Wise Up Journal
Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers should be sentenced to take contraception for a prescribed period of two years, according to a draft bill before the Dutch parliament.
The proposed legislation would further punish parents who defied it by taking away their newborn infant. “If someone refuses the contraception and becomes pregnant, the child must be taken away directly after birth.” [explained the author of the bill Marjo Van Dijken of the socialist PvDA]
Dutch Parliament to Consider Forcing “Unfit Mothers” to Take Contraception
Women in the Netherlands deemed “unfit mothers” may soon be forced to take contraception, if a draft bill currently before the Dutch parliament is passed. The bill “targets women who have been the subject of judicial intervention due to their bad parenting,” says its author, a member of the Netherlands’ socialist Labour Party.
Under the proposed legislation, a woman judged unfit who refuses to take contraception and becomes pregnant would have her child taken away at birth. The infant then would be placed in a foster home.
While it’s certain that such a measure could potentially prevent convicted child abusers from conceiving and abusing more children, many questions have been raised about the draft bill’s potential impact on human rights in the Netherlands.
Disabled mothers already face a worldwide uphill battle for the right to bear children. Earlier this year, “K.E.J.,” a woman with developmental disabilities, was taken to court by her own aunt, who wanted K.E.J. to be sterilized against her will. K.E.J. won her court battle. But would a woman with similar disabilities be judged unfit under the proposed Dutch system? What about a woman who could not care for a child due to a mental illness like post-partum depression, but who has entered a treatment program and wants to try again?
The bill does not appear to include any prohibitions against discrimination based on disability, except that parents who have not yet raised a child and been judged unfit based on the way in which they parented that child would not be affected. Therefore, women would not be put on court-ordered contraception before having their first child.
The draft bill, if passed, could also negatively impact women’s rights in the Netherlands. It does not include any provision that would place similar restrictions on the reproductive rights of fathers.
What do you think? Should the Dutch state be able to force women who have abused or neglected previous children to take contraception? Do you think the proposed legislation would be used as a Eugenic measure to prevent women with disabilities from having children?
Roma Woman Denied Compensation for Forced Sterilization
Iveta Cervenakova, 32, was forcibly sterilized after the birth of her second daughter 11 years ago. Now, a Czech appeals court has ruled that the hospital which performed the unwanted procedure owes Iveta no compensation aside from an apology.
Ms. Cervenakova was among possibly as many as a quarter of a million Roma (Gypsy) women sterilized against their will in the Czech Republic. This practice ceased only recently.
Cervenakova originally was awarded around US $26,000 in compensation from the hospital which sterilized her during her Caesarean section. The October, 2007 ruling was hailed as a bittersweet victory by advocacy organizations seeking to raise public awareness of the illegal sterilization of Roma women. However, the appeals court overturned the ruling on November 5, 2008, on the grounds that a three-year statute of limitations for forcible sterilization cases had expired.
Iveta Cervenakova says she disagrees with the ruling and intends to take her case to the Supreme Court. “An apology is not enough. I only signed consent with Caesarean section on the operation table and there was no talk about sterilisation,” she told journalists.
Nazi Germany was not the first country to sterilize the “unfit.” Before the Nazis, the United States had led the world in policies of compulsory sterilization. In 1907, Indiana became the first state to enact a sterilization law, and by the 1930s, more than half of the states had passed laws that authorized the sterilization of inmates of mental institutions and others.
the Nazis later defended their sterilization program in the Nuremberg trials by referring to the United States
sterilization rates climbed in the United States during the depression
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported, “the average sperm count of a North American college student today is less than half of what it was 50 years ago. The quality of sperm is declining. Eighty-five per cent of the sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged. The chemical industry has developed more than 90,000 man-made chemicals in the last sixty years.”
Elitist Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970), a Nobel Prize winner, worked on the education of young children and was an award winner of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Kalinga Prize. A highly respected man by the elite. In his book The Scientific Outlook (1931) he wrote: “If the simultaneous regulation of quantity and quality is taken seriously in the future, we may expect that in each generation some 25 per cent. of women and some 5 per cent. of men will be selected to be the parents of the next generation, while the remainder of the population will be sterilized, which will in no way interfere with their sexual pleasures, but will merely render these pleasures destitute of social importance.” – 251
Keep in mind that this book was written in 1931. Currently 25% of Women and 5% of men out of the general population would not need to be kept fertile as science research today has made public artificial human sperm and clone technology.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: “Synthetic chemicals are now ubiquitous in our lives and widely dispersed in virtually everything we consume and touch. Bisphenol A. It languished until the 1930’s, when it was discovered that it could be used as a synthetic estrogen. In the 1950’s it was discovered that bisphenol-A had the remarkable ability to make plastics more pliable and less prone to crack. Between 1980 and 2000, U.S. production of bisphenol-A grew nearly five times. And it is now a ubiquitous component of clear polycarbonate plastic”
Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook: “Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good.” – 256
Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” [Video of more population control comments from media mogul Ted Turner]
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
It is very hard for a critical thinker to believe this dramatic change in humanity is a coincidence when the elite have the means and motive. When the dominate minority are on the record with their psychotic wants/goals how gullible do you have to be to continue trusting them or giving them the benefit of the doubt? Will we continue to hear the following gullible lines, “no one knew it would do that”, “they said it might do that, but they were not sure”, “it’s just about money”, “it’s just a coincidence [they got what they said they wanted again]”, “even a child could foresee the damage, they must be incompetent”?