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

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 Nazis 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.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appearedFollow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

29 Comments on "Disturbing Precedent: Mother Sterilized As Court Hands Down Order Recommending It"

  1. Well although I think that some people should never have children the fact remains that this sort of coercion undermines the planned parenthood cattle call…
    Pro choice!
    Is this really a choice?
    Is this really ” voluntary “?
    I would argue that a choice made by coercion is no choice at all.
    Wheres the pro choice lobby on this?
    Where are the loud protests?
    The silence from this lobby is deafening & reveals their hypocracy.
    It’s only “pro choice” when they can make a fortune from abortion & selling baby parts.
    If anything from a merely financial perspective they should be marching in the streets! Why? Coz this sort of precedent opens the flood gates to a whipole bunch more of this sterilisation.
    Which means a lot less abortions.
    Which means a lot less $ for selling baby parts.
    Regardless this is a very worrying trend indeed.

  2. But there’s a problem. It’s fine to insist on a “do no harm” or moral ethic as a “one size fits all” solutions formula for every issue but, if you do that in such cases as this you could feasibly find yourself up to your neck in brain damaged crack babies who have an increasing tendency to not care whatsoever about your ethical or moral questions, or legal constraints for that matter. The final result of this would likely be a society full of burdensome subnormals easily manipulated by charismatic demagogues and charlatans. They would become democratically predominant and you would live in a hellish dystopia, arriving there on your road that was paved with good intentions. One could say we’re already in that dystopia right now. Some say that evil is the conscious act of increasing the pathology of life (Jordan Peterson). You could argue that the subject in this case was doing that if indeed she was making conscious decisions and that if the Judge had not acted as he did he would be permitting the expansion of a kind of reckless pathological phenomenon which was manifesting through the subject’s conduct. If the subject was not making conscious decisions along the way but was merely a kind of irresponsible automaton all along, then the Judge has only provided her an opportunity to exercise some conscious responsibility for her actions now and redeem herself, appropriate and reflecting the problematic conduct at issue. To offer ad hoc counterbalancing remedies in exceptional circumstances should be within the Judge’s discretion if we trust Judges at all any more, but to impose a sterilization involuntarily should continue to reside outside the discretion. In other words, it actually all sounds about right on balance and I tend to side with that Judge. Cheers Matt, good article

    • …while the judge’s concerns have legitimacy in our society, his court room is not the place to address those issues, as they are unrelated to the crime she was convicted of engaging in. Let’s say you have a Harley Tattoo on your neck, and you go before a judge for running a red light in your car…how would you feel if he told you…”hey, if you get that tattoo removed, I’ll consider that in your sentencing”? The one has nothing to do with the other, and you would logically concede that the judge’s bias against tattoos…(or Harley)…is what drives their decision-making. In this case…the judge has just displayed his bias towards unwed Mothers and people with an…”illness”…i.e….the drug use. We may agree on the need to curb such behaviors and eliminate the crack and meth-baby problem. We may even agree to the need for jailing people for real criminal activity….(though the drug war is unconstitutional in the extreme)…but it is not the judge’s place to conflate his sense of morality, with an unconnected conviction for an unconnected crime. He should be removed from the bench, charged with violating the woman’s rights…and convicted for treason. Then he should be hanged. These are the people we count on to adhere to the law, thus supporting our entire society. This judge, or any other judge who places their personal beliefs before the fair administration of justice…are traitors.
      RJ O’Guillory

  3. …legally drag the judge out of his chambers home or office. Legally charge him with violations of the woman’s civil and natural rights, thus being in violation of his oath to The Constitution… thereby committing treason…and then legally find him guilty of treason, and legally hang him from a lamp pole. Drugs or not, babies or not…he has no right to pressure anyone in that manner. Legally hang the legally convicted traitor and fascist.
    RJ O’Guillory

    • Good Ole RJ. . . still haulin’ the shinin’ Wagon of Truth!

    • Liberal Ailment | February 9, 2018 at 7:56 am | Reply

      BS! She was given a choice, an option, which is not treason. Her “reproductive rights” cease to exist when the public has to pay for her mistakes, like welfare, child protective services, medical care and housing. She is not responsible for those rights , so she loses them until such time she can prove she is and can maintain those responsibilities. She is not being “forced” to comply and therefore there is no violation of law. It’s a choice, not a mandate. She is obviously a druggy and incompetent to raise children.

      • …you are an idiot. The choice cannot be “voluntary” when her freedom has been leveraged in a way that has nothing to do with the crime she committed. Grow up. Idiot.
        RJ O’Guillory

        • Liberal Ailment | February 9, 2018 at 8:25 pm | Reply

          You whine like a little girl, liberal moron. The only thing this brood sow had going for her in the first place was prison or a chance to quit making babies.
          Seven kids and going to jail? Drug addict, baby mamma, passing bad checks. She exercised the hell out of those reproductive rights at our expense. It’s about time she stopped living on our dime. You don’t get it moron, we pay for her kids. She had a CHOICE and took it. Nobody twisted her arm or put a gun to her head.

    • I feel the same way about legislators that try to pass laws that rob another class of people (gun owners) of their constitutional right. There are no presedent to take firearms from medical marijuana users. I think we can legally drag the legislators out of his chambers, home or office. Legally charge him with violations of the persons constitutional, civil and natural rights, thus being in violation of his oath to The Constitution… thereby committing treason…and then legally find him guilty of treason, and legally hang him from a lamp pole. Drugs or not, babies or not…he has no right to pressure anyone in that manner. Legally hang the legally convicted traitor and fascist.
      Thank you

      • …yes…I think any government official that takes an oath to defend and protect The Constitution…and then does anything in contradiction to that oath is a traitor, and should be charged and convicted for treason. The 2nd Amendment is the most obvious, but any aspect of The Constitution that they fail to defend, IMO, breaks their oath…and they can all legally hang. Especially the gun-grabbers who use medical…or recreational marijuana use to try to keep us from our rights. Charge, convict and legally hang the lot of them.
        RJ O’Guillory

  4. Free Man (NOT) | February 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm | Reply

    Margaret Sanger would be so proud of this “judge”.

    • Yeah, lets keep popping out sprogs no matter what. Who cares about the quality of life? The more, the “merrier”. Idiot!

  5. Westcoastdeplorable | February 8, 2018 at 4:36 pm | Reply

    So RJ I guess you support women like this who keep crankin’ out crack baby kids to support their drug habit with your tax dollars? Or maybe you’re on the dole as well! Good for this judge; we need more like him.

  6. Where does the Constitution say you have a right to reproduce?

    • Where does it say you don’t !!!

      Natural law, trumps all.
      Think it’s not so?
      Bring your twisted interpretation to a well balanced and courageous mans doorstep and see what happens.

      • Its a matter of common sense, dude! Having children should be a privilege not a rite, capisci? Need to say why, to make u a drawing?

        • Having children should be a privilege not a right – tell that to the moslems
          they are outgrowing Europe, because each of them has as many children as possible, while the Europeans have listened to the eugenicists and stopped procreating (becoming gay???) or only having a maximum of two children

  7. 1) ‘We’ got into trouble when ‘we’ decided to pay women to have babies on the taxpayer’s dime. Temporary Assistance to help people get back on their feet and take care of themselves is one thing; this business of paying females, single mothers or not, to have more babies is an incentive to do just that, and should be stopped. That will stop a huge amount of this sort of corruption going on (women having babies to pay for their addiction, etc.).

    2) There are natural treatments for people to be able to get off their addictions. If they have an incentive to do so, and are informed about them, by holistic health practitioners, they will take them up. That incentive will kick in when there is no more financial incentive to have babies on the taxpayer’s dime. Along with the incentive to use contraception, instead of thinking of the money that they can make by having babies. No. More.

    There is a lot of corruption like this sort of thing that needs to be wrung out of society. We have certainly gotten ourselves into a mess. Time to get out of it.

  8. Do those kids have a father? The same father if possible? Anyway, long live the taxpayer!

  9. strawberrytart | February 9, 2018 at 8:18 am | Reply

    He waited until she already had seven!? Get some overtime honey the babies are commin fast!!!!! More tax money needed.

  10. i admit that i am not a judge, BUT…
    i must have missed something
    something serious
    she is a cheque forger; what has that got to do with having seven children by different fathers over fourteen years?

  11. Yvonne Forsman | February 9, 2018 at 5:50 pm | Reply

    This is a no-problem issue as we are now in a new Ice Age due to the Grand Solar Minimum (google GSM) which will shorten the crop growing season, maybe even lead to crops not ripening, food shortage and global starvation. During past Ice Ages many millions of ppl in Europe starved to death. Now many 3rd world countries cannot feed their populations and import as much as 60% of their grain need from the US and Europe but if there won’t be any surplus to sell, those ppl will die.

    I was reading an agriculture article which mentioned some African countries, I looked up the statistics and found out that back in 1955, the year I was born, this one particular country I was looking at had 6 M ppl, now 63 years later, they have 70 M ppl and 1.6 M of them starved to death last year. Here is the difference between the West and the 3rd world countries: we chose to have one or two children and increase our standard of living while they chose to continue popping out babies they cannot feed, so everyone stays poor and now some of them also die b/c their agriculture land cannot feed them.

    China is lucky that we buy so much stuff made in China so they have the money to buy agriculture land in Africa and grow food there to ship back home to China but if that wasn’t the case then Chinese too would be starving by now. They have about the same landmass as the US but while US has 320 M ppl, China has 1.3 BILLION ppl.

    We live on a planet with f-i-n-i-t-e resources. We all need to adapt to that! There is a global shortage of drinking water. We are already too many ppl on this planet in proportion to available drinking water. You can put a judge in charge of limiting the population growth, like in this article, or the world governments can agree on forced sterilization of every woman after she had her first or second baby. But as I said, the Ice Age will take care of it for us.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.