when was the last forced sterilization united states

After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states through the 1970s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983,[81] with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[82] The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible.[83] In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon[81] and California. Few have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation because the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases. [84] The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.[85][better source needed]

Compulsory sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, programs are government policies which attempt to force people to undergo surgical or other sterilization. The reasons governments implement sterilization programs vary in purpose and intent.[1] In the first half of the 20th century, several such programs were instituted in countries around the world, usually as part of eugenics programs intended to prevent the reproduction of members of the population considered to be carriers of defective genetic traits.[2]

Other bases for compulsory sterilization have included general population growth management, sex discrimination, "sex-normalizing" surgeries of intersex persons, limiting the spread of HIV,[1] and reducing the population of ethnic groups. The last is counted as an act of genocide under the Statute of Rome. Some countries require transgender people to undergo sterilization before gaining legal recognition of their gender, a practice that Juan E. Méndez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment cites as a violation of the Yogyakarta Principles.[3]

Compulsory sterilization has been proposed as a means of human population planning.

In May 2014, the World Health Organization, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF issued a joint statement on Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization, An interagency statement. The report references the involuntary sterilization of a number of specific population groups. They include:

The report recommends a range of guiding principles for medical treatment, including ensuring patient autonomy in decision-making, ensuring non-discrimination, accountability and access to remedies.[1]

Human population planning is the practice of artificially altering the rate of growth of a human population. Historically, human population planning has been implemented by limiting the population's birth rate, usually by government mandate, and has been undertaken as a response to factors including high or increasing levels of poverty, environmental concerns, religious reasons, and overpopulation. While population planning can involve measures that improve people's lives by giving them greater control of their reproduction, some programs have exposed them to exploitation.[5]

In the 1977 textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, the authors discussed in this encyclopedic textbook the possible role of a wide variety of formulations to address human overpopulation. This included the possibility of compulsory sterilization.[6] A government might utilize sortition to select those to be sterilized in order to avoid accusations of bias or having any other adverse agenda. In Ecoscience, in the chapter entitled "The Human Predicament: Finding A Way Out", the authors speculate about pharmaceuticals that might be developed to sterilize people. Some partial fulfillments of these predictions are the birth control drugs in Norplant and Depo-Provera. See also sterilization (medicine)#Pharmacological. One can further speculate about pharmaceuticals designed to permanently sterilize the gestating human fetus in utero.[7]

The Istanbul Convention prohibits forced sterilization (Article 39).[8] Widespread or systematic forced sterilization has been recognized as a Crime against Humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the explanatory memorandum. This memorandum defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.[9][10] Rebecca Lee wrote in the Berkeley Journal of International Law that, as of 2015, twenty-one Council of Europe member states require proof of sterilization in order to change one's legal sex categorization. Lee wrote that requiring sterilization is a human rights violation and LGBT specific international treaties may need to be developed in order to protect LGBT human rights.[11]

Bangladesh has a long running government operated civilian exploitative sterilization program as a part of its population control policy, where poor women and men are mainly targeted. The government offers 2000 Bangladeshi Taka (24 USD) for the woman who are persuaded to undergo tubal ligation and for the man who are persuaded to undergo vasectomy. Women are also offered a sari (a garment worn by women in Indian subcontinent) and men are offered a lungi (a garment for men) to wear for undergoing sterilization. The referrer, who persuades the woman or man to undergo sterilization gets 300 Bangladeshi Taka (3.60 USD).[12] In 1965, the targeted number of sterilizations per month was 600-1000 in contrast to the insertion of 25,000 IUDs, which was increased in 1978 to about 50,000 sterilizations per month on average.[13] A 50% rise in the amount paid to men coincided with a doubling of the number of vasectomies between 1980 and 1981.[14] One study done in 1977, when incentives were only equivalent to US $1.10 (at that time), indicated that between 40 and 60% of the men chose vasectomy because of the payment, who otherwise did not have any serious urge to get sterilized.[15] The "Bangladesh Association for Voluntary Sterilization", alone performed 67,000 tubal ligations and vasectomies in its 25 clinics in 1982. The rate of sterilization increased 25 percent each year.[16] On 16 December 1982, Bangladesh's military ruler Lieutenant General Hussain Muhammad Ershad launched a two-year mass sterilization program for Bangladeshi women and men. About 3,000 women and men were planned to be sterilized on 16 December 1982 (the opening day). Ershad's government trained 1,200 doctors and 25,000 field workers who must conduct two tubal ligations and two vasectomies each month to earn their salaries. And the government wanted to persuade 1.4 million people, both women and men to undergo sterilization within two years.[17] One population control expert called it 'the largest sterilization program in the world'.[18] By January 1983, 40,000 government field workers were employed in Bangladesh's 65,000 villages to persuade women and men to undergo sterilization and to promote usage of birth-control across the country.[16] Food subsidies under the group feeding program (VGF) were given to only those women with certificates showing that they had undergone tubal ligation.[19] In the 1977 study, a one-year follow-up of 585 men sterilized at vasectomy camps in Shibpur and Shalna in rural Bangladesh showed that almost half of the men were dissatisfied with their vasectomies. 58% of the men said their ability to work had decreased in the last year. 2%–7% of the men said their sexual performance decreases. 30.6% of the Shibpur and 18.9% of the Shalna men experienced severe pain during the vasectomy. The men also said they had not received all of the incentives they had been promised.[15] According to another study on 5042 women and 264 men who underwent sterilization, complications such as painful urination, shaking chills, fever for at least 2 days, frequent urination, bleeding from the incision, sore with pus, stitches or skin breaking open, weakness and dizziness arose after the sterilization. The person's sex, the sponsor and workload in the sterilization center, and the dose of sedatives administered to women were significantly associated with specific postoperative complaints. Five women died during the study, resulting in a death-to-case rate of 9.9/10,000 tubectomies (tubal ligations); four deaths were due to respiratory arrest caused by overuse of sedatives. The death-to-case rate of 9.9/10,000 tubectomies (tubal ligation) in this study is similar to the 10.0 deaths/10,000 cases estimated on the basis of a 1979 follow-up study in an Indian female sterilization camp. The presence of a complaint before the operation was generally a good predictor of postoperative complaints. Centers performing fewer than 200 procedures were associated with more complaints.[20] According to another study based on 20 sterilization-attributable deaths in Dacca (now Dhaka) and Rajshahi Divisions in Bangladesh, from January 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980, overall, the sterilization-attributable death-to-case rate was 21.3 deaths/100,000 sterilizations. The death rate for vasectomy was 1.6 times higher than that for tubal ligation. Anesthesia overdosage was the leading cause of death following tubal ligation along with tetanus (24%), where intraperitoneal hemorrhage (14%), and infection other than tetanus (5%) was other leading causes of death. 2 women (10%) died from pulmonary embolism after tubal ligation; 1 (5%) died from each of the following: anaphylaxis from anti-tetanus serum, heat stroke, small bowel obstruction, and aspiration of vomitus. All 7 men died from scrotal infections after vasectomy.[21] According to a second epidemiologic investigation of deaths attributable to sterilization in Bangladesh, where all deaths resulting from sterilizations performed nationwide between September 16, 1980, and April 15, 1981, were investigated and analyzed, nineteen deaths from tubal ligation were attributed to 153,032 sterilizations (both tubal ligation and vasectomy), for an overall death-to-case rate of 12.4 deaths per 100,000 sterilizations. This rate was lower than that (21.3) for sterilizations performed in Dacca (now Dhaka) and Rajshahi Divisions from January 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980, although this difference was not statistically significant. Anesthesia overdosage, tetanus, and hemorrhage (bleeding) were the leading causes of death.[22] There are reports that often when a woman had to undergo a gastrointestinal surgery, doctors took this opportunity to sterilize her without her knowledge.[23] According to Bangladesh governmental website "National Emergency Service", the 2000 Bangladeshi Taka (24 USD) and the sari/lungi given to the persons undergoing sterilizations are their "compensations". Where Bangladesh government also assures the poor people that it will cover all medical expenses if complications arise after the sterilization.[24] For the women who are persuaded to have IUD inserted into uterus, the government also offers 150 Bangladeshi Taka (1.80 USD) after the procedure and 80+80+80=240 Bangladeshi Taka (0.96+0.96+0.96=2.88 USD) in 3 followups, where the referrer gets 50 Bangladeshi Taka (0.60 USD). And for the women who are persuaded to have etonogestrel birth control implant placed under the skin in upper arm, the government offers 150 Bangladeshi Taka (1.80 USD) after the procedure and 70+70+70=210 Bangladeshi Taka (0.84+0.84+0.84=2.52 USD) in 3 followups, where the referrer gets 60 Bangladeshi Taka (0.72 USD).[12] These civilian exploitative sterilization programs are funded by the countries from northern Europe and the United States.[23] World bank is also known to have sponsored these civilian exploitative sterilization programs in Bangladesh. Historically, World Bank is known to have pressured 3rd World governments to implement population control programs.[25] Bangladesh is the 8th largest country in the world by population, having a population of 163,466,000 as of 12 November 2017, despite being ranked 94th by total area having an area of 147,570 km².[26][27][28][29] Bangladesh has the highest population density in the world among the countries having at least 10 million population.[30] The capital Dhaka is the 4th most densely populated city in the world,[31] which ranked as the world's 2nd most unlivable city, just behind Damascus, Syria according to the annual "Liveability Ranking" 2015 by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).[32][33]

Bangladesh is planning to introduce sterilization program in its overcrowded Rohingya refugee camps, where nearly a million refugees are fighting for space, after efforts to encourage birth control failed. Since 25 August 2017, more than 600,000 Rohingya Muslims have been fled from Rakhine state, Myanmar to neighboring Bangladesh, which is a Muslim majority country, following a military crackdown against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state, Myanmar. Sabura, a Rohingya mother of seven, said her husband believed the couple could support a large family.

“I spoke to my husband about birth control measures. But he is not convinced. He was given two condoms but he did not use them,” she said.

“My husband said we need more children as we have land and property (in Rakhine). We don’t have to worry to feed them,” she said.

District family planning authorities have managed to distribute just 549 packets of condoms among the refugees, amid reports they are reluctant to use them. They have asked the government to approve a plan to provide vasectomies for men and tubectomies (tubal ligation) for women in the camps.

One volunteer, Farhana Sultana, said the women she spoke to believed birth control was a sin and others saw it as against the tenets of Islam.Â

Bangladeshi officials say about 20,000 Rohingya refugee women are pregnant and 600 have given birth since arriving in the country, but this may not be accurate as many births take place without formal medical help.

Every month 250 Bangladeshi people undergo sterilization routinely under government's sterilization program in the border town of Coxâ€™s Bazar, where the Rohingya refugee Muslims have taken shelter.[34][35]

Two Canadian provinces (Alberta and British Columbia) performed compulsory sterilization programs in the 20th century with eugenic aims. Canadian compulsory sterilization operated via the same overall mechanisms of institutionalization, judgment, and surgery as the American system. However, one notable difference is in the treatment of non-insane criminals. Canadian legislation never allowed for punitive sterilization of inmates.

The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was enacted in 1928 and repealed in 1972. In 1995, Leilani Muir sued the Province of Alberta for forcing her to be sterilized against her will and without her permission in 1959. Since Muirâ€™s case, the Alberta government has apologized for the forced sterilization of over 2,800 people. Nearly 850 Albertans who were sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were awarded C$142 million in damages.[36][37]

In 1978, Chinese authorities became concerned with the possibility of a baby boom that the country could not handle, and they initialized the one-child policy. In order to effectively deal with the complex issues surrounding childbirth, the Chinese government placed great emphasis on family planning. Because this was such an important matter, the government thought it needed to be standardized, and so to this end laws were introduced in 2002.[38] These laws uphold the basic tenets of what was previously put into practice, outlining the rights of the individuals and outlining what the Chinese government can and cannot do to enforce policy.

However, recently accusations have been raised from groups such as Amnesty International, who have claimed that practices of compulsory sterilization have been occurring for people who have already reached their one child quota. These practices run contrary to the stated principles of the law, and seem to differ on a local level. An especially egregious example, according to Amnesty International, has been occurring in Puning City, Guangdong Province. The stated goal of the sterilization drive in this city in China was to meet with family planning targets that were outlined by the government in the Population and Family Planning Law of 2002. This drive, also known as the Iron Fist Campaign, also is said to have used coercive methods in order to ensure that close to 10,000 women were sterilized, including detaining elderly family members. It is unclear whether support of the increase of the now 90% Han Chinese majority here plays a role [38]

The Chinese government appears to be aware of these discrepancies in policy implementation on a local level. For example, The National Population and Family Planning Commission put forth in a statement that, “Some persons concerned in a few counties and townships of Linyi did commit practices that violated law and infringed upon legitimate rights and interests of citizens while conducting family planning work.” This statement comes in reference to some charges of forced sterilization and abortions in Linyi city of Shandong Province.[39] However, it remains unclear to what extent the government has prosecuted or disciplined the officials in charge of family planning in the country.

The policy requires a "social compensation fee" for those who have more than the legal number of children. According to Forbes editor Heng Shao, critics claims this fee is a toll on the poor but not the rich.[40] There are cases registered in the Chinese legal system (cf. Si Bu Tuo Zhe Renmin) which could prove infractions in the field.

One of the first acts by Adolf Hitler after the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act of 1933 gave him de facto legal dictatorship over the German state was to pass the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur VerhÃ¼tung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933.[41][42] The law was signed by Hitler himself, and over 200 eugenic courts were created specifically as a result of this law. Under it, all doctors in the Third Reich were required to report any patients of theirs who were deemed intellectually disabled, characterized mentally ill (including schizophrenia and manic depression), epileptic, blind, deaf, or physically deformed, and a steep monetary penalty was imposed for any patients who were not properly reported. Individuals suffering from alcoholism or Huntington's Disease could also be sterilized. The individual's case was then presented in front of a court of Nazi officials and public health officers who would review their medical records, take testimony from friends and colleagues, and eventually decide whether or not to order a sterilization operation performed on the individual, using force if necessary. Though not explicitly covered by the law, 400 mixed-race "Rhineland Bastards" were also sterilized beginning in 1937.[43][44] The sterilization program went on until the war started, with about 600,000 people sterilized.[45]

By the end of World War II, over 400,000 individuals were sterilised under the German law and its revisions, most within its first four years of being enacted. When the issue of compulsory sterilisation was brought up at the Nuremberg trials after the war, many Nazis defended their actions on the matter by indicating that it was the United States itself from whom they had taken inspiration. The Nazis had many other eugenics-inspired racial policies, including their "euthanasia" programme in which around 70,000 people institutionalised or suffering from birth defects were killed.[46]

In the first part of the Showa era, Japanese governments promoted increasing the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people deemed to have mental retardation, disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to inferiority in the Japanese gene pool.[47][48]

The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitariums where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishment of patients "disturbing peace".[49] Under the colonial Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients were also subjected to hard labor.[50]

The Race Eugenic Protection Law was submitted from 1934 to 1938 to the Diet. After four amendments, this draft was promulgated as a National Eugenic Law in 1940 by the Konoe government.[47] According to Matsubara Yoko, from 1940 to 1945, sterilization was done to 454 Japanese persons under this law. Appx. 800,000 people were surgically processed until 1995.[51]

According to the Eugenic Protection Law (1948), sterilization could be enforced on criminals "with genetic predisposition to commit crime", patients with genetic diseases including mild ones such as total color-blindness, hemophilia, albinism and ichthyosis, and mental affections such as schizophrenia, manic-depression possibly deemed occurrent in their opposition and epilepsy, the sickness of Caesar.[52] The mental sicknesses were added in 1952.

India's state of emergency between 1975 and 1977 included a family planning initiative that began in April 1976 through which the government hoped to lower India's ever increasing population. This program used propaganda and monetary incentives to, some may construe, inveigle citizens to get sterilized.[53] People who agreed to get sterilized would receive land, housing, and money or loans.[54] Because of this program, thousands of men received vasectomies and even more women received tubal ligations, both possibly reversible. However, the program focused more on sterilizing women than men. An article in The New York Times titled “For Sterilization, Target Is Women” states, “There were 114,426 vasectomies in India in 2002-03, and 4.6 million tubal ligations, the analogous operation on women, though ligation is a more complicated operation.” [55] Son of the Prime Minister at the time Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi was largely blamed for what turned out to be a failed program.[56] A strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning followed the highly controversial program,the backlash of which[clarification needed] continues into the 21st century.[57]

In Peru, President Alberto Fujimori (in office from 1990 to 2000) has been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity as a result of the Programa Nacional de Población, a sterilization program put in place by his administration.[58] During his presidency, Fujimori put in place a program of forced sterilizations against indigenous people (mainly the Quechuas and the Aymaras), in the name of a "public health plan", presented on July 28, 1995. The plan was principally financed using funds from USAID (36 million dollars), the Nippon Foundation, and later, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).[59] On September 9, 1995, Fujimori presented a Bill that would revise the "General Law of Population", in order to allow sterilization. Several contraceptive methods were also legalized, all measures that were strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Catholic organization Opus Dei. In February 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself congratulated Fujimori on his success in controlling demographic growth.[59]

On February 25, 1998, a representative for USAID testified before the U.S. government's House Committee on International Relations, to address controversy surrounding Peru's program. He indicated that the government of Peru was making important changes to the program, in order to:

In September 2001, Minister of Health Luis Solari launched a special commission into the activities of the voluntary surgical contraception, initiating a parliamentary commission tasked with inquiring into the "irregularities" of the program, and to put it on an acceptable footing. In July 2002, its final report ordered by the Minister of Health revealed that between 1995 and 2000, 331,600 women were sterilized, while 25,590 men submitted to vasectomies.[59] The plan, which had the objective of diminishing the number of births in areas of poverty within Peru, was essentially directed at the indigenous people living in deprived areas (areas often involved in internal conflicts with the Peruvian government, as with the Shining Path guerilla group). Deputy Dora Núñez Dávila made the accusation in September 2003 that 400,000 indigenous people were sterilized during the 1990s. Documents proved that President Fujimori was informed, each month, of the number of sterilizations done, by his former Ministers of Health, Eduardo Yong Motta (1994–96), Marino Costa Bauer (1996–1999) and Alejandro Aguinaga (1999–2000).[59] A study by sociologist Giulia Tamayo León (es), Nada Personal (in English: Nothing Personal), showed that doctors were required to meet quotas. According to Le Monde diplomatique, "tubal ligation festivals" were organized through program publicity campaigns, held in the pueblos jóvenes (in English: shantytowns). In 1996 there were, according to official statistics, 81,762 tubal ligations performed on women, with a peak being reached the following year, with 109,689 ligatures, then only 25,995 in 1998.[58]

On October 21, 2011, Peru's Attorney General José Bardales decided to reopen an investigation into the cases, which had been halted in 2009 under the statute of limitations, after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that President Fujimori’s sterilization program involved crimes against humanity, which are not time-limited.[61] It is unclear as to any progress in matter of the execution (debido ejecución sumaria) of the suspect in the course of any proof of their relevant accusations in the legal sphere of the constituted people in vindication of the rights of the people of South America. It may carry a parallel to any suspect cases for international investigation in any other continent, and be in the sphere of medical genocide.

In 2008, the Perm Krai ombudswoman Tatyana Margolina reported that 14 women with disabilities were subjected to compulsory medical sterilization in the Ozyorskiy psychoneurological nursing home whose director was Grigory Bannikov.[62] The sterilizations were performed not on the basis of a mandatory court decision appropriate for them, but only on the basis of the application by the guardian Bannikov.[63] On 2 December 2010, the court did not find corpus delicti in the compulsory medical sterilizations performed by his consent.[62] The order by the health minister of the Russian Federation that was issued in 1993 and neatly determined the procedure of forced abortion and sterilization of women with disabilities was repealed by the head of Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation Tatyana Golikova in 2009.[62] Therefore, now women can be subjected to compulsory sterilization without court decision, according to Tatyana Margolina, which may place some types of people within their nation at risk.[62] In Russia, one of the supporters of preventive eugenics is the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia Yuri Savenko, who justifies forced sterilization of women, which is practiced in Moscow psychoneurological nursing homes, and states that “one needs a more strictly adjusted and open control for the practice of preventive eugenics, which, in itself, is, in its turn, justifiable.”[64]

In South Africa, there have been multiple reports of HIV-positive women sterilized without their informed consent and sometimes without their knowledge.[65]

The eugenistic legislation was enacted in 1934 and was formally abolished in 1976. According to the 2000 governmental report, 21,000 were estimated to have been forcibly sterilized, 6,000 were coerced into a 'voluntary' sterilization while the nature of a further 4,000 cases could not be determined.[66] The Swedish state subsequently paid out damages to victims who contacted the authorities and asked for compensation. Of those sterilized 93% were women.[67]

In October 1999, Margrith von Felten suggested to the National Council of Switzerland in the form of a general proposal to adopt legal regulations that would enable reparation for persons sterilized against their will. According to the proposal, reparation was to be provided to persons who had undergone the intervention without their consent or who had consented to sterilization under coercion.[citation needed] According to Margrith von Felten:

The report of the Institute for the History of Medicine and Public Health "Mental Disability and Sexuality. Legal sterilization in the Vaud Canton between 1928 and 1985" points out that coercive sterilizations took place until the 1980s, it is unclear if the ethnographic impact has been duly investigated and if Hun-descendant French have been affected, as well as prehistoric human descendant communities. The act on coercive sterilizations of the Vaud Canton was the first law of this kind in the European context.

Hans Wolfgang Maier, head of the Psychiatric Clinic in Zurich pointed out in a report from the beginning of the century that 70% to 80% of terminations were linked to sterilization by doctors. In the period from 1929 to 1931, 480 women and 15 men were sterilized in Zurich in connection with termination.

Following agreements between doctors and authorities such as the 1934 "Directive For Surgical Sterilization" of the Medical Association in Basle, eugenic indication to sterilization was recognized as admissible.

A statistical evaluation of the sterilizations performed in the Basle women's hospital between 1920 and 1934 shows a remarkable increase in sterilizations for a psychiatric indication after 1929 and a steep increase in 1934, when a coercive sterilization act came into effect in nearby National Socialist Germany.

A study by the Swiss Nursing School in Zurich, published in 1991, documents that 24 mentally disabled women aged between 17 and 25 years were sterilized between 1980 and 1987. Of these 24 sterilizations, just one took place at the young woman's request.

Having evaluated sources primarily from the 1930s (psychiatric files, official directives, court files, etc.), historians have documented that the requirement for free consent to sterilization was in most of cases not satisfied. Authorities obtained the "consent" required by the law partly by persuasion, and partly by enforcing it through coercion and threats. Thus the recipients of social benefits were threatened with removal of the benefits, women were exposed to a choice between placement in an institution or sterilization, and abortions were permitted only when women simultaneously consented to sterilization.

More than fifty years after ending the National Socialist dictatorship in Germany, in which racial murder, euthanasia and coerced sterilizations belonged to the political programme, it is clear that eugenics, with its idea of "life unworthy of life" and "racial purity" permeated even democratic countries. The idea that a "healthy nation" should be achieved through targeted medical/social measures was designed and politically implemented in many European countries and in the U.S.A in the first half of this century. It is a policy incomparable with the inconceivable horrors of the Nazi rule; yet it is clear that authorities and the medical community were guilty of the methods and measures applied, i.e. coerced sterilizations, prohibitions of marriages and child removals â€“ serious violations of human rights.[citation needed]

Switzerland refused, however, to vote a reparations Act.[citation needed]

The United States during the Progressive era, ca. 1890 to 1920, was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[68] Thomas C. Leonard, professor at Princeton University, describes American eugenics and sterilization as ultimately rooted in economic arguments and further as a central element of Progressivism alongside wage controls, restricted immigration, and the introduction of pension programs.[69] The heads of the programs were avid proponents of eugenics and frequently argued for their programs which achieved some success nationwide mainly in the first half of the 20th Century.

Eugenics had two essential components. First, its advocates accepted as axiomatic that a range of mental and physical handicaps—blindness, deafness, and many forms of mental illness—were largely, if not entirely, hereditary in cause. Second, they assumed that these scientific hypotheses could be used as the basis of social engineering across several policy areas, including family planning, education, and immigration. The most direct policy implications of eugenic thought were that “mental defectives” should not produce children, since they would only replicate these deficiencies, and that such individuals from other countries should be kept out of the polity.[70] The principal targets of the American sterilization programs were the intellectually disabled and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. While the claim was that the focus was mainly the mentally ill and disabled, the definition of this during that time was much different than today's. At this time, there were many women that were sent to institutions under the guise of being “feeble-minded" because they were promiscuous or became pregnant while unmarried.

Some sterilizations took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative minority.[71] In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States, in all likelihood without the perspectives of ethnic minorities.[72]

The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897, but the proposed law failed to pass. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[73] followed closely by California and Washington in 1909. Several other states followed, but such legislation remained controversial enough to be defeated in some cases, as in Wyoming in 1934.[74] Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low, with the sole exception of California, until the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the intellectually disabled.[75] In the wake of that decision, over 62,000 people in the United States, most of them women, were sterilized.[76] The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[77]

Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (based on the idea that sterilization could cure one of sexual traits such as masturbation or pedophilia), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example).[78] Buck v. Bell asserted that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled.[79] There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.[80]

As of January 2011, discussions were underway regarding compensation for the victims of forced sterilization under the authorization of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. Governor Bev Perdue formed the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation in 2010 in order "to provide justice and compensate victims who were forcibly sterilized by the State of North Carolina".[86] In 2013 North Carolina announced that it would spend $10 million beginning in June 2015 to compensate men and women who were sterilized in the state's eugenics program; North Carolina sterilized 7,600 people from 1929 to 1974 who were deemed socially or mentally unfit.[87]

The Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes that mental disability is not a reason to deny sterilization. The opinion of ACOG is that "the physician must consult with the patientâ€™s family, agents, and other caregivers" if sterilization is desired for a mentally limited patient.[88] In 2003, Douglas Diekema wrote in Volume 9 of the journal Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews that "involuntary sterilization ought not be performed on mentally retarded persons who retain the capacity for reproductive decision-making, the ability to raise a child, or the capacity to provide valid consent to marriage." [89] The Journal of Medical Ethics claimed, in a 1999 article, that doctors are regularly confronted with request to sterilize mentally limited people who cannot give consent for themselves. The article recommend that sterilization should only occur when there is a "situation of necessity" and the "benefits of sterilization outweigh the drawbacks." [90] The American Journal of Bioethics published an article, in 2010, that concluded the interventions used in the Ashley treatment may benefit future patients.[91] These interventions, at the request of the parents and guidance from the physicians, included a hysterectomy and surgical removal of the breast buds of the mentally and physically disabled child.[92]

The inability to pay for the cost of raising children has been a reason courts have ordered coercive or compulsory sterilization. In June 2014, a Virginia judge ruled that a man on probation for child endangerment must be able to pay for his seven children before having more children; the man agreed to get a vasectomy as part of his plea deal.[93] In 2013, an Ohio judge ordered a man owing nearly $100,000 in unpaid child support to "make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman" as a condition of his probation.[94] Kevin Maillard wrote that conditioning the right to reproduction on meeting child support obligations amounts to "constructive sterilization" for men unlikely to make the payments.[95]

148 female prisoners in two California institutions were sterilized between 2006 and 2010 in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was determined that the prisoners did not give consent to the procedures.[96] In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB 1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure shall be required in a medical emergency to preserve inmate's life.[97]

Discussions have yet to begin regarding compensation for victims of forced sterilization in other states.[citation needed]

Puerto Rican physician, Dr. Lanauze RolÃ³n, founded the League for Birth Control in Ponce, Puerto Rico in 1925, but the League was quickly squashed by opposition from the Catholic church.[98][99] A similar League was founded seven years later, in 1932, in San Juan, Puerto Rico and continued in operation for two years before opposition and lack of support forced its closure.[98][99] Yet another effort at establishing birth control clinics was made in 1934 by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in a relief response to the conditions of the Great Depression.[99] As a part of this effort, 68 birth control clinics were opened on the island.[99] The next mass opening of clinics occurred in January 1937 when American Dr. Clarence Gamble, in association with a group of wealthy and influential Puerto Ricans, organized the Maternal and Infant Health Association and opened 22 birth control clinics.[99]

The Governor of Puerto Rico, Menendez Ramos, enacted Law 116,[100] which went into effect on May 13, 1937.[101] It was a birth control and eugenic sterilization law that allowed the dissemination of information regarding birth control methods as well as legalized the practice of birth control.[98][99] The government cited a growing population of the poor and unemployed as motivators for the law. Abortion remained heavily restricted. By 1965, approximately 34 percent of women of childbearing age had been sterilized, two thirds of whom were still in their early twenties The law was repealed on June 8, 1960.[98]

Unemployment and widespread poverty would continue to grow in Puerto Rico in the 40s, threatening both U.S. private investment in Puerto Rico and acting as a deterrent for future investment.[98] In an attempt to attract additional U.S. private investment in Puerto Rico, another round of liberalizing trade policies were implemented and referred to as “Operation Bootstrap.”[98] Despite these policies and their relative success, unemployment and poverty in Puerto Rico remained high, high enough to prompt an increase in emigration from Puerto Rico to the United States between 1950 and 1955.[98] The issues of immigration, Puerto Rican poverty, and threats to U.S. private investment made population control concerns a prime political and social issue for the United States.[98]

The 50s also saw the production of social science research supporting sterilization procedures in Puerto Rico.[98] Princeton’s Office of Population Research, in collaboration with the Social Research Department at the University of Puerto Rico, conducted interviews with couples regarding sterilization and other birth control.[98] Their studies concluded that there was a significant need and desire for permanent birth control among Puerto Ricans.[98] In response, Puerto Rico’s governor and Commissioner of health opened 160 private, temporary birth control clinics with the specific purpose of sterilization.[98]

Also during this era, private birth control clinics were established in Puerto Rico with funds provided by wealthy Americans.[98][99] Joseph Sunnen, a wealthy American Republican and industrialist, established the Sunnen Foundation in 1957.[98][99] The foundation funded new birth control clinics under the title “La Asociación Puertorriqueña el Biensestar de la Familia” and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an experimental project to determine if a formulaic program could be used to control population growth in Puerto Rico and beyond.[98]

From beginning of the 1900s, U.S. and Puerto Rican governments espoused rhetoric connecting the poverty of Puerto Rico with overpopulation and the “hyper-fertility” of Puerto Ricans.[102] Such rhetoric combined with eugenics ideology of reducing “population growth among a particular class or ethnic group because they are considered…a social burden,” was the philosophical basis for the 1937 birth control legislation enacted in Puerto Rico.[102][103] A Puerto Rican Eugenics Board, modeled after a similar board in the United States, was created as part of the bill, and officially ordered ninety-seven involuntary sterilizations.[103]

The legalization of sterilization was followed by a steady increase in the popularity of the procedure, both among the Puerto Rican population and among physicians working in Puerto Rico.[103][104] Though sterilization could be performed on men and women, women were most likely to undergo the procedure.[98][99][103][104] Sterilization was most frequently recommended by physicians because of a pervasive belief that Puerto Ricans and the poor were not intelligent enough to use other forms of contraception.[103][104] Physicians and hospitals alike also implemented hospital policy to encourage sterilization, with some hospitals refusing to admit healthy pregnant women for delivery unless they consented to be sterilized.[103][104] This has been best documented at Presbyterian Hospital, where the unofficial policy for a time was to refuse admittance for delivery to women who already had three living children unless she consented to sterilization.[103][104] There is additional evidence that true informed consent was not obtained from patients before they underwent sterilization, if consent was solicited at all.[104]

By 1949 a survey of Puerto Rican women found that 21% of women interviewed had been sterilized, with sterilizations being performed in 18% of all hospital births statewide as a routine post-partum procedure, with the sterilization operation performed before women left the hospitals after giving birth.[98] As for the birth control clinics founded by Sunnen, the Puerto Rican Family Planning Association reported that around 8,000 women and 3,000 men had been sterilized in Sunnen's privately funded clinics.[98] At one point, the levels of sterilization in Puerto Rico were so high that they alarmed the Joint Committee for Hospital Accreditation, who then demanded that Puerto Rican hospitals limit sterilizations to ten percent of all hospital deliveries in order to receive accreditation.[98] The high popularity of sterilization continued into the 60s and 70s, during which the Puerto Rican government made the procedures available for free and reduced fees.[103] The effects of the sterilization and contraception campaigns of the 1900s in Puerto Rico are still felt in Puerto Rican cultural history today.[102]

There has been much debate and scholarly analysis concerning the legitimacy of choice given to Puerto Rican women with regards to sterilization, reproduction, and birth control, as well as with the ethics of economically motivated mass sterilization programs.

Some scholars, such as Bonnie Mass [98] and Iris Lopez,[102] have argued that the history and popularity of mass sterilization in Puerto Rico represents a government-led eugenics initiative for population control.,[98][102][104][105] They cite the private and government funding of sterilization, coercive practices, and the eugenics ideology of Puerto Rican and American governments and physicians as evidence of a mass sterilization campaign.[102][104][105]

On the other side of the debate, scholars like Laura Briggs [103] have argued that evidence does not substantiate claims of a mass sterilization program.[103] She further argues that reducing the popularity of sterilization in Puerto Rico to a state initiative ignores the legacy of Puerto Rican feminist activism in favor or birth control legalization and the individual agency of Puerto Rican women in making decisions about family planning.[103]

When the United States took census of Puerto Rico in 1899 the birth rate was 40 births per one thousand people.[99] By 1961 the birth rate had dropped to 30.8 per thousand.[98] In 1955, 16.5% of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age had been sterilized, this jumped to 34% in 1965.[98]

In 1969, sociologist Harriet Presser analyzed the 1965 Master Sample Survey of Health and Welfare in Puerto Rico.[106] She specifically analyzed data from the survey for women ages 20 to 49 who had at least one birth, resulting in an overall sample size of 1,071 women.[106] She found that over 34% of women aged 20â€“49 had been sterilized in Puerto Rico in 1965.[106]

Presserâ€™s analysis also found that 46.7% of women who reported they were sterilized were between the ages of 34 and 39.[106] Of the sample of women sterilized, 46.6% had been married 15 to 19 years, 43.9% had been married for 10 to 14 years, and 42.7% had been married for 20 to 24 years.[106] Nearly 50% of women sterilized had three or four births.[106] Over 1/3 of women who reported being sterilized were sterilized in their twenties, with the average age of sterilization being 26.[106]

A survey by a team of Americans in 1975 confirmed Presser's assessment that nearly 1/3 of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age had been sterilized.[98] As of 1977, Puerto Rico had the highest proportion of childbearing-aged persons sterilized in the world.[98] In 1993, ethnographic work done in New York by anthropologist Iris Lopez [102] showed that the history of sterilization continued to effect the lives of Puerto Rican women even after they immigrated to the United States and lived there for generations.[102] The history of the popularity of sterilization in Puerto Rico meant that Puerto Rican women living in America had high rates of female family members who had undergone sterilization, and it remained a highly popular form of birth control among Puerto Rican women living in New York.[102]

“Civil Society Organizations such as Balance, Promocion para el Desarrollo y Juventud, A.C., have received in the last years numerous testimonies of women living with HIV in which they inform that misinformation about the virus transmission has frequently lead to compulsory sterilization. Although there is enough evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions aimed to reduce mother-to-child transmission risks, there are records of HIV-positive women forced to undergo sterilization or have agreed to be sterilized without adequate and sufficient information about their options.”[107]

â€œA report made in El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua concluded that women living with HIV, and whose health providers knew about it at the time of pregnancy, were six times more likely to experience forced or coerced sterilization in those countries. In addition, most of these women reported that health providers told them that living with HIV cancelled their right to choose the number and spacing of the children they want to have as well as the right to choose the contraceptive method of their choice; provided misleading information about the consequences for their health and that of their children and denied them access to treatments that reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission in order to coerce them into sterilization.[108]

This happens even when the health norm NOM 005-SSA2-1993 states that family planning is “the right of everyone to decide freely, responsibly and in an informed way the number and spacing of their children and to obtain specialized information and proper services” and that “the exercise of this right is independent of gender, age, and social or legal status of persons”.[107]

According to reports, as of 2012[update], forced and coerced sterilization are current Government policy in Uzbekistan for women with two or three children as a means of forcing population control and to improve maternal mortality rates.[109][110][111][112][113] In November 2007, a report by the United Nations Committee Against Torture reported that "the large number of cases of forced sterilization and removal of reproductive organs of women at reproductive age after their first or second pregnancy indicate that the Uzbek government is trying to control the birth rate in the country" and noted that such actions were not against the national Criminal Code [114] in response to which the Uzbek delegation to the associated conference was "puzzled by the suggestion of forced sterilization, and could not see how this could be enforced."[115]

Reports of forced sterilizations, hysterectomies and IUD insertions first emerged in 2005,[109][110][111][116] although it is reported that the practice originated in the late 1990s,[117] with reports of a secret decree dating from 2000.[116] The current policy was allegedly instituted by Islam Karimov under Presidential Decree PP-1096, "on additional measures to protect the health of the mother and child, the formation of a healthy generation"[118] which came into force in 2009.[119] In 2005 Deputy Health Minister Assomidin Ismoilov confirmed that doctors in Uzbekistan were being held responsible for increased birth rates.[116]

Based on a report by journalist Natalia Antelava, doctors reported that the Ministry of Health told doctors they must perform surgical sterilizations on women. One doctor reported, “It's ruling number 1098 and it says that after two children, in some areas after three, a woman should be sterilized.”, in a loss of the former surface decency of Central Asian mores in regard of female chastity.[120] In 2010, the Ministry of Health passed a decree stating all clinics in Uzbekistan should have sterilization equipment ready for use. The same report also states that sterilization is to be done on a voluntary basis with the informed consent of the patient.[120] In the 2010 Human Rights Report of Uzbekistan, there were many reports of forced sterilization of women along with allegations of the government pressuring doctors to sterilize women in order to control the population.[121] Doctors also reported to Antelava that there are quotas they must reach every month on how many women they need to sterilize. These orders are passed on to them through their bosses and, allegedly, from the government.[120]

On May 15, 2012, during a meeting with the Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow the Uzbek president Islam Karimov said: "we are doing everything in our hands to make sure that the population growth rate [in Uzbekistan] does not exceed 1.2-1.3"[122] The Uzbek version of RFE/RL reported that with this statement Karimov indirectly admitted that forced sterilization of women is indeed taking place in Uzbekistan.[122] The main Uzbek television channel, O'zbekiston, cut out Karimov's statement about the population growth rate while broadcasting his conversation with Putin.[122] It is unclear if there is any genocidal conspiracy in regard of the Mongol type involved, in connection with genetic drain of this type through lack of their reproduction.

Despite international agreement concerning the inhumanity and illegality of forced sterilization, it has been suggested that the Government of Uzbekistan continues to pursue such programs.[109]

Eugenics programs including forced sterilization existed in most Northern European countries, as well as other more or less Protestant countries. Some programs, such as Canada's, lasted well into the 1970s.[citation needed] Other countries that had notably active sterilisation programmes include Denmark, Norway, Finland,[123] Estonia, Switzerland, Iceland, and some countries in Latin America (including Panama).[citation needed] In the United Kingdom, Home Secretary Winston Churchill was a noted advocate, and his successor Reginald McKenna introduced a bill that included forced sterilisation. Writer G. K. Chesterton led a successful effort to defeat that clause of the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act.[124]

In 2015, the Court of Protection of the United Kingdom ruled that a woman with six children and an IQ of 70 should be sterilized for her own safety because another pregnancy would have been a "significantly life-threatening event" for her and the fetus.[125]


what is the population of williston north dakota

Williston is a city in and the county seat of Williams County, North Dakota, United States.[5] The 2010 census[6] gave its population as 14,716, and the Census Bureau gave the 2015 estimated population as 26,977, making Williston the sixth largest city in North Dakota. The North Dakota oil boom is largely responsible for the sharp increase in population.

Williston, North Dakota

Williston's newspapers, both in print and online, are the daily Williston Herald and the weekly The Williston Trader. Sloulin Field International Airport is a public airport 3.2 km (2.0 mi) north of the business district. Williston is the home of Williston State College and the Miss North Dakota Scholarship Pageant.

Founded in 1887, Williston was named for Daniel Willis James, a merchant and capitalist, by his friend, railroad magnate James J. Hill.[7][8][9]

Williston is located at the crossroads of U.S. Highways 2 and 85.

It is near the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers, at the upper end of the Lake Sakakawea reservoir.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 7.56 square miles (19.58 km2), of which 7.50 square miles (19.42 km2) is land and 0.06 square miles (0.16 km2) is water.[1]

The municipality is 18 miles (29 km) from the Montana-North Dakota border and 60 miles (97 km) from the Canada–United States border.[10]

Williston has a semi-arid climate (Köppen climate classification 'BSk'); it is part of USDA Hardiness zone 4a.[11] The normal monthly mean temperature ranges from 11.0 °F (−11.7 °C) in January to 70.1 °F (21.2 °C) in July.[12] On average, there are 2.9 days that reach 100 °F (38 °C) or higher, 25 days of 90 °F (32 °C)+ highs, 42 days with a low of 0 °F (−18 °C) or below, 9.6 days with lows plummeting to at least −20 °F (−29 °C), and 7.7 days that do not rise above 0 °F annually.[12] The average window for freezing temperatures is September 19 thru May 20,[12] allowing a growing season of 121 days;. Extreme temperatures officially range from −50 °F (−46 °C) on December 23, 1983 and February 16, 1936 up to 110 °F (43 °C) on July 5, 1936; the record cold daily maximum is −29 °F (−34 °C) on January 16, 1930, while, conversely, the record warm daily minimum is 78 °F (26 °C) last set July 19, 1974.[12]

Precipitation is greatest in June and July and averages 14.37 in (365 mm) annually, but has ranged from 6.13 in (156 mm) in 1934 to 22.04 in (560 mm) in 1896.[12] Snowfall averages 45.3 in (115 cm) per season, and has historically ranged from 8.0 in (20 cm) in 1908–09 to 107.2 in (272 cm) in 2010–11;[12] the average window for measurable (≥0.1 in or 0.25 cm) snowfall is October 20 thru April 23, although snow in May occurs at most several times per decade and September snow is a much rarer event.[12] Due to the relative aridity, there are only 4.1 days where 24-hour snowfall exceeds 3 in (7.6 cm).

Williston is in northwestern North Dakota's booming oil patch where adequate, affordable housing has become a concern.[18] According to a February 2014 article in Business Insider, Williston had the highest apartment rents in the United States.[19] The 2010 census counted a population of 14,716, up from 12,680 in 2000, but the number of current residents is likely much higher because the count did not include those living in temporary housing. In September 2011, the mayor estimated the actual population at 20,000.[20] The aforementioned 2014 Business Insider story estimated that the population was over 30,000.[19]

As of the census[2] of 2010, there were 14,716 people, 6,180 households, and 3,589 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,962.1 inhabitants per square mile (757.6/km2). There were 6,542 housing units at an average density of 872.3 per square mile (336.8/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 92.6% White, 0.3% African-American, 3.3% Native American or Alaska Native, 0.3% Asian, 0.4% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 2.2% of the population.

There were 6,180 households of which 29.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 44.6% were married couples living together, 9.0% had a female householder with no husband present, 4.5% had a male householder with no wife present, and 41.9% were non-families. 34.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 12.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.31 and the average family size was 2.99.

The median age in the city was 35.5 years. 23.6% of residents were under the age of 18; 10% were between the ages of 18 and 24; 26.7% were from 25 to 44; 25.4% were from 45 to 64; and 14.4% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the city was 51.0% male and 49.0% female.

According to the census of 2000, there were 12,512 people, 5,255 households, and 3,205 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,794.1 per square mile (693.1/km²). There were 5,912 housing units at an average density of 847.7 per square mile (327.5/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 93.69% White, 0.17% African American, 3.65% Native American or Alaska Native, 0.24% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.17% from other races, and 2.06% from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 1.23% of the population.

The six leading ancestry groups in the city are Norwegian (47.8%), German (31.6%), Irish (9.6%), English (5.8%), Swedish (4.5%), Dutch (4.3%) and French (4.0%).

There were 5,255 households, of which 30.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.4% were married couples living together, 10.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 39.0% were non-families. 34.1% of all households were made up of individuals and 13.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 2.96.

The age distribution was 25.6% under the age of 18, 9.3% from 18 to 24, 25.8% from 25 to 44, 22.5% from 45 to 64, and 16.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 91.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 88.3 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $29,962, and the median income for a family was $38,713. Males had a median income of $29,578 versus $18,879 for females. The per capita income for the city was $16,656. About 11.3% of families and 13.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 19.1% of those under age 18 and 7.8% of those age 65 or over.

Williston's economy, while historically agricultural, is increasingly being driven by the oil industry. Williston lends its name to the Williston Basin, a huge subterranean geologic feature known for its rich deposits of petroleum, coal and potash. Williston sits atop the Bakken formation, which by the end of 2012 was predicted to be producing more oil than any other site in the United States, surpassing even Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the longtime leader in domestic output in the United States.[21]

(The State of North Dakota provides a website detailing daily oil activity.) In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there were 150 million barrels of oil "technically recoverable" from the Bakken shale. In April 2008, the number was said to be about four billion barrels; in 2010 geologists at Continental Resources, the major drilling operation in North Dakota, estimated the reserve at eight billion. In March 2012, after the discovery of a lower shelf of oil, it announced a possible 24 billion barrels. Although current technology allows for extraction of only about 6% of the oil trapped 0.99–1.99 mi (1.6–3.2 km) beneath the earth's surface, recoverable oil might eventually exceed 500 billion barrels.[21] [The recoverable oil amount in the WSJ article may be a misprint. Continental Resources estimates of original oil in place (OOIP) is 500 billion bbls of oil. Primary production using new technology could increase primary recover to 10% or 50 billion bbls of recoverable oil. Some suggest as much as 20% which would be 100 billion bbls. Other recovery rates are estimated at 3 – 8% currently, or 15 billion to 40 billion bbls of recoverable oil.][citation needed]

Williston has seen a huge increase in population and infrastructure investments during the last several years with expanded drilling using the 'frac' petroleum extraction technique in the Bakken Formation and Three Forks Groups.[22] Examples of oil industry related infrastructure investments are the multi-acre branch campus of Baker Hughes, the Sand Creek Retail Center, and the Jim Bridger shops & offices.

A major regional grain elevator is served by the BNSF Railway. Williston's livestock arena has weekly auctions.

Forts Union and Buford, as well as the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers—a part of the history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition—encourage area tourism. Williston is also comparatively close to the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

The Williston Public School District#1 serves the city. The surrounding rural area is served by New Public School District 8. Trinity Christian School is a private K-12 school located in Williston. St. Joseph Catholic School is a private K-6 school located in Williston.

Williston State College is also located in Williston, off University Avenue. The college, founded in 1961 as the University of North Dakotaâ€”Williston (UND-W), is a two-year public college affiliated with the North Dakota University System (NDUS). At Williston State College, students can earn an Associate in Arts (AA), Associate in Science (AS), and/or an Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degree.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, KXMD and KUMV were rebroadcast across Saskatchewan as part of that region's first terrestrial-based cable television system. By 1984, however, the Williston signals had been replaced by those of similar stations in Detroit.

The city of Williston is served by the Sloulin Field International Airport, which has a customs service in its facilities. In 2012, United Airlines began offering daily codeshare jet service (via ExpressJet Airlines) to Denver, CO (KDEN) on Embraer 145 aircraft, while Delta Air Lines began daily codeshare jet service (via SkyWest Airlines) to Minneapolis, MN (MSP) on Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft. In August 2014 United began offering direct flights to Houston TX.

FedEx Express of Memphis, TN, provides cargo flights to and from the Williston, ND Airport (ISN) and Grand Forks, ND (GFK) airport utilizing Cessna 208B Caravans with CargoMaster cargo pods. These flights run Monday through Saturday. The Saturday service has an early cutoff time and pickups are limited to in-town stops and drop box locations only.

Amtrak, the national passenger rail system, serves a station in Williston via its Empire Builder, a once-daily train in each direction between Portland, Oregon/Seattle, Washington and Chicago.

US 2 runs through the city. US 85 bypasses the city to the northwest, US 85B bypasses the city to the northeast. ND 1804 runs through the southern portion of the city and is concurrent with US 2 between 143rd Avenue, and 2nd Street.

Williston clinics include Craven-Hagan Clinic, Fairlight Medical Center, and Trinity Community Clinic-Western Dakota. Fairlight has the only Veteran's Affairs clinic in northwestern North Dakota and also serves residents of northeastern Montana. Fairlight includes a walk-in clinic with four health care professionals. Mercy Medical Center is the Williston hospital. It provides 24-hour emergency and trauma care but lacks a walk-in clinic.

Mercy Medical Center is home to the Leonard P. Nelson Family Cancer Treatment Center (est. 1996), providing oncology services in the region for the past seventeen years to an area of a 100-mile radius. Patients receive treatment for a wide variety of cancers including breast, gynecologic, head and neck, lung and prostate. Mercy Medical Center broke ground 24 August 2012 on an expanded cancer treatment facility. Improvements include the installation of a highly specialized linear accelerator to increase precision radiation therapy treatment delivery with decreased patient treatment time. The grand opening was 7 October 2013.[27]

Mercy Medical Center was named among the Top 100 Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) in the United States by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in September 2012.[28]


where is regional maritime university located in ghana

The Regional Maritime University (RMU), is an international tertiary institution and private university in Accra, Ghana. RMU attained full University status on 25 October 2007 and was launched as such by John Agyekum Kufuor, former President of the Republic of Ghana. It was first called Regional Maritime Academy.

Regional Maritime University

On 1 October 1982, the Government of Ghana promulgated the Regional Maritime Law 1982, which was followed by the signing of the instrument of transfer, handing over the college to the then Ministerial Conference of West and Central African States on Maritime Transport (MINCONMAR), now known as Maritime Organization of West and Central Africa (MOWCA), which negotiated for its regionalization.[1]

The college was then renamed The Regional Maritime Academy (RMA). The formal inauguration of the RMA took place 26 May 1983 with Ghana as a founding member.[1]

Regionalization of the academy was for cooperation, particularly with regard to the training of personnel to ensure the sustained growth and development of maritime industries in the sub-region and beyond. The academy in Ghana serves the Anglophone countries while a sister academy in Ivory Coast (L'Académie Régionale des Sciences et Techniques de la Mer – ARSTM) serves the Francophone countries.

The Regional Maritime University (RMU), Accra, Ghana, is an international tertiary institution and private university.[1]

The RMU occupies the premises of the old Ghana Nautical College which was established in 1958 to train ratings for the erstwhile State Shipping Corporation (Black Star Line).[1] On 1 October 1982, the Government of Ghana promulgated the Regional Maritime Law 1982 which was followed by the signing of the instrument of transfer, handing over the College to the then Ministerial Conference of West and Central African States on Maritime Transport (MINCONMAR), now known as Maritime Organization of West and Central Africa (MOWCA), which negotiated for its regionalization.[1] The College was then renamed The Regional Maritime Academy (R.M.A.).[1]

The overall objective for the establishment of RMU was to promote regional co-operation in the maritime industry focusing on the training to ensure the sustained growth and development of the industry.[1] The RMU is a branch of the World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden and an affiliate of the University of Ghana,[1] in Legon.

The University has working relations with other universities in the sub-region. The RMA has since December, 2004 been given Institutional Accreditation by the National Accreditation Board, Ghana.[1]


when did pubs open all day in england

The Licensing Act 1988 is a statute, applying to England and Wales, which among other things, extended permissible opening hours for public houses to 11am to 11pm.  Previously pubs were not generally allowed to open from 3:00pm to 6:30pm in the afternoon.

Licensing Act 1988


who played johnny allen's daughter in eastenders

Lytton made her first appearance in EastEnders on 18 March 2005, playing Johnny Allen's daughter Ruby Allen. Weeks after winning the "Sexiest Female" award at the British Soap Awards where she cut a figure wearing a stunning thigh revealing white dress. In July 2006 it was announced that Lytton would be leaving EastEnders in November 2006. On the exit of her character, Lytton had commented:[2][3] "I've really enjoyed my time at EastEnders. It has been a great experience which I will never forget but I am now looking forward to trying new things and not getting typecast."

Louisa Lytton

Louisa Claire Lytton (born 7 February 1989)[1] is an English actress. She is known for her television roles as Ruby Allen in EastEnders (2005–06), and PC Beth Green in The Bill (2007–09). She also finished fourth in series 4 of Strictly Come Dancing in 2006 and represented the UK at the Eurovision Dance Contest 2008, finishing ninth. Her theatre credits include playing Betty Rizzo in the 2017 UK touring production of the musical Grease.

Lytton's final scenes were broadcast in November 2006. On 1 December 2006, Lytton appeared on the ITV1 show Loose Women and confirmed that leaving EastEnders was not her decision. In August 2008 she stated she would like to return to EastEnders once she had left The Bill.

In 2006, Lytton took part in the fourth series of the popular BBC One reality television programme Strictly Come Dancing, and aged 17 at the time was the youngest contestant to have appeared on the show until gymnast Claudia Fragapane took part in 2016. Louisa's professional dance partner was Vincent Simone. After several impressive performances she was eliminated in the quarter-finals, finishing in fourth place out of fourteen, losing out to Emma Bunton in the viewer vote for a place in the last three. Despite this, Lytton appeared in the Christmas Special on Christmas Day with fellow contestants Mark Ramprakash, Matt Dawson and Emma Bunton, along with 2005's finalists Zoë Ball and Colin Jackson. This show was won by Jackson. Below is a scoring recap from start to finish.

Lytton began touring with 'Strictly' on 18 January 2008 with ex-EastEnders co-stars, Letitia Dean and Matt Di Angelo, and ended the tour with 11 wins under her belt. Along with her EastEnders co-star Christopher Parker, Louisa was vocal in her criticism of the media treatment of John Sergeant, which led to him resigning from the 2008 series of 'Strictly Come Dancing'. She said she was surprised that Arlene Philips was removed a judge from the next series of Strictly Come Dancing due to her age, she is to be replaced by former contestant and 2007 winner Alesha Dixon.

She was one of the former Strictly Come Dancing participants to be asked to return for Strictly on Tour which took place in early 2008 and toured the country. She was asked to return due to her personality and popularity with the audience on Strictly Come Dancing. â€œI absolutely loved taking part in Strictly Come Dancing and jumped at the chance to take part in the live show, and thanks to my bosses at The Bill I've got the chance to get back out there and this time, fingers crossed, win it for the girls!". She won numerous times. She appeared on BBC Breakfast for a second time in January 2008 and a third time in September 2008.

On 16 May 2007, Lytton first appeared in the ITV1 police drama The Bill as PC Beth Green. She had previously appeared as a different character in a 1997 episode, coincidentally starring alongside actor Billy Murray, who previously played her father in EastEnders. She left the show in March 2009.

Lytton was Emma Watson's double in the film Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.[4][5]

Between leaving EastEnders and joining The Bill she made an appearance on the CBBC show Hider in the House as herself. She has appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show to promote her role in The Bill. She also appeared on Big Brother's Little Brother with Dermot O'Leary. On 26 June 2007 she made a second appearance on lunchtime show Loose Women, this time promoting her addition to the cast of The Bill. She also briefly appeared in Emma Bunton's video for her single "Downtown" for Children in Need. She has been on the TV show This Morning twice.

On 27 August 2007, Lytton appeared on BBC's Test The Nation and was the top "Celebrity" participant.

She attends numerous charity events and movie premieres throughout the year such as "Children's Champions" in 2007 and 2009 and the "Legends Ball" in 2008.

She was a member of the audience on Happy Birthday Brucie which celebrated TV presenter Bruce Forsyth's 80th birthday in 2008.

Louisa Lytton was chosen as one half of the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Dance Contest 2008, finishing 9th out of 14 countries.

She appeared on GMTV for a third time in March 2009 as well as Loose Women for a third time.

She starred in American Pie Presents: The Book of Love as Imogen (a British exchange student). The seventh instalment from the franchise was released straight to DVD in December 2009.

On 13 July 2009 Lytton went on GMTV to talk about her roles in the Shakespearean plays Much Ado About Nothing and A Midsummer Night's Dream. This interview was conducted with Lorraine Kelly on her segment of the show.

She appeared in FHM December 2009 issue. She gave an interview along with provocative pictures of herself in her bra and panties and lingerie.

On 12 June 2010 she was a guest star on Casualty on BBC1, on which she played goth girl Grace Fielding.

In 2012 she was in the film the knot where she played Stephanie And she also was in Payback Season where she played Keisha.

In February 2012, she attended the press night for magician Hans Klok's show The Houdini Experience at The Peacock Theatre in London. While there, she was invited up on stage by Klok, who then sawed her in half in his Clearly Impossible illusion. In September 2012 she was in the stage show A broken rose she was the lead character Maria.

In 2013 she was in Young High and Dead, in which she played a character called Jenny.

Since 2014, she has been playing Michelle in the ITV sitcom series Edge of Heaven.

In 2015 she was in a music video for ILL BLU â€“ Give Me ft. Kahlia Bakosi. In 2015, Louisa was guest appearing in the episode Murdoch Mysteries barenaked ladies as Ginny Beasley

In 2016, Lytton took part in the third series of The Jump. She became the first celebrity to be eliminated on 31 January.

She is also in an Independent film called Fractured as Alva to released in 2016.

She is also in a film called Nowhere released in 2016.

In 2001, Lytton was in a musical production of Les Misérables, and played the leading role in the musical, Annie.

Lytton performed in the Peter Pan Pantomime at the Milton Keynes Theatre in 2008, and again at the Deco Theatre, Northampton in 2009. Also in 2009, she joined the British Shakespeare Company to tour the UK and Prague, playing Cobweb (a fairy) in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Hero in Much Ado About Nothing. Her other theatre credits include playing Debs in the Boogie Nights UK tour (Jan - April 2013), Princess Aurora in the pantomime Sleeping Beauty at the Hazlitt Theatre (2017), and Betty Rizzo in a UK tour of the musical Grease (2017â€“18).

Born in Camden, Lytton attended the Sylvia Young Theatre School in Marylebone, London. She is close friends with her former EastEnders co-stars Kara Tointon (Dawn Swann), Lacey Turner (Stacey Slater), and Matt Di Angelo (Deano Wicks). She is also friends with singer and Strictly Come Dancing rival Emma Bunton.[6] She is of Italian descent on her mother's side and her first cousin once removed is Lisa Maffia of So Solid fame. She is also an Arsenal fan. She also dated singer Aston Merrygold when she was younger.[7]


mention the name of two newspapers edited by mahatma gandhi

In 1933 Gandhiji started publishing a weekly newspaper, Harijan, in English. Harijan - which means "People of God", and was also Gandhi's term for the untouchable caste - lasted until 1948. During this time Gandhi also published Harijan Bandu in Gujarati, and Harijan Sevak in Hindi. All three papers focused on India's and the world's social and economic problems.[2]

Young India

Young India was a weekshed - a weekly paper or journal - in English published by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi from 1919 to 1931.[1] Gandhi wrote various quotations in this journal that inspired many. He used Young India to spread his unique ideology and thoughts regarding the use of nonviolence in organising movements and to urge readers to consider, organise, and plan for India's eventual independence from Britain.

The journal was reprinted in USA by the India Home Rule League of America.


when was the disclosure and barring service introduced

The DBS was formed in 2012 by merging the functions of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. DBS started operating on 1 December 2012.[1] It operates from Liverpool[2] and Darlington. Its equivalent agencies are Disclosure Scotland in Scotland and Access Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland.

Disclosure and Barring Service

Coordinates: 53°24′28.1″N 2°59′21.3″W / 53.407806°N 2.989250°W / 53.407806; -2.989250

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office of the United Kingdom. The DBS enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially that involving children or vulnerable adults, and provides wider access to criminal record information through its disclosure service for England and Wales.

It is a legal requirement in the UK for regulated activity employers to refer safeguarding concerns to the DBS. It is an offence for any person who has been barred by the DBS to work or apply to work with the group (children or adults) from which they are barred.[3] It is also an offence for an employer to knowingly employ a barred person in regulated activity with the group from which they are barred.

On 1st February 2018, the National Audit Office published an investigation report that was highly critical of the DBS.

In 2009, the Home Office launched a programme to increase the efficiency of safeguarding services. Key aims of the programme were to reduce the cost of running the disclosure service, through customers using a new and cheaper update service rather than continuing to use existing types of disclosure certificates. The Home Office expected 2.8 million paying users to be using the new update service by 2017â€“18, but it was not market tested and the actual number of users is around one million.

According to the National Audit Office investigation, the modernisation programme is now running three and a half years late and expected costs have increased by Â£229 million. DBS is currently negotiating with its contractor, Tata Consultancy Services, over the delays.

The modernisation programme and the update service were expected to increase the ease and frequency with which people were checked, thereby improving safeguarding. But the Home Office and DBS do not know how many people have been prevented from working with children or vulnerable adults through use of this information.

An organisation which is entitled to ask exempted questions (under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) must register with the DBS, or a registered DBS Umbrella Body before they can request a DBS check on an applicant. The applicant applies to the DBS with their application countersigned by the DBS Registered Organisation or Umbrella Body. The applicant's criminal record is then accessed from the Police National Computer (PNC), as well as checked, if appropriate, against lists of people considered unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable people maintained by the DBS (formerly maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. A Copy of the completed certificate is sent to the applicant's home address.[4]

If an individual or organisation has safeguarding concerns regarding a member of staff, they can make a safeguarding referral to the DBS who will work with multiple agencies to assess whether that individual should be Barred from working in regulated activity with children and/or vulnerable groups.[5]

The Criminal Records Bureau was established under Part V of the Police Act 1997 and was launched in March 2002, following public concern about the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. It was found that the British police forces did not have adequate capability or resources to routinely process and fulfil the large number of criminal record checks requested in a timely fashion, so a dedicated agency was set up to administer this function.[6]

Employers and temporary staff agencies have bemoaned the time it takes for a worker to be cleared by the DBS and in an effort to cut waiting times the government allowed the establishment of "Adult First".[citation needed]

In May 2002, the Department for Education began maintaining a list of individuals who are not suitable to work with children. This list was originally named List 99, later named the ISA Children's Barred List (maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Authority) and finally, the DBS Children's Barred List (maintained by the Disclosure and Barring Service.[7]

Under the Care Standards Act (2000), the Department for Health introduced an adult version of List 99 named 'POVA first' on 26 July 2004,[8] this was later renamed 'ISA Adult First' and finally; 'DBS Adult First'. The Adult first and List 99 services allow registered bodies (when eligible) to check whether an applicant appears on the DBS Adults' or Children's Barred List through the online checking system, this takes around two working days to turn around.[9] If the check is clean the organisation may provisionally employ the applicant, subject to an increased level in supervision, until the return by post of the full disclosure.[citation needed]

The process by which the DBS provides criminal record data is called DBS Certificate or a DBS check (previously CRB check). There are three levels of DBS checks, Standard, Enhanced and Enhanced with barred list checks (for Basic Disclosures, see Disclosure Scotland). DBS checks cannot be obtained by members of the public directly but are only available to organisations and only for those professions, offices, employments, work and occupations listed in the Exceptions Order (1975) to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974[10] as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[11] On 17 June 2013, a DBS update service was launched, intended to improve the ease of applying for criminal record checks and create significant savings. At a fee of Â£13 a year, applicants may use a certificate more than once within a sector where the disclosure level, workforce details, barring list checks and volunteer status are the same; an employer with consent to run a DBS update check can check that the existing certificate is up to date, and should check the applicant's identity and the certificate's authenticity. In January 2018 "Basic" DBS checks were introduced which will disclose details of any cautions or convictions deemend to be unspent in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.[12]

The basic DBS check will disclose any cautions, reprimands, warnings and convictions deemed to be unspent according to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This service is provided by DBS in England and Wales and Disclosure Scotland for applicants in Scotland. Applications can also be done online. An employer's reference to "a DBS check" could be taken as a requirement for a standard or enhanced check, which meant the disclosure of cautions and convictions, even once spent. However, with the introduction of the basic check, employers will now have to specify which check is required when advertising a job. The aim is that this service will reduce the need for unnecessary and ineligible Standard or Enhanced checks. You can apply for one through "Responsible Organisations" which is a list of organisations and websites who will apply for a check with you.[13]

The standard DBS check is primarily for positions of high responsibility (for example, accountancy and security).[14] Standard certificates reveal details of any convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings the applicant has received, that do not qualify for filtering. A standard check may only be applied for if the applicant's job role is specified in the Police Act 1997, as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[15]

Enhanced DBS checks are for positions involving certain activities such as teaching children or treating adults and can also be obtained for certain other professions (for example, judicial appointments, RSPCA officers). An enhanced check may only be applied for if the applicant's job role is specified in both the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exception) order 1975 and the Police Act 1997.[14]

In addition to the information provided on a Standard certificate, the Enhanced certificate involves an additional check with the police,[15] who check if any other information is held on file that may be relevant (for instance, information that has not led to a criminal conviction but may indicate a danger to vulnerable groups). The police decide what (if any) additional information will be added to the certificate using the Quality Assurance Framework.[16]

The involvement of local police forces can mean an enhanced check may take significantly longer than a standard check to be completed.[original research?]

This includes all that Enhanced certificate does, plus a check of the appropriate DBS Barred List. There are two DBS Barred Lists: one for adults, and one for children. The lists contain information on whether the applicant is barred from working with either of the two groups.[15] An individual may only be checked against one or both barred lists if their job role is classified as a "Regulated Activity" with children and/or adults under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Other roles from which they might be barred include work within people's homes, or areas such as postal work, in which they would have access to personal documents.

As of 29 May 2013[update], the DBS began to "filter" certain criminal information from a DBS certificate if it met the guidelines laid out in The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013[17]

The DBS work to a number of standards for the criminal record checking service and barring case accuracy.

Performance service standards are also agreed between the DBS and Police disclosure units.

The CRB had been due to partner with the ISA in administering the newly created Vetting and Barring Scheme from 2009. This was suspended in 2010 pending a review following the 2010 General Election.

This review was published in February 2011, making recommendations for the merger of the Criminal Records Bureau and Independent Safeguarding Authority into one new non-departmental public body, the Disclosure and Barring Service, responsible for barring individuals and completing criminal record checks. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the DBS does not require registration, nor are any details retained on a database.

The procedures of the CRB were tightened following the Soham murders trial. Ian Huntley, a former caretaker, was found guilty of murdering two girls from a Cambridgeshire primary school in 2002. Huntley had been suspected of a string of offences including rape, indecent assault and burglary. His only conviction before the murders was for riding an uninsured and unlicensed motorcycle, but a burglary charge had remained on file. In January 2006, following controversies resulting from cases where staff had been hired by schools before a full CRB check had been carried out, the Department for Education and Skills stated: "Employers should obtain a CRB Enhanced Disclosure in respect of all teachers they recruit before the person is placed in a school." Huntley had been hired in November 2001, before the CRB came into force.[18][19][20]

Sociologist Frank Furedi has stated that CRB checks cannot provide a "cast-iron guarantee that children will be safe with a particular adult", and that their use has created an atmosphere of suspicion and is "poisoning" relationships between the generations, with many ordinary parents finding themselves regarded as "potential child abusers".[6] The restrictions imposed by the CRB check process have contributed to a shortage of adult volunteers in organizations such as Girlguiding UK.[6]

In 2009 the CRB's Enhanced Disclosure was criticised for including details of any minor contact an individual has had with the police, even where no formal action was taken against them.[23]


who sings i wanna get next to you

"I Wanna Get Next to You" is a 1976 soul single written, composed and produced by American songwriter and producer Norman Whitfield, and most famously sung by American R&B band Rose Royce. It is the third official single from the Car Wash soundtrack. The song has also become a staple on oldies radio and on adult contemporary stations.

I Wanna Get Next to You

The song talks about how a narrator pleads love for a beautiful woman, except that the young woman is unkind, and does not understand his affection for her, as he wastes his own money calling her, but she does not respond, regardless, he still wants to "get next" to her.

The song became the group's second top 10 single on the US Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 10, and peaking at number 3 on the Hot Soul Singles chart. The song was also successful worldwide, becoming their second Top 40 hit in the United Kingdom, peaking at number 14 on the UK Singles Chart.

The song was sung on the popular sitcom in 1995, Martin, in the season three episode, "All the Players Came", where Martin Lawrence's character, Jerome, the pimp, sings the song to guest star Pam Grier as part of a competition, facing off with Dolemite and Huggy Bear (played by Rudy Ray Moore and Antonio Fargas) for Detroit's "Player of the Year" award, as part of the competition he sings the song poorly which attracts Pam Grier, which he later in the episode wins unanimously.[citation needed] In the same year, the sound was also featured on the soundtrack to the popular movie Friday.[citation needed] In 1997, this song was covered by R&B singer Cherrelle, and the r&b duo Christian.[citation needed] The song was also featured on the movie Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle.[citation needed]