When Black Women Have Babies They Can't Afford,Eugencists Like John Labruzzo Suggest Sterilization!

Where are all of the eugenicists at in the case of Nadya Suleman? After I had my first child,the doctor talked to me about birth control methods & getting my tubes tied.They were adamant about discussing it right away & I almost felt pressured to get on some type of birth control!And,remember,I only had one child,not six.Do they talk to women of other races about things like that right after they've given birth? Somehow,I don't think so.That was a conversation that the doctor thought he should have because he assumed that I couldn't afford to have any more! I wonder if anyone told Nadya Suleman that she should get her tubes tied after she had six babies.Probably not.I'm sure it was assumed that she was financially capable.There would have been more scrutiny in the first place if this were a black woman.

That's what I mean when I say that there would be way more outrage if Nadya Suleman were a black woman.But then,who would actually agree to implant embryos in an African-American woman with 6 kids? During slavery,black women were encouraged to keep reproducing & were punished if they couldn't keep pumping out more slave labor.Nowadays,that would never happen.In fact,there have been repeated attempts to pay us money to not have children.Folks like John Labruzzo want to offer Louisiana women $1,000 bucks to stop the "generational welfare",as you will see in the video.Check out this video on Eugenics or population control.And then watch Bill O'Reilly go off about the fact that this lady & her doctor made such an irresponsible decision.I can't stand Mr. O'Reilly.But at least he is consistent.Where is Glen Beck,Rush Limbaugh,Star Parker,& other conservative voices on this situation?


I recently posted a segment that Star Parker did with Glen Beck in which she talked about the need for "self-governance".Isn't this a prime example of someone who did not "self-govern".Shouldn't Nadya Suleman be called a "welfare queen" for collecting food stamps for kids that she didn't even have naturally?Who would go out of their way to have kids they can't support except someone who is dependent on others for help? She expects help from both the government & her parents.How many black women are out here receiving welfare assistance for implanted babies? And we're questioning her sanity.Why not just say that's she's running a con.I mean,this lady has a website asking for donations to support those 14 kids.She seems pretty damn savvy to me! Nadya Suleman has ulterior motives.

When black women have too many kids,they are labeled lazy,unproductive members of society.No one questions their psychological condition,like they have in the case of Nadya Suleman.Isn't it possible that she has the mentality of a "welfare queen"? She's trying to make money off of these kids by saying she could be a child expert because of the amount of kids that she has.There are a lot of emotionally disturbed black women who have babies because they crave someone to love,just like Nadya Suleman.That's why some women keep having babies that they can't afford.Why not do a psychological profile on all of those women? It's because people are searching for some type of justification for what this woman did when there is none!


I think that if a woman gets these fertility treatments,then she should be able to afford to take care of them.She should be able to show how she will be able to provide for them.And if a situation like this one arises,taxpayers should not have to help support this woman's poor choices.Nadya Suleman needs to learn responsibility from someone.Not one California taxpayer dollar should be spent on her medical bills.She should at least pay for the births of all of those babies that she just needed to have!

There should be some consequence for her actions.And all of those folks who speak out against black women having too many natural births should loudly state their opinions in this case.Nadya Suleman has that "entitlement mentality" that conservatives always rail against.She thought she was entitled to artificially create kids because that's what she wanted.And she's looking for help in every direction when it comes to taking care of them? Does that sound like "self-reliance" to you.How come Bill O'Reilly is the only conservative that seems really peeved about this? Is their only outrage towards black women who make irresponsible parenting choices? If you look at the history of sterilization,that would appear to be the case.Something had to be done to stop all of these black kids from materializing!

Instead of giving her more babies,someone should have talked about sterilization to Nadya Suleman.If she were a black woman,I'm sure that they would have.Here's more on sterilization from PublicEye.org:

"In the case of abortion, the various sectors of the anti-abortion movement treat all women equally. No matter what race or class, women should not have abortions. But in the larger sphere of reproductive rights-the rights to conceive, bear, and raise children-pro-life strategists apply a double standard. Middle and upper class white women should bear children and stay at home to raise them. Single, low-income women (especially low-income women of color), and immigrant women should limit their childbearing and should work outside the home to support their children.

Even a cursory examination of the right's policy agenda demonstrates that, when the focus is changed from abortion to broader reproductive freedom, the right applies race and class criteria that distinguish between the rights of white, middle-class women and low-income women of color. The right has viciously attacked welfare mothers for their "sexuality" and immigrant women for bearing "too many" children.34 In its worldview, "excessive" childbearing by low-income, single women causes poverty. To eliminate poverty, it is necessary to prevent that childbearing.35

Right-wing activists reserve their most vicious attacks for these groups of women, promoting negative stereotypes of low-income women of all races as dependent, irresponsible, prone to addictions, and inadequate mothers.36 They use these stereotypes to inflame public opinion against all sexual behavior that lies outside the narrow parameters of right-wing ideology.

The right advocates policies that discourage childbearing by depriving low-income women of the means to support a child. In the 1990s, using stereotypes such as the "welfare queen," the right successfully promoted the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the "welfare reform" bill. As part of that policy initiative, the right has sought to discourage women on welfare from becoming pregnant by punishing them when they bear children. This form of punishment known euphemistically as a "family cap," which is increasingly popular with state legislatures, denies any increase in payments to women who become pregnant or give birth to a child while on welfare. Another right-wing policy that discourages or prevents childbearing by low-income women mandates or encourages women to use Norplant, Depo-Provera, or the newest form of contraception, contraceptive vaccines such as quinacrine.

These policies designed to control the child-bearing of poor women are but the latest in a series of practices that date back to the eugenics movement of the 19th century, which promoted, racial theories of "fitness" and "unfitness." During this time of a significantly declining birth rate within the white population, politicians and eugenicists raised the specter of white "race suicide." The eugenics movement, which was adopted briefly by the birth control movement in the early 20th century, advocated a higher birthrate for white, middle class, "fit" women and a lower birthrate (aided by birth control) for poor women, especially poor "unfit" women of color and immigrant women.37

The best-known method of denying a woman her right to have children is sterilization abuse. Sterilization is a medical procedure that, like abortion, often is experienced differently in low-income communities of color and in middle-class white communities. Historically, doctors have made it difficult for white women, especially middle-class white women, to choose to be sterilized: insisting, for example, that they come back a second time after they have taken time to "think about it." The attitude of the same medical professionals toward women of color and poor white women has been dramatically different. In these instances, many doctors have long encouraged the procedure, sometimes sterilizing these women without their consent through manipulation or actual deceit. By 1968, for example, a campaign by private agencies and the Puerto Rican government resulted in the sterilization of one-third of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age. A similar campaign in the 1970s resulted in the sterilization of 25 percent of Indian women living on reservations."(END OF EXCERPT)Read the rest here.