout the country.

Proponents of eugenics worked tirelessly to assert the legitimacy of this new discipline. For Americans who feared the potential degradation of their race and culture, eugenics offered a convenient and scientifically plausible response to those fears. Sterilization of the unfit seemed a cost-effective means of strengthening and improving American society.

By 1924 Laughlins influence extended in several directions. He testified before Congress in support of the Immigration Restriction Act to limit immigration from eastern and southern Europe. Laughlin influenced passage of this law by presenting skewed data to support his assertion that the percentage of these immigrant populations in prisons and mental institutions was far greater than their percentage in the general population would warrant.

Laughlin also provided guidance in support of Virginias Racial Integrity Act, which made it illegal for whites in Virginia to marry outside their race. The act narrowly defined who could claim to be a member of the white race stating that the term white person shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian. Virginia lawmakers were careful to leave an escape clause for colleagues who claimed descent from Pocahontasthose with 1/16 or less of the blood of the American Indian would also count as white.

The language of Laughlins Model Sterilization Act was used in Virginias Eugenical Sterilization Act to legalize compulsory sterilizations in the state. This legislation to rid Virginia of defective persons was drafted by Aubrey E. Strode, a former member of the Virginia General Assembly, at the request of longtime associate, Albert Priddy, who directed the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia.

2004 Claude Moore Health Sciences Library

Excerpt from:
Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Posted by at 9:44 am  Tagged with:

Raleigh SEO Marketing Agency

 SEO  Comments Off on Raleigh SEO Marketing Agency
Oct 232015

Our Proven Strategies Will Help You Dominate Your Competition By Dominating Search Engines, Social Media & Mobile Users!

Hello Im Joseph Martin, owner of Raleigh SEOMarketing Agency in Raleigh, NC and I would love to work with you and your business. My company specializes in getting yourwebsite, videos, Facebook page, Yelp listing, and moreranked on the 1st page of Google. Search engine optimization isnt ouronly tool in the box though. We have the bestmarketing servicesmatched with proven strategies to get your business more leads, customers and sales!

Plain and simple when highly motivated and TARGETED customersareactively searchingfor your product or service, and your business is notranking in the top search results,youre losing a lot of business to your competition!!

Dominating the search engines means more traffic and leads for your business or even better, more customers, more sales and more profit. Imagine having multiple first page listings when your potential customers search for your product or service. See, customers have evolved all it takes is a quick Google search and potential customers could end up in the hands of your competitors if youre not at the top of the search results.

It means that if customers dont see your business when they are searching for your product or service, youre missing customersand missing sales. Let mehelp you by making sure your business is one of the first customers see. The primary goal I have is to make you more money than youre paying me; or in business terms, a positivereturn on investment (ROI). My team and I have this search engine marketing stuff down to a science. We know exactly how to optimize your website and get your business in front of your ideal customer, getting you results quickly. Thats something that other marketingagencies cant deliver.

As a potential client, I want you to know that Raleigh SEO Marketing Agency is the #1SEO Marketing agencyin Raleigh, N.C. maybe even the best in all of North Carolina. We have ranked countless businesses on the first page, and helped them grow their business. We can do the exact same for you!

Cost will vary depending on a threeprimary factors: Competition, Health andGoals. First we need to determine how much search engine competition your business has. Next we need to diagnose the current health of your website. And finally we need to discuss what your ultimate goals are. Knowing your business goals and budget willhelp us determine what is required. We can customize a plan for your business that will suit your specific needs.

More important than the cost is knowing that youll be working with an experienced agency that actually cares about getting you a positive return on your investment. We only take a limited number of clients, and only one client in a specific sector. This allows us toalways deliver maximum results. Hire us before your competition does!

Id love to discussyour business goals and show you how we can generate more traffic, leads, and sales for your company.

You can get started by completing the quote form.Ill get back to you right away! Joseph Raleigh SEO Marketing Agency

More here:
Raleigh SEO Marketing Agency

 Posted by at 9:41 am  Tagged with:

Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …
Oct 162015

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled ‘An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective’.[1] This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law,[2] which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Over time, the scope of the Board’s work broadened from a focus on pure eugenics to considering sterilization as a tool to combat poverty and welfare costs. Its original purpose was to oversee the practice of sterilization as it pertained to inmates or patients of public-funded institutions that were judged to be ‘mentally defective or feeble-minded’ by authorities. In contrast to other eugenics programs across the United States, the North Carolina Board enabled county departments of public welfare to petition for the sterilization of their clients.[3] The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence,[4] though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board’s operations were repealed.[5]

Today the Board’s work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum.[citation needed] In 2013, North Carolina passed legislation to compensate those sterilized under the Board’s jurisdiction.[6][7]

The board was made up of five members:[1]

The State of North Carolina first enacted sterilization legislation in 1919.[8] The 1919 law was the first foray for North Carolina into eugenics; this law, entitled “An Act to Benefit the Moral, Mental, or Physical Conditions of Inmates of Penal and Charitable Institutions” was quite brief, encompassing only 4 sections. Provision was made for creation of a Board of Consultation, made up of a member of the medical staff of any of the penal or charitable State institutions, and a representative of the State Board of Health, to oversee sterilization that was to be undertaken when “in the judgement of the board hereby created, said operation would be for the improvement of the mental, moral or physical conditions of any inmate of any of the said institutions”. The Board of Consultation would have reported to both the Governor and the Secretary of the State Board of Health. No sterilizations were performed under the provisions of this law, though its structure was to guide following legislation.[8]

In 1929, two years after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Buck v. Bell[9] in which sterilization was ruled permissible under the U.S. Constitution, North Carolina passed an updated law[2] that formally laid down rules for the sterilization of citizens. This law, entitled “An Act to Provide For the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina”, was similar to the law which preceded it, although this new Act contained several new provisions.[2]

In contrast to the 1919 law, which had mandated sterilization for the “improvement of the mental, moral or physical condition of any inmate”, the new law added a new and far-reaching condition: “Or for the public good.” This condition, expanding beyond the individual to greater considerations of society, would be built on in the ensuing years.[2]

The 1929 law also expanded the review process to four reviewers, namely: The Commissioner of Charities and Public Welfare of North Carolina, The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina, and the Chief Medical Officers of any two institutions for the “feeble-minded or insane” for the State of North Carolina.[2]

Lastly, the new law also explicitly stated that sterilization, where performed under the Act’s guidelines, would be lawful and that any persons who requested, authorized or directed proceedings would not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken. Under the 1929 law, 49 recorded cases took place in which sterilization was performed.[10]

In 1933, the North Carolina State Supreme Court heard Brewer v. Valk,[11] an appeal from Forsyth County Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the 1929 law violated both the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the 1868 North Carolina State Constitution.[12] The Supreme Court noted that property rights required due process, specifically a mechanism by which notice of action could be given, and hearing rights established so that somebody subject to the sterilization law had the opportunity to appeal their case. Under both the U.S. Constitution and the N.C. State Constitution in place at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1929 law was unconstitutional as no such provisions existed in the law as written.[11]

The North Carolina General Assembly went on in the wake of Brewer v. Valk to enact House Bill 1013,[1] removing the constitutional objections to the law, thereby forming the Eugenics Board and creating the framework which would remain in force for over thirty years. The Board was granted authority over all sterilization proceedings undertaken in the State, which had previously been devolved to various governing bodies or heads of penal and charitable institutions supported in whole or in part by the State.[2]

In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.[13]

Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor, and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general.

In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any proceedings.

1976 brought a new challenge to the law with the case of In re Sterilization of Joseph Lee Moore[14] in which an appeal was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The petitioner’s case was that the court had not appointed counsel at State expense to advise him of his rights prior to sterilization being performed. While the court noted that there was discretion within the law to approve a fee for the service of an expert, it was not constitutionally required. The court went on to declare that the involuntary sterilization of citizens for the public good was a legitimate use of the police power of the state, further noting that “The people of North Carolina have a right to prevent the procreation of children who will become a burden on the state.” The ruling upholding the constitutionality was notable in both its relatively late date (many other States had ceased performing sterilization operations shortly after WWII) and its language justifying state intervention on the grounds of children being a potential burden to the public.[14]

The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.[4][15]

In 2003, the N.C. General Assembly formally repealed the last involuntary sterilization law, replacing it with one that authorizes sterilization of individuals unable to give informed consent only in the case of medical necessity. The law explicitly ruled out sterilizations “solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience.”[5][16]

At the time of the Board’s formation there was a body of thought that viewed the practice of eugenics as both necessary for the public good and for the private citizen. Following Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court was often cited both domestically and internationally as a foundation for eugenics policies.

In Buck v. Bell Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in support of eugenics policy, that

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.[9]

Despite the Supreme Court rulings in support of eugenics as constitutionally permitted, even as late as 1950 some physicians in North Carolina were still concerned about the legality of sterilization. Efforts were made to reassure the medical community that the laws were both constitutionally sound and specifically exempting physicians from liability.[17]

Framing eugenics as supporting the public good was fundamental to how the law was written. It was argued that both for the benefit of the private citizen, and for the costs to society of future possible childbirths, eugenics were a sound and moral way to proceed. This was stated in the Board’s manual of policies and procedures, in which the practice was justified:[18]

No Place For Sentimentality

There can be no place for sentimentality in solving the problems of the mental health of our citizens. We would be less than human were we to feel no compassion for our unfortunates. But it is a peculiar paradox of human nature that while the best stock of our people is being lost on the battle fronts of the world, we make plans for the betterment and the coddling of our defectives.

In the press, opinion articles were published arguing for a greater use of eugenics, in which many of the reasons above were cited as justification. Even the Winston-Salem Journal, which would be a significant force in illuminating North Carolina’s past eugenics abuses in the modern era, was not immune. In 1948 the newspaper published an editorial entitled “The Case for Sterilization – Quantity vs. Quality” that went into great detail extolling the virtues of ‘breeding’ for the general public good.[20]

North Carolina’s Selective Sterilization Law


It Saves…

Proponents of eugenics did not restrict its use to the ‘feeble-minded’. In many cases, more ardent authors included the blind, deaf-mutes, and people suffering from diseases like heart disease or cancer in the general category of those who should be sterilized.[22] The argument was twofold; that parents likely to give birth to ‘defective’ children should not allow it, and that healthy children borne to ‘defective’ parents would be doomed to an ‘undesirable environment’.[23]

Wallace Kuralt, Mecklenburg County’s welfare director from 1945 to 1972, was a leader in transitioning the work of state eugenics from looking only at medical conditions to considering poverty as a justification for state sterilization. Under Kuralt’s tenure, Mecklenburg county became far and away the largest source of sterilizations in the state. He supported this throughout his life in his writings and interviews, where he made plain his conviction that sterilization was a force for good in fighting poverty. In a 1964 interview with the Charlotte Observer, Kuralt said:

“When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental and social misfits in our midst, the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?”[19][24]

Among public and private groups that published articles advocating for eugenics, the Human Betterment League was a significant advocate for the procedure within North Carolina. This organization, founded by Procter & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble provided experts, written material and monetary support to the eugenics movement. Many pamphlets and publications were created by the league advocating the groups position which were then distributed throughout the state. One pamphlet entitled ‘You Wouldn’t Expect…’ laid out a series of rhetorical questions to argue the point that those considered ‘defective’ were unable to be good parents.[21]

While it is not known exactly how many people were sterilized during the lifetime of the law, the Task Force established by Governor Beverly Perdue estimated the total at around 7,500. They provided a summary of the estimated number of operations broken down by time period. This does not include sterilizations that may have occurred at a local level by doctors and hospitals.[10][25]

The report went on to provide a breakdown by county. There were no counties in North Carolina that performed no operations, though the spread was marked, going from as few as 4 in Tyrrell county, to 485 in Mecklenburg county.[10]

Some research into the historical data in North Carolina has drawn links between race and sterilization rates. One study performed in 2010 by Gregory Price and William Darity Jr described the practice as “racially biased and genocidal”. In the study, the researchers showed that as the black population of a county increased, the number of sterilizations increased disproportionately; that black citizens were more likely, all things being equal, to being recommended for sterilization than whites.[26]

Poverty and sterilization were also closely bound. Since social workers concerned themselves with those accepting welfare and other public assistance, there was a strong impetus to recommending sterilization to families as a means of controlling their economic situation. This was sometimes done under duress, when benefits were threatened as a condition of undergoing the surgery.[27]

What made the picture more complicated was the fact that in some cases, individuals sought out sterilization. Since those in poverty had fewer choices for birth control, having a state-funded procedure to guarantee no further children was attractive to some mothers. Given the structure of the process however, women found themselves needing to be described as unfit mothers or welfare burdens in order to qualify for the program, rather than simply asserting reproductive control.[3]

Many stories from those directly affected by the Board’s work have come to light over the past several years. During the hearings from the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation many family members and individuals personally testified to the impact that the procedures had had on them.

NCEB Case Summary: Elaine Riddick

This thirteen year old girl expects her first child in March 1968….She has never done any work and gets along so poorly with others that her school experience was poor. Because of Elaine’s inability to control herself, and her promiscuity – there are community reports of her “running around” and out late at night unchaperoned, the physician has advised sterilization….This will at least prevent additional children from being born to this child who cannot care for herself, and can never function in any way as a parent.

Elaine Riddick is a fifty-one-year-old African American woman who was born in Perquimans County, North Carolina. Born into a poor family, one of seven children, the family was split up by the County Welfare department after her parents were deemed to be unfit. Elaine and one sister were sent to live with her grandmother, while the remaining five were sent to an orphanage. It was shortly after this family upheaval, when Elaine was 13, that she was raped by a 20-year-old man with a history of assault and incarceration. Elaine subsequently became pregnant.

When the social worker, Marion Payne, assigned to the Riddick family found out that Elaine was pregnant,[29] she pressured Elaine’s grandmother into signing a consent form for sterilization (Riddick’s grandmother, being illiterate, signed the form with a simple ‘X’ symbol). On March 5, 1968, when Elaine was 14 years old, she was sterilized under the authority of the board. The procedure took place hours after Elaine had given birth to a son.[30] Riddick learned only years later the extent of the procedure, testifying to its effect over her life in a lawsuit brought against the state of North Carolina with the assistance of the ACLU in 1974. She cited failed relationships, physical pain and suffering, and psychological trauma. Unfortunately for Riddick, her lawsuit did not end in success; a jury found against her, and the NC Supreme court refused to hear her case. It would not be until the hearings of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation that her story was to be widely heard once more.[31][32]

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 in North Carolina and grew up near Wilmington. In 1916 he was sent to the North Carolina School for the Colored Deaf and the Blind, a segregated state school in Raleigh that was the first southern school for black deaf children. Since this was a segregated school, students there were not given the resources of other schools. They were not taught American Sign Language and developed their own system of communication. This worked within the institution, but because it was their own, it did not travel, and so students and deaf from other schools were unable to understand them.[33]

Wilson stayed there for six years, learning rudimentary sign language, until a minor infraction lead to his expulsion. While at home in Castle Hayne, Wilson came to the attention of the legal system when he was accused of the attempted rape of a relative. It is unclear whether the charge had merit – biographers speculated that his misunderstood behavior stemming from communication difficulties may have led to the situation – but what is not in doubt is that in 1925 Wilson was declared legally insane by a court and committed to the state Hospital for the Colored Insane in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which became Cherry Hospital in 1959.[34] In 1932 he was surgically castrated under the provisions of the eugenics laws in place.[35]

Wilson would remain committed to the state facility for decades. In 1990, he was given a new social worker, John Wasson. Wasson came to find out that not only was Wilson not mentally disabled, but that the hospital staff had known for years that he was not. To compound the situation, the legal charges against Wilson dating back to 1925 had been dismissed in 1970; put bluntly, for twenty years he had been committed to the hospital without legal justification. In interviews with hospital staff, Wasson found that it had been considered the most ‘benevolent’ course of action, since Wilson was thoroughly institutionalized at that point, with many of the same difficulties in learning and communication that had been his burden since birth.

Wasson instigated the legal challenge to Wilson’s incarceration. In 1992 Wilson was formally declared a free man. Since he had no close relatives or family members able to care for him in his advanced age, a cottage was found for him on the grounds of Cherry Hospital. Wilson would live there until his death in 2001.[36][37]

Not all who testified before the Committee were sterilized by the Eugenics Board directly. In many cases people who were sterilized were operated on by local clinics and doctors. It was argued that in many of these cases patients were not fully educated as to the nature of the procedure and were urged into it by doctors or social workers who were making judgements based upon their patients’ economic situation. Young women of limited means who had multiple children were specifically targeted for sterilization by many case workers.[38]

Mary English was one such case. In her personal testimony she explained that in 1972, she had been newly divorced with three children. She went to see a doctor at a Fayetteville OB/GYN clinic for some medical complaints. The doctor offered her entry into a program that would negate any need for future birth control. English signed the required paperwork, and was sterilized after the birth of her third child. It was years later, when she went back to the doctor to have the procedure reversed, that she found out it was permanent.[39]

English went on to detail her struggles with depression and retold experiences of friends and neighbors who had gone through similar situations at the hands of their own doctors. As for the clinic at which English was sterilized, she claimed that it was still operating, though declined to name it, or the doctor responsible for her sterilization.[40]

The Winston-Salem Journal’s “Against Their Will” documentary, released in 2002, based in part on Joanna Schoen’s research of the North Carolina Eugenics program, is credited with spurring public interest and demands for action to repeal laws and explore the possibility of compensation for affected people. This five part series gave extensive background to the work of the Eugenics Board, with detailed statistics, victim’s stories, and historical information on the broader Eugenics movement in the United States in the Post-WWII era.[29]

Then-Governor Mike Easley offered an apology to victims of the policy in 2002. At the time, North Carolina was the third State in the nation to officially apologize for eugenics practices, following behind Virginia and Oregon though North Carolina was the first State to go beyond a formal apology to actively considering compensation in some form.[41] Easley set up a committee to study the history of the Eugenics Board with instructions to provide recommendations on how to handle what it termed ‘program survivors’. The committee recommended five specific steps:[42]

The recommendations lay dormant in the North Carolina Legislature until 2008, when a study committee was appointed. The House Committee gave its own recommendations which in large part mirrored Easley’s committee’s findings though it went further, in establishing a suggested dollar figure of $20,000 compensation per surviving victim. The House committee also recommended training, the creation of memorials, and documenting survivor experiences, and the creation of a database to store sterilization records for future research. While the House committee recommended setting funds aside for these purposes, the Legislature did not grant funding in 2008.[43] The house committee was co-chaired by State Representative Larry Womble, who has been a public advocate in the state house for victim’s compensation. Womble announced he would be stepping down and not seek re-election after a horrific car crash in late 2011.[44][45]

In 2008, Beverley Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina. As part of her platform she pledged to take up the sterilization situation.[46] In 2010 Perdue issued an executive order that formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation (NCJSVF).[47]

The Task Force was made up of the following:[6]

The Foundation recommended that compensation be raised to $50,000 per victim, in a 3-2 vote. They also voted for funds for mental health services and historical displays and exhibits documenting the history of sterilization in the state.[10] It is not yet clear how many victims will be satisfied by the amount; many have granted detailed interviews that documented their severe emotional trauma in the wake of the procedures, and have been outspoken in demanding higher sums.[48]

On April 25, 2012, North Carolina’s Gov. Perdue announced that she will put $10.3 million in her budget proposal to allocate towards issues surrounding eugenics. The funds are intended to aid with $50,000 payments to verified North Carolina eugenics victims. The remainder of the monies will be used to support the continued efforts of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation as they provide outreach and clearinghouse services to help Eugenics victims. Governor Perdue stated,[49]

We cannot change the terrible things that happened to so many of our most vulnerable citizens, but we can take responsibility for our states mistakes and show that we do not tolerate violations of basic human rights. We must provide meaningful assistance to victims, so I am including this funding in my budget.

Gov. Perdue’s budget proposal is in accordance with the recommendations of the January 2012 final report issued from the Eugenics Compensation Task Force. The board suggested that living victims and those who were not deceased when verified by the foundation receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $50,000. The N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation reports that there is still an increase in the number of confirmed/verified eugenics victims. As of April 25, 2012, 132 people in 51 counties had been matched to the North Carolina’s Eugenics program records.[49]

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.[7][50]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics Board of North Carolina – Wikipedia, the free …

beach monitoring program – Iowa Department of Natural Resources

 Beaches  Comments Off on beach monitoring program – Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Sep 302015

Routine water quality monitoring is conducted at all of the State Park beaches and many locally managed beaches in Iowa. In order to help protect the health of those wishing to recreate at the beaches, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources works with various public health and management agencies throughout the state to inform the public of the most current water quality conditions. Outdoor recreation at beaches in Iowa is typically limited to the time period between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Therefore, most beach monitoring is conducted and standard swimming advisories are issued during this time frame. Results for specific beaches are published as soon as they become available.

For up to date information, call the DNR Beach Monitoring Hotline at (515) 725-3434. If you have any questions or concerns, contact us by email.

o Beaches that have had two or fewer one-time standard (samples over 235 cfu/100 ml) exceedances of the state standard during a running five years will be monitored less frequently. These beaches will be monitored on a weekly basis from the week before Memorial Day through Labor Day. All other state-owned beaches will be monitored from April 15th through October 31st.

Posting of Signs/Advisories

Why monitor beaches?

Swimming in lakes or any other natural body of water involves risks. By far, the greatest risk is drowning caused in part by cloudy water, fast currents, submerged objects, or the lack of lifeguards. Water at Iowas state-owned swimming beaches is monitored to assess the public health risk from waterborne diseases that may result from immersion in the water.

What is the DNR monitoring?

Water samples from the beaches are analyzed for microorganisms, known as bacteria.These indicator bacteria are one-celled organisms visible only under a microscope.High levels of these bacteria indicate that the water has come into contact with fecal material. Indicator bacteria (Bacteria that normally are not pathogenic [disease causing] but serve as indicators of certain types of pollution such as sewage or gasoline spills) are commonly used by state environmental agencies and by the U.S. EPA to determine the suitability of beaches for swimming-type uses.

Can these bacteria make me sick?

The indicator bacteria for which we monitor do not themselves make you sick. These bacteria are easy to collect and analyze and are relatively safe to handle. They are very common in the environment, including lakes and rivers.High levels of these bacteria indicate that the water has come into contact with fecal material and that pathogens or disease-causing microorganisms may be present.

Why doesn’t the DNR monitor pathogens?

Disease-causing organisms, known as pathogens, exist as bacteria, viruses or parasites.Monitoring for these pathogens is expensive and difficult. Large volumes of water are needed to monitor for pathogens because they are present in such small numbers. Many different types of pathogens exist and testing for a single pathogen may not accurately assess the health risk present due to other pathogens. Because indicator bacteria occur in greater numbers than pathogens and are easier to isolate in a laboratory, monitoring for them is more cost-effective.

What are the sources of these bacteria and pathogens?

Fecal bacteria, and sometimes pathogens, are present in the intestines of warm-blooded animals, including humans. They are carried into the water with fecal material. Fecal contamination occurs due to improperly constructed and operated septic systems and sewage treatment plants, manure spills, storm water runoff from lands with wildlife and pet droppings, or direct contamination from waterfowl, livestock, or small children in the water.

Samples are collected weekly at 37 state owned beaches from April 15 through October 31.This period corresponds to the recreational season when the Iowa Water Quality Standards, designed to protect swimming-type uses, is in effect. Water samples are taken at three locations along the beach and at three water depths (ankle-, knee- and waist-deep).The water from these locations is mixed to form one sample, which is placed in a sterilized bottle and taken to a laboratory for analysis.

What levels of indicator bacteria are considered safe?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has guidelines for the amount of bacteria acceptable in water bodies designated for primary body contact recreation, including swimming and water skiing. In Iowa, these waters are called “Class A waters”. The bacteria level in the water is acceptable if the geometric mean is not greater than 126 colonies per 100 milliliters of water for E. coli bacteria.According to U.S. EPA guidelines, the geometric mean is calculated using at least five consecutive samples collected during a 30-day period. Additionally, Iowa also has a “one-time” standart for E. coli bacteria of 235 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of water.

What factors cause high levels of bacteria?

Fecal contamination of beach water occurs due to improperly constructed and operated septic systems and sewage treatment plants, manure spills, storm water runoff from lands with wildlife and pet droppings, or direct contamination from waterfowl, livestock, or small children in the water. In Iowa, rain appears to be one of the most important factors in generating high levels of bacteria.Surface runoff after a heavy rainfall may transport high levels of fecal bacteria to the water at the beach. The rain also increases the sediment in the water causing it to be murky. Since bacteria are destroyed by sunlight, murky water aids in their survival.

What are the potential illnesses associated with swimming? Thousands of people swim at Iowa’s beaches every year and most of them do not get sick. However, children, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems have an increased risk of becoming ill when in contact with contaminated water.A variety of diarrheal diseases, and other infections such as skin, ear and respiratory infections, are associated with swimming in contaminated water. Diarrhea is one of the most common illnesses associated with swimming. Diarrhea is spread when disease- causing microorganisms from human or animal feces get into the water. You can get diarrhea by accidentally swallowing small amounts of water that contains these microorganisms. To date, the DNR has received no verified reports of illnesses caused by swimming or water skiing in Iowas waters. However, these illnesses could be under-reported because the symptoms are so common and people can be infected by these pathogenic microbes through other means, such as from contaminated meat, not washing their hands after using the bathroom or changing diapers.

How can I avoid getting sick?

Avoid swimming after a heavy rainfall when indicator bacteria levels are generally higher and the water is murky. Avoid swallowing the water. Young children swimming at the beach can leak fecal bacteria and associated pathogens from their diapers, so change your childs diapers often and visit bathrooms frequently. If you or your child has diarrhea, please stay out of the water because you may contaminate the water with fecal material. Although swimmers with diarrhea do not mean to contaminate the water, this is often how disease is spread.

Can I eat fish from waters with high levels of fecal contamination?

Yes, high levels of indicator bacteria or pathogens have no influence on the quality of fish for human consumption. While alive, the fish is protected from water-borne contaminants by the skin, scales and mucus covering its body. Proper fish cleaning, rinsing, refrigeration and cooking should always be used.

Additional information can be found atHawkeye Area WQ Initiative

beach monitoring program – Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Alabama Eugenics

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Alabama Eugenics
Sep 262015


Number of victims

There were 224 people who were sterilized, of whom approximately 58% were male. All of the sterilized were deemed mentally deficient. In terms of the total number of people sterilized, Alabama ranks 27th in the United States. Of the 32 states that had sterilization laws, Alabama is the state with the 5th lowest number of sterilizations.

Period during which sterilizations occurred

The period was 1919 to 1935 (Paul p. 246)

Temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1919, the number of sterilization appears to have been low. Gosney/Popenoe (p. 194; see data sources) report no sterilizations yet at the end of 1927, but the number for the end of 1929 was 44. After that year, the number of sterilizations increased. The last sterilizations occurred in June 1935 (Paul, p. 246). Between 1930 and 1935, the annual number of sterilization was about 30. The rate of sterilization per 100,000 residents per year was about 1.

Passage of law(s)

According to Edward Larson, Alabama began its long flirtation with eugenicsbefore any other state in the Deep South (Larson, p. 50). At the 1901 meeting of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA), Dr. William Glassell Sommerville, Trustee of the Alabama Insane Hospitals, declared it a proven fact that the moral disposition for good and evil, including criminal tendenciesare transmitted fromone generation to anotherand is as firmly believed by all scientific men as the fact that parents transmit physical qualities to their children (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,pp. 383-4). At that same meeting, John E. Purdon stated that it was a proven fact that criminality, insanity, epilepsy, and other alleged manifestations of degraded nerve tissue were hereditary (Larson, 50). He emphasized that [i]t is essentially a state function to retrain the pro-creative powers of the unfit (Larson and Nelson, p. 407). He suggested that the use of sterilization would benefit the race by saying, [e]masculation is the simplest and most perfect plan that can be adapted to secure the perfection of the race (Larson, p. 50). Finally, Purdon explained his belief that the goodness, the greatness, and the happiness of all upon the earth, will be immeasurably advanced, in one or two generations, by the proposed methods (Larson and Nelson, p. 407), and, based on his belief thatweakness begets weaknessfeared that humanitarianism would assist the imperfect individual to escape the consequences of his physical and moral malformation (Dorr, “Honing Heredity,” p. 29).

Over the next decade, MASA was encouraged by many authorities such as physicians and Birminghams medical society to draft a bill to legalize the sterilization of the unfit. In 1911 at the annual MASA meeting, Walter H. Bell of Birmingham declared that any person who would produce children with an inherited tendency to crime, insanity, feeblemindedness, idiocy, or imbecility should be sterilized (Larson, p. 51). He believed that sterilization was an easy, safe and practical method of prevention with no restrictions or punishment attached (Larson and Nelson, p.410).

The MASA, however, continued to delay taking action until 1914 when it created a committee of physicians who would research needful data in regard to defective children, with a purpose to urge upon the state legislature the proper provision for the care of such defectives (Larson, , p. 60). During the 1915 MASA meeting, C.M. Rudolph suggested the formation of a home for mentally ill children. He stressed the importance of segregating the unfit youth because he believed it shrewd to [s]egregate the defectives of one generation to prevent the multiplication of their kind in the next (Larson, p. 60). In this same meeting it was decided that an Alabama Society for Mental Hygiene (ASMH) would be formed and led by William Partlow as a liaison with the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (NCMH) and to survey Alabamas defectives (Larson, p. 60). That year, MASA collectively agreed to support eugenic sterilization (Dorr, Defective or Disabled?, pp. 386-87).

In 1919, the MASA and the ASMH reached their goal. In the next regular session of the State legislator, a bill was passed to create the Alabama Home (Larson and Nelson, p. 413). Buried within the law was a clause granting permission to the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded in Tuscaloosa, to sterilize its patients. This was the first law passed in Alabama that supported sterilizations (Paul p. 239).

In 1934, Partlow wanted permission to sterilize all discharged patients from the Home (a procedure he was already practicing as superintendent) (Dorr, “Eugenics in Alabama”). Partlow proposed a bill that gave the superintendent of any state hospital for the insane complete power to sterilize any or all patients upon their release. The bill also proposed the creation of a board with three doctors who would have the right to sterilize a larger group of people. Finally, the anticipated bill granted permission for county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418). Although Partlows bill was passed in both the House and the Senate, the bill was vetoed by Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves after consulting with the Alabama Supreme Court on the bills constitutionality (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). In 1935 the Alabama State Supreme Court viewed the bill and deemed it unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutionsa sterilization victim would not have the right to appeal to a court against his or her sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 422). A second version of the bill was drafted and, similarly, passed in both houses but was vetoed by the Governor (Larson and Nelson, pp. 422-23). Soon after this second veto, Partlow discontinued the practice of sterilization (Larson and Nelson, p. 424).

Partlowsbill, however, was unsuccessfully reintroduced in 1939 and again in 1943. In 1945, legislation was created that asked for the right to sterilize every inmate or person eligible for entrance in the states insane asylums. This bill was passed by the senate but was rejected by the house (Larson and Nelson, p. 426).

Groups identified in the law

In the 1919 law, William Partlow included in his draft the permission for the superintendent of the Home for the Feeble-Minded to sterilize any inmate (Larson, p. 84). Inmates were any person confined in a poor house, jail, an orphanage, or a boarding school in the State (Larson, pp. 48-49). In the 1935 bill, it was proposed that any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexualist, Masochist, Sodomist, or any other grave form of sexual perversion, or any prisoner who has twice been convicted of rape or imprisoned three times for any offense be sterilized. It was also suggested granting permission to county public health committees to sterilize anyone in a state or local custodial institution (Larson and Nelson, p. 418).An expansion of the law, proposed by Alabama State Health Officer Dr. James Norment Baker, called for the sterilization of anyone committed to state homes for the insane and feebleminded, reformatories, industrial schools, or training schools, , as well as any sexual pervert, Sadist, homosexual, Masochist, Sodomist (Dorr, “Protection,” p. 173) as well as anyone convicted of rape twice. The bill was considered unconstitutional and vetoed by Governor Bill Graves.

Process of the law

In the 1919 law, the superintendent of the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded was given the authority to sterilize any inmate (Larson, pp. 48-49). This law held only one limitation on sterilization in the Alabama Home. The superintendent of the Alabama Insane Hospitals had to agree upon the sterilization of the inmates from the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded (Larson, pp. 105-06). This absence of safeguards for inmates in the law made it possible for William Partlow to sterilize every inmate of the Home. This law was drafted by Partlow and was the only sterilization law passed in Alabama. Although this law passed, Partlow continued to try to strengthen the power to sterilize in Alabama through other bills. All of his attempts, however, failed.

Precipitating factors and processes

The entire Southern region in general was more hesitant to adopt eugenic ideals for many reasons. One of the most important Southern values was its traditional emphasis on family and parental rights, which eugenics challenged (Larson, p. 8). The Southern sense of family also encouraged relatives to take responsibility for individuals who might otherwise be subject to eugenic remedies in state institutions (Larson, p. 9). Most immigrants in the South came from the British Isles, the same area most Southerners originated from. Subsequently, a community existed in the South including many immigrants, unlike the North and West where Americans focused their eugenic ideas on ethnically diverse immigrants (Larson, p. 9). The strength of Southern religion also played a role in the overall rejection of eugenics in Alabama. Religion lent itself to conceptions of congregations as extended families and many people in the South accordingly apposed segregating the unfit (Larson, pp. 13-14). In comparison with the rest of the United States, Progressivism in the South was relatively weak due to the comparatively small size of its typical carriers, secular groups, urban professional middle classes, and the more educated (Larson, p. 17). Moreover, the Deep South was lagging other regions in biological research programs, as well as scientists and education, which shifted the advocacy of eugenics to state mental health officials and local physicians (Larson, pp. 40-44). The MASA and leaders such as William Partlow were extremely important to the eugenics movement in Alabama. Without the organizations and leaders that were produced from the MASA, Alabama may have never started eugenic practices.

Overall, Alabama was not in favor of sterilization, which is reflected in the comparatively low number of sterilization victims. In general, the people of Alabama were more in favor of segregation of the unfit than sterilization (Larson, pp. 60-63). However, inadequate funding of such facilities for segregating the feeble-minded as well as over-crowding seems to have facilitated a push toward sterilization (Larson, pp. 90-91). Even though mental health surveys placed Alabamas feeble-minded population at more than 7,000 persons, the new facility could accommodate only 160 residents, and was filled within two months of it opening (Larson, p. 90).

Groups targeted and victimized

Among those targeted were males, including some of the delinquent boys who[m] we fear might escape (Larson, p. 106),the poor, mental deficien[ts] and the feebleminded (Larson, p. 151). People who could be committed to the state mental health hospital included people in prison, a poor house, and orphanage, or a state boarding school (Larson, pp. 48-49).

While Alabama never established a facility for feebleminded blacks (see Dorr, Defective or Disabled?,p. 387), Gregory Dorr has argued that the absence of such a facilty should not lead observers to conclude that eugenics in Alabama lackedracist elements, for the limitation ofeugenicsto the sterilization of whites (in contrast to Virginia) reflected the belief that the “betterment” of theblack “race” could not be achieved by such measures. In fact, by the timethe wall of segregation had started to come to down in the 1970s and no longer assured second-class citizenship of Blacks, African Americans had become the targets of extra-institutional and extra-legal sterilizations, reflective of a more general southern racist view that it was necessary”to further protect the white race itself from black folks” (Dorr, “Defective or Disabled?,” p. 383; see also Dorr, Segregation’s Science).

The Relf case

The cause of forced sterilization in Alabama was not helped by the Relf case. By 1973, the focus had moved away from sterilization of the mentally deficient and those imprisoned, to the use of sterilization as birth control. The Relf family was on welfare, and living in a public housing project in Montgomery, Alabama. Two Relf sisters, Minnie Lee, age 14, and Mary Alice, age 12, had been receiving shot of Depo-Provera as a form of long term birth control (Rossoff, p. 6). When the use of the drug was no longer allowed, the mother was mislead into signing a consent form allowing the sterilization of her daughters. Mrs. Relf was unable to read or write, so she signed the form with an X, without any physicians explaining the conditions to her (Roberts, p. 93, Carpia, p.78, Caron, p. 211, Southern Poverty Law Center). She thought she was signing a form consenting to additional shots, when she was actually consenting to sterilizations (Tessler, p. 58). A third daughter, Katie Relf, also received the birth control shots, but refused to open the door to her room when the official came to get the three girls to be sterilized. Because she was 17, she could not be sterilized without her own consent. (Larson and Nelson, p. 440) Later, when Mrs. Relf realized that her daughters had been sterilized, she sued the surgeons and other associated groups for $1,000,000 (Rosoff, p. 6). As a result, a moratorium was placed on federally funded, coerced sterilizations until a decision was reached by the Department of Justice.

Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law or with disabilities in general

In 1919, Alabama passed legislation that made it the first state in the Deep South that made it illegal for people with venereal diseases to marry (Larson, p. 88).

Feeder institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

(Photo origin:

The Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opened in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in 1919 as a result of the law in favor of a home for the feeble-minded.Two months after the Alabama Home for the Feeble-Minded opening, the institution was completely full of people from poor houses, jails, orphanages, and boarding schools (Larson, pp. 48-49, 90). In 1927, this school was renamed the Partlo State School for Mental Deficients (Larson, p. 106). The school is now known as the Partlow State School and Hospital. Its closure has been announced in 2011 (“W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close”).


Although the original bill went largely unnoticed by the population (Paul, pp. 239-40), the movement did meet considerable opposition in Alabama. Chief among these objectors were the Catholics, who were entirely against eugenics and any form of birth control in general. Alabama Catholicswrote legislators and spoke out at public hearings in response to their bishops plea to use every means at our disposal to help defeat this bill (Larson, p. 151). Protestants were similarly concerned. A Baptist claimed that he found in the Bible all the warrant he required to vote against the bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 420). Trade unions were also against expanding the sterilization law. As one laborer anxiously said, theres nothing in the bill to prevent a labor man from being railroaded into an institution where he could be sterilized on suspicion of insanity or feeble-mindedness (Larson, p. 141). Similarly, Alabamas Governor, Bill Graves was extremely important to the opposition of eugenics because of his decision to veto the 1935 bill and its revision. He claimed [t]he hoped for good results are not sure enough or great enough to compensate for the hazard to personal rights that would be involved in the execution of the provisions of the Bill (Larson and Nelson, p. 422).

Overall, however, the population in Alabama was perhaps not as supportive of eugenic sterilization laws as in other American states.


Carpia, Myla F. Thyrza. 1995. “Lost Generations: The Involuntary Sterilization of American Indian Women.” Master’s Thesis, Department of American Indian Studies, Arizona State University.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5, 4: 359-92.

——-. 2008. Segregation’s Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Dorr, Gregory M. 2011. “Protection or Control: Women’s Health, Sterilization Abuse, and Relf v. Weinberger.” Pp. 161-90 in A Century of Eugenics in America, edited by Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Larson, Edward. 1995. Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Larson, Edward J., and Leonard J. Nelson.1992. Involuntary Sexual Sterilization of Incompetents in Alabama: Past, Present, and Future. Alabama Law Review 43: 399-444. Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-Minded in Our Midst: Institutions for the Mentally Retarded in the South, 1900-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

——-.2005. The Public Face of Southern Institutions for the Feeble-Minded. The Public Historian 27, 2: 25-42. Paul, Julius. 1965. ‘Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough’: State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Relf Original Complaint. Available at

Roberts, Dorothy E. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Pantheon Books.

Rosoff, Jeannie I. 1973. The Montgomery Case. The Hastings Center Report 3, 4:6.

Southern Poverty Law Center. Relf v. Weinberger. Available at

Tarwater, James S. 1964. The Alabama State Hospitals and the Partlow State School and Hospitals. New York: Newcomer Society in North America.

Tessler, Suzanne. 1976. Compulsory Sterilization Practices. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 1, 2: 52-66.

“W.D. Partlow Developmental Center to close.” Tuscaloosa News 4 March 2001. Available at

Alabama Eugenics

Nazi eugenics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Nazi eugenics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 152015

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially based social policies that placed the biological improvement of the Aryan race or Germanic “bermenschen” master race through eugenics at the center of Nazi ideology.[1] Those humans targeted were largely living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as “life unworthy of life” (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to prisoners, degenerate, dissident, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including feebleminded, epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, neuroatypicals, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind) (German: erbkranken), homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while more than 300,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.[2][3][4]

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it was spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[5] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.[6]

In 1927, The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology (KWIA), an organization which concentrated on physical and social anthropology as well as human genetics, was founded in Berlin with significant financial support from the American philanthropic group, the Rockefeller Foundation.[7] German professor of medicine, anthropology and eugenics, Eugen Fischer, was the director of this organization, a man whose work helped provide the scientific basis for the Nazis’ eugenic policies.[8][9] The Rockefeller Foundation even funded some of the research conducted by Josef Mengele before he went to Auschwitz.[5][10]

Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

“You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”[11]

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[12] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler’s 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the “science of racial cleansing”. Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the “common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics.”[13]

Adolf Hitler read racial hygiene tracts during his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison.[14]

Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream.[15]

The racialism and idea of competition, termed social Darwinism in 1944, were discussed by European scientists and also in the Vienna press during the 1920s. Where Hitler picked up the ideas is uncertain. The theory of evolution had been generally accepted in Germany at the time but this sort of extremism was rare.[16]

In his Second Book, which was unpublished during the Nazi era, Hitler praised Sparta, (using ideas perhaps borrowed from Ernst Haeckel),[17] adding that he considered Sparta to be the first “Vlkisch State”. He endorsed what he perceived to be an early eugenics treatment of deformed children:

“Sparta must be regarded as the first Vlkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses”.[18][19]

In organizing their eugenics program the Nazis were inspired by the United States’ programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California.[20]

The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, enacted on July 14, 1933, allowed the compulsory sterilisation of any citizen who the opinion of a Genetic Health Court” suffered from a list of alleged genetic disorders and required physicians to register every case of hereditary illness known to them, except in women over 45 years of age.[21] Physicians could be fined for failing to comply.

In 1934, the first year of the Law’s operation, nearly 4,000 persons appealed against the decisions of sterilization authorities. A total of 3,559 of the appeals failed. By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200 Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte) were created, and under their rulings over 400,000 persons were sterilized against their will.[22]

The Hadamar Clinic was a mental hospital in the German town of Hadamar used by the Nazi-controlled German government as the site of Action T4. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927. Hartheim Euthanasia Centre was also part of the euthanasia programme where the Nazis killed individuals they deemed disabled. The first method used involved transporting patients by buses in which the engine exhaust gases were passed into the interior of the buses, and so killed the passengers. Gas chambers were developed later and used pure carbon monoxide gas to kill the patients.[citation needed] In its early years, and during the Nazi era, the Clinic was strongly associated with theories of eugenics and racial hygiene advocated by its leading theorists Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer, and by its director Otmar von Verschuer. Under Fischer, the sterilization of so-called Rhineland Bastards was undertaken. Grafeneck Castle was one of Nazi Germany’s killing centers, and today it is a memorial place dedicated to the victims of the Action T4.[23]

The Law for Simplification of the Health System of July 1934 created Information Centers for Genetic and Racial Hygiene, as well as Health Offices. The law also described procedures for ‘denunciation’ and ‘evaluation’ of persons, who were then sent to a Genetic Health Court where sterilization was decided.[24]

Information to determine who was considered ‘genetically sick’ was gathered from routine information supplied by people to doctor’s offices and welfare departments. Standardized questionnaires had been designed by Nazi officials with the help of Dehomag (a subsidiary of IBM in the 1930s), so that the information could be encoded easily onto Hollerith punch cards for fast sorting and counting.[25]

In Hamburg, doctors gave information into a Central Health Passport Archive (circa 1934), under something called the ‘Health-Related Total Observation of Life’. This file was to contain reports from doctors, but also courts, insurance companies, sports clubs, the Hitler Youth, the military, the labor service, colleges, etc. Any institution that gave information would get information back in return. In 1940, the Reich Interior Ministry tried to impose a Hamburg-style system on the whole Reich.[26]

After the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, it became compulsory for both marriage partners to be tested for hereditary diseases in order to preserve the perceived racial purity of the Aryan race. Everyone was encouraged to carefully evaluate his or her prospective marriage partner eugenically during courtship. Members of the SS were cautioned to carefully interview prospective marriage partners to make sure they had no family history of hereditary disease or insanity, but to do this carefully so as not to hurt the feelings of the prospective fiancee and, if it became necessary to reject her for eugenic reasons, to do it tactfully and not cause her any offense.[27]

Excerpt from:

Nazi eugenics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 3:08 pm  Tagged with:

THE Margaret Sanger

 Eugenics  Comments Off on THE Margaret Sanger
Aug 152015

Abortion clinics were originally set up with the intention of slowing the population growth of Afro-Americans and others racial groups considered mentally or otherwise inferior.

Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is the major force behind the abortion and pro-choice/abortion movement in America. If you are proud of being pro-choice, you should know more about the most responsible person for the pro-abortion-rights movement and abortion industry in the 20th century.

“Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger’s Population Association of America) for years…. He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger’s board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger’s extra-marital lovers, reviewed favorably in The Birth Control Review”.

At a March,1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger’s beliefs about social works of charity are revealing: She criticized the success– not failure– of charity… She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger’s thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.

“Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are they being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?” quoted from

Adolf Hitler – Fuehrer of Nazi Germany “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.” Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 from Hitler and Eugenics

Margaret Sanger – Founder of Planned Parenthood “. . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilizarion, of making sure that parenthood is ‘ absolutely prohibited ‘ to the feeble-minded.” The Pivot of Civilization, p102

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3

Now: The preborn child is often targeted for death if tests show that it may have a physical or mental handicap. The American eugenics program has no central sponsor but does have several large advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and the National Abortion Federation.

“In the past few years there has been a frantic effort on the part of Planned Parenthood ideologues to revise their own history. Much of the effort has been waged in an attempt to distance the organization and it’s founder, Margaret Sanger, from charges of radical racial bigotry. Mike Richmond draws from a selection of authors to demonstrate that Sanger and Planned Parenthood are rooted in eugenics, and have earned a despised place in history along with Adolf Hitler and the German Third Reich were.” from “Life Advocate, Jan.-Feb., 1998, Vol. XII, Number 10,

Another link between Margaret Sanger, American Eugenicist and Adolf Hitler, Eugenics practitioner: “The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to undertake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere.” Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article ‘Eugenic Sterilization’ in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. “The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”


First, put into action President Wilson’s fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their ( another Pro-Choice) choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons (sounds like a return to the plantation for a life of slavery) where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers’ health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives—thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates (Sanger was known for her attitudes on free sex, adultery and abortion. Under this provision, Ms. Sanger’s sexual profligacy and pro-abortion – murder of the unborn- would have placed Sanger, herself, into this category) segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

“Summary of address before the New History Society”, January 17th, New York City

Highlights in red inserted by website author.

Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika by Mike Richmond Good assessment of Sanger’s beliefs and the affect of her influence

See the article here:

THE Margaret Sanger

 Posted by at 3:08 pm  Tagged with:

Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced …
Aug 042015

Photograph of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Courtesy of the Library of Congress. [1.1] Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell

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 Three generations of imbeciles are enough. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

Writing for the majority in the Supreme Courts affirmative decision of the Buck v. Bell landmark case, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. described Charlottesville native Carrie Buck as the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted stating that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.

Current scholarship shows that Carrie Bucks sterilization relied on a false diagnosis premised on the now discredited science of eugenics. It is likely that Carries mother, Emma Buck, was committed to a state institution because she was considered sexually promiscuous, that the same diagnosis was made about Carrie when she became an unwed mother at the age of 17 due to being raped, and that her daughter Vivian was diagnosed as not quite normal at the age of six months largely in support of the legal effort to sterilize Carrie.

2004 Claude Moore Health Sciences Library

Read the original post:

Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced …

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
Jul 212015

Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Khl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]

During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered[by whom?] a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements[citation needed] (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics.

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[8] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[9] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[10] W. E. B. Du Bois believed only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the races heritage of moral iniquity.”[10][11]

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[8] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[8][12] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[13] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[14] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[15]

By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeders Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[16][17] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[18] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[19][verification needed]

Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Womens Clubs, the Womans Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[20]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[21][22] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[21] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[23] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[24][25]

In the Deep South, womens associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[26] Between 1915 and 1920, federated womens clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[27] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Womens Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[28] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more feebleminded” individuals.

See the original post:

Eugenics in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Posted by at 1:01 pm  Tagged with:

Worrying about online privacy

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Worrying about online privacy
Mar 292015

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. When the government oversteps its authority, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. With few exceptions, however, government surveillance focuses on protecting life, property and the American way. Private surveillance, on the other hand, is governed by no laws, and is conducted for self-interest and profit. In volume, stealth and intrusiveness, the private sector far surpasses anything the government has attempted or even contemplated doing. Yet, while Americans regularly read or hear about the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) intrusion into their lives, not many seem to be accusing private companies like Walmart or the Ford Motor Company of spying on people. It comes down to whether Americans trust companies like Verizon, Target, and Google to respect their privacy more than they trust the US government. The intelligence communitys focus is on foreign threats and activities overseas. The CIA and NSA operate under strict rules and regulations, including a ban against collecting information on Americans. The current policy states that signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes. The private sector, on the other hand, focuses on the bottom line and operates unfettered. Google a resort in Mexico, and see how ads for that destination continue to pop up every time you open your Internet browser. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cant imagine all the things going on behind the scenes that you arent able to see. Government surveillance, of course, increases when a known terrorist or other enemy of the United States contacts an American citizen. Following 9/11, NSA analysts were given limited access to the bad guys communication links to the United States. Even then, however, the privacy of American citizens remained a top priority. Going forward, if a known terrorist communicates with an American citizen, I suspect most Americans would feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching their back. Having spent more than 40 years as an intelligence officer, I know first-hand that the US intelligence community has made its share of mistakes (being dead wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and condoning torture spring readily to mind). And I continue to believe in the necessity of strict congressional oversight and restrictions, which separate the US intelligence community from other intelligence organizations like the KGB. This oversight is critical for an intelligence community serving a democratic country. It is true that the US intelligence community has at times been overzealous in protecting against terrorist threats and others who could do the United States harm, but not because it was seeking to pry into the private affairs of American citizens. For me, the NSA and Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) bulk collection and storage programs fall into the overzealous category. I am aware of the argument that more is better, but when weighed against privacy rights and the questionable predictive value of these materials, these arguments dont make sense. As in other areas, the Intelligence Community tends to overstate its capability to predict future events. I suspect the efforts to stop or disrupt terrorist attacks are on par with law enforcements (rather poor) record on stopping premeditated murders, kidnappings, and the spread of illegal drugs. For me, the larger problem is the massive effort by private companies to collect every bit of data they can about me: my health, what I buy, what I eat, where I shop, who I talk to, and on and on. All of this is done not only without my permission, but also without my knowledge and it is legal. Of course, I dont want the government snooping around in my private affairs any more than you do. Yet, if it is in the nations security interest and my privacy remains protected, access to my metadata doesnt seem like too much for my government to ask of me. The writer is the former head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), US State Department. (In partnership with The Mark News)

See original here:
Worrying about online privacy

 Posted by at 7:53 pm  Tagged with:

Liberty University Hosts Simulated BioTerror Attack

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty University Hosts Simulated BioTerror Attack
Mar 292015

Lynchburg, VA- A group of students at Liberty University learned how you would respond to a bioterror attack Saturday morning.

The demonstration involved the State Police and was at the Vines Center. The students learned that there’s a whole lot to responding to a bioterrorist attack.

The Virginia State Police Counter Terrorism & Criminal Interdiction Unit led the demonstration.

“We’ve heard not only from the news media ,but from throughout the world, there are attacks on Christians, there are attacks throughout the world. And we’re trying to prepare not only our students but local law enforcement agencies about how to handle a bioterrorist attack,” said Dr. James Mcclintok, the director of Forensic Science at Liberty University.

This simulated fog represents a dangerous micro-organism contaminating the air.

“Everyone’s afraid of a biological weapons attack, but no one really knows how to respond if it occurs of what to do, they’re just be wide-spread panic. So the more education there is for the public, the greater the chance lives will be saved if one of these events does occur,” said student Samuel Giovanucci, a Strategic Intelligence Major.

Liberty University students first needed to learn how to properly test it.

“It could potentially cause harm to us, our health and cause illness or even death. So we’re looking at the release of a biological agent and then our students will identify that agent for identification purposes,” said Mcclintok.

Students signed up to participate, some working on forensics, criminology, or biology classes, others just wanted to learn more and be prepared.

“Trying to prepare our students when they enter the working environment, how to be better prepared for such an attack,” said Mcclintok.

The rest is here:
Liberty University Hosts Simulated BioTerror Attack

 Posted by at 7:48 pm  Tagged with:

Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski – Women’s Health and Healing of the Palm Beaches – Video

 Beaches  Comments Off on Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski – Women’s Health and Healing of the Palm Beaches – Video
Mar 192015

Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski – Women's Health and Healing of the Palm Beaches
Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski specializes in Breast Surgery at Women's Health and Healing of the Palm Beaches in Lake Worth, FL. For more information, please visit


Read this article:
Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski – Women’s Health and Healing of the Palm Beaches – Video

3 Signs Your SEO Campaign Is Dying and How to Fix It

 SEO  Comments Off on 3 Signs Your SEO Campaign Is Dying and How to Fix It
Mar 162015

SEO is a long-term strategy to gain more visibility and more traffic for your online brand, but accurately measuring the effectiveness of that strategy can be challenging. Many of the benefits of SEO, such as increased brand visibility, are qualitative and therefore hard to measure, and even objective metrics like inbound traffic can be subject to random variation and become difficult to interpret.

After youve maintained an SEO strategy for more than a few months, however, you should have enough information to form meaningful conclusions from your data. Most importantly, youll be able to check in regularly to see if there are any red flags that signal something is wrong with your campaign. These red flags can be hard to spot initially, but if you know what to look for, you should have no problem detecting them and taking corrective action immediately.

Organic traffic is a metric referring to the number of people who found your site through search engines, and its one of the best metrics we have to measure the effectiveness of an SEO campaign. To measure your organic traffic, log into Google Analytics and click on “Acquisitions.” Here, youll see a breakdown of how many visits your site received from organic sources, referrals, social media, and direct visits.

You can click into the organic visits to gain some extra details on the sources of your organic traffic, but the main number is the one were most concerned with. Keep an eye on it on a monthly if not weekly basis. While you should be seeing some long-term growth patterns, what you really want to look for is any sharp drop. For example, if youre used to seeing 1,000 hits a week and that inexplicably drops to 200, you might have a major problem on your hands.

Like I mentioned, the goal here is to see long-term growth. If you check back on a consistent basis, month after month, you should see an overall pattern toward increased traffic. That being said, organic search behavior is anything but predictable, and random factors beyond your or Googles control could artificially leave you with a tough month or a brief stagnation. If you notice one month in particular doesnt result in growth, dont panic.

However, if your campaign remains stagnant for two months or more, you might have a serious problem. What you want to see is steady, measurable growth in organic visits if youre hovering around the same figures or if you start to see a decline, consider it a red flag. There are instances where multiple months of consistent traffic dont necessarily mean your SEO campaign is failing, but you dont want to take the gamble by keeping things the same for another month.

Keyword rankings arent nearly as important as they used to be. There was a time when keywords meant everything to SEO, and getting one to rank highly meant you had found success. Today, keywords are less pivotal; since Google deciphers user queries based on intent, rather than keyword phrases, your ranks are much more fluid. Its far more important to have relevant, quality content than it is to have content based around certain keywords.

However, your rankings are still a valuable metric to measure because they can indicate the health of your campaign. Keep a handful of keywords as your targets to measure, and check your ranking on them every once in a while (once a month for most campaigns, or once a week for more aggressive campaigns). If you notice your rankings falling on a majority of those keywords, this is a red flag for your campaign.

Lets imagine that youve found one of these red flags. What does that mean for your campaign? It means something is off in your strategy, and its interfering with your ability to increase your search visibility. It can be difficult to track down the exact cause of this downturn, especially since it could be multiple factors working together, but its important to identify the source.

Are you writing your content with one or a handful of keywords at the forefront? Are you recycling content or using old topics just so you can push more content on your site? If so, you could be over-optimizing, which could be leading to lower ranks. Write fresh, original content on new topics on a regular basis instead.

Read the rest here:
3 Signs Your SEO Campaign Is Dying and How to Fix It

Seagulls have a negative effect on Goderich's beaches

 Beaches  Comments Off on Seagulls have a negative effect on Goderich's beaches
Mar 132015

Seagulls have been identified as the main cause of elevated levels of E.coli at Goderichs beaches.

Erica Clark of the Huron County Health Unit informed town councillors at the March 9 meeting microbial source tracking results showed that the birds are causing beach closures in town.

Clark said while there is regular water testing of local beaches for E.coli, that method does not indicate what is causing the contamination.

Last summer, the health unit performed microbial source tracking, a field that provides information on sources of fecal pollution, in six areas of Goderich beach waters.

They tested for six species humans, cattle, dogs, Canadian geese, seagulls and other birds.

Clark said seagulls were found to be the only major contributing factor to elevated levels of E.coli.

However, she did note that the other species cant be totally ruled out on such a small sample of testing.

According to Clark, the levels of E.coli at Goderichs beaches has been increasing over the past eight years.

The beaches to the north and south of Goderich have good water quality, which Clark said likely indicates the sources of fecal pollution are localized to Goderich.

Clark presented council with three possible choices on how to deal with seagulls.

See the article here:
Seagulls have a negative effect on Goderich's beaches

 Posted by at 2:43 pm  Tagged with:

Wonkblog: How the First Amendment is undermining the FDAs power to regulate drugs

 Misc  Comments Off on Wonkblog: How the First Amendment is undermining the FDAs power to regulate drugs
Mar 112015

The Food and Drug Administration is proposing to allow pharmaceutical companies to contradict official safety warnings in sales presentations to customers.

While an FDA warning about a drugs dangers can scare off buyers, the new proposal would allow the companies to present customers with information that undermines official warnings as long as it comes from a peer-reviewed journal article.

The proposal is supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, who argue that the policy would allow them to give doctors and hospitals the benefits of the latest research.

But the proposal is drawing an avalanche of criticism from public health advocates who argue that because individual studies can differwidelyin their results, a drug company could easily mislead customers – and possibly endanger patients – by presenting only a selection of new research.

The proposal seriously undermines FDA authority, Sidney M. Wolfe, founder of Public Citizens Health Research Group wrote Wednesdayto the agency. Its main supporters are drug companies and their associations, all of which would benefit from being allowed and encouraged to sell more drugs by making them seem safer than FDA has judged them to be.

Under the proposal, FDA would not object to the distribution of new risk information that rebuts, mitigates, or refines risk information in the approved labeling. The studies must be well-designed and at least as informative as the data sources that the FDA used in generating the official warning.

For example, under the proposal a drug-maker could present evidence that the severity or frequency of a side effect is less than what is suggested by the FDA-approved label. Or it could question whether the drug causes the side effect at all.

Exactly what drug-makers can tell customers about their products has been the subject of regulation and sometimes – when the side effect has led to heart attacks, cancer, or suicide – billion-dollar penalties. But the industry has pushed back in recent years, arguing that under First Amendment, the government cannot curtail their right to disseminate information.

The proposal seems bound to increase drug sales because it is explicitly geared toward undermining the FDA warnings, rather than enhancing them, critics said. The proposal allows the dissemination of information that rebuts or mitigates the risk identified by the FDA, or information that “refines” the risk as long as it does not indicate greater seriousness of the risk.

In a letter to the FDA, the chief pharmaceutical lobbying group, PhRMA said while FDA has an important role in evaluating the safety and efficacy of new medicines…we also must recognize the critical need for healthcare professionals to receive the most current, accurate, and comprehensive scientific information.

Visit link:
Wonkblog: How the First Amendment is undermining the FDAs power to regulate drugs

 Posted by at 11:41 am  Tagged with:

The First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist until the 60s

 Misc  Comments Off on The First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist until the 60s
Mar 102015

Reading the First Amendment isnt easy. Consider the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither the Words nor the History Helps Much

The words themselves arent much help. Reading the first word, Congress, literally would leave the president, the military, fifty governors, and your local cops free to ignore our most important set of constitutional protections. Reading the fourth and fifth words, no law, literally would wind up protecting horrible verbal assaults like threats, fraud, extortion, and blackmail. The three most important words in the First Amendmentthe freedom of the words that introduce, modify, and describe the crucial protections of speech, press, and assembly, simply cannot be read literally. The phrase the freedom of is a legal concept that has no intrinsic meaning. Someone must decide what should or should not be placed within the protective legal cocoon. Finally, the majestic abstractions in the First Amendment, like establishment of religion, free exercise thereof, peaceful assembly, and petition for a redress of grievances do not carry a single literal meaning. In the end, each of the abstractions protects only the behavior we think it should protect.

So much for the literal text.

History (or whats sometimes called originalism these days) is even worse as a firm guide to reading the First Amendment. The truth is that the First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist before Justice William Brennan Jr. and the rest of the Warren Court invented it in the 1960s. In fact, history turns out to be the worst place to look for a robust First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson thought free speech was a pretty good idea, but the ink wasnt dry on the First Amendment before President Adams locked up seventeen of the twenty newspaper editors who opposed his reelection in 1800. One of the jailed editors was Benjamin Franklins nephew Benjamin Franklin Bache. He died in jail. Despite the newly enacted First Amendment, not only did the federal courts remain silent in the face of Adamss massive exercise in government censorship; they often initiated the prosecutions. Matthew Lyon, Vermonts only Jeffersonian member of Congress, was jailed for four months and fined $1,000 for criticizing the president in his newspaper. Lyon had the last word, though. He was released just in time to cast Vermonts swing vote for Thomas Jefferson when the presidential election of 1800 was thrown into the House, helping to seal Adamss defeat.

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were free-speech disasters. Before the Civil War, antislavery newspapers were torched throughout the North. All criticism of slavery was banned in the South. Slaves were even forbidden to learn to read. During the Civil War, President Lincoln held opponents of the war in military custody for speaking out against it. After the Civil War, labor leaders went to jail in droves for picketing and striking for higher wages. Labor unions were treated as unlawful conspiracies. Radical opponents of World War I were sentenced to ten-year prison terms and eventually deported to the Soviet Unionfor leafleting. In 1920, Eugene Debs polled more than one million votes for president from his prison cell in the Atlanta federal penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year jail term for giving a speech in 1917 praising draft resisters. Released in 1921, Debs, his health broken, was banned from voting or running for office; he died in 1926. After World War II, fear of communism translated into jail or deportation for thousands of political radicals guilty of saying the wrong thing or joining the wrong group, culminating in 1951 with the Supreme Courts affirmance of multiyear jail terms for the leadership of the American Communist Party, despite its status as a lawful political party.

So much for history, unless you want to erase the First Amendment.

* * *

A Tale of Two Readings

The First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist until the 60s

Medical SEO – Medical Advertising Agencies – Medical Marketing Agency – Health Advertising – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Medical SEO – Medical Advertising Agencies – Medical Marketing Agency – Health Advertising – Video
Mar 092015

Medical SEO – Medical Advertising Agencies – Medical Marketing Agency – Health Advertising
Medical SEO – Medical Advertising Agencies – Medical Marketing Agency – Healthcare Marketing Trends – Health Advertising – Medicine Pro.

By: Medicine Pro – Healthcare Marketing Agency – Medical Videos – Medical Marketing

More here:
Medical SEO – Medical Advertising Agencies – Medical Marketing Agency – Health Advertising – Video

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:

Activating genes on demand: Possible?

 Regenerative Medicine  Comments Off on Activating genes on demand: Possible?
Mar 062015

When it comes to gene expression — the process by which our DNA provides the recipe used to direct the synthesis of proteins and other molecules that we need for development and survival — scientists have so far studied one single gene at a time. A new approach developed by Harvard geneticist George Church, Ph.D., can help uncover how tandem gene circuits dictate life processes, such as the healthy development of tissue or the triggering of a particular disease, and can also be used for directing precision stem cell differentiation for regenerative medicine and growing organ transplants.

The findings, reported by Church and his team of researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University and Harvard Medical School in Nature Methods, show promise that precision gene therapies could be developed to prevent and treat disease on a highly customizable, personalized level, which is crucial given the fact that diseases develop among diverse pathways among genetically-varied individuals. Wyss Core Faculty member Jim Collins, Ph.D., was also a co-author on the paper. Collins is also the Henri Termeer Professor of Medical Engineering & Science and Professor in the Department of Biological Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The approach leverages the Cas9 protein, which has already been employed as a Swiss Army knife for genome engineering, in a novel way. The Cas9 protein can be programmed to bind and cleave any desired section of DNA — but now Church’s new approach activates the genes Cas9 binds to rather than cleaving them, triggering them to activate transcription to express or repress desired genetic traits. And by engineering the Cas9 to be fused to a triple-pronged transcription factor, Church and his team can robustly manipulate single or multiple genes to control gene expression.

“In terms of genetic engineering, the more knobs you can twist to exert control over the expression of genetic traits, the better,” said Church, a Wyss Core Faculty member who is also Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT. “This new work represents a major, entirely new class of knobs that we could use to control multiple genes and therefore influence whether or not specific genetics traits are expressed and to what extent — we could essentially dial gene expression up or down with great precision.”

Such a capability could lead to gene therapies that would mitigate age-related degeneration and the onset of disease; in the study, Church and his team demonstrated the ability to manipulate gene expression in yeast, flies, mouse and human cell cultures.

“We envision using this approach to investigate and create comprehensive libraries that document which gene circuits control a wide range of gene expression,” said one of the study’s lead authors Alejandro Chavez, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow at the Wyss Institute. Jonathan Schieman, Ph.D, of the Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School, and Suhani Vora, of the Wyss Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, are also lead co-authors on the study.

The new Cas9 approach could also potentially target and activate sections of the genome made up of genes that are not directly responsible for transcription, and which previously were poorly understood. These sections, which comprise up to 90% of the genome in humans, have previously been considered to be useless DNA “dark matter” by geneticists. In contrast to translated DNA, which contains recipes of genetic information used to express traits, this DNA dark matter contains transcribed genes which act in mysterious ways, with several of these genes often having influence in tandem.

But now, that DNA dark matter could be accessed using Cas9, allowing scientists to document which non-translated genes can be activated in tandem to influence gene expression. Furthermore, these non-translated genes could also be turned into a docking station of sorts. By using Cas9 to target and bind gene circuits to these sections, scientists could introduce synthetic loops of genes to a genome, therefore triggering entirely new or altered gene expressions.

The ability to manipulate multiple genes in tandem so precisely also has big implications for advancing stem cell engineering for development of transplant organs and regenerative therapies.

“In order to grow organs from stem cells, our understanding of developmental biology needs to increase rapidly,” said Church. “This multivariate approach allows us to quickly churn through and analyze large numbers of gene combinations to identify developmental pathways much faster than has been previously capable.”

See the original post:
Activating genes on demand: Possible?

 Posted by at 10:42 am  Tagged with:

Health advisories lifted for 3 Hillsborough Beaches, issued for 1

 Beaches  Comments Off on Health advisories lifted for 3 Hillsborough Beaches, issued for 1
Feb 262015

Health advisories were lifted Wednesday for three Hillsborough County beaches and issued for one based on criteria for bacteria levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Based on sampling done this week, a health advisory issued on Feb. 18 was lifted for Cypress Point Beach, Bahia Beach and Picnic Island Beach.

I new advisory was issued for Davis Island because samples were above thresholds for enterococci bacteria. Another sample will be taken on March 2.

The beach should be considered unsafe for swimming, according to the Hillsborough County Health Department.

The health department has been conducting coastal quality monitoring at nine sites once every two weeks since August 2000 and weekly since August 2002 through the states Healthy Beaches Monitoring Program.

Enterococci bacteria is typically found in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals and may cause human disease, infections, or rashes. It is an indication of fecal pollution, which may come from stormwater runoff, pets and wildlife, and human sewage, the department said.

For more information, visit

Read more from the original source:
Health advisories lifted for 3 Hillsborough Beaches, issued for 1

Walk in Freedom and Health(Session 3)-Kim Foster at Malachi Family Ministries, Wichita, KS – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on Walk in Freedom and Health(Session 3)-Kim Foster at Malachi Family Ministries, Wichita, KS – Video
Feb 242015

Walk in Freedom and Health(Session 3)-Kim Foster at Malachi Family Ministries, Wichita, KS
Learn to deal with fear. We cannot be in faith and fear at the same time concerning the same thing. A person's body and their actions will line up with their thoughts. What a person believes…

By: Kim Foster

Excerpt from:
Walk in Freedom and Health(Session 3)-Kim Foster at Malachi Family Ministries, Wichita, KS – Video

 Posted by at 1:49 am  Tagged with:

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism