"A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." Margaret Sanger, "A Plan For Peace", Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 106
"State Rep. John LaBruzzo (R-LA House District 81) says the government should consider cash incentives for poor people to undergo reproductive sterilization, because society is careening toward a day when persons on public assistance outnumber taxpayers and the economy collapses."
"LaBruzzo said he continues compiling such data and that his idea of providing Fallopian tubal ligations and a $1,000 bonus to impoverished women was a brainstorming tactic prematurely made public Monday on a radio talk show, followed by Internet and printed reports.
" (LaBruzzo sterilization idea at odds with welfare numbers
Margaret Sanger would be proud that someone was buying into her ideas. There has been some outcry about what he said. What gets me is who.
It stikes me as ironic that 1 of his critics is an heir to Margaret Sanger's policies & programs, Julie Mickelberry, public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta.
"'Clearly Rep. LaBruzzo doesn't know a thing about prevention,' Mickelberry said. 'We know that offering bribes for sterilization won't do a thing.'
Instead, Mickelberry said, providing access to health care and information about avoiding unintended pregnancies is more likely to help impoverished people."
I can't prove a thing, but I suspect that she isn't so much turning her back on Sanger's ideas as she is positioning PP for more government money. Why? "After further thought, LaBruzzo said, he has modified his position toward calling for financial incentives for temporary forms of birth control, instead of surgery." (ie: the pill, condoms etc) & who would get a healthy share of this money to provide them. PP of course.
It is interesting to read what Rachel E. Luft, assistant professor of sociology at the University of New Orleans, had to say about his idea. According to the article: "Luft likened LaBruzzo's plan to the eugenics movement that sought to engineer low-income and ethnic groups out of the population a century ago, based on the belief that some people are less valuable than others. Adolf Hitler later adopted some of the movement's principles in Nazi Germany, Luft said." While she is right as far as she goes, she fails to mention that 1 of the leaders of the eugenics movement was Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP.
Given that LaBruzzo's occupation is described on his legislative web page as Medical Equipment Representative, I have to wonder if that doesn't play a part in his considering it. Wrong as his position is, what is even sadder is the response from some of his political backers.
Laywer James Garvey (State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education) $1000 donor: "It definitely caught me by surprise. I guess I would say that Johnny is a really good guy and really bright guy and that he comes up with ideas that have not been thought of by many other people. Some are good. Some are bad."
It gets worse. "Garvey said he had not given LaBruzzo's sterilization idea enough thought to take a position on it. 'This might turn out to be a horrible idea,' he said, 'but you can't get his good ideas without getting some of his off-the-wall ideas.'" WHAT NEED FOR THOUGHT??????? This is a bad idea plain & simple. It can't be defended.
Then there is the comment by $2000 donor, real estate developer Henry Shane. "'I'd have to know what he is actually proposing,' Shane said. 'It sounds like it might be unusual, but when you get into the details of it, it may make sense.'" NO IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL!!!!!
Meanwhile, should either plan be implimented, Margaret Sanger's goals will have been furthered. Let's pray that they aren't.
& to my paisan LaBruzzo I have this to say: "Are you totally & completely pazzo???? Per favore, quit acting like a gavone by promoting this infamia!!!!!!!!!"