Make America Healthy- Eugenics and AktionT4

The executive order established by the President's "Make America Healthy Again Commission" could inadvertently target disabled people with chronic illnesses if the approach to addressing health issues does not consider the complexities of disability and chronic illness in a humane and inclusive way. In particular, this commission's strong focus on "reversing" chronic diseases and addressing "root causes" could potentially lead to policies that marginalize people living with these conditions, especially if those affected are seen as "problems" to be "fixed" rather than individuals deserving of support and care.

Fiction Is Becoming Fact

The history of disabled people being marginalized and isolated in society provides some troubling parallels to historical instances where individuals and groups were "othered" or scapegoated in the name of public health or national purity. For example, early in Adolf Hitler's rise to power, one of the first groups he targeted were individuals with disabilities, particularly those with chronic or mental illnesses. The Nazis implemented a program called "Aktion T4," which involved the forced euthanasia of people with disabilities, claiming that it would help the nation by eliminating "undesirable" traits. Hitler's regime propagated the belief that those with disabilities were a burden on society and were "unworthy of life." This led to the murder of tens of thousands of disabled people under the guise of improving the health of the nation.

In a similar vein, if the "Make America Healthy Again" initiative is not carefully crafted with the voices and rights of disabled people in mind, there is a risk that those with chronic diseases could be viewed as obstacles to national health and productivity. Policies that prioritize "health" in a narrow, able-bodied sense could lead to discrimination against disabled people, stigmatizing them as "unhealthy" or "unworthy." The idea of "ending childhood chronic disease" might inadvertently imply that those who already live with chronic conditions are failures or burdens.

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid’s Tale illustrates how governments can manipulate and control populations by systematically dismantling their rights and isolating them. In the dystopian society of Gilead, groups such as women and non-conforming individuals are stripped of their autonomy and forced into restrictive roles that serve the state's agenda. While Atwood’s novel focuses on gender and reproductive control, the process of "othering" and isolating populations can apply to any group that is deemed less valuable or "undesirable." In the same way, people with disabilities can be marginalized when their lives are not seen as equal or worthy of dignity, often justified by a nationalistic narrative focused on "purity" or health.

In both cases—Nazi Germany's treatment of disabled individuals and the world presented in The Handmaid’s Tale—there is a disturbing common thread: a dehumanizing view of people who do not conform to the idealized vision of society. These policies often start with the language of health or purity, but their underlying message is one of exclusion and devaluation. When governments or movements prioritize a single vision of "health" or "purity," those who do not fit this vision, such as people with disabilities or chronic conditions, become targets for exclusion or worse.

The executive order's focus on addressing chronic diseases and improving national health, while seemingly well-intentioned, risks further marginalizing already vulnerable populations, including the poor, Indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups. These populations often face barriers to accessing quality healthcare, nutritious food, and supportive environments, making it unlikely that they will benefit equally from initiatives that focus primarily on health improvement without addressing systemic inequalities.

Additionally, the current administration’s cuts to vital funding and departments, including those involved in vaccine development for illnesses like bird flu, have weakened critical public health infrastructure. These contradictory actions—issuing orders for national health improvement while simultaneously slashing resources—undermine efforts to address health disparities and create a chaotic environment. Such cuts can further destabilize an already inadequate healthcare system, aligning with the tactics of authoritarian regimes that seek to manipulate public health crises to consolidate power, creating a culture of fear and inequality.

Eugenics

The executive order's focus on addressing chronic diseases and improving national health, particularly through the lens of reducing childhood chronic diseases and "reversing" illness, can be seen as indirectly linked to eugenics when framed through the lens of selective health interventions and the potential devaluation of certain populations. Eugenics, historically, was the belief in improving the human race through selective breeding and eliminating those considered "genetically inferior" or "unfit." In the context of this executive order, if policies are narrowly focused on eliminating chronic diseases, mental health conditions, or physical disabilities without acknowledging the social and systemic causes of health disparities, it could mirror eugenics' problematic oal of "purifying" the population to meet a certain ideal of health or genetic fitness.

The rhetoric of "improving" national health by targeting chronic conditions can inadvertently encourage a society that views certain groups—particularly people with disabilities or chronic illnesses—as less worthy or valuable. This is reminiscent of eugenics programs that historically targeted individuals with disabilities, mental health issues, and other conditions deemed undesirable. For instance, the order's emphasis on "root causes" of illness might, if poorly implemented, risk portraying people living with chronic conditions as burdens or problems to be "fixed" or eliminated from society, rather than addressing the structural inequities that contribute to such conditions. This shift could echo past eugenic policies that sought to control population health by deeming certain lives "unworthy" of support or care.

Furthermore, the focus on "improving" health through government policy can veer into territory where those who do not meet certain health standards might be marginalized or excluded, similar to how eugenic programs sought to restrict reproductive rights or even forced sterilizations of individuals considered "unfit." The call for greater transparency in health data and research, while essential, could also be used to push policies that disproportionately target marginalized communities, such as low-income, Indigenous, or disabled populations, leading to further stigmatization or even forced interventions under the guise of public health.

While the executive order does not explicitly promote eugenics, its framework, if not carefully designed with an inclusive and equitable approach, risks contributing to societal views that prioritize certain kinds of health or bodies over others, inadvertently aligning with eugenics-style thinking.

Project 2025

The current executive order, which focuses on addressing chronic disease, improving national health, and reshaping public health initiatives, aligns with several of the goals outlined in Project 2025, an initiative backed by conservative groups and think tanks. 

Project 2025 seeks to reshape the federal government, particularly its regulatory bodies, by reducing government intervention, streamlining policies, and reasserting conservative values, often under the guise of efficiency or national interest. 

The executive order’s emphasis on improving health by focusing on chronic diseases, lifestyle changes, and "root causes" of illness could be used as a vehicle to justify broader cuts to public health programs, reduce funding to essential health agencies, and introduce privatized or market-driven healthcare solutions, which are central themes of Project 2025.

Moreover, Project 2025 emphasizes reducing government oversight and shifting control from public institutions to private sectors. This could correlate with the executive order’s push for greater transparency and shifting health responsibilities to private entities, such as farmers and the food industry, under the claim of promoting healthier food options. 

By dismantling public health infrastructure while simultaneously promoting private sector-led solutions, this agenda risks reinforcing the systemic inequities that disproportionately affect low-income, Indigenous, and marginalized populations. This aligns with Project 2025’s broader aim of reshaping governmental roles to serve the interests of private corporations and reducing support for vulnerable populations, creating a landscape where health care becomes more about market access than public good.

Therefore, while the intent of addressing health disparities and chronic diseases in the United States is undoubtedly important, it is critical to ensure that the policies do not inadvertently follow the dangerous path of historical precedents that dehumanized vulnerable populations. 

This means recognizing the inherent value and dignity of all people, including those with disabilities, and ensuring that health initiatives are inclusive, not punitive, in their approach.

Call your representatives frequently!