From my heart to yours, I ask you to read from an open mind. That is all.
You thought they were giving you control over your body. They were training you to accept their control under a propaganda label.
That label has been “family planning” in Peru, “birth control” in Harlem, “population policy” in Beijing, “reproductive health” in Saskatchewan hospitals where women woke up from surgery they didn’t consent to and were told it was for their own good. The branding changes. The architecture does not.
What follows is not a political argument. It is a historical record. The bodies are real. The governments are named. The quotes are documented. Read carefully, because the people who did this never stopped believing they were right.
Part One: The American Architect
Before China, before Peru, before the forced sterilization campaigns that the Western press would later call human rights abuses committed by other governments — there was Margaret Sanger. Founder of what would become Planned Parenthood. Celebrated. Awarded. Quoted on the walls of institutions. The woman who coined the phrase “birth control” and packaged population reduction as women’s liberation.
She said what she meant. We simply stopped reading it.
From The Birth Control Review, which she edited: “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need... We must prevent the multiplication of this bad stock.”
From The Woman Rebel, Volume I: “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
From her 1922 book Woman, Morality, and Birth Control: “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
In her 1932 speech “My Way to Peace,” Sanger outlined a compulsory program in which “morons, mental defectives, epileptics” would be sterilized as a first step. Those she classified as “illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends” would face a choice: sterilization or placement in state work camps, which she described as farms and open spaces under government medical protection.
She called birth control “the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
Human weeds.
She accepted an invitation to speak to a women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan, which she recorded without apology in her own autobiography.
She wrote to a colleague that her clinics in Black communities needed to be managed carefully: “We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
This is not fringe interpretation. These are her words, in her publications, under her name.
She did not invent eugenics. She industrialized it.
Part Two: The Supreme Court Agrees
In 1927, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Buck v. Bell that the state of Virginia could forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck, a young woman the state had labeled “feeble-minded.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion in fewer than one thousand words. He dismissed her right to bodily integrity with a single, now-infamous line:
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Carrie Buck was not feeble-minded. She had been raped by a relative of her foster family. The pregnancy that resulted from that rape was used as evidence of her deficiency. Her daughter Vivian — the third “imbecile” in Holmes’s tally — later made the honor roll at school before dying at age eight from a childhood disease.
The court did not care. Eight justices signed their names to a ruling that opened the door for thirty-some states to sterilize more than seventy thousand Americans across the twentieth century. The targets were the poor, the disabled, the institutionalized, and disproportionately, women of color.
Buck v. Bell has never been overturned. It remains active American law.
Adolf Hitler cited the American eugenics movement as a model and precedent. That is documented. That is not hyperbole. The architects of the Third Reich were students of what we built here first.
Part Three: One Child, No Choice
In 1979, the People’s Republic of China introduced the One-Child Policy — officially framed as a necessity for managing population growth and eliminating poverty. By the time it was relaxed in 2015, it had remade the bodies of hundreds of millions of women.
According to Chinese state records reported in 2013: 336 million abortions were performed under the policy. Between 1980 and 2014, 324 million women were fitted with IUDs and 107 million underwent tubal ligations to prevent pregnancy. Many of those devices were installed without meaningful consent. Many of those devices are still inside women’s bodies today, decades after their safe lifespan ended, because no one came back to remove them.
Enforcement did not rely on persuasion. Local officials operated under quotas. One government directive from a town party committee in 2003, entered into the U.S. Congressional record, set targets of 818 IUD insertions, 1,369 sterilizations, and 271 abortions — including 108 late-term — over a thirty-five-day period. These were not suggestions. They were performance metrics.
A firsthand account published in The Lancet describes what the quota system looked like in practice: officials would order women to present for abortion, arrest them when they refused, and hold them under psychological pressure. Those who still refused were physically dragged into the medical clinic, held down on the operating table, and aborted and sterilized against their will. Some were in the third trimester. Some were already in labor.
Women were reported by neighbors. Homes were demolished by family planning enforcement teams as punishment for noncompliance. Relatives were detained and tortured when a woman was accused of violating the policy. One account in congressional testimony documents a man whose head was smashed open and who was left permanently disabled because his wife had a second child. Another documents a father beaten to death because his son was suspected of the same.
Blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng spent years documenting what was happening in Linyi County, Shandong Province. In a single year, he documented 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. For compiling this evidence and trying to bring it before the courts, he was arrested and imprisoned. He was beaten in prison. He was denied medical treatment. Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world while he was being starved in a Chinese cell.
The gender consequences of son preference under this policy are difficult to comprehend at scale. An estimated 20 million baby girls disappeared over thirty years — through sex-selective abortion, through abandonment, through infanticide. The demographic hole they left behind created a generation of Chinese men who cannot find wives, a condition that has directly driven trafficking networks across Southeast and Central Asia. Women from Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea — kidnapped, sold, delivered into forced marriages because a government policy once decided that daughters were not worth being born.
Part Four: The Architecture Was Global
China’s One-Child Policy did not operate in a vacuum. It operated with the United Nations in the room.
The UN Population Fund — UNFPA — began providing assistance to China in 1979. That is the same year the One-Child Policy launched. For the next three and a half decades, as hundreds of millions of women were fitted with state-mandated IUDs, as women were dragged to operating tables in the third trimester, as local officials ran sterilization drives with monthly quotas — UNFPA continued its “cooperation” with the Chinese government, received Western funding, and published reports describing its partnership in terms of mutual progress and shared goals.
A 2012 report from the U.S. House of Representatives found that the default relationship between UNFPA and the Chinese government was “one of direct support and mutual congratulation.” A 2011 UNFPA document reviewed by the House committee glowingly reviewed three decades of what it called “UNFPA’s cooperation with the Chinese Government.”
UNFPA officially opposed coercion. They said so repeatedly. And while they were saying it, they operated in counties where forced abortions were being documented. Institutional presence without accountability is not opposition. It is cover.
This was not an accident of proximity. The broader architecture of global population control was built deliberately, in corridors most people never saw.
On December 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council completed a classified document — National Security Study Memorandum 200, known as The Kissinger Report. Declassified in 1990 and transferred to the National Archives, it is available to anyone who wants to read it. Its subject: “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” It was the product of collaboration between the CIA, USAID, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture.
The document identified population growth in developing nations as a strategic threat to American resource access and geopolitical stability. It explicitly recommended routing population control efforts through the United Nations and international NGOs rather than the U.S. government directly — so that, as Alan Guttmacher, one of the population control movement’s most prominent figures, put it: “it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man” pushing population reduction, it looks like imperialism. Route it through the UN, and it looks like development.
That quote is on record.
NSSM 200 recommended financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion and sterilization rates, and suggested conditioning foreign aid on a country’s willingness to implement population control programs. It was signed into official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
China’s One-Child Policy launched four years later, with UN infrastructure already in place.
The women on those operating tables in Shandong Province did not know any of this. They did not know about classified memos or international population conferences. They only knew that the door was locked and the instruments were cold. Afterward, they lie on gurneys. Their dead, mutilated babies on the same gurney. A reminder. A warning.
Part Five: The Indian Problem
In Peru, they didn’t call it eugenics. They called it fighting poverty.
From 1996 to 2001, the government of Alberto Fujimori ran the National Reproductive Health and Family Planning Program. Publicly, it was described as a way to give women “the tools necessary to make decisions about their lives.” In the government documents published by the Peruvian human rights ombudsman’s office, it was described as a response to “resource depletion” and “economic downturn” — euphemisms, as researchers have documented, for what Fujimori and earlier Peruvian leaders called “the Indian problem.”
The problem, in their framing, was that Indigenous Peruvians were having more children than Peruvians of European descent.
Over 300,000 women were sterilized. The majority were Indigenous, rural, illiterate, and poor. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women found that the procedure was performed by non-specialized medical staff in inadequate sanitary conditions. Maria Mamérita Mestanza was coercively sterilized, developed complications, and died. She was thirty-three years old. Her family filed charges. Judges twice ruled there was insufficient evidence. The case was archived. Reopened. Archived again.
A woman named Celia Ramos died in 1997 after being sterilized without valid consent at a local medical outpost. In May 2025, twenty-eight years after her death, her case was argued before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights — the first forced sterilization case from Peru ever brought before that court.
Twenty-eight years to reach the first hearing. No individual perpetrator has ever been convicted.
The program was called family planning. The program was described as a gift to women. The women who survived it say they were told the procedure was reversible. Some were asked to consent while already under anesthesia.
Part Six: The Civilized Nations
Canada is regarded internationally as a model of human rights. Canada has a universal public health care system. Canada has issued apologies for residential schools, for the Sixties Scoop, for the documented crimes against Indigenous people that spanned generations.
Canada has not stopped forcibly sterilizing Indigenous women.
Alberta enacted its Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928 and did not repeal it until 1972. British Columbia followed in 1933 and repealed in 1973. In Alberta alone, more than 2,800 people were sterilized under the law — disproportionately Indigenous and Métis women. When Alberta finally apologized in 1999, one of the victims responded that he hoped “something like this will never happen to anybody again.”
It happened again.
Between 2005 and 2010, an external review of Saskatoon Health Region documented that sixteen Indigenous women experienced pressure to consent to sterilization immediately after giving birth. A class-action lawsuit was filed in Saskatchewan in 2017 representing sixty women with allegations stretching back thirty years. Reports then came in from women in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec. More than one hundred women came forward.
Some sterilizations had occurred as recently as 2017. One woman described waking from surgery to be told her uterus had been removed during what she understood to be bladder surgery.
In communities in Canada’s North, a missionary’s 1976 survey found that in some Inuit communities, between a quarter and nearly half of all women of reproductive age had been sterilized.
The law was repealed. The practice was not.
Part Seven: The Common Thread
These events span a century. They span continents. They span governments of every ideological variety — communist China, fascist-adjacent Peru, democratic Canada, progressive America.
What they share is not geography or politics. What they share is a belief: that some people’s fertility is a problem to be managed. That reproduction is not a right but a resource, and that the state — or the scientist, or the public health official, or the doctor who will not be criminally liable — is the appropriate manager.
They share something else. In almost every case, the program was introduced using the language of liberation.
Margaret Sanger told women she was giving them freedom. Fujimori told Indigenous women he was giving them tools to make decisions about their lives. The Chinese government told its citizens the policy was for national prosperity. Canadian health workers told women they were providing reproductive health services.
The cover story is always the same. You are being helped. You are being modernized. You are being freed from the burden of children you cannot afford, in a country that has decided you cannot afford to have them.
What was actually happening was simpler and older than any of the ideological frameworks used to justify it. Someone looked at a woman and decided she should not reproduce. Someone with authority over her body acted on that decision. And someone with a pen and a podium called it care.
A Note to the “My Body, My Choice” Generation
This phrase has been repeated so many times it has lost its shape. It is used now as a kind of incantation — proof of political loyalty, shorthand for reproductive freedom. People say it at rallies. They put it on bumper stickers. They genuinely believe it describes a movement built to protect women.
Here is what it actually describes, read against the history above: the same ideological infrastructure that funded Margaret Sanger’s eugenics clinics, that provided institutional cover for China’s sterilization quotas, that drafted policy memos recommending population reduction in developing nations as a matter of U.S. national security — that infrastructure also built and promoted the language of reproductive “choice” in the West.
You were handed the vocabulary of liberation by the same people who were deciding, elsewhere, which women didn’t get to choose.
This is not a conspiracy theory. The Kissinger Report is in the National Archives. Sanger’s writings are in her own published journals. The UNFPA’s cooperation with China is in their own documents. The sterilization quotas are in the U.S. Congressional record. The women who survived these programs gave testimony before courts and legislative bodies for decades.
The question the “my body” framework was never designed to ask is: whose body? In China, it was the body of a woman whose door was broken down because she missed a pregnancy check. In Peru, it was a Quechua-speaking woman in the highlands who was told her tubal ligation was reversible. In Canada, it was an Indigenous woman who came to a hospital to give birth and left unable to have children again. In Virginia in 1927, it was a rape survivor whose reproductive capacity was terminated by court order.
All of them also had bodies. None of them had choice.
The movement that claims the slogan did not build clinics in the communities where these things happened. It did not march for Chen Guangcheng. It was not in the room when the Kissinger Report was written, demanding that women in developing nations be counted as persons rather than strategic variables.
If “my body, my choice” is a principle and not just a position, it applies to all of them. It applied then. It applies now.
But if it only ever applied here, and only in one direction, then it was never about bodies at all.
It was about cover.
A Final Note on Language
The term “family planning” was not invented accidentally. It is soft. It is domestic. It carries the image of a couple at a kitchen table, discussing the future with hope. It does not carry the image of a woman held down on an operating table in the third trimester. It does not carry the image of a Chinese village where family planning police demolished a home because a woman missed a pregnancy check. It does not carry the image of a teenage girl in Virginia who was raped, then sterilized by the state, then cited in a Supreme Court ruling as evidence that her bloodline deserved to end.
Language like this is not accidental. It is architectural. It is built to make what is being done feel like what is being offered.
You thought they were giving you control over your body.
Look at whose hands were on the instruments.
Because I have been through trauma, and I know what a trigger can do, I am linking photos here for only those who wish to look. The majority simply capture the heartbreak. In my research, I have seen things I will never share, even under a warning label. But, the images here are of the fight of women. the defeat. the heartbreak. of women who never were given the chance to parade “my body, my choice”- and liberal US NGOs funded almost exclusively all of it. Their bodies were mutilated. Their infants murdered. In these photos, it is mostly agony and tears, and women fighting the real fight to bodily autonomy.
Sources: U.S. Congressional Record (Chen Guangcheng testimony, 2009; China coercion documentation); The Lancet (forced abortion, China, 2012); CNN (one-child policy legacy, 2024); Center for Reproductive Rights (Celia Ramos case, 2025); UN CEDAW Decision (Peru, 2024); The Conversation (Fujimori sterilization program, 2025); The Canadian Encyclopedia (sterilization of Indigenous women); CBC News (Saskatchewan class action, 2019); Global News (Canada, 2023); Wyoming Humanities / Harvard Petrie-Flom Center (Buck v. Bell); U.S. House Report 112-361 (UNFPA and China); NSSM 200 / Kissinger Report, National Security Council, December 10, 1974 (declassified 1990, U.S. National Archives); Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review; Margaret Sanger, “My Way to Peace” (1932); Margaret Sanger, Woman, Morality, and Birth Control (1922); Margaret Sanger, The Woman Rebel, Vol. I.
I write this article because I have done enough research to realize the majority in America has no idea the pain caused by the funding of those they laud as “heroes”. This article is one that is close to my heart, but is yet a tip of the iceberg addressing the corrupt infiltration to this nation. I will continue to write, and I will not be silent on behalf of truth. The title “feminist” became inverted as most things do. This is me fighting to tell women here in America, how deeply you have been betrayed by propaganda. This is me, as a mother, who’s soul aches knowing our big money NGOs stripped barren mother’s abroad against their will. Less developed countries were easy targets.
American woman, what happens when forced sterilization, and forced any-term abortion or infanticide becomes you. It isn’t irrational thought. You aren’t immune. You were the propaganda voice so loud, horrors to your fellow women around the globe suffered in silence.
I write this because no one has the authority to decide to control “population”. Tend to God’s Creation. God’s Creation will tend to us. Resist evil in every thought.