Eugenics in California

Last updated

Eugenics in California
Part of eugenics in the United States
Napa State Hospital c. 1900.jpg
The Napa State Hospital
Date1909–1979
Location California
Type Forced sterilization
Motive Ableism, racism [1]
Target Disabled people
People with mental illness
Mexican-Americans
African Americans
Casualties
20,000 [2]

Eugenics in California is a notable part of eugenics in the United States. 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. [3] There were an estimated 20,000 forced sterilizations in California between 1909 and 1979; however, that number may be an underestimation. [4] [5] In 2021, California enacted a reparations program to compensate the hundreds of still living victims from its eugenics program. [6]

Contents

General forms of eugenics

In California, "[eugenics] was always linked to the use of land: to agriculture and plant hybridization". [7] Many of the powerful social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and biologists, sought to hurt many of California's Mexican, Native American, and Asian populations through the exclusionary laws that those scientists proposed. In addition to the conquest to hurt the "undesirables" in the state, the California Eugenics plan also was a way to save the state money so they could eliminate the money the state spends on welfare and other programs that help the less fortunate. [7] Eugenics takes three forms in California:

  1. limiting the number of children for whom a woman on welfare can get state support,
  2. coercing women of color who need a caesarean section, and women dependent on illicit drugs, to surrender reproductive capacities and
  3. requiring contraception use as a term of probation. [7] In previous years, California had focused on applying eugenics indirectly to humans as a form of "societal benefit". Now, the eugenicists of the state only focus their resources to save the state money. [8]

California is thought of by some as a Eugenics trailblazer in the time before the Nazis used it as an excuse to commit mass murder. [9] Historians have estimated from 1909 to 1963, some 20,000 people were sterilized in California asylums and hospitals. [10] In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were conducted, out of which 700 were women. In 1933, the state's top two sterilization facilities were Sonoma State Home (388 operations) and Patton State Hospital (363 operations). Other state hospitals with sterilization centers included Agnews State Hospital, Mendocino State Hospital, Napa State Hospital, Metropolitan State Hospital, Stockton State Hospital, and Pacific Colony. [9] In the 1930s and 1940s, three more hospitals for the mentally unstable were constructed (Camarillo State Hospital, DeWitt State Hospital, and Modesto State Hospital), resulting in a total of nine hospitals for the mentally insane in California to nine by the end of the sterilization period. [11]

California prisons

In 1909 a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed "unfit" or "feeble-minded". [12] The Asexualization Act authorized the involuntary sterilization of certain groups of people, including inmates of state hospitals, certain institutionalized people, life-sentenced prisoners, repeat offenders of certain sexual offenses, or simply repeat offenders. [7] As one of the leading states in forced sterilization victims, California's sterilization procedures primarily took place in state mental hospitals. Leo Stanley was one of the first people to bring the eugenics movement to California's prisons. [13]

Stanley was San Quentin penitentiary's chief surgeon and was particularly interested in eliminating those deemed "unfit" for society. [13] His avid eugenic-based surgeries were the first of its kind to be seen in a prison. Taking place between 1913 and 1941, the peak of the eugenics movement, Stanley's surgeries were driven by the idea of purifying criminals. [13] Through testicular surgeries, he believed he could cultivate socially 'fit' individuals by replacing a prisoner's testicles with those of a deceased male previously deemed socially 'fit'. His practices spawned early ideologies of "white manhood", which stemmed from his belief that he could "help a new, ideal man emerge". [14]

Use of human and even animal testicles made Stanley's procedures highly unsuccessful and all around bizarre. His desire to restore social morality, along with his fascination with the endocrine system, fueled his research. Throughout the time of his procedures, criminals were believed to have something anatomically off that drove them to commit crimes. This belief inspired Stanley to explore the endocrine system's role in the criminology of a person. By persuading inmates that his testicular surgeries would produce favorable results in their sex lives he sterilized more than 600 prisoners by the end of his career. [14] Stanley's prison work concluded upon the start of World War II where he served overseas, only to retire as a eugenic pioneer. [14]

Human Betterment Foundation

The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was established in Pasadena, California, in 1928. Led by E.S. Gosney, the HBF sought to dispel the critics of sterilization by publishing authoritative, scientific reports demonstrating the benefits of sexual surgery for mental patients, their families, and society, as well as to encourage the wider application of eugenic sterilization laws at the state, national, and international levels. [15] In 1929 E.S. Gosney set up the HBF and gathered 25 of the leading scientists, philanthropists, and community leaders to carry out research on the effects of sterilization for thirteen years (Valone). [15] Gosney also used the HBF to distribute the product of his research, "Sterilization for Human Betterment", which attracted attention from the nearby university, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Robert A. Millikan, a leading faculty member and proponent of Caltech, was looking for potential donors to the university and shared many of Gosney's views in his work decided to join the HBF board.The HBF asserted that sterilization was neither mutilation nor punishment, and it sought to dispel the widely held view that sterilization inhibited or increased sexual promiscuity. It was revealed that nearly 10 million Americans had "eugenically undesirable children", and that it would take a single generation of vigorous sterilization to reduce the incidences of "mental abnormalities" by nearly 40%. [15]

Lois Gosney Castle and the board of trustees eventually liquidated the foundation and turned the proceeds over to Caltech. [16] Thirteen years after publishing the 1929 report entitled "Sterilization for Human Betterment", the HBF continued to carry out research on the effects of sterilization and undertook widespread distribution of the report to individuals, public libraries, and schools. After the liquidation, files were found in 1968, but since they contained personal medical information, they were legally closed to researchers. [16] Following Gosney's death in 1942, the Trustees of the Human Betterment Foundation agreed that transferring the Foundation's activities to the California Institute of Technology would be in the best interests of the Foundation.

Madrigal v. Quilligan

Dolores Madrigal entered the University of Southern California's medical center on October 12, 1973, in order to give birth to her second child. During her time in labor, she was given a consent form and coerced by doctors into having a tubal ligation, effectively sterilizing her. Madrigal insisted that "No one at the medical center informed me that a tubal ligation operation was going to be performed on me. No one at the medical center informed me of what a tubal ligation operation consists nor of its permanent effects" (Enoch, 5). Rebecca M. Kluchin found while researching the case that "Physicians preferred to perform cesarean sections and tubal ligations in tandem to minimize risks associated with infection and anesthesia, as well as to reduce medical costs. It appears that at this hospital physicians who performed emergency cesarean sections sometimes used the opportunity to persuade a woman to accept permanent contraception". [17]

In July 1976, Madrigal sued the University of Southern California medical center, [18] accompanied by Guadalupe Acosta, Estela Benavides, Consuelo Hermosillo, Georgina Hernandez, Maria Hurtado, Maria Figueroa, Rebecca Figueroa, Jovita Rivera, and Helena Orozco. Each of the nine other women who joined the class action lawsuit complained of similar proceedings. Together, these 10 chicanas decided to sue the USC medical center, contending that they had never given their informed consent to have the tubal ligation procedure performed. Karen Benker testified concerning discussions with then head of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edward James Quilligan, in which he asserted that "poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized". [8]

Despite Benker's testimony and other corroborating evidence, Judge Jesse Curtis ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that there had been nothing more than "a breakdown in communication between the patients and the doctors" (Stern 1135). He went on to say that it was appropriate for an obstetrician to believe that a tubal ligation could help diminish overpopulation as long as they did not attempt to "overpower the will of his patients". [8]

Californian eugenicists

California Assembly Bill AB-1007 Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program.(2021-2022)

The 2021-22 state budget package included funding $7.5 million for the California Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program legislation, [25] to begin Jan. 1, 2022, administered by the California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB), for survivors of state-sponsored sterilization 1909 through 1979 [26] and survivors of involuntary sterilizations in women’s prisons after 1979 [27] to ask about and apply for compensation (www.victims.ca.gov/fiscp or reach out to CalVCB at 800-777-9229 or fiscp@victims.ca.gov). Researchers estimated hundreds of Californians are alive who might hypothetically qualify before the December 2023 deadline, but reportedly as of early September 2023, only 101 applications had been approved, with seven cases closed as incomplete, and 339 denied. [28]

State records

Records of eugenics practices in California are held at the following agencies and institutions. Some records are still protected for confidentiality reasons.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Aim to improve perceived human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not.

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">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo 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">Paul Popenoe</span>

Paul Bowman Popenoe was an American marriage counselor, eugenicist and agricultural explorer. He was an influential advocate of the compulsory sterilization of mentally ill people and people with mental disabilities, and the father of marriage counseling in the United States.

<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 the Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry H. Laughlin</span> American eugenicist (1880–1943)

Harry Hamilton Laughlin was an American educator and eugenicist. He served as the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closure in 1939, and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Goethe</span> U.S. Eugenicist

Charles Matthias Goethe was an American eugenicist, entrepreneur, land developer, philanthropist, conservationist, founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California, and a native and lifelong resident of Sacramento, California.

The American Eugenics Society (AES) was a pro-eugenics organization dedicated to "furthering the discussion, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge about biological and sociocultural forces which affect the structure and composition of human populations". It endorsed the study and practice of Eugenics in the United States. Its original name as the American Eugenics Society lasted from 1922 to 1973, but the group changed their name after open use of the term "eugenics" became disfavored; it was known as the Society for the Study of Social Biology from 1973-2008, and the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology from 2008–2019. The Society was disbanded in 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">E. S. Gosney</span> American financier, eugenicist

Ezra Seymour Gosney was an American philanthropist and eugenicist. In 1928 he founded the Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) in Pasadena, California, with the stated aim "to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship," primarily through the advocacy of compulsory sterilization of people who are mentally ill or intellectually disabled.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Betterment Foundation</span>

The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was an American eugenics organization established in Pasadena, California in 1928 by E.S. Gosney and Rufus B. von KleinSmid with the aim "to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship". It primarily served to compile and distribute information about compulsory sterilization legislation in the United States, for the purposes of eugenics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nazi eugenics</span> Nazi German policy of the murder of "undesirable" persons from the German people

The social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany were composed of various ideas about genetics. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center. These policies were used to justify the involuntary sterilization and mass-murder of those deemed "undesirable".

Compulsory sterilization in Canada has a documented history in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. It is still ongoing as in 2017, sixty Indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies. In June 2021, the Standing Committee on Human Rights in Canada found that compulsory sterilization is ongoing in Canada and its extent has been underestimated.

<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.

<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.

Alexandra Minna Stern is the Humanities Dean, and Professor of English and History, and at the Institute for Society and Genetics, at the University of California, Los Angeles.

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.

Marian Stephenson Olden (1881–1981) was an American eugenics activist and an influential figure in the sterilization movement. She founded the Sterilization League of New Jersey in 1937, which unsuccessfully lobbied for New Jersey to pass a law enabling the compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit to procreate. In the years following World War II, the sterilization movement distanced itself from Olden, whose increasingly unpopular views on compulsory sterilization, and abrasive, uncompromising personality were seen as liabilities. The Sterilization League, then known as Birthright Inc., formally severed ties with Olden in 1948.

References

  1. Simmonds, Janet (2006). "Coercion in California: Eugenics Reconstituted in Welfare Reform, the Contracting of Reproductive Capcity, and Terms of Probation". Hastings Women's Law Journal. 17: 269.
  2. Zhang S (3 January 2017). "A Long-Lost Data Trove Uncovers California's Sterilization Program". The Atlantic. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  3. Stern AM (August 8, 2005). Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (1 ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN   978-0520244443 . Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  4. Stolerman K. "The American Eugenics Movement: A Study of the Dispersal and Application of Racial Ideologies". Aisthesis. University of Minnesota. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Kaelber L. "California Eugenics". University of Vermont. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  6. "Survivors of California's forced sterilizations: 'It's like my life wasn't worth anything'". the Guardian. 2021-07-19. Retrieved 2021-07-25.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Simmonds, Janet (2006). "Coercion in California: Eugenics Reconstituted in Welfare Reform, the Contracting of Reproductive". Hastings Women's Law Journal: 269.
  8. 1 2 3 Stern AM (July 2005). "Sterilized in the name of public health: race, immigration, and reproductive control in modern California". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (7): 1128–38. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608. PMC   1449330 . PMID   15983269.
  9. 1 2 Black, Edwin (November 9, 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection". SFGate. Retrieved 2021-03-22.
  10. Dowd, Katie (2016-06-16). "Historic asylums and sanitariums of Northern California". SFGate. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  11. Wellerstein, Alex (2011). State of Eugenics: Institutions and Practices of Compulsory Sterilization in California. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 29–58.
  12. Miroslava C (2007). "Intelligence Testing at Whittier School, 1890-1920". Pacific Historical Review. 76 (2): 193–228. doi:10.1525/phr.2007.76.2.193. JSTOR   10.1525/phr.2007.76.2.193.
  13. 1 2 3 Blue, Ethan (2009-05-01). "The Strange Career of Leo Stanley: Remaking Manhood and Medicine at San Quentin State Penitentiary, 1913––1951". Pacific Historical Review. 78 (2): 210–241. doi:10.1525/phr.2009.78.2.210. ISSN   0030-8684.
  14. 1 2 3 Blue E (2009). "The Strange Career of Leo Stanley: Remaking Manhood and Medicine at San Quentin State Penitentiary, 1913–1951". Pacific Historical Review. 78 (2): 210–241. doi:10.1525/phr.2009.78.2.210. JSTOR   10.1525/phr.2009.78.2.210.
  15. 1 2 3 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/messages/downloadsexceeded.html . Retrieved 2021-03-22.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. 1 2 Rader, Karen. "C.C. Little and the Jackson Laboratory Archives:Some Notes on the Intersecting Histories of Eugenics, Mammalian Genetics, and Cancer Research". Mendel Newsletter.
  17. Kluchin RM (2007). "Locating the voices of the sterilized". The Public Historian. 29 (3): 131–44. doi:10.1525/tph.2007.29.3.131. JSTOR   10.1525/tph.2007.29.3.131. PMID   18175455.
  18. Stern, Alexandra Minna (July 2005). "STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (7): 1128–1138. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608. ISSN   0090-0036. PMC   1449330 . PMID   15983269.
  19. Johnston T (January 2010). "Meet President Jordan". Stanford Magazine. Stanford University. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  20. Jordan DS. "The Days of a Man: Being Memories of a Naturalist, Teacher, and Minor Prophet of Democracy". World Book Company. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  21. Platt T (2005). "Charles M. Goethe, American Eugenics, and Sacramento State University". Social Justice. 32 (2): 17–33. JSTOR   29768305 . Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  22. "Ulysses S. Webb, 19th Attorney General". Office of the Attorney General. State of California Department of Justice. 20 January 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  23. Ingram C (12 March 2003). "State Issues Apology for Policy of Sterilization". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  24. Kelly K (29 March 2018). "Palo Alto: Middle schools to be named after Frank Greene Jr., Ellen Fletcher". The Mercury News. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  25. "Bill Text - AB-1007 Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program".
  26. "California Launches Program to Compensate Survivors of State-Sponsored Sterilization". 31 December 2021.
  27. "Survivors".
  28. "California promised reparations to survivors of forced sterilization. Few people have gotten them". 5 September 2023.

Further reading