Phone Bank Kickoff
Let's let our DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS and NEIGHBORS know this is "WARNER COUNTRY". We need their vote. Mark is working hard to represent and keep Virginia moving forward, lets work for him to ensure his re-election.
Come and gather with your friends, enjoy some refreshments. It's time to remind the neighbors the election is just around the corner and we need their vote.
Where:
THE BRAXTON MASONIC LODGE
2622 GALTS MILL ROAD, MADISON HEIGHTS
(ACROSS FROM SCOTT ZION CHURCH)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 —6PM TO 9PM
If you are NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE, Come and fill out a VOTER REGISTRATION FORM and we'll get that matter taken care of.
Sign Up to Canvass for MARK WARNER on Saturday.
Come one, Come all. DEMOCRATS Please Heed The Call.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
You can Make a Difference.
ACVDN
Top Arizona GOP'er Russell Pearce Resigns after Sterilization Comments
The far-right former lawmaker who helped push Arizona’s “papers please” immigration law has resigned as a top official with the state GOP after making comments about sterilizing poor women. Right wing conservatives dream of bringing these days back as a way to control the old, poor and women.
Russell Pearce, a former state senator, resigned as the party’s first vice chair late Sunday, the Arizona Republican Party announced.
On Saturday, the state Democratic Party highlighted comments Pearce made recently on his radio show. Discussing the state’s public assistance programs, Pearce declared:
“You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
The comments were repudiated by Republican candidates for several statewide offices. "I wouldn't have said it that way" one remarked while another said "Those aren't the words I would have used".
In a written statement, Pearce said that while discussing “abuses to our welfare system,” he referred to “comments written by someone else and failed to attribute them to the author.”
“This was a mistake,” Pearce added. “This mistake has been taken by the media and the left and used to hurt our Republican candidates.”
As Arizona Senate president, Pearce was the chief sponsor of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, passed in 2010, which has been called the strictest immigration law in the nation’s history. He was removed from office in a 2011 recall election, before being appointed to the state GOP post. After the voters recalled him GOP leadership appointed him to a state post, they call it representation.
Virginians and especially right wing republicans in the Lynchburg, Amherst areas might be a bit sensitive of this topic. The right wing republican base in Amherst and Lynchburg is loaded with the members of the same groups that championed sterilization. The fact is Virginia was the last state to discontinue this practice as it was the last in other modern changes. Sodomy laws were fought for by the right wing republicans long after the Supreme Court declared the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The last republican running for governor, while AG, filed appeal after appeal of the Supreme Court ruling on Virginia's sodomy laws.
Number of victims of sterilization
In total, 7325 individuals were sterilized in Virginia under its sterilization law. Of those sterilized about half were deemed “mentally ill” and the other half deemed “mentally deficient.” Approximately 62% of total individuals sterilized were female. Some estimate the total number of sterilizations as high as 8,300 individuals (Dorr 2006, p. 382).
Period during which sterilization occurred
Sterilization in Virginia occurred under state law between 1924 and 1979. It thus appeared to have continued such sterilizations longer than any other state (Landman 1932, pp. 83-4; Largent 2008, p. 80). There are known instances of eugenic sterilization before 1924 (Dorr 2008, p. 116).
Passage of law(s)
On March 20, 1924, Virginia SB 281, the “Eugenical Sterilization Act,” was signed into law (Landman 1932, pp. 83-4).
Precipitating factors and processes
The white, Virginia elite of the time was immersed in the idea of perpetuating and protecting the purity of the “American race” (i.e., Anglo-Saxon Whites). This socioeconomic elite group wanted to maintain their “traditional Southern identity” while also embracing modern progressive ideology. The eugenic movement offered an avenue to pursue both of these notions simultaneously. Through the embrace of eugenics as a progressive science and ideology, Virginians were able to modernize their identity while maintaining the purity of their state through the coerced sterilization of minorities and undesirable whites alike (Dorr 2000, p. 262).
Often, “mongrels” and “worthless” whites were collected in “mountain sweeps.” This involved a sheriff of a nearby town driving into mountain villages and forcibly removing individuals and taking them to institutions where they would only be released upon submission to sterilization (Black 2003, pp. 3-8). More often than not these individuals were unaware of the consequences of the procedures that they underwent.
The sterilization of Virginia resident Carrie Buck is perhaps the most infamous case of sterilization in not only Virginia but also the United States as a whole. Buck was deemed “defective” and institutionalized in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded four years after her mother was similarly institutionalized. Buck was classified as “feeble-minded” after giving birth to an illegitimate child as a result of rape by relative of her foster family. Her daughter was subsequently deemed feeble minded at the age of 6 months.” Under accusations of hereditary defectiveness, Carrie Buck faced a series of trials and appeals used to legitimize her pending
sterilization. She was defended by Aubrey Strode, a known supporter of sterilization, whose defense focused more on the potential benefits of Buck’s sterilization than the consequences.
On March 20, 1924 (the same day as the passage of SB 281, the “Eugenical Sterilization Act”) Virginia signed into law SB 219, the “Racial Integrity Act.” Under this piece of legislation it became “unlawful for any white person in [Virginia] to marry any [person] save a white person” (SB 219, Racial Integrity Act). The Racial Integrity Act garnered lots of public attention, allowing the Sterilization Law (written by Carrie Buck’s defense lawyer) to pass without much public notice (Lombardo 2008b, p. 100). ACV Blog
Groups targeted and victimized
To Virginians, there seemed to be little difference between the harm to society caused by minorities and the harm caused by undesirable whites. During the time of sterilization, twenty-two percent of those sterilized were African American. This is roughly proportionate to the twenty percent of the total population represented by African Americans.
In Virginia, sterilization rates were fairly proportionate to population representation (Dorr 2006, pp. 381-3). For this reason a wide array of individuals became targets for sterilization, specifically “mongrels,” minorities and poor whites. “Mongrels” are those who were considered to be of non-white heritage. In the opinion of Virginia, non-white was defined as any individual with any ancestor of any race but Caucasian, excluding those with 1/16th or less Native American blood.
Additionally, institutionalized females who worked outside of the institution were sterilized at a higher rate than others due to their perceived risk of promiscuous interaction with the “normal” public (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, p. 4). After World War II, the numbers of men becoming sterilized increased due to ex-soldiers’ mental problems and alcoholism (Brocato 2008, p. 113).
After Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, racist eugenics became more prominent. The 1954 Supreme Court case brought a resurgence of racist eugenics called “Massive Resistance” to prevent desegregation (Dorr 2008, p. 196).
Racist eugenics once again came into discussion with the 1962 and 1964 proposed laws for punitive sterilization of welfare mothers with illegitimate children. There was some fear that African, Far eastern, Indian, and African American populations were expanding far more rapidly than others, and these proposed laws were in part to target such communities (Dorr 2008, p. 196, 211). Even with the voluntary sterilization law, there was some concern that a woman might consent to being sterilized if strongly advised by a physician to do so. This trust in physicians could have given them the power to influence women to undergo sterilization for ultimately eugenic purposes (Dorr 2008, p. 214).
Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law
On March 20, 1924 (the same day as the passage of SB 281, the “Eugenical Sterilization Act”) Virginia signed into law SB 219, the “Racial Integrity Act.” Under this piece of legislation to became “unlawful for any white person in [Virginia] to marry any [person] save a white person” (SB 219, Racial Integrity Act).
Pictured above is Albert Priddy, the Superintendent of the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia. Priddy was an adamant supporter of the institutionalization of poor, unfit White Virginians deemed “feeble-minded” by the state. As Superintendent, Priddy used his power to begin sterilizing individuals at his own whim before the passage of the Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924.
Between 1916 and 1917, he sterilized an estimated 80 women, not all of whom were diagnosed as mentally defective (Brocato 2008, p. 108). In 1917, he was sued for the wrongful institutionalization and sterilization of a woman named Willie Mallory in Mallory v. Priddy. Priddy won the case, but not without learning the perils of neglecting to follow protocol (Lombardo 2008b, p. 64- 77).
After the 1924 act was passed, Priddy was a key proponent in the sterilization of a Virginia Colony patient, Carrie Buck, in order to test the strength of sterilization legislation and set a precedent of its legality. (The court case Buck v. Bell was originally Buck v. Priddy, however; Albert Priddy died before the case went into the appeals process and the Virginia Colony’s new Superintendent Dr. J.H. Bell replaced Priddy in the case during appeals.) Priddy’s power and eugenic ideology was a key factor in the success of eugenics throughout Virginia (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library).
While there were many major other proponents of eugenics and sterilization in Virginia, it is important to note the influence of Walter Plecker, the University of Virginia, and of the journal Virginia Medical Monthly. Walter Plecker, in his role as State Registrar at the Bureau of Vital Statistics, intended to maintain the purity of the states white race by classifying all residents in the state of Virginia by their race to prevent any intermarriage through the threat of prosecution of those who dissented (Black 2003, pp. 165-70). It was under the great influence of Plecker and his racist rhetoric that the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 became law (Lombardo 1996, p. 9).
Additionally, the University of Virginia acted as a highly respected educational institution that pushed the thought and science of eugenics through research and education. In the words of Dr. H.E. Jordan, Dean of the Department of Medicine at the University of Virginia, “eugenics… will work the greatest social revolution the world has yet known… [for] it aims at the production and the exclusive prevelancy of the highest type of physical, intellectual and moral man within the limits of human protoplasm” (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library). Having a similar influence, the Virginia Medical Monthly published medical reports from superintendents of various Virginia institutions as a method to increase the loathing toward those deemed feeble-minded while also spreading eugenics theory and practice. These proponents continued to condemn the “unfit” to sterilization and with their continual insistence of the necessity of sterilization, public support grew (Noll 1995, p. 61).
Opposition
Opposition outside of the Catholic Church appears to have been minimal throughout Virginia. While Catholics opposed sterilization in any form because such mutilation is in direct violation of “Natural Law,” it seems that the strong Protestant, white supremacist ideology present throughout much of the South allowed for eugenic sterilizations to go nearly unquestioned (Windle 1965, p. 308). Very little information pertaining to the opposition to sterilization is available prior to Charles Windle’s case study on the passage of sterilization legislation in Virginia during the 1962 legislative session. During this session, a bill requiring the compulsory sterilization of women with more than one illegitimate child who is also receiving welfare benefits died in committee debate (Windle 1965, pp. 306-7). While the compulsory sterilization proposal failed, a voluntary sterilization bill during the same session passed by a large margin (Windle 1965, p. 307). It is important to note that this legislation was considered nearly forty years after sterilization was first legalized in Virginia and public opinion allowed for compulsory sterilization in 1924. Additionally, at the time these bills were considered, sterilization legislation was still on the books in Virginia. Even the Buck v. Bell case had little to do with any opposition to sterilization.
Rather, this case was a ploy by eugenicists to set a nationwide standard of sterilization legality by taking appeals to the United States Supreme Court (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library). Moreover, Virginia is a traditionally agrarian state and sterilization legislation (when considered in 1962) was widely supported by individuals concerned with race relations and welfare in “poorer, nonurban areas with high proportions of nonwhites and of agricultural and manufacturing employment” (Windle 1965, p. 314). The number of sterilizations that continued to occur into the 1970’s is a testament to the stronghold of eugenic ideology throughout the state.
As you can see from history Virginia is just barely out of the stone age and the right wing lean of its citizens makes progress extremely hard and sometimes impossible. The actions taken by the right wing in Virginia is little different from the population control measures committed by Adolph Hitler. If that insults you, tough. It is not a stretch.
Who is Ed Gillespie?Gillespie, a veteran GOP operative, now splits his time between a Washington lobbying practice and his role in Virginia as the leader of a party seeking to climb its way back after a succession of electoral losses.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, Gillespie’s recently filed ethics forms show that he made $2,958,800 over the last year from his consulting firm, aptly named Ed Gillespie Strategies.
Though Gillespie was for many years a registered lobbyist, through his previous firm Quinn Gillespie, he dropped off the rolls when he departed to pursue other ventures.
Indeed, veteran lobbyists have deregistered en masse in recent years. In a recent investigation for The Nation, I reported on this latest trend against transparency, with thousands of lobbyists dropping their registrations — owing to a lax enforcement regime and the growing realization in Washington that the current lobbying registration law is largely a joke.
Because of his non-registered status, however, most voters probably have little idea what Gillespie has been up to. Using bankruptcy filings, I found one recent client paying Ed Gillespie Strategies several years ago: Washington Mutual, the bank that failed in 2008.
The ethics forms filed this month provide a new window into Gillespie’s business, which represents not only some of the largest corporations in America, but also works with several of the largest lobbying entities inside the Beltway: American Petroleum Institute, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, AT&T, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Broadband for America, DCI Group, Facebook, Microsoft, RATE Coalition, The Brunswick Group, U.S. Telecom, Univision, and Walgreens.
Notably, the DCI Group is itself a lobbying firm, while the American Petroleum Institute and America’s Natural Gas Alliance are trade associations that lobby heavily on their respective issues (API, which represents ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other oil majors, lobbies on fossil fuel subsidies, the Keystone XL, and expanded drilling access; ANGA , which represents the largest hydraulic fracturing companies in America, lobbies on fracking regulations, natural gas exports, and other liquefied natural gas regulations).
For Gillespie, formerly a White House Communications Director for George W. Bush, the revolving door has swung many times — and with each swing, his clout and wealth have climbed. If he wins election this year, his stock among the Beltway bandits on K Street is sure to rise for any future venture in the private sector.
The new disclosure of Gillespie’s clients also provides a new focus on the candidate’s issue platform. Gillespie opposes the Affordable Care Act’s regulatory mandates, and has made the effort to repeal the law a central part of his campaign. How much of that opposition, one must wonder, may relate to his work for insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield? On energy, Gillespie has attacked efforts to address climate change. In light of this new client list, voters may be scratching their head when they try to distinguish Gillespie’s policy platform from the goals of his Big Oil benefactors at the American Petroleum Institute.
Gillespie is a right wing conservative GOP dream come true and I barely mentioned his connections to GW Bush.
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ACVDN
Amherst Democratic News
No comments:
Post a Comment