Governments the world over have frequently viewed women’s fertility as a problem to be controlled and limited. History is littered with government-promoted sterilisation programmes of women, usually to promote a eugenic agenda.
India has a nasty record of sterilising poor women and Nazi Germany liked to sterilise those they deemed unworthy. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was huge fan of controlling the fertility of poor people as a way of promoting a better breed of humans.
Sanger stated society was made up of “irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Even current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg revealed her true colours believing that there are certain class of people we (meaning the elite) should discourage from breeding. She mentioned in an interview, that at the time Roe v Wade was decided, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Last week, up to 14 women died from botched operations in a mass government-sponsored sterilisation programme in India, at sterilisation camps in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh. Yes, that is right – government-sponsored ‘sterilisation camps’ exist in 2014. Relatives of the 12 women who died told local media they were forced by health workers to attend and ‘herded like cattle’ into the camps.
In 2013, a news channel unearthed footage showing scores of women dumped unconscious in a field following a mass sterilisation in East India. But why should we care – these are just dirt poor Indian women, part of the great unwashed.
We should care as the British taxpayer is funding the coercive sterilisation of these poor women, on the grounds that it will “excellent value for money”, according to former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell. This is an odious sentiment implying that poor people in the developing world must be limited so we can drive our 4 x 4s in the first world.
According to this piece, “despite its insistence that it opposes coercion, it had already been revealed that the Department for International Development (DfID) was funding forcible sterilisations in the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.”
However, we do not have to go to India to find cases of government sponsoring permanent or long-term but reversible sterilisation programmes. Nicholas Kristof, in the New York Times, believes it an excellent idea to push long-term contraception on poor teenagers in America who have the pesky habit of getting pregnant.
Here in the UK, there has been a concerted governmental push to get more teenagers – some below the age of consent – to take up long-term contraception. The liberals like to ‘get the government out of people’s bedrooms’ unless the government comes armed with contraception. In this case, they are very much in the room.
My objection to government-sponsored partial sterilisation of our teenagers is that there is absolutely no concern for the emotional or psychological consequences of engaging in either illegal or premature sexual activity. All the government and the NHS are interested in is stopping teenagers getting pregnant to ‘save us all money in the long-term.’
Perhaps some of our readers may be of the view that this is welcome. If it does indeed save us money from our welfare bill then it is a good thing. But this view is deeply instrumental and dehumanising to the girls involved.
We know that health workers in Rochdale handed out contraceptives to underage girls, no questions asked. This directly facilitated their abuse by older men. Essentially the State ensures these girls are infertile for the foreseeable the future so older men or teenagers can use them without the hassle of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I however do not believe our young girls and teenagers are for public use.
These measures are not going to encourage men to respect girls, or take responsibility for their actions. It will not encourage men to commit to women in the long term, which is perhaps part of the reason for the collapse of marriage in lower income groups, a collapse that has had a disastrous impact on children’s life chances.
It seems the British government is happy to facilitate brutal coercive sterilisation programmes of poor women abroad and encourage the sheer use and abuse of young girls and women at home. They should be ashamed.