Psychological state

Sexual repression is a state in which a person is prevented from expressing their own sexuality. Sexual repression is often linked with feelings of guilt or shame being associated with sexual impulses. Defining characteristics and practices associated with sexual repression vary between societies and different historical periods. The behaviours and attitudes constituting sexual repression differ across cultures, religious communities and moral systems. Sexual repression can largely be categorised as physical, mental or an amalgam of both.

Sexual repression is enforced through legislation in certain countries, many of which are located in the Middle East and North Africa region, and South Asia. Common practices associated with the practice include female genital mutilation. Individuals believed to have engaged in behaviours contradicting social, religious or cultural expectations of sexual repression, such as same-sex sexual activity, may be punished through honor killings, persecution or the death penalty.

Sigmund Freud was the first to use the term 'sexual repression' widely, and argued that it was one of the roots of many problems in Western society.[1] Freud believed that people's naturally strong instincts toward sexuality were repressed by people in order to meet the constraints imposed on them by civilized life. Among many others, Freud believed renowned artist Leonardo da Vinci to have been a repressed homosexual, who he believed "sublimated" his sexual desires so as to achieve artistic brilliance.[2] However, Freud's ideas about sexual repression have been subject to heavy criticism. According to sex therapist Bernard Apfelbaum, Freud did not base his belief in universal innate, natural sexuality on the strength of sexual desire he saw in people, but rather on its weakness.[3]

In some periods of Indian history, anaphrodisiacs were utilised in order to lower libido.[4]

In contemporary society, medication may be prescribed to registered sex offenders in order to lower the libido and ensure that further offences are less likely.

Sexual repression is a recurring prohibition in many religious contexts.

Most forms of Christianity discourage homosexual behavior.[5]

Many forms of Islam have strict sexual codes which include banning homosexuality, demanding virginity before marriage, accompanied by a ban on fornication, and can require modest dress-codes for men and women.[6]

Chemical castration has also been practiced upon male choristers prior to puberty to ensure that their vocal range remained unchanged. This practice of creating "Castrati" was common until the 18th century, and after a decline in popularity were only used in the Vatican up until the beginning of the twentieth century.[7]

Marriage has historically been seen as means of controlling sexuality.[8] Some forms of marriage, such as child marriage, are often practiced as a means of regulating the sexuality of girls, by ensuring they do not have multiple partners, thus preserving their virginity for their future husbands.[9] According to the BBC World Service:[10]

In some cases, parents willingly marry off their young girls in order to increase the family income or protect the girl from the risk of unwanted sexual advances or even promiscuity.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting or female circumcision, "comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons".[11]The practice is concentrated in 27 countries in Africa as well as Iraqi Kurdistan, Yemen and Indonesia; and more than 125 million girls and women today are estimated to have been subjected to FGM.[11]

FGM does not have any health benefits, and has serious negative effects on health; including complications during childbirth.[11]

FGM is used as a way of controlling female sexuality; the World Health Organization (WHO) states:[11]

FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts.

FGM is condemned by international human rights instruments. The Istanbul Convention prohibits FGM (Article 38).[12] FGM is also considered a form a violence against women by the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women which was adopted by the United Nations in 1993; according to which: Article Two: Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including [...] female genital mutilation [...].[13]

An honor killing is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family or community, usually for reasons such as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their relatives, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate, or engaging in homosexual relations.[14][15][16][17][18] With regards to honor killings of women, according to a UN Expert Group Meeting that addressed harmful practices against women:[19]

They [honor killings] stem from the deeply-rooted social belief that male family members (in some cases, mothers and other women are involved in planning or carrying out honor crimes) should control the sexuality of or protect the reputation of women in the family, and that they may contain their movements or kill them for blemishing family honor, even when rumors or false gossip are the reason for public suspicion.

Homosexual sexual expression is a sensitive topic in many societies. As of 2014, same-sex sexual acts are punishable by prison in 70 countries, and in five other countries and in parts of two others, homosexuality is punishable with the death penalty.[20] Apart from criminal prosecution, LGBT individuals may also face social stigmatization and serious violence (see violence against LGBT people).

Researchers such as Peggy Reeves Sanday have proposed a relationship between sexual repression and rape.[21] Evidence has been found to contradict this hypothesis, with a study by Jaffee and Straus finding "no relationship between sexually liberal attitudes and rape."[22]

Sexual repression is a key talking point in feminism,[23] although feminist views on sexuality vary widely.

Michel Foucault, in his History of Sexuality, refutes what he calls the "repressive hypothesis."

Although the typical expectation is that sexually repressed female individuals would experience less sexual arousal, one study regarding the effect of repression (among other variables) on sexual arousal concluded that repression-sensitization (R-S) and interactions with R-S did not have a significant effect on sexual arousal. These results were consistent with research performed in other studies regarding the same topic. Moreover, other research findings have demonstrated that repression may have differing effects between gender, namely, that "male repressers may inhibit sexual behavior, whereas female repressers do not."[24]

Reproduction-based sex was urged by Mao Zedong, but later politicians instituted a one-child policy. In a country where atheism is popular, the restriction cannot be ascribed to religion but to nationalist motives.[25]

Within the past few decades, China has undergone major changes (known as the sexual revolution) in society that have affected their outlook on sex. Li Yinhe, China's first female sexologist, observed that prior to the sexual revolution, very few couples would engage in premarital sex. These observations were accredited to the fact that, until 1997, premarital sex in China was considered illegal and offenders could be prosecuted.[26]

Furthermore, China's stance on sexuality before the sexual revolution was quite harsh in comparison to standards set by Western governments. China had previously banned the publication of pornography, organization of sex parties and prostitution, and even writing about sex.[26] These regulations on sexuality before the revolution led to a legal precedent regarding the organization of prostitution in 1996 that had sentenced a bathhouse owner to death (though this is no longer punishable by death today). Today, the organization of sex parties is still illegal, although it is not strictly enforced anymore due to changes in Chinese attitudes which have led to fewer people reporting these sex parties.[26]

However, the Chinese sexual revolution still has a lot of progress to make regarding the repression of the LGBT community. Although China has made some progress in the way of LGBT rights (namely, removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses), LGBT rights are still limited by some standards. For instance, same-sex marriage still hasn't been recognized legally, although there is the existence of guardianship, a recent development that many people consider as the first step to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[27] In addition, Chinese law does not legally protect the LGBT community from discrimination in the workplace.[26]

According to R.P. Bhatia, a New Delhi psychoanalyst and psychotherapist, middle-class India's "very strong repressive attitude" has made it impossible for many married couples to function well sexually, or even to function at all.[28]

A Durex survey performed internationally resulted in Japan being the only country where more people have expressed discontent with their sex lives than those that have expressed fulfilling sex lives, an important major reason being that they are simply not having sex.[29] Homebuilders in Japan have also observed that more than a third of homes built feature separated bedrooms for married couples, suggesting that even married couples are less inclined to have sex than married couples in other cultures.[29]

Japanese citizens' dissatisfaction with their sex lives can be partially attributed to their work culture, whose work hours can be considered lengthy in comparison to other work cultures. According to Michael Zielenziger, Japan's lengthy work hours has led couples to spend less time with each other, have reduced contact, and therefore have less sex.[29] Japan's sexual repression can also be partially attributed to societal and business expectations, which generally expect that women should abstain from marriage, which is a major indicator of sex likelihood.[29] Although Japan's work hours have even shrunk down to the United States' level of work hours per week, large amounts of sexual dissatisfaction and repression are still observed. One reason for these observations is that Japan's economy has been stagnating and has contributed to more unemployment. These factors generate stress, which plays a significant role in forming an unpleasant sex life according to Durex.[29]

Russian history of sexual repression and LGBT rights includes an oscillation of attitudes, caused by both governmental interference and changing societal norms.

Soviet society in the past considered sex to be taboo and unacceptable to talk about. People sometimes expressed fear of losing their job and experienced shame from people they knew for simply using the word 'sex' openly due to the fact that discussion regarding the topic of sex in the Soviet Union was almost nonexistent.[30] Near the end of the Soviet Union, however, the country would undergo major changes when it came to sex. Organizations and media such as Tema and The Moscow Association of Lesbian Literature and Arts, which focused on sexual liberation, were created and promoted the discussion of sex in Russian society.[30]

The USSR's collapse also made way for LGBT rights to come to the forefront of societal issues. In 1993, Russia decriminalized homosexuality and set the precedent for future sociopolitical changes. New outlets of media - including pornography - regarding homosexuality were released within these years of social change.[30] However, these changes would soon be quickly turned around when Vladimir Putin was elected in 2000. Despite previous failed attempts to revert the 1993 decriminalization of homosexuality, the Russian government created a turning point against LGBT rights in 2013 when Russia passed the gay propaganda law, which signaled Russia's return to more conservative and traditional values.[30] The sexual repression of homosexuals with the passing of this law was partly because Russia wanted to portray itself as different from Western countries and demonstrate strength through these differences.[30]

In the last few decades the United States has been gradually removing much of the legislation tied to sexual repression of various groups. The influence of religious and conservative groups however continues to influence American society and how sex is viewed, working to influence governmental affairs, pharmaceutical companies, and education.

The first half of the 1960s saw contraceptions such as the birth control pill and Intrauterine Device (IUD) become widely available, which contributed to sexual freedom for many people without having to rely on less reliable and uncomfortable physical contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms.[31][32] However, religious and conservative lobbying groups as well as the influence of neo-eugenics created push back on some other forms of birth control such as emergency contraception and tubal ligation. Emergency contraception was being developed and produced by Hoechst under the name RU-486. Conservative lobbyist groups with ties to various religious powers such as the Vatican, originally were promoting limiting healthcare coverage of items such as birth control, and once RU-486 was made public knowledge, these groups actively worked to threaten Hoechst by claiming they would cause the company financial hardship if they did not cease all activity pertaining to RU-486.[33]

In terms of more permanent forms of birth control such as tubal ligation and hysterectomies, there has been a long history of eugenicists pushing for forced sterilization of non Anglo-Saxon or lower-class women. This stemmed from a belief that this would contribute to the betterment of American society. However, neo-eugenics, which is the more modern iteration of the eugenics movement, additionally works to limit access of procedures of sterilization from those they deem fit to reproduce. The demographic targeted for this are mostly white middle-class women.[34]

During the late 1990s and the Bush Administration (20002008) abstinence-only sexual education groups were given considerable government funding to develop programming for schools.[35] These groups were mostly represented by Christians who believed it to be their responsibility to address what they deemed as society's regressions towards a sex-based culture. Abstinence advocates generally focus on prohibiting sexual contact before heterosexual marriage. This has been linked to instigating a culture of sexual repressiveness affecting adolescent sexual behaviors, regardless of their sexuality.[36] Research concerning the effectiveness of different forms of sex education for adolescents shows the highest success from comprehensive sex education. Characteristics of comprehensive sex education include informing students on the forms of birth control and how to use them, and sexual anatomy.[37] The Obama Administration (20082016) worked towards promotion of comprehensive sex education programming and pulled much of the government funding supporting abstinence-only program development.[37]

Sexual repression can be expressed but not limited to the following:[38]

Follow this link:

Sexual repression - Wikipedia

Review of the topic

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population,[2][3] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century.[4] The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.[5][6]

While ostensibly about improving genetic quality, it has been argued that eugenics was more about preserving the position of the dominant groups in the population. Scholarly research has determined that people who found themselves targets of the eugenics movement were those who were seen as unfit for societythe poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, and specific communities of colorand a disproportionate number of those who fell victim to eugenicists' sterilization initiatives were women who were identified as African American, Hispanic, or Native American.[7][8] As a result, the United States' eugenics movement is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to demographic and population changes, as well as concerns over the economy and social well-being, rather than scientific genetics.[9][8]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. In 1883, Sir Francis Galton first used the word eugenics to describe scientifically, the biological improvement of genes in human races and the concept of being "well-born".[10] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[11] In the US, eugenics was largely supported after the discovery of Mendel's law lead to a widespread interest in the idea of breeding for specific traits.[12] Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions could be attributed to a superior genetic makeup.[13] American eugenicists tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples, supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws, and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral."[14]

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[15] In 1906, J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[13] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution.[16] As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[13][17] In years to come, the ERO and the American Eugenics Society collected a mass of family pedigrees and provided training for eugenics field workers who were sent to analyze individuals at various institutions, such as mental hospitals and orphanage institutions, across the United States.[18] Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all of whom were well-respected during their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit."[16] Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[19]

By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers, and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder's Association, the first eugenic body in the U.S., expanded in 1906 to include a specific eugenics committee under the direction of Charles B. Davenport.[20][21] The ABA was formed specifically to "investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood."[22] Membership included Alexander Graham Bell,[23] Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[24][25] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[26] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[27][verification needed]

Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women's Clubs, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organizations that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[28] One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement and founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[29][30] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defects.[31] In these cases, she approved of the use of sterilization.[29] In Sanger's opinion, it was individual women (if able-bodied) and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[32][33]

In the Deep South, women's associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[34] Between 1915 and 1920, federated women's clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[35] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Women's Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[36] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women in order to prevent them from breeding more "feebleminded" individuals.

Public acceptance in the U.S. led to various state legislatures working to establish eugenic initiatives. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded"[37] from marrying.[38] The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan in 1897 although the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted, it did set the stage for other sterilization bills.[39] Eight years later, Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor.[40] Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[41] followed closely by Washington, California, and Connecticut in 1909.[42][43][44] Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, which upheld under the U.S. Constitution the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for those who were seen as mentally retarded.[45]

In the late 19th century, many scientists, who were concerned about the population leaning too far away from the favored "Anglo-Saxon superiority" due to a rise in immigration from Europe, partnered with other interest groups to implement immigration laws that could be justified on the basis of genetics.[46] After the 1890 U.S. census, people began to believe that immigrants who were of Nordic or Anglo-Saxon ancestry were greatly favored over Southern and Eastern Europeans, specifically Jews (a diasporic, Middle Eastern people), who were seen by some eugenicists, like Harry Laughlin, to be genetically inferior.[46] During the early 20th century as the United States and Canada began to receive higher numbers of immigrants, influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments that these immigrants would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[47][48]

In 1921, a temporary measure was passed to slowdown the open door on immigration. The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity to be closely associated with eugenics and was founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard graduates. The overall goal of the League was to prevent what they perceived as inferior races from diluting "the superior American racial stock" (those who were of the upper-class Anglo-Saxon heritage), and they began working to have stricter anti-immigration laws in the United States.[49] The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants as they attempted to enter the United States, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among "inferior races".[46] Eugenicists believed that immigrants were often degenerate, had low IQs, and were afflicted with shiftlessness, alcoholism and insubordination. According to Eugenicists, all of these problems were transmitted through genes. Literacy test bills were vetoed by presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson's second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917.[50]

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[51][52] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[53] Whereas Anglo-Saxon and Nordic people were seen as the most desirable immigrants, the Chinese and Japanese were seen as the least desirable and were largely banned from entering the U.S as a result of the immigration act.[53][54] In addition to the immigration act, eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[55]

Both class and race factored into the eugenic definitions of "fit" and "unfit." By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one's genetic fitness.[56] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominantly white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of "superior strains."[36] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that those deemed "unfit" were predominantly of the lower classes.[36]

Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower-class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle-class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more "family minded," and to help better the race.[57] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper-class women sterilization and birth control.[58] However, since poverty was associated with prostitution and "mental idiocy," women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed "unfit" and "promiscuous."[36]

In the 19th century, based on a view of Lamarckism, it was believed that the damage done to people by diseases could be inherited and therefore, through eugenics, these diseases could be eradicated. This belief was carried into the 20th century as public health measures were taken to improve health with the hope that such measures would result in better health of future generations.[citation needed]

A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes; the eighth method was euthanasia.[15] Though the most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers,[15] many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors came up with alternative ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[15] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 3040% annual death rates.[15] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[15]

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[59] A few years later, in 1938, the Euthanasia Society of America was founded.[60] However, despite this, euthanasia saw marginal support in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[15]

Mary deGormo, a former teacher, was the first person to combine ideas about health and intelligence standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of baby contests.[61] She developed the first such contest, the "Scientific Baby Contest" for the Louisiana State Fair in Shreveport, in 1908.[62] She saw these contests as a contribution to the "social efficiency" movement, which was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[26] DeGarmo was assisted by Doctor Jacob Bodenheimer, a pediatrician who helped her develop grading sheets for contestants, which combined physical measurements with standardized measurements of intelligence.[63]

The contest spread to other U.S. states in the early 20th century. In Indiana, for example, Ada Estelle Schweitzer, a eugenics advocate and director of the Indiana State Board of Health's Division of Child and Infant Hygiene, organized and supervised the state's Better Baby contests at the Indiana State Fair from 1920 to 1932. It was among the fair's most popular events. During the contest's first year at the fair, a total of 78 babies were examined; in 1925 the total reached 885. Contestants peaked at 1,301 infants in 1930, and the following year the number of entrants was capped at 1,200. Although the specific impact of the contests was difficult to assess, statistics helped to support Schweitzer's claims that the contests helped reduce infant mortality.[64][65]

The contest intended to educate the public about raising healthy children at a time when approximately 10% of children died in their first year of life.[66] However, its exclusionary practices reinforced social class and racial discrimination. In Indiana, for example, the contestants were limited to white infants; African-American and immigrant children were barred from the competition for ribbons and cash prizes. In addition, the scoring was biased toward white, middle-class babies.[67][68] The contest procedure included recording each child's health history, as well as evaluations of each contestant's physical and mental health and overall development using medical professionals. Using a process similar to the one introduced at the Louisiana State Fair, and contest guidelines that the AMA and U.S. Children's Bureau recommended, scoring for each contestant began with 1,000 points. Deductions were made for defects, including a child's measurements below a designated average. The contestant with the most points was declared the winner.[69][65][70]

Standardization through scientific judgment was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scientific community, but has often been downplayed as just a popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort, and money was put into these contests and their scientific backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as local and state government practices.[71]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People promoted eugenics by hosting "Better Baby" contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching campaign.[72]

First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, "Fitter Families for Future Firesides" competitions continued all the way up to World War II. Mary T. Watts and Dr. Florence Brown Sherbon,[73][74] both initiators of the Better Baby Contests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to come up with fitter family competitions.[75]

There were several different categories that families were judged in: size of the family, overall attractiveness, and health of the family, all of which helped to determine the likelihood of having healthy children. These competitions were simply a continuation of the Better Baby contests that promoted certain physical and mental qualities.[76][77] At the time, it was believed that certain behavioral qualities were inherited from one's parents. This led to the addition of several judging categories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative features that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspiciousness, high-temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that were included as physical traits to be judged when looking at family lineage.[78]

Doctors and specialists from the community would offer their time to judge these competitions, which were originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[78] The winners of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well as champion cups called "Capper Medals." The cups were named after then-Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper and he would present them to "Grade A individuals".[79]

The perks of entering into the contests were that the competitions provided a way for families to get a free health check-up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and prestige that came from winning the competitions.[78]

By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families, which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[80]

In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[81][82] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[83] in the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions.[84]

The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, which ruled that under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, laws that permitted the compulsory sterilization of criminals were unconstitutional if these laws treated similar crimes differently.[85] Although Skinner determined that the right to procreate was a fundamental right under the constitution, the case did not denounce sterilization laws, because its analysis was based on the equal protection of criminal defendants specifically, therefore leaving those seen as "social undesirables"the poor, the disabled, and various ethnic groupsas targets of compulsory sterilization.[7] Therefore, though compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell has never been overturned, and Virginia specifically did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[86]

Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[87] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less "desirable" members of society.[87] Eugenicists therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to "protect" white racial health, and weed out the "defectives" of society.[87]

The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[88] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[89][90] From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[91] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[91] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state that conducted the most sterilizations (20,000 of the 60,000 that occurred between 1909 and 1960),[24] was published in 1929 in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[92][93]

After World War II, eugenics and eugenic organizations began to revise their standards of reproductive fitness to reflect contemporary social concerns of the later half of the 20th century, notably concerns over welfare, Mexican immigration, overpopulation, civil rights, and sexual revolution, and gave way to what has been termed neo-eugenics.[94] Neo-eugenicists like Clarence Gamble, an affluent researcher at Harvard Medical school and a founder of public birth control clinics, revived the eugenics movement in the United States through sterilization. Supporters of this revival of eugenic sterilizations believed that they would bring an end to social issues such as poverty and mental illness while also saving taxpayer money and boost the economy.[95] Whereas eugenic sterilization programs before World War II were mostly conducted on prisoners or patients in mental hospitals, after the war, compulsory sterilizations were targeted at poor people and minorities.[95] As a result of these new sterilization initiatives, though most scholars agree that there were over 64,000 known cases of eugenic sterilization in the U.S. by 1963, no one knows for certain how many compulsory sterilizations occurred between the late 1960s to 1970s, though it is estimated that at least 80,000 may have been conducted.[96] A large number of those who were targets of coerced sterilizations in the later half of the century were African-American, Hispanic, and Native American women.

Early proponents of the eugenics movement included not only influential white Americans but also several proponent African-American intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University.[72] However, unlike many white eugenicists, these black intellectuals believed the best African Americans were as good as the best White Americans, and "The Talented Tenth" of all races should mix.[72] Indeed, Du Bois believed "only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race's heritage of moral iniquity."[97]

With the support of leaders like Du Bois, efforts were made in the early 20th century to control the reproduction of the country's black population; one of the most visible initiatives was Margaret Sanger's 1939 proposal, The Negro Project.[16] That year, Sanger, Florence Rose, her assistant, and Mary Woodward Reinhardt, then secretary of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), drafted a report on "Birth Control and the Negro."[16] In this report, they stated that African Americans were the group with "the greatest economic, health and social problems," were largely illiterate and "still breed carelessly and disastrously," a line taken from W.E.B. DuBois' article in the June 1932 Birth Control Review.[16] The Project often sought after prominent African-American leaders to spread knowledge regarding birth control and the perceived positive effects it would have on the African-American community, such as poverty and the lack of education.[98] Sanger particularly sought out black ministers from the South to serve as leaders in the Project in the hopes of countering any ideas that the project was a strategic attempt to eradicate the black population.[16] However, despite Sanger's best efforts, white medical scientists took control over the initiative, and with the Negro Project receiving praise from white leaders and eugenicists, many of Sanger's opponents, both during the creation of the Project and years after, saw her work as an attempt to terminate African Americans.[16][98]

Opposition to initiatives to control reproduction within the African-American community grew in the 1960s, particularly after President Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1965, announced the establishment of federal funding of birth control used on the poor.[46] In the 1960's, many African Americans throughout the country took the government's decision to fund birth-control clinics as an attempt to limit the growth of the black population and along with it, the increased political power that black Americans were fighting to acquire.[46] Scholars have stated that African Americans' fear about their reproductive health and ability was rooted in history as under U.S. slavery, enslaved women were often coerced or forced to have children to increase a plantation owner's wealth.[46][99] Therefore, many African Americans, particularly those in the Black Power Movement, saw birth control, and federal support of the Pill, as equivalent to black genocide, declaring it as such at the 1967 Black Power Conference.[46]

Federal funding for birth control went alongside family planning initiatives that were a part of state welfare programs. These initiatives, in addition to advocating the use of the Pill, supported sterilization as a means of curbing the number of people receiving welfare and control the reproduction of 'unfit' women.[94] The 1950s and 1960s were the height of the sterilization abuse that African-American women as a group experienced at the hands of the white medical establishment.[46] During this period, the sterilization of African-American women largely took place in the South and assumed two forms: the sterilization of poor unwed black mothers, and "Mississippi appendectomies."[94] Under these "Mississippi appendectomies," women who went to the hospital to give birth, or for some other medical treatment, often found themselves incapable of having more children upon leaving the hospital due to unnecessary hysterectomies performed on them by southern medical students.[46][100] By the 1970s, the coerced sterilization of women of color spread from the South to the rest of the country through federal family planning and under the guise of voluntary contraceptive surgery as physicians began to require their patients to sign consent forms to surgeries they did not want or understand.[94]

Though it is unknown the exact number of African-American women who were sterilized throughout the country in the 20th century, records from a few states offer some estimates. In the state of North Carolina, which was seen as having the most aggressive eugenics program out of the 32 states that had one,[101] during the 45-year reign of the North Carolina Eugenics Board, from 1929 to 1974, a disproportionate number of those who were targeted for forced or coerced sterilization were black and female, with almost all being poor.[102] Of the 7,600 women who were sterilized by the state between the years of 1933 and 1973, about 5,000 were African American.[7] In light of this history, North Carolina became the first state to offer compensation to surviving victims of compulsory sterilization.[102] Additionally, whereas African Americans made up just over 1% of California's population, they accounted for at least 4% of the total number of sterilization operations conducted by the state between 1909 and 1979.[103] Overall, according to one 1989 study, 31.6% of African American women without a high school diploma were sterilized while only 14.5% of white women of the same educational status were sterilized.[7]

In 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge.[104] An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black women with multiple children who were receiving welfare.[104] Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits unless they consented to sterilization.[104] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised suspicions, especially among members of the black community, that "federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women."[105]

Despite this investigation, it was not until 1973 that the issue of sterilization abuse was brought to media attention. On June 14, 1973, two black girls, Minnie Lee and Mary Alice Relf, ages fourteen and twelve, respectively, were sterilized without their knowledge in Alabama by the Montgomery Community Action Committee, an OEO-financed organization.[94][103] The summer of that year, the Relf girls sued the government agencies and individuals responsible for their sterilization.[94] As the case was being pursued, it was discovered that the girls' mother, who could not read, unwittingly approved the operations, signing an 'X' on the release forms; Mrs. Relf had believed that she was signing a form authorizing her daughters to receive Depo-Provera injections, a form of birth control.[94] In light of the 1974 case of Relf v. Weinberger, named after Minnie Lee and Mary Alice's older sister, Katie, who had narrowly escaped also being sterilized, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) were ordered to establish new guidelines for its government sterilization policy.[94] By 1979, the new guidelines finally addressed the concern over informed consent, determined that minors under the age of 21 and those with severe mental impairments who could not give consent would not be sterilized, and articulated the provision that doctors could no longer claim that a woman's refusal to be sterilized would result in her being denied welfare benefits.[94]

The 20th century demarcated a time in which compulsory sterilization heavily navigated its way into primarily Latinx communities, against Latina women. Locations such as Puerto Rico and Los Angeles, California were found to have had large amounts of their female population coerced into sterilization procedures without quality and necessary informed consent nor full awareness of the procedure.

Between the span of the 1930s to the 1970s, nearly one-third of the female population in Puerto Rico was sterilized; at the time, this was the highest rate of sterilization in the world.[106] Some viewed sterilization as a means of rectifying the country's poverty and unemployment rates. Following legalization of the procedure in 1937 a U.S. government endorsed initiative saw health department officials advocating for sterilization in rural parts of the island. Sterilized women were also encouraged to join the workforce, in particular the textile and clothing related industries. The procedure was so common that it was often referred to solely as "la operacin", garnering a documentary referenced by the same name.[106] This intentional targeting of Latinx communities exemplifies the strategic placement of racial eugenics in modern history. This targeting is also inclusive of those with disabilities and those from marginalized populations, which Puerto Rico is not the only example of this trend.

Eugenics did not serve as the only reason for the disproportionate rates of sterilization in the Puerto Rican community. Contraceptive trials were inducted in the 1950s towards Puerto Rican women. John Rock and Gregory Pincus were the two men spearheading the human trials of oral contraceptives. In 1954, the decision was made to conduct the clinical experiment in Puerto Rico, citing the island's large network of birth control clinics and lack of anti-birth control laws, which was in contrast to the United States' thorough cultural and religious opposition to the reproductive service.[107] The decision to conduct the trials in this community was also motivated by the structural implications of supremacy and colonialism. Rock and Pincus monopolized off of the primarily poor and uneducated background of these women, countering that if they "could follow the Pill regimen, then women anywhere in the world could too."[107] These women were purposely ill-informed of the oral contraceptives presence; the researchers only reported that the drug, which was administered at a much higher dosage than what birth control is prescribed at today, was to prevent pregnancy, not that it was tied to a clinical trial in order to jump start oral contraceptive access in America through FDA approval.

In California, by the year 1964, a total of 20,108 people were sterilized, making that the largest amount in all of the United States.[108] It is an important note that during this period in California's population demographic, the total individuals sterilized was disproportionately inclusive of Mexican, Mexican-American, and Chicana women. Andrea Estrada, a UC Santa Barbara affiliate, said:

Beginning in 1909 and continuing for 70 years, California led the country in the number of sterilization procedures performed on men and women, often without their full knowledge and consent. Approximately 20,000 sterilizations took place in state institutions, comprising one-third of the total number performed in the 32 states where such action was legal.[109]

In 1966, Nancy Hernandez was the first one to reach National and public attention and resulted in protests on women's rights and reproductive rights across the country. Her story was published in Rebecca Kluchin's book, Fit to be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950-1980.[110]

Cases such as Madrigal v. Quilligan, a class action suit regarding forced or coerced postpartum sterilization of Latina women following cesarean sections, helped bring to light the widespread abuse of sterilization supported by federal funds. The case's plaintiffs were 10 sterilized women of Los Angeles County Hospital who elected to come forward with their stories. Although a grim reality, No ms bebs is a documentary that offers an emotional and candid storytelling of the Madrigal v. Quilligan case on behalf of Latina women whom were direct recipients of the coerced sterilization of the Los Angeles' hospital. The judge's ruling sided with the County Hospital, but an aftermath of the case resulted in the accessibility of multiple language informed consent forms.

These stories, among many others, serve as backbones for not only the reproductive justice movement that we see today, but a better understanding and recognition of the Chicana feminism movement in contrast to white feminism's perception of reproductive rights.

An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,00070,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s.[111] A General Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1976 found that 3,406 Native American women, 3,000 of which were of childbearing age,[112] were sterilized by the Indian Health Service (IHS) in Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and South Dakota from 1973 to 1976.[113][114][115] The GAO report did not conclude any instances of coerced sterilization, but called for the reform of IHS and contract doctors' processes of obtaining informed consent for sterilization procedures.[113] The IHS informed consent processes examined by the GAO did not comply with a 1974 ruling of the U.S. District Court that "any individual contemplating sterilization should be advised orally at the outset that at no time could federal benefits be withdrawn because of failure to agree to sterilization."[114]

In examining individual cases and testimonies of Native American women, scholars have found that IHS and contract physicians recommended sterilization to Native American women as the appropriate form of birth control, failing to present potential alternatives and to explain the irreversible nature of sterilization, and threatened that refusal of the procedure would result in the women losing their children and/or federal benefits.[111][113][114] Scholars also identified language barriers in informed consent processes as the absence of interpreters for Native American women hindered them from fully understanding the sterilization procedure and its implications, in some cases.[114] Scholars have cited physicians' individual paternalism and beliefs about the population control of poor communities and welfare recipients and the opportunity for financial gain as possible motivations for performing sterilizations on Native American women.[113][114][115]

Native American women and activists mobilized in the 1970s across the United States to combat the coerced sterilization of Native American women and advocate for their reproductive rights, alongside tribal sovereignty, in the Red Power movement.[113][114] Some of the most prominent activist organizations established in this decade and active in the Red Power movement and the resistance against coerced sterilization were the American Indian Movement (AIM), United Native Americans, Women of all Red Nations (WARN), the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), and Indian Women United for Justice, founded by Dr. Constance Redbird Pinkerton Uri, a Cherokee-Choctaw physician.[113][114] Some Native American activists have deemed the coerced sterilization of Native American women a "modern form of genocide,"[113] and view these sterilizations as a violation of the rights of tribes as sovereign nations.[113] Others argue that the sterilization of Native American women is interconnected with colonialist and capitalist motives of corporations and the federal government to acquire land and natural resources, including oil, natural gas, and coal, currently located on Native American reservations.[114][112] Scholars and Native American activists have situated the forced sterilizations of Native American women within broader histories of colonialism, violations of Native American tribal sovereignty by the federal government, including a long history of the removal of children from Native American women and families, and population control efforts in the United States.[111][113][114][115]

The 1970s brought new federal legislation enacted by the United States government which addressed issues of informed consent, sterilization, and the treatment of Native American children. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare released new regulations in 1979 on informed consent processes for sterilization procedures, including a longer waiting period of 30 days before the procedure, the presentation of alternative methods of birth control to the patient, and clear verbal affirmation that the patient's access to federal benefits or welfare programs would not be revoked if the procedure were refused.[113] The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 officially recognized the significance and value of the extended family in Native American culture, adopting "minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children to foster or adoptive homes,"[114] and the central importance of the sovereign tribal governments in decision-making processes surrounding the welfare of Native children.[114]

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[15] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's.[116]

The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[117] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[15]

Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought ... I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.[118]

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[119] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler's 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the "science of racial cleansing". Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterward, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the "common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics."[120]

Henry Friedlander wrote that although the German and American eugenics movements were similar, the U.S. did not follow the same slippery slope as Nazi eugenics because American "federalism and political heterogeneity encouraged diversity even with a single movement." In contrast, the German eugenics movement was more centralized and had fewer diverse ideas.[121] Unlike the American movement, one publication and one society, the German Society for Racial Hygiene, represented all German eugenicists in the early 20th century.[121][122]

After 1945, however, historians began to try to portray the U.S. eugenics movement as distinct and distant from Nazi eugenics.[123] Jon Entine wrote that eugenics simply means "good genes" and using it as synonym for genocide is an "all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States." According to Entine, eugenics developed out of the Progressive Era and not "Hitler's twisted Final Solution."[124]

After Hitler's advanced idea of eugenics, the movement lost its place in society for a bit of time. Although eugenics was not thought about much, aspects like sterilization were still taking place, just not at such a public level.[125] As technology developed, the field of genetic engineering emerged. Instead of sterilizing people to ultimately get rid of "undesirable" people, genetic engineering "changes or removes genes to prevent disease or improve the body in some significant way."[111]

Proponents of genetic engineering cite its ability to cure and prevent life-threatening diseases. Genetic engineering began in the 1970s when scientists began to clone and alter genes. From this, scientists were able to create life-saving health interventions such as human insulin, the first-ever genetically engineered drug.[126] Because of this development, over the years scientists were able to create new drugs to treat devastating diseases. For example, in the early 1990s, a group of scientists were able to use a gene-drug to treat severe combined immunodeficiency in a young girl.[127]

However, genetic engineering also further allows for the practice of eliminating "undesirable traits" within humans and other organismsfor example, with current genetic tests, parents are able to test a fetus for any life-threatening diseases that may impact the child's life and then choose to abort the baby.[111] Some fear that this could lead to ethnic cleansing, or alternative form of eugenics.[128] The ethical implications of genetic engineering were heavily considered by scientists at the time, and the Asilomar Conference was held in 1975 to discuss these concerns and set reasonable, voluntary guidelines that researchers would follow while using DNA technologies.[129]

The 1978 Federal Sterilization Regulations, created by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare or HEW, (now the United States Department of Health and Human Services) outline a variety of prohibited sterilization practices that were often used previously to coerce or force women into sterilization.[130] These were intended to prevent such eugenics and neo-eugenics as resulted in the involuntary sterilization of large groups of poor and minority women. Such practices include: not conveying to patients that sterilization is permanent and irreversible, in their own language (including the option to end the process or procedure at any time without conceding any future medical attention or federal benefits, the ability to ask any and all questions about the procedure and its ramifications, the requirement that the consent seeker describes the procedure fully including any and all possible discomforts and/or side-effects and any and all benefits of sterilization); failing to provide alternative information about methods of contraception, family planning, or pregnancy termination that are nonpermanent and/or irreversible (this includes abortion); conditioning receiving welfare and/or Medicaid benefits by the individual or his/her children on the individuals "consenting" to permanent sterilization; tying elected abortion to compulsory sterilization (cannot receive a sought out abortion without "consenting" to sterilization); using hysterectomy as sterilization; and subjecting minors and the mentally incompetent to sterilization.[130][131][72] The regulations also include an extension of the informed consent waiting period from 72 hours to 30 days (with a maximum of 180 days between informed consent and the sterilization procedure).[131][130][72]

However, several studies have indicated that the forms are often dense and complex and beyond the literacy aptitude of the average American, and those seeking publicly funded sterilization are more likely to possess below-average literacy skills.[132] High levels of misinformation concerning sterilization still exist among individuals who have already undergone sterilization procedures, with permanence being one of the most common gray factors.[132][133] Additionally, federal enforcement of the requirements of the 1978 Federal Sterilization Regulation is inconsistent and some of the prohibited abuses continue to be pervasive, particularly in underfunded hospitals and lower income patient hospitals and care centers.[131][72]

The compulsory sterilization of American men and women continues to this day. In 2013, it was reported that 148 female prisoners in two California prisons 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.[134] In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure is required to save an inmate's life.[135]

Read the original:

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

Sterilization of Latinas has been practiced in the United States on women of different Latin American identities, including those from Puerto Rico[1] and Mexico.[2] There is a significant history of such sterilization practices being conducted involuntarily,[3] in a coerced or forced manner,[4] as well as in more subtle forms such as that of constrained choice.[5] 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.[6] Some sources credit the practice to theories of racial eugenics.[3]

The movement of eugenics developed into the Neo-Eugenics movement.[citation needed] This Neo-Eugenics movement supports and studies the encouragement of people with more desirable traits to reproduce in order to positively influence the population's gene pool and the discouragement of people with undesirable traits to reproduce. This led to the practice of preventing people with undesirable traits to reproduce. Undesirable traits correlated with reproductive fitness which included race and ethnicity.[7] In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the immigration rates in the United States spiked along with the reproduction rates in immigrant families. This provoked a deeper fear from eugenicists that native born Americans and Americans with strong reproductive fitness would be outnumbered by immigrants who possess a low reproductive fitness.[7] This fear became ingrained into many Americans across the nation and became fuel for the sterilization of Latinas movements in the twentieth century.

Some of the factors that may catapulted the movement behind the sterilization abuse in Latina women in the state of California, began with one of the earliest organizations in eugenic sterilizations in the U.S, the Human Betterment Foundation (HBF), the Sterilization Act of 1909, and the Immigration Act of 1924. The California Act of 1909 was one of the major legal and political influences that established authority for doctors and psychiatrists of state hospitals and mental institutions to perform sterilizations on the people unfit to function in society because of their intelligence levels, presumed future deviant behavior and sexual activity. With that established, organizations such as the Human Betterment Foundation came to be the organization that held these ideologies and promote eugenic sterilizations and the Immigration Act of 1924 further developed the idea that labor-migrants were needed, but women and children were not as there was a fear of Latino and Immigrant invasion.

The Human Betterment Foundation operated in California from 1929 to 1942. In those years, the foundation specialized in researching eugenic sterilizations effects, providing literary contributions of their findings to the public. The foundation distributed literature, such as this in order to promote the efficacy of sterilizations among socially- Sterilizations during this time were promoted and imposed in state institutions.

In the pamphlet, the organization describes that the problem is families living on government assistance or "public charity" use more of the public charity than those families sustaining themselves more by 50 percent.[8] The pamphlet stated that families whose children ended up in state homes were increasingly doubling, at a fast rate. The foundation too states that additional children to the state is a burden, but also that taxation rates were increasing because of more children being in need along with the notion that with more children from unfit parents would increase crime and delinquency rates.[9]

And another example of anti-Latino sentiment was with state authorities when dealing with minorities. Immigrants that were feeble minded and at borderline intelligence were of the undesirable type. California's state authorities wrote in a survey conducted by the California State Board of Charities and Corrections that Latinos of low intelligence or mental sanity were of the undesirable types.[10] State institutions that were allowed to perform sterilizations on patients that seemed like the perfect candidate, was very common. Current research shows that Latinas were targets for sterilization at higher rates than white women. The disproportion among sterilization rates in the Latino community could not be quantified in its current time, but data from sterilization forms suggest that 88 percent of Californians with a Spanish last name were of Mexican origin and descent.[3][8] The surnames of people in forms recommending institutionalized patients between 1920 and 1945 shows that Latino were more likely to be sterilized than non-Latino men and Latina women experienced sterilization at higher rates than non-Latina women. This data shows that there was an unfair application of the California law that allowed institutions to take health measures for other people on their behalf.[3]

This law passed in California in 1909, authorized medical staff like doctors and medical superintendents to perform sterilization procedures on both men and women deemed as feeble-minded, whose mental diseases, IQ, and intelligence could be passed down to future generations. A survey in mental deviations in prisons, public schools, and orphanages in California institutions reported worriness of feeble-mindedness and relation of intelligence to previous delinquency record.[10] In their survey, they found that California had drawn a large proportion of immigrants of undesirable types and would therefore recommend them to sterilization processes. Later research shows that there the number of sterilizations were disproportionate to racial and ethnic minorities, such as people of low class and female gender.[11] Research also suggests that Latinas were targets for sterilizations at higher rates than white women because data from sterilization forms collected, the number of people with Spanish surnames suggests that 88 percent of these patients were of Mexican origin and descent.[3]

Anti-miscegenation laws, along with the Immigration Act of 1924, contributed to the anti-immigrant sentiment that existed during the development of United States history. At this point in time, the United States was concerned with foreigners coming into the country in higher numbers and therefore enforced its first border patrol and regulated the number of foreign immigrants from south and eastern Europe, as well as permitting people from the southern people specialized in agriculture and work from the southern border.[12] In the forgotten narrative of Latin American History, U.S, Mexican immigrants and citizens were labeled and seen as a problem in society because they were seen as hyper-fertile and supported theories that Mexicans were of a lower racial level. By the first half of the 20th century, almost 60,000 people had been sterilized under the different U.S Eugenics Programs implemented.[13]

The history of sterilizations in the United States and Puerto Rico can be defined as an intersectional form of oppression that connects race, class, and sex to the social, political, and economic status of Puerto Ricans. The oppressive nature of these procedures lie within the fact that they were politically backed and used within the court of law against Puerto Ricans. Other women on the island experienced an increase in surveillance and control of their body within social realms. This illustrates how sterilizations were conducted on a continuum and had vast as well as long lasting consequences. In 1947, 7% of mothers aged 2049 received tubal ligation which almost doubled in 1954 as sterilizations increased on the island to 16%. By 1965, over 34% of Puerto Rican women within this age bracket received sterilizations, which is five times the rate two decades prior.[14] Sterilization was the most heavily promoted method of contraception in Puerto Rico and was legitimized by concerns of population, which can be associated with the same concerns of race and class that date back to the island's annexation.[14][15]

After the US gained ownership of Puerto Rico, it was viewed as a province in urgent need of a way to prevent greater poverty and population rates. This heavily influenced the US decision to begin sterilizing Puerto Rican women and implementing experimental birth control methods. Puerto Rican women in particular have served as test subjects for various contraceptive studies in the United States,[16] of which included involuntary sterilization. Many Puerto Rican women were sterilized from the 1930s to the 1970s in order to decrease poverty and population growth in Puerto Rico.[17]

Concerns about the population density in Puerto Rico can be traced back to 1898 when Puerto Rico became a US colony.[14] These concerns from scholars, scientist, and government officials inform the thought process behind the association between poverty, health, and economy with population throughout the 20th century.

When Americans began to occupy the island of Puerto Rico, they asserted more than their ideals and beliefs. American colonizers asserted absolute dominance over Puerto Rico due to the idea of Manifest Destiny, which greatly shifted the dynamics of the island. The U.S. capitalized on the fact that Puerto Rico utilized a large fraction of its resources to gain independence from Spain, which left the island's economy depleted. During this time, many Puerto Ricans lost land while their natural resources became exploited. In the mid-1920s, Puerto Rico's dependency on the production of sugar, devastated the island when the sugar market collapsed.[18] Additionally, the nation-wide economic depression in 1927 exacerbated the effects of this collapse as well as the overall stability of the island.[18] In 1928, Puerto Rico suffered the consequences of a hurricane in San Felipe.[18] The Okeechobee Hurricane resulted in over 300 deaths and property damages ranging from $50-$80 million, while the agricultural market also suffered.[18] In the 1930s, Puerto Rican citizens began to experience the adverse health effects of tuberculosis, malaria, diarrhea-enteritis, hookworm, and dietary-deficiencies that were responsible for over 40 percent of deaths.[18][19] This later on gave medical professionals grounds to support sterilization on the island.[19]

Furthermore, these factors resulted in immense and widespread poverty. Many Puerto Ricans faced perpetual hunger and growing unemployment rates. In 1930, the median family income was reported to be approx. $250 a year and "economically productive families" were attributing around 94% of their income toward acquiring food.[18] Additionally, 27% of the labor force was unemployed.[18]

The current state of Puerto Rico confirmed the ideals Americans projected in the midst of the island's annexation about the longevity and potential of Puerto Rico.[18] Puerto Ricans were once again viewed as ignorant and devious as they participated in "reckless breeding" in the midst of this economic downward spiral.[18] This caused many Americans and a fraction of Puerto Ricans to believe that overpopulation essentially was the cause of the wide variety of problems on the island.

Messages about Puerto Rico's increase in population began to spread rapidly by citizens, government officials, scientist, and industrial leaders/capitalist. In 1899, the population of Puerto Rico was less than a million and in 1917 was half of the population size that it would be four decades later.[18] In the 1930s, Puerto Rico had a population growth rate of approximately 1.5%, while fertility rates were lower than developed and industrialized nations.[19] According to Puerto Rico's planning report decades later, the island's population has grew from 687 people per square mile in 1960 to 793 in 1970. This growth continued as the population was 815 people per square mile in 1972, 863 people per square mile in 1973, and 871 people per square mile in 1974. Concurrently, the death rate decreased to 6.5 per 1,000 persons as the birth rate the year before was 23.3. As the increase in population grew by 2 percent each year, Puerto Rico was predicted to have the population density of 4,339,000 by the year 2000, which is also 1300 inhabitants per square mile.[20] The current and predicted rates of population growth provoked a high level of concern, which made birth control the primary solution for health concerns, poverty, and this idea of overpopulation.

Operation Bootstrap was enacted in 1948 and was the result of Puerto Rico's desire to attract outside capitol by inviting U.S. private funds.[14] Therefore, a tax arrangement was made by the U.S. to improve the industrial production on the island in an effort to increase profits and funnel money to the mainland.[19] This economic development program enticed industries within the U.S. that were in search of "cheap labor, tax exemptions, and free trade between Puerto Rico and the mainland".[14]

This rapid foreign investment provided promise for disadvantaged Puerto Rican women who were struggling to navigate through domestic working conditions and limited job opportunities.[19] Operation Bootstrap was marketed and believed to be an advantageous new service sector for women in search of white collar jobs.[19] However, Puerto Rican women and the vast majority of the island experienced the exact opposite. Operation Bootstrap resulted in "high unemployment, increased migration, exacerbated poverty", and most importantly, economic colonization.[14]

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women defines forced sterilizations as "a method of medical control of an individual's fertility without consent". Another source adds that sterilization abuse is "any procedure completed without the patient knowing they are being sterilized" as well as "when the patient is coerced or deceived in order to obtain the consent to the procedure".[21] Many Puerto Rican women were manipulated through incorrect information, language barriers, incentivization, testing, and withholding information as they knowingly or unknowingly consented to sterilization.[21] Although, in some cases sterilization was completely voluntary and consented. In fact, the Puerto Rican government conducted a study that stated that 83 percent of 3000 families supported sterilizations that were free. In 1968, 75 percent of the women that had sterilizations were upper and middle-class women that could afford the $100-$125 procedure.[22] Although, the term "family" does not specifically state the perspective of the woman. Lastly, it is important to recognize that sterilization was a choice that was made in the setting of a few or no alternatives.[14] As mentioned earlier, sterilization was the most promoted and harmful form of contraception in Puerto Rico.[15]

Due to a lack of educational materials distributed in Puerto Rico, many women had misconceptions about tubal ligations. For example, one common misconception about sterilization is that the procedure is not permanent. A 1968 study reported that over one-third of Puerto Rican women were not aware that tubal ligation was permanent or irreversible.[23] Some doctors did not even request consent while other doctors threatened to not deliver the baby right before delivery unless the mother consented to sterilization after birth.[24] If mothers were receiving government assistance, many women were threatened to have their welfare terminated.[15]

Additionally, the U.S. government and institutions worked collaboratively to incentivize sterilizations. Many doctors and hospital administrators began to encourage sterilizations due to the fact that the Joint Committee for Hospital Accreditation refused to accredit hospitals in Puerto Rico "unless a ten percent limit of sterilization (in proportion to all hospital deliveries) was agreed upon".[19] In the 1930s, Puerto Rican women began to occupy jobs within factories. The women working in these factories felt an immense amount of pressure to undergo a sterilization to prove to employers that their pregnancy would not deter them from completing their job.[14] This same year, approximately three sugar plantations housed birth control clinics and discriminated against women that were not sterilized as they refused employment to women who would not get the procedure.[14] Puerto Rican women on sugar plantations were discriminated against while others were incentivized to alter their reproductive capacity to become the ideal responsible and dependable female worker.

Coercive strategies experienced in the delivery room and at work, were also entrenched in the process of clinical trials for birth control pills in 1955.[25] These trials took place in poor areas in Puerto Rico like San Juan. Outside of San Juan, the Common Wealth Health Department controlled more than 19 free clinics. These clinics were reported to be operating at full capacity as approximately 1,000 sterilizations were completed a month.[22] Within these clinics, low socioeconomic women were unknowingly being used as test subjects.[25] Class inequality was apparent during these trials due to educated middle class women fearing the side effects and refusing to try the new medication while poor-less educated women unknowingly became test subjects out of desperation to avoid pregnancy and ultimately sterilization.[25] On many occurrences, these pills such as Enovid, contained an unusually high quantity of hormones compared to 21st century birth control pills.[25] Doctors disregarded women that reported nausea, blood clotting, and depression.[25] Three women allegedly died during the underground testing of this pill, but their deaths were never put to trial or investigated. In the mainland, testing for this pill, Enovid, continued and was approved in 1957 regardless of dangerous and adverse side effects.[25] Additionally, poor Puerto Rican women in Ryder Memorial Hospital were tested on for six different variations of birth control along with the IUD in the 1960s.[19] These same women were also subject to extremely long and extensive interviews so that the Population Council's International Population Program could document their marital and fertility histories.[19] This same secrecy and oppression was experienced by Puerto Rican women as they were unknowingly being tested for the Depo Privera shot and contraceptive foam.[14] Once the implications of sterilizations became more widely known, many women opted to take other forms of contraception during the dangerous phases of development to avoid the permanent procedure.[25]

In 1937, Law 116 legalized sterilization in Puerto Rico.[24] This law implemented Eugenics Boards within 32 states that oversaw compulsory sterilizations.[24] More specifically, the Puerto Rican Eugenics Boards reviewed and confirmed petitions from the government and private entities to inflict sterilizations amongst the perceived "insane", "feeble minded", "diseased", and "dependent".[21] The purpose of the Puerto Rican Eugenics Board was to regulate the reproductive capacities of "socially inferior" and perceived undesirable Puerto Ricans.[21] This led the Puerto Rican Eugenics Board to approve 97 sterilizations before it was dissolved.[24] Additionally, a large purpose of Law 116 was to further the science of eugenics and incite economic growth.[21][24]

Law 116 was the result of an increase of curiosity and political support for the science of eugenics.[24] It was legitimized by the belief that Puerto Rico was a failing economy that consisted of "unfit" people that should be addressed by decreasing the population density through the means of forced sterilizations.[24] Therefore, population control programs became institutionalized as well as federally subsidized.[24] Funds from both the U.S. government and private investors enabled the last eugenics sterilization law passed under United States territorial jurisdiction.[20] It also legalized state-mandated and forced sterilizations, which further exploited Puerto Ricans.[24]

Immigration of Mexican citizens into the United States caused much controversy in how well they had adjusted to the American life and culture. Because of this, starting in the early 20th century, they were deemed as a significant problem to the community as they were believed to be mentally weak due to their prolonged adjustment to the American culture. The increase of city populations also led to the belief that mental health degraded, as more mental breakdowns seemed prevalent. This discrimination against Mexican and Mexican-Americans led to eugenics laws in which women were targeted and utilized in sterilization procedures.[26]

Starting in the year 1909, women of Mexican descent were used as targets for the eugenics movement to reinforce population control and purity. Women of all ages were victims of the many sterilization acts performed in hospitals, correction facilities, and asylums, but younger women were especially targeted. Pacific Colony (later known as Lanterman Developmental Center), a home designated for the mentally defective in LA, California, took in many young women and classified them as mentally defective and sexually delinquent starting in 1944.[27] According to laws in California justifying sterilization acts, staff at this clinic deemed it was in the best interests of society to go forth with the procedure on some of the women who were sent here.[citation needed]

In Los Angeles, between 19691973, Mexican and Chicana (Mexican-American) women were also disproportionately targeted by involuntary sterilizations. A number of these women would go on to join a class action lawsuit, Madrigal v. Quilligan, discussed below.

These Mexican and Mexican-American women were given the stereotype as "hyper-fertile" and were believed to lack the knowledge of birth control methods due to the high numbers of teen pregnancies occurring within their community. At the Hospital of LA County+USC, coercive sterilization was justified as it was an attempt to control the birthrate of these women. In 1998 the US government performed a census and multiyear analysis of Latino births and found the women of Mexican origin displayed the highest rate of childbirth compared to other Latina women. From these statistics, the "Save our State" campaign arose and worked to enforce more eugenic sterilization of these women.[28]

In 1973 an investigation by progressive anti-sterilization advocacy groups discovered the stories of Mary Alice's and Minnie Lee Relf's sterilization. This story was released by the Southern Poverty Law Center and led to the discovery of 16 thousand women and 8,000 men being sterilized using federal funds in 1972. In addition to this finding, they found more than three hundred of these patients were under the legal age of 21. Following this discovery and exposure, in 1977 Mexican-American began coming forth to file lawsuits in relation to coercive sterilization they faced while in labor.[1]

In 1979 a bill to repeal the eugenics laws passed that legalized sterilization was proposed to the legislature in California. Many women were coerced into have the tubal ligation procedure done right after postpartum which was paid for using federal money that was dispersed into the War On Poverty first initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson.[29]

Many of these sterilizations were done involuntarily and without consent. Oftentimes, these women signed off on paperwork without being able to read the English language. This sterilization was seen as a result of barriers experienced by Spanish speaking women.[7] Other times, they were told it was necessary in order to maintain their welfare benefits. It became common to sterilize women after giving birth whether by tubal ligation or hysterectomy. Even when the women did consent, it was often under false pretenses that the procedure could be reversed if they decided to have children again in the future.

The film No Ms Bebes tells the stories of women who joined a lawsuit to fight for their reproductive rights. Several women tell their stories of how they were sterilized without their proper consent. Hundreds of women got their tubes tied during the late 1960s to the early 1970s at this hospital. The women were immigrants from Mexico and most understood little to no English. Many of the women did not know they had been sterilized until several months or even years later.[30] The list of sterilized women at this hospital was extensive but only ten of them decided to continue with the lawsuit. Being sterilized had ongoing consequences for the rest of their lives. Some of the families disintegrated because of this; some of the women in the film stated that their husbands viewed women who were sterilized as women who cheated on their husbands or would betray them by not being loyal to them. The doctors who did the sterilization were not punished.

Involuntary sterilization programs were in some instances supported and funded by the states. In California, the rationale for forced sterilization was primarily for eugenics purposes, although this later shifted to a fear of overpopulation and welfare dependency.[31]

California passed the third law in the United States that allowed state institutions to sterilize "unfit" and "feeble-minded" individuals. As eugenics gained credibility as a field in science, sterilization rates increased, especially after the 1927 Buck v. Bell U.S. Supreme Court decision, which upheld the constitutionality of sterilization laws in Virginia. See below. According to available data, California performed one third of all reported sterilization procedures in the United States between 1910 and 1960.

Although the Californian state was the third state to legalize sterilization as mentioned previously, it has made the greatest impact by performing over half of the sterilization procedures throughout the eugenics era from 1907 to 1979. Their laws granted prison authorities and asylum medical superintendents the right to sterilize a patient if it would be proven to better their conditions. It surpassed the other 32 states who had passed eugenics laws due to its large Latino incarnation rates and advocacy found within the eugenics movements.[29] Between 1920 and 1945, over 17,000 individuals were recommended for sterilization in California. During this time, Latinas were at a 59% greater risk of being sterilized than non-Latinas.[3] Eugenic philosophy claimed scientific legitimacy to uphold racial stereotypes of latino/as, deeming them as unfit and even "hyper-fertile, inadequate mothers, criminally inclined, and more prone to feeblemindedness." At a time of segregation and growing anti-Mexican immigration sentiment, eugenic programs have been linked to efforts to reduce immigration."Novak_2018" The unjust laws in California from 1909 to 1979 allowed for nonconsensual sterilization of over 20,000 individuals.[32]

The forced sterilizations in California began in 1909 when a eugenics law was passed. It allowed doctors to sterilize people who were thought to be "unfit" to have children at state hospitals. Before this law was nullified in 1979, more than 20,000 people, including teenagers were victims of this sterilization. Doctors recommended people who they thought should be sterilized for certain reasons; this included not only people with a medical condition but also perfectly healthy ones as well. Minors as young as thirteen years old were sterilized. This law was meant to keep the "undesirable population" from growing. Women of Latina Origin were 59% more likely to be sterilized than women who were not of latino descent.

An example of California's eugenic and neo-eugenic practices is a case from 1966. Nancy Hernandez was a 21-year-old mother of two in Santa Barbara, California. Nancy pleaded guilty, in 1966, for being with her boyfriend, Joseph Sanchez, while he used illegal narcotics.[33] The judge that was over the trial, Judge Kearney, requested that if she wanted to get probation then she must submit to sterilization. The judge's reason behind his decision was that if she acts immorally then she should not be allowed to have more children. Hernandez inevitably did not submit to forced sterilization and instead was sentenced to three months in jail. Following the trial Nancy's lawyer submitted a writ of habeas corpus and requested that Hernandez be released from the Court's Order. 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 and assumed that because Hernandez 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 all along was to reduce the state's welfare expenditures through forced sterilization. Many citizens across America, when this case went National, felt that her drug related misdemeanor had nothing to do with her parenting skills and style. It seemed that many people in America agreed that there should be a punishment for her crimes, but that forced sterilization was never a fit punishment.[34]

Some other instances in California's sterilization practices in the 1960s and 1970s was shown in the movie, No mas bebes, multiple women and families discuss the impact of sterilization abuse on their mental health, their relationship, and their family planning.[35] Many women reported that at the L.A. County hospital, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, that they were forced to submit to sterilization. Many of these women did not know that they had been sterilized until they found out through 26-year-old Chicana Lawyer and a whistle blowing doctor. These mothers mounted a civil rights lawsuit during the same time of Roe v. Wade and other reproductive rights justice movements. These stories made many Chicanas and other women across the nation question their government and reproductive rights.

In Los Angeles, hundreds of Mexican women were sterilized after giving birth at Los Angeles County Hospital. In the documentary No Mas Bebes, some of the women who were sterilized at this hospital shared their experiences. All of the women shown did not want to be sterilized. "In California, at least into the 1950s, compulsory sterilization was consistently described as a public health strategy that could breed out undesirable defects from the populace and fortify the state as a whole".[29] Women who were unhappy with this situation marched and protested to speak up for their reproductive rights.[citation needed]

In 1973, Acosta was living in Los Angeles. She was a poor Mexican woman. She gave birth to a child with brain damage so he did not survive. The doctor sterilized her stating that her husband had given permission for a tubal ligation. The husband denied giving such consent.[36] In an interview done by Claudia Dreifus Guadalupe stated "My nerves and my head are in great pain. Ever since the operation, I am very inattentive. Not forgetful, inattentive. People sometimes have to tell me things twice. I am not there".[37] Guadalupe later gave more details about her experience at the hospital, her physician worked in an aggressive manner to induce her labor. She said that he pushed down her abdomen with great force and even hit her in the stomach due to her swinging arms.[38] Acosta died in 2003. She had a baby in Mexico but it was taken away from her because he was born out of wedlock. The baby that she delivered at Los Angeles Hospital was her fourth baby. Her husband left her and her two kids due to her tubal ligation.

Jovita Rivera was one of the ten plaintiffs in the federal class action suit of Madrigal v. Quilligan. On October 12, 1973, Rivera went to the USC-LA hospital to give birth to her second child. She was under medication and in labor pains when medical staff misinformed her about the risk and chances of getting pregnant right after birth. She consented and a tubal ligation was done. Rivera, 27 at the time, states that during her stay at the hospital, while in advanced labor and under pain medication due to complications, her doctor told her she would be a burden to the government. Women like Rivera were offered the choice of sterilization under poor circumstances, under medication, and with no language assistance for translation. Some of the other plaintiffs for this case faced hostility from staff when told they could receive more pain medication if they signed papers consenting to sterilization.

Rivera stated: "... the doctor told me that I had too many children, that I was poor, and a burden to the government and I should sign a paper not to have more children [...] The doctors told me that my tubes could be untied at a later time and I could still have children."[39] While Rivera was under distress, she believed the process was reversible and consented. When Rivera and the other plaintiffs testified in court to prove that they had been coerced into getting a procedure, the judge did not rule in their favor.

Low-income minority women were more dependent on sterilization than other groups.[40] In a study conducted in El Paso, Texas, groups of women were asked why they would choose sterilization; many of the top reasons included: not wanting any more children, their current age and health, plans of working or attending school or inability to afford another child.[40]

Indiana passed the first sterilization law in the United States, the 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law. It was proposed as a part of the Progressive-era wave in which public health advocacy began coming to light.[29]

As recent as September 2020, whistleblower complaints were filed concerning "the rate at which hysterectomies are performed on immigrant women under ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody at ICDC". The whistleblower complaint also includes reports from many detained women who described "not understanding why they had received a hysterectomy" and even details "miscommunications" that led to patients receiving hysterectomies they may not have needed.[6]

Carrie Buck was raped by a nephew of her adopted parents in Virginia at the age of 17. In an attempt to cover up the assault, her family committed her to the Lynchburg State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. Soon later, the colony realized that Buck was pregnant with her assailant's child. At the colony, Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy examined Buck and deemed her to be unfit due to her feeblemindedness. Priddy recommended her for sterilization. This was brought to the courts in order to sanctify the sterilization order. Buck's biological mother was labeled as feebleminded, so Buck was used as "proof" that feeblemindedness was hereditary and sterilization was necessary for the common good. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 stating that being feebleminded led to promiscuity and sterilization was justified. Buck was then sterilized under the Virginia 1924 compulsory sterilization statue.[41]

The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell confirmed the constitutionality of sterilization of the feebleminded and "unfit". This case solidified that involuntary sterilization was not cruel or unusual punishment and it did not violate due process, but rather it helped the good of the country as a whole. Individual rights of reproduction were now able to be taken for the public good. Cases of involuntary sterilization rose significantly after this case in 1927.[41]

In the 1970s a group of Chicana women brought up a federal class action lawsuit against a hospital in Los Angeles County regarding their sterilizations.[42] Women in the class were allegedly given false information regarding sterilization.[42] The titular plaintiff, Dolores Madrigal, a Latina woman, was allegedly told several times by a medical professional that sterilization could be reversed.[42] Other women involved in the case signed consent forms for their sterilizations because they were allegedly sedated or manipulated by doctors and medical staff.[42] A common reason for forcing the sterilizations of these women was apparently the burden that their future children would be to "taxpayers".[42] Many of the women did not discover that they had been sterilized until they visited a doctor.[42]

The judge deciding Madrigal held that it was a part of a doctor's practice to provide sterilizations to these women based upon their cultural backgrounds.[42] The judge, Judge Curtis, stated in his ruling that miscommunication between the doctors and the women, rather than malice, resulted in the sterilizations.[42] In the words of his final comment, the judge stated, "One can sympathize with them for their inability to communicate clearly, but one can hardly blame the doctors for relying on these indicia of consent which appeared to be unequivocal on their face and which are in constant use in the medical center."[42]

In 1979, the practice was abolished in California.[29] It is estimated that approximately 20,000 women were sterilized in total.[43] There have been talks in the California State Assembly to formally compensate the women who were involuntary sterilized.[citation needed]

See more here:

Sterilization of Latinas - Wikipedia