Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Schemes and plots
Ikani
05/01/01 at 02:39:03
Assalamu alaikum everyone, I know there are a lot of people out there bent on causing as much harm as they can to muslims and trying to mislead others about Islam, but recently during a Friday Khutbah I heard an Imam telling listeners not to take their children out for an immunization programme being carried out by some NGOs. He said it was all part of a foreign plot against not only muslims in general, but all Africans - our children were being secretly injected with more horrible stuff so they'd grow up with more diseases like AIDS. This was so our numbers could be controlled. Like I said, I know people plot against us, but such statements as this one from the Imam made me wonder - are muslims really that weak that we've no knowledge and means of checking drugs and the like being brought and administered to us? Is it that our enemies are so smart and we are so lacking in knowledge and means? Are we so under-developed? It is my belief that as muslims it is a duty upon us to always be on the search for knowledge. Moreover, I tend not to like 'conspiracy theories' not backed by proof because it makes me feel as if something new is being introduced into Islamic beliefs and practises. What do you think?

Re: Schemes and plots
Anik
05/01/01 at 11:03:28
asalaamu alaikum I've heard all sorts of cospiracy theories and some i agree with and some i don't particularly, an immunization shot is no reason to be afraid: aren't there any muslim doctors in the area who can check the injection? often, and no disrespect to the Imam because he may be correct, but you need more grounds of evidence than that I believe that kind of (and it can be) propaganda stirs hatred imagine how much ppl might have believe dthat and now hate those ppl, when all they could be doing is helping children look twice, then think twice is what i think. asalaamu alaikum. anik,.

Re: Schemes and plots
chachi
05/01/01 at 17:36:31
Hmm i guess you guys have never heard of the US government programme in the 50's and 60's to sterilize Native American and Afro-Americans under the guise of immunization?

Re: Schemes and plots
Kathy
05/01/01 at 18:12:48
remind me.

Re: Schemes and plots
Kashif
05/01/01 at 18:16:19
assalaamu alaikum I've heard more than one famous speaker allude to such happenings. One brother said thathe had seen footage of a meeting where Christian ministers were discussing these plans to fertilize muslim kids in an Arican state alongside immunising them. Kashif Wa Salaam
NS

Re: Schemes and plots
Ikani
05/02/01 at 08:28:08
Assalamu alaikum, Yes, I've heard some of such stories too. It's just that sometimes they're told as if the 'bad guys' are super-human and most of us are too guilible. No problem though, at least Allah helps reveal all the nasty plots. Still, we have to be careful not to spend too much time concentrating on conspiracy theories while we've got other importnat things to do.

Re: Schemes and plots
chachi
05/06/01 at 14:05:04
Short and to the point eh Kathy..*s* apart from this article and the footnotes also remember that black people were also sterilized in the 1970's by the US government as well as injected with drugs without consent and used as general guinea pigs           try the link at http://www.dickshovel.com for more stuff   A History of Governmentally Coerced Sterilization: The Plight of the Native American Woman   May 1, 1997 By Michael Sullivan DeFine University of Maine School of Law Footnotes appear at the end of the text <cut> B. Personal Accounts from Sterilized Native American Women and Their Attitude Toward Family Planning One of the people who initiated the government investigation into the Indian Health Service's sterilization policy was Dr. Connie Uri, a Choctaw Indian Physician working at the Claremore, Oklahoma Indian Health Service facility. (40) Dr. Uri noticed in the hospital records that a large number of sterilization surgeries had been performed. This prompted her to conduct her own interviews with the women involved and she found that many had received the operation only a day or two after childbirth. (41) In the month of July, 1974 alone there were forty-eight sterilizations performed and several hundred had been conducted in the previous two years. (42) The hospital records showed that both tubal ligation and hysterectomies were used in sterilization. Dr. Uri commented that "in normal medical practice, hysterectomies are rare in women of child bearing age unless there is cancer or other medical problems". (43) Besides the questionable surgery techniques taking place, there was also the charge of harassment in obtaining consent forms. (44) In an incident of harassment at the Claremore facility, one woman was told by social workers and other hospital personnel that she was a bad mother, and they threatened to place her children in foster homes if she would not agree to the surgery. (45) In one study conducted on the Navajo Reservation and sponsored by the Public Health Service, researchers reported: From 1972 to 1978 we observe a 130 per cent increase in the number of induced abortions performed. During this time the ratio of abortions per 1,000 deliveries has increased from approximately 34 to 77 (an increase of 126 per cent). (46) While not exactly within the confines of sterilization, the numbers indicate that the family planning program on the Navajo Reservation was definitely acquiring federal funds to carry on such a massive project. (47) The statistics concerning Navajo sterilization were also addressed by a Public Health Service sponsored study, which found that "between 1972 and 1978, the percentage of interval sterilization has more than doubled from 15.1 per cent in 1972 to 30.7 per cent in 1978." (48) Although the report itself was conducted in a clinical and methodical manner, the researchers did comment slightly about the relationship between patient and physician, stating that "[o]lder women who become pregnant may be much less concerned about reducing their childbearing and may do so primarily when they are influenced by health care providers." (49) In light of previously mentioned tactics promoting the sterilization of Native American women, one can only speculate regarding the nature of the "advice" or "influence" provided by these health care providers. Once the word of sterilization spread throughout Indian Country, some tribal leaders carried on their own investigations. Marie Sanchez, a tribal judge of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, interviewed fifty women, twenty-six of whom reported that they were sterilized. (50) One doctor told several women that they each had enough children and it was time they stopped having children. (51) Others were even told that they could have children after the operation. (52) The attitudes of some members of the health care profession regarding the appropriateness of the number of children these Native American women "should" bear underlines the differing value structure between "white" America and Native American culture. The idea of such population control measures leaves many Native Americans understandably concerned. They believe that the federal government has done enough throughout history to limit the number of Indians living on this continent, and the idea of limiting the number of Indian children is based on what whites feel is an appropriate amount. (53) Other researchers have found these general feelings to be true, regarding the limitation of Indian family members. One group of researchers gathered data on urban and rural Omaha Indians in Nebraska to determine if either group had different opinions on family planning. The team found that "the family economic situation, the ability to care for the children now and later, family happiness, and the feeling that the couple had enough children were valid considerations in a decision to delay or prevent further pregnancies." (54) The team also noted that the "freedom for the mother to work, and the belief that a small population was good for the country, were generally not sufficient cause [for birth control]." (55) C. State and Federal Policies Regarding Informed Consent and Sterilization Dr. Louis Hellman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs in the Public Health Service, presented statistics confirming that 150,000 low income people were sterilized in the United States by means of federal grant money. (56) These funds allowed the states to be reimbursed for up to 90 percent of the cost of sterilizing indigent women. A report from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated: Voluntary sterilization is legal in all states. Although most states have no statute regulating voluntary sterilization, over half authorize the procedure either explicitly by statute, attorney general's opinion, judicial decision, or policies of [the] Health and Welfare department or implicitly through consent requirements . . . . (57) Since the states themselves are not following any set policies, it would be reasonable to assume that the Indian Health Service does not either. Thus, there is a valid suspicion regarding the effective management of resources and people at the Indian Health Service. D. An Examination of the Contractual Relationship Between the Indian Health Service and Private Practices Researchers on the Navajo Reservation observed that the trend toward increased female sterilizations had to do with the health care providers, who were found to be responsible for the huge increase (almost 300% since 1970) (58) of patients "agreeing" to surgery. The team further stated that the pattern of childbearing on the Navajo Reservation was very similar to those in developing countries. (59) The following statement further illustrates the paternalistic and authoritative attitude that many physicians have toward women: "persons in the lower educational classes rely more on such operations [hysterectomies]; they have been least likely to control their fertility in other ways, and doctors may finally suggest this method." (60) Contract Care entails formal agreements with private vendors and is used when the Indian Health Service cannot equip its staff or facilities for emergency or specialty care or if there is an overload of patients. (61) Contract physicians associated with the Indian Health Service are reimbursed for each sterilization. (62) The reimbursements that the physicians receive come from federal funds, but are not federally accountable: "thirty percent of the sterilizations were performed at 'contract' facilities. [Indian Health Service] officials in the Albuquerque and Aberdeen areas said they do not monitor the consent procedures in contract care, nor are doctors required to follow federal regulations." (63) Normally, agencies which receive funding from the federal government must follow federal guidelines. The Indian Health Service, however, shows a lack of concern and accountability with the patients they treat and the money they handle. (64) E. The United States General Accounting Office Investigation of the Indian Health Service Sterilization Procedures and the Meaning Behind Statistics of Population Growth Complaints of these unethical sterilization practices continued, but little was done until the matter was brought to the attention of Senator James Abourezk (D-SD). Finally, affirmative steps were taken - specifically the commissioning of the General Accounting Office - to investigate the affair and to determine if the complaints of Indian women were true - that they were undergoing sterilization as a means of birth control, without consent. (65) The problem with the investigation was that it was initially limited to only four area Indian Health Service hospitals (later twelve); therfore, the total number of Indian women sterilized remains unknown. (66) The General Accounting Office came up with a figure of 3,400 women who had been sterilized; but others speculate that at least that many had been sterilized each year from 1972 through 1976. (67) The General Accounting Office confined its investigation to Indian Health Service records and failed to probe case histories, to observe patient-doctor relationships, or to interview women who had been sterilized. (68) This deplorable lack of thorough investigation only served as an attempt to placate the concerns of Indian people. The General Accounting Office investigators concluded that Indian Health Service consent procedures lacked the basic elements of informed consent, particularly in informing a patient orally of the advantages and disadvantages of sterilization. (69) Furthermore, the consent form had only a summary of the oral presentation, and the form lacked the information usually located at the top of the page notifying the patient that no federal benefits would be taken away if she did not accept sterilization. (70) The General Accounting Office notified the Indian Health Service that it should implement better consent procedures. Some Indian Health Service Area Directors were pressured by local Indians and by Indian physicians and staff to suspend certain nurses and to move the hospital administrators to another post. Other than that, however, there was little else done by government officials. (71) Outraged by the level of governmental inaction, Indian people accused the Indian Health Service of making genocide a part of its policy. For the Indian Health Service, this was a serious accusation, as the purpose of this agency was to somehow alleviate the terrible health conditions in Indian communities. The Indian Health Service defended itself by relying on the inaccurate sterilization figures provided by the General Accounting Office. (72) In reality, however, the accusation of genocide was not far off base. As Thomas Littlewood stated in his book on the politics of population control, "non-white Americans are not unaware of how the American Indian came to be called the vanishing American . . . [t]his country's starkest example of genocide in practice." (73) From a statistical point of view, the reality of the devastation of Native American women victimized by sterilization can be observed through the comments of Senator Abourezk himself: "given the small American Indian population, the 3,400 Indian sterilization figure [out of 55,000 Indian women of childbearing age] would be compared to sterilizing 452,000 non-Indian women." (74) IV. Conclusion Science has provided a means of categorizing and victimizing those in society deemed unworthy of continued existence. Its influence in academic and political circles has created a pervasive social bigotry that rewards extermination over reform. The failure to embrace the racial and cultural diversity of this country has left a wake of destruction and oppression in minority populations. It is time for the pundits of social change to rearrange their thinking and give back to the people the power to choose what is right for themelves. Return to Main Index on Coerced Sterilization -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes 1 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger's Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996). 2 Id. at 538 3 Id. at 539 4 Id. 5 Herbert Hovenkamp, Social Science and Segregation before Brown, 1985 Duke L.J. 624,625 6 Id. 7 Id. at 630-632 (citing Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908) (upholding a Kentucky statute prohibiting integrated schools)). 8 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger's Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996) (citing Stephen J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (1981) at 114-115. 9 Id. at 115. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 118 12 Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers (1993), at 14. 13 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger's Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996) (citing Francis Galton, Hereditary Talent and Character, in Adam Miller, Professors of Hate, in The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions (Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman eds., 1995) at 393, 396, 406-442. 14 Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Societal History of Birth Control in America (rev. ed. 1990), at 276. 15 Id. at 277-278 (quoting Michael F. Guyer, Being Well-Born (1916), at 296-298). 16 The Immigration Act of 1924, ch.190, §11(a), 43 Stat. 153, 159, amended by The Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, §201, 66 Stat. 175 (1952), amended by Pub. L. No. 89-236, §1, 79 Stat. 911 (1965). 17 Leon J. Kamin, The Pioneers of IQ Testing, in The Bell Curve Debate (1995), at 494. 18 Howard M. Sachar, A History of Jews in America (1992), at 321. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Adam Miller, Professors of Hate, in The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions (Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman eds., 1995) at 172. 22 Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers (1993), at 21. 23 Robert N. Proctor, Genomics and Eugenics: How Fair is the Comparison?, in Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides, at 61. 24 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger's Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 554 (1996). 25 Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Societal History of Birth Control in America (rev. ed. 1990), at 437. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 432-433. 28 Charles Rutherford, Reproductive Freedoms and African American Women, 4 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 255, 273-74 (1992). 29 Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (D.D.C. 1974). 30 Charles R. England, A Look at the Indian Health Service Policy of Sterilization, 1972-1976, at 1 (available on-line at http://www.dickshovel.com/IHSSterPol.html). 31 American Indian Journal of the Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Feb., 1977, at 22-23. 32 England, at 1. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 American Indian Journal of the Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Feb., 1977, at 23. 38 England, at 1. 39 Id. 40 Id., at 2 41 Id. 42 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22. 43 Id. 44 England, at 2. 45 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22. 46 Helen Temkin-Greener, Surgical Fertility Regulation Among Women on the Navajo Indian Reservation, American Journal of Public Health, (April, 1981), at 405. 47 Id. 48 Id., at 406. 49 Id. 50 England, at 2. 51 Brint Dillingham, American Indian Women and I.H.S. Sterilization Practices, American Indian Journal (January, 1977), at 28. 52 Id. 53 England, at 2. 54 Margot Liberty, Rural and Urban Omaha Indian Fertility, Human Biology (February, 1976), at 63-64. 55 Id., at 64. 56 Gayle Mark Jarvis, The Theft of Life, Akwesasne Notes (1977), at 22. 57 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health Trends and Services [report] (GPO, 1978), at 89. 58 Gayle Mark Jarvis, The Theft of Life, Akwesasne Notes (1977), at 31. 59 Temkin-Greener, at 406. 60 Leslie A. Westoff and Charles F. Westoff, From Now to Zero, Little, Brown & Co. (1971), at 56. 61 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization and Abortion, (GPO, 1978), at 2. 62 Mark Miller, Native American Peoples on the Trail of Tears Once More, America (December 1978), at 424. 63 Killing Our Future: Sterilization and Experiments, Akwesasne Notes (Autumn, 1977), at 4. 64 England, at 4. 65 Dillingham, at 27. 66 Id., at 27-28. 67 England, at 4. 68 Jarvis, Akwesasne Notes (Autumn, 1977), at 30. 69 England, at 5. 70 Bill Wagner, Lo the Poor and Sterilized Indian, America (January 29, 1977), at 75. 71 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22. 72 Janet Karstan Larson, And Then There Were None: Is Federal Policy Endangering the American Indian Species?, Christian Century (January 26, 1977), at 63. 73 Thomas B. Littlewood, The Politics of Population Control, The University of Notre Dame Press (1977), at 82. 74 Wagner, at 75.
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org