“Who Controls the List?”: The Dangerous Implications of RFK Jr.’s Autism Database Proposal

It starts with a database. A list of names. Profiles. Labels. A government-sanctioned registry of “low-functioning” or “dangerous” autistic children, under the justification of public safety or parental relief.

That’s what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has floated—an idea cloaked in concern, but built on foundations that history has taught us to fear.

But who gets to define “dangerous”? Who controls the data? And more importantly—what happens next?

We don’t have to speculate wildly. We only need to look at history and recent global trends to see what happens when governments, guided by pseudoscience and fear, gain access to information about vulnerable populations.

The Ghosts of Eugenics: David and Mark Geier

One of RFK Jr.’s most disturbing associations is with Dr. Mark Geier and his son, David Geier. The Geiers were responsible for promoting deeply unethical and medically dangerous “treatments” for autism, including the use of Lupron, a drug used for chemical castration. Their work was not just discredited—it was condemned. Medical licenses were revoked for Mark Greier but his son David never had them to begin with. Their actions were called “a serious threat to the health and safety of autistic children” by multiple boards.

And yet, RFK Jr. has referenced and echoed their views—lending credibility to men who treated autism not as a condition to understand and support, but as something to eradicate.

Now imagine giving someone with those sympathies the power to create a national database of autistic children.

Newly hired, David Greir is along for the ride in this race for a “guaranteed cure” by September, still without medical licensing all these years later.

Australia, Down Syndrome, and the Logic of “Prevention”

This isn’t theoretical. In Australia, widespread prenatal screening for Down syndrome has led to a dramatic decline in births of children with the condition. Though framed as a choice, families often report feeling pressured to terminate pregnancies following a diagnosis—an unspoken national campaign of “prevention” that walks a fine line between health policy and ableist elimination. Their stories echo a harsh reality of loss.

When a government frames neurodivergence or disability as a threat, “care” quickly becomes control. Support becomes surveillance. Choice becomes coercion. Who decides when people aren’t viable and what is the limitation?

Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and the Rebrand of Eugenics

To understand how dangerous ideas are repackaged, we can look to Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a eugenicist who believed in controlling the reproduction of those deemed “unfit.” Over time, her organization strategically distanced itself from these origins, adopting the language of women’s rights and empowerment—an essential pivot, but one that never fully reckoned with its past or moved far from its preferred client neighborhoods.

It’s a case study in how eugenics evolves, not vanishes. It finds new language, new justifications, new faces. Still targeting its preferred audience. And today, it’s wearing the face of public health again—this time, under the guise of safety from “dangerous” and “unproductive” children.

Remember Aktion T4

Nazi Germany’s Aktion T4 program began with disabled children. It was framed as mercy. As protection. It ended in mass murder. Families were told their children were being taken to receive care. They never returned.

That might seem extreme to invoke—but the warning signs aren’t in the outcomes. They’re in the language, the justifications, and the systems we build under the assumption that some lives are more burdensome than others. Some lives aren’t valuable economically.

The Emotional Truth: Protect Our Children

This isn’t just about bad policy or poor science. This is about how a society sees its children: as humans worthy of dignity, or as data points to be sorted and managed. It’s about whether we will stand by as unstable politicians and pseudo-doctors reduce a child’s value to their ability to “pay taxes,” or whether we will fight—fiercely and unapologetically—for their lives, their integrity, and their right to exist as they are.

Autistic children are not threats. They are not burdens. They are people with rights, dignity, and a need for understanding, not regulation.

A government database isn’t support—it’s surveillance.

And in the hands of someone aligned with Geier’s ideology, it’s not a tool for help. It’s a weapon.

Echoes from our past keep screaming, why aren’t we listening yet?