Category Archives: Eugenics

Photo Credit: pippeeContributor / Shutterstock.com

A Tennessee county has greenlit a modern-day eugenics program under the guise of offering prisoners a better future. Judge Sam Benningfield of White County issued an order in May that reduces jail sentences for inmates who agree to undergo birth control procedures. For male inmates, a credit of just 30 days is offered in exchange for vasectomies, which are permanent. Women who sign up for the program receive a Nexplanon implant, which is effective for up to four years. ABC 15 reports that 32 women and 38 men have enrolled in the program.

I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children, Judge Benningfield told local outlet NewsChannel5. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves.

The program is described as voluntary, though it stretches the definition of that term, basically putting inmates in the position of bartering their fertility for sentencing reductions. Considering that prison sentences are often the collateral damage of life issues from poverty to addiction to crime, it seems callous to ask already vulnerable people to forego a basic human right to shave time off their sentences. The ACLU argues that pretending the program gives prisoners real options is deceptive and perhaps unconstitutional.

Offering a so-called choice between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional, Tennessee ACLU head Hedy Weinberg wrote in a statement. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it.

Theres also the matter of the programs resemblance to the eugenics programs that populate American history. The Equal Justice Institute notes that sterilization programs in the United States date back to the 1920s, when many states authorized forced sterilization of thousands of undesirable citizenspeople with disabilities, prisoners and racial minoritieson the theory that, as the Supreme Court put it in upholding Virginias forced sterilization law in 1927, three generations of imbeciles are enough."

In recent years, groups like Project Prevention have paid drug-addicted women as little as $300 to be sterilized. (One ad advises potential enrollees, Don't let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit.") NPR points to a previous Tennessee state effort that penalized pregnant women who used drugs under a fetal assault" law. The legislation was abandoned after officials realized that women avoided prenatal care so they wouldnt face jail time.

Judge Benningfield told NewsChannel5 that he launched the program with input from the Tennessee Department of Health, though the agency has distanced itself from the effort in news coverage.

Neither the Tennessee Department of Health nor the White County Health Department was involved in developing any policy to offer sentence reductions to those convicted of crimes in exchange for their receiving family planning services, Shelly Walker, the agency spokesperson, told the Washington Post. We do not support any policy that could compel incarcerated individuals to seek any particular health services from us or from other providers.

Judge Benningfield seems surprised by the outrage his program has been met with.

"It seemed to me almost a no-brainer," he told NewsChannel5. "Offer these women a chance to think about what they're doing and try to rehabilitate their life."

KaliHolloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet.

Read more:

Modern-Day Eugenics? Prisoners Sterilized for Shorter Sentences ... - AlterNet

During the so-called "Progressive Era," the United States became the first country in the world to implement wholesale compulsory sterilization laws with the aim of weeding out "inferior stock," i.e., eugenics, in order to produce a more "perfect" race.

Multiple states passed laws requiring forcible sterilization of inmates, with the American Eugenics movement gaining traction among intellectual elites in the early 20th century. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1926 with the aim of "improving the genetic composition of humans through controlled reproduction of different races and classes of people."

It pushed out propaganda to persuade Americans that the "unfit" must be breeded out. Among those deemed "inferior stock" were individuals suffering from blindness, deafness, mental defects, disease, physical deformity and "feeblemindedness" (i.e., low IQ).

Sometimes promiscuous women, including women who got pregnant out of wedlock, were sent to homes for the feebleminded, where they could be subject to compulsory sterilization. One such woman was Carrie Buck, placed in a home for the feebleminded after her husband abandoned her and she was raped by a neighbor, ending up pregnant. Under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Bellwas sterilized.

Even worse, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the compulsory sterilization as constitutional. In an 81 vote, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority in Buck v. Bell(1927), found:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ... Three generations ofimbecilesare enough.

The women most affected by forcible sterilizations were from ethnic minorities, including Native Americans and African Americans. One study showed that 60 percent of African American women in Sunflower County, Mississippi were sterilized without against their will or without their knowledge, some of these procedures taking place unbeknownst to them during childbirth.

American eugenics practices went on to influence the Nazi eugenics program, which ended up with about 350,000 compulsory sterilizations from 19341945, paving the way for the Holocaust.

Watch the panel discuss this dark history in The DowloadToday's Eugenics.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Read this article:

The Sordid History of Eugenics in America - Church Militant

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Under existing asset forfeiture laws, it is legal for government officials to seize your gambling winnings, your Dan Brown paperbacks collection, your Lucky Charms collectible cereal bowl and spoon sets, or a bag of paper clips you might have lying around. If you want to get out of jail early in White County, Tennessee, you might have to let them take your fertility too.

I wish I were joking. But there is actually nothing amusing about Judge Sam Benningfield's standing order signed on May 15 awarding inmates 30 days worth of credit toward their jail sentences if they agree to undergo a sterility-inducing procedure a vasectomy for male offenders, a Nexplananon implant for females. Both procedures are available free of charge courtesy of the Tennessee Department of Health.

This is not some kind of innovative crime-reduction plan. It is eugenics.

How exactly it is possible for a judge in a general sessions court with juvenile jurisdiction to impose this order and arrange the gratis performance of these operations with state funds is a question best left to legal experts. The ACLU has released a statement denouncing the program as "unconstitutional." The local district attorney has called it "concerning," citing the difficulties of reversing a procedure undergone by impressionable young offenders looking for a speedy way out of their difficulties. But I am not interested in the constitutionality of the program.

It is evil.

Benningfield says his decision followed conversations with the health department, and that he hopes offenders will "make something of themselves." He claims that too many "drug addicts" have come to him unable to pay court-mandated child support. "I understand it won't be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe that's two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win."

A win-win for whom? For a young man who on the spur of the moment and for understandable reasons wants to get out of jail but decades down the line finds himself unable to have a family? For a young woman unaware of the long-term consequences for her fertility posed by having an implant? For the taxpayers of Tennessee who would rather pay for one snip or rod than look after children and the poor and the marginalized? For the children who will now never be born?

It has been decades since this country has had anything resembling a serious public debate about the morality of contraception. Even conservative Catholic politicians with rare exceptions feel comfortable not following the logic of the church's teaching about life to its explicit and logical conclusion. Instead their focus tends to be on abortion, something that most evangelical Christians in this country oppose.

The closest we ever come to having it out about birth control is when the question of eugenics is raised. But the two questions cannot be separated from one another given the history of what used to be the contraceptive movement in this country. I will never understand why reputable mainstream politicians eagerly receive awards from Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a woman who explicitly recommended the enforced sterilization of those she considered "unfit" or "feeble-minded" or "idiots." It would take an act of willful obtuseness to pretend that the practice of hawking free contraception and abortion today can be neatly separated from the ideology out of which the practice arose. Contraception and sterilization are eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, would certainly agree with Judge Benningfield about our moral duty to prevent those convicted of crimes from having children. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically," she once told an interviewer. "Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin that people can commit."

The lack of charity involved in the assumptions that people who have been convicted of crimes are incapable of repenting and that being parents can only abet their seemingly innate criminality, and that their children are predestined to commit crimes as well, is horrifying. People are not machines. Birth is not a technology that can be harnessed by the state for its sinister purposes. Nor is it a privilege that must be earned by supposedly upstanding citizens, revocable upon the first instance of bad behavior.

View original post here:

The unspeakable evil of the Tennessee eugenics program - The Week - The Week Magazine

Before I tell you about this historical, shocking and true story of eugenics in the United States, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, let me tell you about the author.

Adam Cohen is a former member of "The New York Times" editorial board, a former senior writer for "Time" magazine, author of several books and a graduate of Harvard Law School.

"On May 2, 2002, the governor of Virginia offered a sincere apology for his state's participation in eugenics, Cohen writes.

With the support of medical personnel, lawyers, academics and the courts, Virginia forced the sterilization of more than 7,450 citizens between 1927 and 1979. They were considered unfit, feeble-minded, criminals or epileptics. In the court case "Buck versus Taft," the United States Supreme Court approved the sterilization of Carrie Buck, with some of the most important names in America presiding, including William Howard Taft, Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The vote was 8-1. Buck was from Charlottesville and taken in by a foster family. When she became pregnant out of wedlock, she was declared feebleminded."

Eugenics is the science of improving the human population by controlling breeding, thus improving the chances of what are considered desirable traits. In the 1920s, the U.S. began its drive to improve the population. Its model came from England and the writings of Charles Darwin. John D. Rockefeller Jr., Alexander Graham Bell and Theodore Roosevelt were among the supporters of eugenics. The methods to improve the U.S. population included changing immigration laws and keeping those deemed unfit from reproducing. In the end, sterilization became the chosen solution.

Virginia was cautious about eugenic sterilization and did not enact it until 1924, 17 years after the first state, Indiana, had started to use the practice. Four of the nations most respected and powerful professions supported eugenic sterilization medicine, academics, law and the judiciary. The U.S. sterilized 60,000 to 70,000 citizens during this manic time in history, according to Cohen.

The Nazi Party used U.S. laws as a model for its own eugenic sterilization program. Buck vs. Bell has never been overturned. There was a tendency to favor the powerful in American law.

This book covers in great detail the famous men who influenced eugenics and the ultimate support of Buck vs. Bell.

The list includes Albert Priddy, Harry Laughlin and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. As you read this book, consider what was occurred during the years of eugenics, how many citizens of Virginia had their lives turned upside down. They lost their right to choose where they lived, their ability to have children and ultimately, the course of their lives.

This country stands for freedom, but where is the freedom here?

Adam Cohen ends this unforgettable book with a long list of acknowledgments and 323 notes and references. This 402 page book includes eight pages of historical pictures. It can be found at Amazon in paperback for $12.14 and in Kindle for $11.99. It can also be reached at Powells Books for $18 in paperback, $19.50 in hardcover, and $45 on CD.

Vicky Coiner has been a school nurse in Hampton for more than 19 years. She has a master's degree in psychology and is working toward a Ph.D.

Excerpt from:

HRBooks review: 'Imbeciles' takes deep dive into Virginia's role in America's eugenics - Daily Press

The idea of eugenics fell out of favor after the Holocaust, and the journal Eugenics Quarterly finally changed its name to Social Biology in 1969. This repudiation of Nazi beliefs may be coming to an end, though, as the eugenics movement gains a new wave of sympathizers.

Blogs | Jul. 21, 2017

Current arguments in favor of eugenics seem oddly familiar.

Since being spoiled for a few decades by the Nazis, eugenics is becoming all the rage again. The most recent example is a new program in White County, Tennessee, which offers inmates the option of having time removed from their jail sentence if they agree to undergo a vasectomy or a birth control implant.

General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield said that when he signed the order he had the best interest of the inmates in mind. I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves, Benningfield reportedly said. I understand it wont be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe thats two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win.

Don't you just love it, when government officials are looking out for you?

Male inmates can undergo a vasectomy while women can agree to be given a contraceptive implant. If they agree to it they will have 30 days taken off their jail time. According to news reports, 32 women have thus far received the implant and 38 men are awaiting the scary scissors.

I'm horrified by this. But I kind of just figured that this was some wacky judge who came up with a crazy idea. I was therefore a bit disturbed to see that it seems pretty popular. In perusing comments on news stories, there seems to be a number of arguments in support of this no good horrible very bad idea.

Here's some brief snippets from some of the arguments I saw online which were wildly in favor of this plan.

The "It's about the children" argument.

The Ruth Vader Ginsburg school of thought.

The I heartcontraception crowd.

Straight-up racism or as I call it "The Margaret Sanger Theory of Social Purification."

Big picture argument!

And then the argument for fiscal sanity!!!

And how about this interesting anti-abortion argument for coerced vasectomies?

These arguments have all been made before, folks:

The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses. Adolf Hitler

Visit link:

Putting the You in Eugenics - National Catholic Register (blog)

A Tennessee judge is redefining what it means for convicts to pay their debt to society: Go under the knife in White County to get a vasectomy or a birth control implant, and prisoners can get 30-days off their sentence. "Hopefully while they're staying here we rehabilitate them so they never come back," Judge Sam Benningfield explained to a local news crew.

But what does sterilization have to do with rehabilitation? Absolutely nothing.

It's cruel, it's unusual, and it literally meets the clinical definition of eugenics.

Down on their luck, 70 inmates (32 women and 38 men) have taken the plea deal. They'll get credit toward their sentence and a permanent reminder courtesy of county government that, because of their crime, they're sub-humans not fit to have a family.

In short, society finds them undesirable and would prefer if they not reproduce. Upon their release, convicts won't be burdened with unwanted children and heck, given enough time, perhaps little White County can weed out criminal imbeciles from the gene pool.

Except no, human nature doesn't work that way and nothing good has come from eugenics. The United States has its own uncomfortable and not too distant history with the practice. A total of 32 states enforced eugenics laws by 1935 and California didn't ban the practice of prison sterilization until 2014.

It's no exaggeration to say that the horrific practice has wiped away generations, snuffing out potential families ? especially from Asian, black, and Hispanic communities.

But in the backwoods of White County, Benningfield is more modest than say, a Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's not trying to wipe away three generations of imbeciles. "If you reach two or three people," he explains, "maybe that's two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs."

Put another way, he seems to believe sterilization solves all problems?no man, no problem.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

See the original post here:

Eugenicist Tennessee judge cuts off jail time if inmates get vasectomies - Washington Examiner

One of Gov. Bruce Rauners new communications aides has argued that abortion is being used to rid the world of disabled and other unwanted persons comparing it to Nazi Germany.

Communications specialist Brittany Carl has also taken on organized labor in her on-line posts, contending that teachers unions should be dissolved.

Carl, a $45,000-a-year communications specialist was hired this week as part of sweeping changes within Rauners administration. Carl, who goes by Brittany Clingen Carl or Brittany Clingen in online articles, is listed as the editor and publisher of Reclaiming Feminism, a conservative blog.

In an April blog post, Carl commented on a Huffington Post article about a Catholic high school in Canada that had been criticized for screening an anti-abortion video that compared the procedure to the Holocaust.

Certainly nothing matchesthe atrocity of the Holocaust, but its undeniable that abortion is being used to rid the world of disabled and other unwanted persons a fact the Left and their pro-abortion allies dont want discussed, Carl wrote.

Carl also wrote about parents aborting babies diagnosed with Down syndrome: Attempting to rid the world of people with Down syndrome simply because they are different constitutes the dangerous and morally reprehensible practice ofeugenics not entirely unlike what was practiced in . . . Nazi Germany.

In a story posted oneagnews.orgin May 2013, Carl wrote about a Stanford University professor and author who said teachers unions have created insurmountable problems for effective schools and should be stopped.

Its clear that the faster the teachers unions are dissolved, the faster we can begin to restore the education system and ensure its benefits for those whom it was created for the children, Carl wrote.

Asked about the posts against abortion and unions, a Rauner spokeswoman said they are Carls personal opinions.

Any of the writing Brittany did before she worked for the state reflect her personal opinion, not the opinion of the administration, said Laurel Patrick, Rauners new communications director in an email. If youre going to quote from her past writing, she asks that you please quote accurately and with full context.

Rauner last week began a series of firings, including all of his communications team. Employees of the conservative-leaning think tank the Illinois Policy Institute have now taken key posts in Rauners administration.

The transition has not gone smoothly. On Monday, the governor fired Ben Tracy, his handpicked body man, after his staff found a series of homophobic and racially insensitive remarks on Tracys Twitter account.

The governor has always portrayed himself as a social moderate, focused more on fiscal issues than social ones. Rauner and first lady Diana Rauner have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to abortion rights groups jointly and through their familys not-for-profit foundation.

But the shift in Rauner administration employees shows hes moving further to the right. Many staffers who were either fired or resigned were moderate Republicans and said they were able to get Rauner away from an anti-union and right-to-work agenda to focus on attainable reforms.

A Republican operative said Diana Rauner should be concerned. I would like to know, the first lady, who is a known pro-choice advocate, how she feels about this, the operative, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. Really she should be weighing in.

Carls husband is Jared Carl, who is listed as vice president of development for the Illinois Opportunity Project on his LinkedIn page.Rauneron Mondaynamed that groups president Matthew Besler his new campaign chief, following the exit of Mike Zolnierowicz.

The free market Illinois Opportunity Project is co-founded by conservative radio talk show host Dan Proft, a Rauner ally.

Personal PAC, an abortion rights group that took aim at the Rauners earlier this year, blasted them on Wednesday for the recent hires.

This is just further evidence as to what a complete fraud Governor Rauner and Diana Rauner truly are. They have spent tens of millions of dollars lying to Illinois voters about being pro-choice and moderate, Terry Cosgrove, Personal PAC CEO said in a statement. Hiring racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic right-wing activists to run Illinois government puts them on a race to the bottom in competition with Donald Trump as to who can be the most destructive.

The local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League also called on Carl to retract her statement.

Any analogy comparing the Holocaust to the national debate over abortion is historically inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive especially to survivors and their families, regional director Lonnie Nasatir said in a statement.

But Illinois Right to Life dubbed Carl a strong intelligent pro-life woman, and called attacks on her a discriminatory smear campaign.

Our state is on the verge of financial collapse and pro-abortion Democrats are standing knee deep in dredging up abortion quotes rather than fixing our states current financial crisis, the anti-abortion groups executive director Emily Troscinski said. Democrats seem more upset that Gov. Rauner didnt consult them when hiring his new, well qualified staff than with the real problems facing Illinois.

More:

New Rauner hire compared abortion to Nazi eugenics in blog post - Chicago Sun-Times

AMONG the most intellectually offensive tactics of some activists is to proclaim science a cudgel for silencing debate. That's not a new practice, and it's worth noting how acquiescence to such tactics played out in the past.

Throughout much of the first half of the 20th century, the science of eugenics was aggressively promoted by prominent politicians, attorneys and medical professionals, particularly political progressives. Darwinian evolution and advances in genetics and biology were cited as scientific justification for a wide range of policies, including forced sterilization.

In 1915, Dr. W.C. Rucker, associate surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service, flatly declared, Eugenics is a science. It is a fact, not a fad.

In 1916, an Oklahoma State Board of Health column, which ran statewide, declared the object of eugenics was the improvement of the inherent type and the mental and physical capacities of the individual in the future. The board advised the most important eugenic recommendations included segregation of defectives so that they may not mingle their family traits with those on sound lines and sterilization of certain gross and hopeless defectives.

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization laws. The lone dissenter was Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. derided Butler as someone who knows this is good law, and pre-emptively questioned whether Butler would have the courage to vote with us in spite of his religion.

By the 1930s, Oklahoma's Legislature authorized sterilization of inmates at prisons and mental asylums. Sen. Louis Ritzhaupt, a Guthrie Democrat and medical doctor who would serve as president of the Oklahoma Medical Association, championed the law.

In 1934, Ritzhaupt warned that the number of jail and mental hospital patients was growing steadily, draining taxpayer dollars. The only way to curtail this expense is to stop production of potential inmates. He claimed people subjected to sterilization, during any sane interval, will welcome the procedure.

In 1935, Ritzhaupt said some form of eugenic control was required to create a nation of physically and intellectually superior human beings. Otherwise, he warned, certain people revert more or less to the animal type.

In practice, those subjected to sterilization often included people whose chief defect was poverty or minority status.

According to 2012 research by Lutz Kaelber, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Vermont, 556 individuals were sterilized in Oklahoma with 78 percent being female. And that doesn't include numerous American Indian women sterilized at an Oklahoma City federal facility in the 1970s. Citing a 1976 Government Accounting Office report, Kaelber writes that many associated consent forms were improperly filled out or provided no clear indication of consent by the woman sterilized.

It took the Nazi Holocaust to discredit eugenics. Before then, critics were dismissed as backward, anti-science zealots.

Science is one thing. People's interpretation of science is something else. And policy proposals based on debatable interpretations of science should certainly be debated.

Otherwise, history shows that failure to engage in such discussions can lead society down a very dark path.

The rest is here:

In policy debates, bowing to "science" can lead down dark paths - NewsOK.com

In his apology to Kangana Ranaut over the IIFA controversy, Saif Ali Khan said it was easy to confuse nepotism with genetics. Maybe, he said, There is something in the genes too that makes many of Raj Kapoors descendants actors or Pataudis cricketers. I think its actually eugenics and genetics thats coming into play. Obviously you wanted to know what the meaning of eugenics is and just what it had to do with nepotism. But youve had a long week and youre too lazyto look it up yourself. So we did.

Thanks to the good folks over at Merriam Webster Dictionary we now know that eugenics refers to the study of improving population through controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. In simple English, it is a belief that discourages the mating of people who have genetic defects and encourages reproduction between fit people so as to improve the genetic quality of a group of individuals

While the first recorded use of eugenics can be dated to the late 1800s, the concept itself goes back to ancient Greece. Plato, the Greek philosopher, had suggested selecting mating so as to build a class of warriors.In fact the word itself has Greek roots and is derived from the Greek word eu suggesting well or good) and genes meaning born. And so eugenics can be loosely translated as well-born.

The word was coined by one Francis Galton, who would have for ever lived in the shadow of his far famous half-cousin Charles Darwin until the time hesuggested that that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits. Galton wanted to extendDarwinstheory (which essentially seeksto explain the development of animal and plant species) and apply it to human beings. Darwin, of course, disagreed with this elaboration. A year after Darwins passing, in 1883, Galton went ahead and named his research, eugenics.

What made eugenics controversial in modern times was the idea that human character was affected purely by genes and ones surroundings and education had almost nothing to do with how a person turned out.

Like with all things, arguments can be made for and against the belief. Negative eugenics suggests eliminating those who are deemed undesirables through abortions and sterilisations. These could includepeople who are morally, mentally or physically deviant. The Holocaust is the most apt example of negative eugenics that involved the mass murder of not just homosexuals and the physically disabled but also attempted to wipe out an entire race of people.

Positive eugenics is usually aimed at creating a genetically advantaged race of people through processes such as in vitro fertilization and egg transplants. AndRobert Klark Graham, the optometrist who made his millions for inventing plastic eyeglass lenses, is a classic example of positive eugenics. Graham, who hoped to create a master race of intelligent children, started a sperm bank that only accepted donations from Nobel Laureates. 217 children were born out of the programme and some, whove revealed their identity, have displayed remarkable intelligence. The programme was shut down soon after Grahams passing away. (ALSO READ The oddest and most unnecessary things of the worlds richest people have done)

On that, we are as clueless as Saif Ali Khan is in the picture above.

NOW READ

This 3D-printed artificial heart functions exactly like your real one

Scientists from Harvard just successfully inserted a GIF into a bacteria

This is the one thing that poses the biggest risk to humanity, according to Elon Musk

> More on Get Smart

Read the original post:

Eugenics: What is the meaning of eugenics and what does it have to do with nepotism? - GQ India

Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)

Issa participates in DC eugenics event Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog) Embattled Congressman Darryl Issa (R-49th District) on June 28 participated in the eugenics founded and funded Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) annual Hold Their Feet to the Fire event at Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington, D.C..

Visit link:

Issa participates in DC eugenics event - Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)