listen here

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Disturbing Precedent: Mother Sterilized As Court Hands Down Order Recommending It

Free Thought Project – by Matt Agorist

At the request of an Oklahoma court, a mother of seven has been sterilized as part of a judge’s order, setting a damning precedent in the process.

Summer Thyme Creel, 34, had the procedure in November after the judge wrote he could consider it at her sentencing if she chose to do so.

Although the procedure was “voluntary,” the court order to do so crosses some ominous barriers. In spite of the fact that it is described as “voluntary,” it stretches the definition of that term by putting Creel in the position of bartering her fertility for leniency in her sentencing.  

Last year, this practice gained national attention when it was applied to prisoners. In exchange for undergoing a sterilization procedure, prisoners were given shorter sentences. However, as the ACLU pointed out at the time, this program is deceptive and even 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.”

Now, it appears, that the program has evolved from the prison and moved into the court.

Quite frankly, Creel is no model citizen. She is a repeat check forger and her addiction to methamphetamine is so severe that she admitted to using the drug while pregnant. However, bringing in the issue of sterilization as a factor in Creel’s sentencing crosses a major line and is reminiscent of America’s dark history.

Eugenics, the ‘science’ of attempting to improve a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics, is a dark stain on humanity’s past.

While most people associate it with Adolf Hitler and his movement to create a supreme race in Nazi Germany, the fact is that eugenics sciences began in the 1860s. By Hitler’s time, it was a consensus among many that the human population could be improved through selective breeding and the horrific treatment of people deemed ‘inferior’ by science.

Eugenics laws in the early twentieth century resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States. At first, sterilization efforts focused on those with disabilities but later grew to include people whose only “crime” was poverty. These sterilization programs even found legal support in the great Supreme Court (Buck v. Bell 1927).

According to Edwin Black’s historical account of the Eugenics movement, California’s program was so robust that the Nazi’s turned to California for advice in perfecting their own efforts. Hitler proudly admitted to following the laws of several American states that allowed for the prevention of reproduction of the “unfit.”

The precedent being set in Oklahoma with Creel’s case is so damning that even the prosecutor is urging the judge to not consider her sterilization as a factor at sentencing.

“Creel not only has a fundamental constitutional right to procreate … but she admits that she had an interest in an elective sterilization procedure even before the court’s order of June 16,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Perry told the judge in a sentencing memo, according to New OK.

“Furthermore, Creel’s decision to have (or not have) additional children is sufficiently removed from the type of criminal activity involved in this case that such a factor is irrelevant to determining a sentence,” the prosecutor wrote.

But the judge, apparently ignorant of the history of such practices, disagrees.

“By virtue of a series of relationships with various sires over approximately the last 14 years, Ms. Creel has given birth to seven children out of wedlock,” the judge wrote in the June order.

In the court order, the judge clearly laid out his request, noting that at her sentencing she “may, if (and only if) she chooses to do so, present medical evidence to the court establishing that she has been rendered incapable of procreation.”

As was stated above, the fact that it is voluntary—but conditional to her sentencing—is where the line is crossed. Americans should be wary of where this path leads and this practice should be stopped immediately.

Free Thought Project

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
1196

15 Responses to Disturbing Precedent: Mother Sterilized As Court Hands Down Order Recommending It

  1. mary in ND says:

    can forced abortion be far behind

    • Jolly Roger says:

      I hope they make that announcement today. It looks like Americans will ignore the tyranny for as long as they can, so let’s get it to the point where they can’t.

  2. Jolly Roger says:

    Seems like everyone is over-stepping their authority lately, and the reality-check is going to be ugly.

  3. kdtroxel says:

    Wont be long before they put sterilents into GMO’s, like they did with some strains of corn.

  4. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    “Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity…”

    IT’S A NATURAL RIGHT, YOU COMMIE @SSWIPE!!!

    WE OWN OUR BODIES, NOT YOU SCUMBAGS!!!!! 😡

  5. Enemy of the State says:

    riding a fine line

    hey lets give the Judge a choice
    he either gives up his pension due to all his years of criminology or we lop his Dick off

    or even better , we put him in a burning shed with his member clamped in a vise, hand him a rusty dull old hack saw blade… make yer choice pal

  6. will E coyote. Super genius says:

    So that’s what’s wrong with us! All of us hippie throwbacks are products of eugenics? lMAO! Probably……….

  7. NewVegasBadger says:

    Given all the idiots willing to do some thing so f–king stupid as to eat Tide laundry pods for their 15 minutes of internet fame, maybe there are times when it would be a good idea. It certainty decrease the intergenerational welfare recipients, along with all those “refugees” multiplying like rabbits, paid for by the rest of us. While we’re at it time to cut the tubes of the sperm donating baby daddies. A woman can not make babies if guy banging her is firing blanks.
    “My body, my choice”. Fine. But when the bill comes due for the choice you make, pay for the damn thing yourself. Stay the hell out of my wallet.

  8. lesli says:

    Sorry, but I don’t see a problem with that. The woman USED while pregnant, had an out of control drug habit and already had SEVEN children who at best were neglected and at worst were being abused. To offer leniency in sentencing if the addict agrees not to bring any more children into a miserable life is not eugenics. Does anyone ever think of the children anymore? All adults care about now are their “rights”, no matter what it does to children.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      One can always find a good reason for setting a draconian precedent. Look at the destruction that has been accomplished to our Bill of Rights by treasonous bitches like you for the ‘good of the children’.
      This admiralty court had no jurisdiction.
      It is the self-righteous retarded decisions of people like you that have allowed the destruction of morality in this country and the destruction of this country, et.al. making this place morally corrupt.
      You treat people like animals and then when they start acting like animals, you justify further mistreatment using the results of your original pretext.
      Go suck government ass somewhere else, you are not welcome here.

      • Bill in IL says:

        Henry for the win!

      • # 1 NWO Hatr says:

        “Look at the destruction that has been accomplished to our Bill of Rights by treasonous bitches like you for the ‘good of the children’.”

        LOL… first comment I read this morning… NAILED IT, HENRY!!!

        Where DO they come from. 🙄

Leave a Reply