Nancy Hernandez

Last updated

Nancy Hernandez (born c. 1945) is an American who was a 21-year-old resident and mother of two in Santa Barbara, California, in 1966, when she was ordered to be sterilized or be imprisoned. Nancy pleaded guilty that year for being with her boyfriend, Joseph Sanchez, while he used illegal narcotics. The Santa Barbara County judge that presided over the trial, Santa Barbara Municipal Court Judge Frank P. Kearney, requested that if she wanted to receive probation then she must submit to sterilization. The judge's decision channeled eugenic principles to assert that if Hernandez acts immorally then she should not be allowed to have more children. Nancy was one of many Latina women who were attempted to be forcibly sterilized. Many women of color across the United States who were asked to submit to sterilization, coerced into sterilization, or did not consent to sterilization. [1] Hernandez did not submit to forced sterilization and instead was sentenced to three months in jail. Her court-ordered attorney submitted a writ of habeas corpus to the superior court, which was granted by the judge. Hernandez was released to her probation officer and the sterilization provision of her probation order was removed. Her case was the first to receive national attention for sentences that called for sterilization of minority women.

Contents

Background

In 1950-1960 state legislators tried to pass laws for sterilization as punishment for conceiving illegitimately. However, these laws failed to pass. Instead, judges across the United States used sterilization for punishment of crimes calling these men and women unfit. [1]

Biography

Nancy Hernandez, born in California about 1945, was married to Tony Hernandez in 1962 at the age of seventeen. [2] [3] Three years later, on December 3, 1965, she received an interlocutory divorce. [2] She had two daughters, one with Hernandez who was born about 1964 and another born in 1966. Upon the birth of her daughter, Hernandez and her daughters lived with in Santa Barbara, California with Joseph Sanchez who was the father of her younger daughter. [2] Hernandez received welfare. [3]

Police processed a search warrant to search Hernandez and Sanchez's apartment which was found to have marijuana. Most sources state that she was found in a home with marijuana. The Ohio Law Journal states that there was also heroin present. [3] She was arrested for violating Section 11556 of the California Health and Safety Code [2] for being in a room with narcotics. [3] The charge was a misdemeanor with a maximum of six years in jail. [2] She pleaded guilty to knowing and living in a home were narcotics were used. The probation report stated that "she is a likeable person, apparently easily influenced by her associations, that she appears genuinely sorry for having committed the offense, that she has no prior criminal record". The probation officer recommended that she be held under probation for three years during which she was to refrain from associating with narcotic users and could not frequent any place where narcotics were sold. [3]

Judicial ruling

The judge that was over the trial, Judge Kearney, requested that if she wanted to get probation over a six-month jail term then she must submit to sterilization, a surgical procedure. [2] The judge's reason behind his decision was that if she acts immorally then she should not be allowed to have more children. [4] However, this is not all that Nancy Hernandez would go on to be known for. Her case was one of many for Mexican American and Indigenous-American women in America. The practice of sterilizing women of color became a normal practice for punishment. The Author, Rebecca Kluchin discusses in her book, Fit to be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950-1980, how women deemed to be unfit mothers were forced into involuntary sterilization. This practice existed well through the twentieth century and was a form of eugenics and neo-eugenics to control minority populations in America. [1] In Herndandez's case, it was assumed that because she was a minority and in the presence of marijuana that she naturally would descend to non-moral conduct and should not have children. Kearney's main goal was to reduce the state's welfare expenditures through forced sterilization. [1]

Hernandez inevitably did not submit to forced sterilization and instead was sentenced to three months in jail. [1]

Appeal

Her court-appointed attorney, Louis Renga, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the superior court. [5] Hernandez's lawyer stated that Judge Kearney was using Hernandez to make the public consider what is moral or immoral and his decision was based on neo-eugenic principles. [1] C. Douglas Smith of the Superior Court granted the writ. Hernandez was released to her probation officer, serving only a few hours of her three-month sentence. The sterilization provision was stricken from the probation order. [3] [5]

In his opinion, the Judge C. Douglas Smith stated:

In our Country we are a people governed under law and not by the whims and caprice of men in power. . . . The courts and judges in the Judicial Branch may not enact laws nor may they set aside a law if it is constitutionally valid. They may affect law by judicial interpretation where its meaning is in doubt but they may not create a law where none exists nor may they alter the plain meaning of a statute to conform to their personal beliefs .... Judges may not ignore a law simply because they do not like it or believe in it.... Nor may a court act in excess of the power given it under the law. If an officer of the executive branch of government or a judge of the judicial branch should be permitted to act contrary to law or in excess of the power given him by law, this would mark a departure from our fundamental concept of rule by law and it would mean a reverting back to rule by men, that is to say rule in accordance with the whim, caprice and prejudices of men in power. This is wholly repugnant to our concept of government. [3]

Aftermath and legacy

Upon her release, Hernandez lived with her sister and brother-in-law in Santa Barbara. [5] In 1967, she was married to Sanchez by Judge Kearney, the man who had sentenced her to sterilization. [6]

According to researcher Luis Quinones, by standing up against sterilization as a sentence, her case is one of the important events in Hispanic history in the United States. [7] Although many women of color were subject to sterilization practices, Latina women were subjected seven times the rate of white and African American women throughout the twentieth century. [8] Nancy's was the first case to reach national and public attention and resulted in protests on women's rights and reproductive rights across the country. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the U.S. state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled "An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective". This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law, which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emily Murphy</span> Canadian politician

Emily Murphy was a Canadian women's rights activist and author. In 1916, she became the first female magistrate in Canada and in the British Empire. She is best known for her contributions to Canadian feminism, specifically to the question of whether women were "persons" under Canadian law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo surgical sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, is a government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done through surgical procedures. Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century. Although such programs have been made illegal in most countries of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations persist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Integrity Act of 1924</span> Virginia anti-miscegenation law

In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act. The act reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and classifying as "white" a person "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian." The act, an outgrowth of eugenicist and scientific racist propaganda, was pushed by Walter Plecker, a white supremacist and eugenicist who held the post of registrar of Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.

<i>Stump v. Sparkman</i> 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case on judicial immunity

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hereditary Health Court</span>

The Hereditary Health Court, also known as the Genetic Health Court, was a court that decided whether people should be forcibly sterilized in Nazi Germany. That method of using courts to make decisions on hereditary health in Nazi Germany was created to implement the Nazi race policy aiming for racial hygiene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span>

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

<i>Madrigal v. Quilligan</i>

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal class action lawsuit from Los Angeles County, California, involving sterilization of Latina women that occurred either without informed consent, or through coercion. Although the judge ruled in favor of the doctors, the case led to better informed consent for patients, especially those who are not native English speakers.

In the early 21st century, advocacy for drug legalization has increased in Latin America. Spearheading the movement, the Uruguayan government announced in 2012 plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in California</span> Forced sterilization program in California

Eugenics in California is a notable part of eugenics in America. As an early leading force in the field of eugenics, California became the third state in the United States to enact a sterilization law. By 1921, California had accounted for 80% of sterilizations nationwide. This continued until the Civil Rights Movement, when widespread critiques against society's "total institutions" dismantled popular acceptance for the state's forced sterilizations. There were an estimated 20,000 forced sterilizations in California between 1909 and 1979; however, that number may be an underestimation. In 2021, California enacted a reparations program to compensate the hundreds of still living victims from its eugenics program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924</span> 1924 U.S. state law allowing compulsory sterilization for eugenic purposes

The Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 was a U.S. state law in Virginia for the sterilization of institutionalized persons "afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy”. It greatly influenced the development of eugenics in the twentieth century. The act was based on model legislation written by Harry H. Laughlin and challenged by a case that led to the United States Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell. The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional and it became a model law for sterilization laws in other states. Justice Holmes wrote that a patient may be sterilized "on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse." Between 1924 and 1979, Virginia sterilized over 7,000 individuals under the act. The act was never declared unconstitutional; however, in 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution apologizing for the misuse of "a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover activities of those who held blatantly racist views." In 2015, the Assembly agreed to compensate individuals sterilized under the act.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

People v. Turner, formally The People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), was a criminal case in which Brock Allen Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault.

Michael Aaron Persky is an American attorney and former judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court from 2003 to 2018. He gained attention after his ruling in the case People v. Turner, in which he in June 2016 sentenced Stanford University student Brock Turner to 6 months in prison for the sexual assault and attempted rape of an unconscious 22-year-old woman, Chanel Miller, which was a sentence recommended by the Santa Clara County Probation Department. Despite allegations that race, gender, and class bias influenced his lenient sentencing of Turner, the California Commission on Judicial Performance found that there was not clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing in their investigation of the case. Nonetheless, Persky was recalled by voters on June 5, 2018, during the 2018 California primary elections.

<i>No más bebés</i> 2015 American film

No Más Bebés is an American documentary film that tells the story of immigrant women who were sterilized upon going into labor. Having been sterilized without knowing at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, the mothers sued county doctors, the State of California, and the United States government. Having collected hospital records from a whistleblower, Chicana lawyer Antonia Hernandez led the lawsuit against powerful institutions.

The Relf Sisters, Minnie Lee and Mary Alice Relf, are two African-American sisters who were involuntarily sterilized by tubal ligation by a federally funded family planning clinic in Montgomery, Alabama in 1973. News coverage of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center brought the fact of U.S. government-funded sterilization abuse to the national spotlight.

Sterilization of Latinas has been practiced in the United States on women of different Latin American identities, including those from Puerto Rico and Mexico. There is a significant history of such sterilization practices being conducted involuntarily, in a coerced or forced manner, as well as in more subtle forms such as that of constrained choice. Forced sterilization was permissible by multiple states throughout various periods in the 20th century. Issues of state sterilization have persisted as recently as September 2020. Some sources credit the practice to theories of racial eugenics.

Eugenics was practiced in about 33 different states. Oregon was one of the many states that implemented eugenics programs and laws. This affected a number of different groups that were marginalized for being "unfit" and often were subject to forced sterilization.

Compulsory sterilization of disabled people in the U.S. prison system was permitted in the United States from 1907 to the 1960s, during which approximately 60,000 people were sterilized, two-thirds of these people being women. During this time, compulsory sterilization was motivated by eugenics. There is a lengthy history when it comes to compulsory sterilization in the United States and legislation allowing compulsory sterilization pertaining to developmentally disabled people, the U.S. prison system, and marginalized communities.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kluchin, Rebecca M. (2011). Fit to Be Tied. Rutgers University Press. doi:10.36019/9780813548319. ISBN   9780813548319. S2CID   243708220.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shearer, Lloyd (August 7, 1966). "Should this woman be allowed to have more children?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2022-11-14.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zenoff Ferster, Elyce. "Eliminating the Unfit - Is Sterilization the Answer?" (PDF). Ohio Law Journal. 27: 611.
  4. ↑ "Criminal Justice: Jail or Sterilization?". Time. 1966-06-03. ISSN   0040-781X . Retrieved 2022-09-19.
  5. 1 2 3 Shearer, Lloyd (August 7, 1966). "Should this woman be allowed to have more children? page 2". The Boston Globe. p. 221. Retrieved 2022-11-14.
  6. ↑ "Judge and Bride Had Met Before". The Gazette. 1967-09-06. p. 31. Retrieved 2022-11-14.
  7. ↑ Waters, Archie (1995-02-09). "Researcher highlights Hispanic history". El Paso Times. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-11-14.
  8. ↑ Rios, Elsa (October 5, 2022). "A National Latina Agenda for Reproductive Rights" (PDF).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.