Involuntary Sterilization in the United States

Globally, having children is important to the survival of a people. Throughout man’s history, laws codes and other things were mandated to promote procreation. Every species on the planet has a need and a desire to produce offspring. Humans have a strong tendency to categorize things, possibly because they give a sense of order and understanding, or perhaps for other reasons. Nevertheless, even the creation of life, procreation, has fallen to human categorizing. In the mid to late 19th Century in the United States and across the globe, people started to question the value of a person or a group of people to society scientifically. Some of the questions still persist today, but the questioning then was more targeted to certain people. Native Americans, Blacks, Jewish people, immigrants, criminals, gays and lesbians, and people with mental and physical handicaps were a few of those targeted. This scientific research, which was very popular and widely accepted at the time was called eugenics. Eugenics scientists began to theorize and question whether or not some groups were deemed fit to reproduce in society. These questions led many of them to believe that not everyone was fit, and these thoughts eventually led to the practice of involuntary sterilization. Involuntary sterilization was popular all over the world, including the United States. The following is a detailed study of involuntary sterilization in the United States.

Brief history of eugenics and the belief in involuntary sterilization.

To better get an understanding of the concept of involuntary sterilization, it is important to get an understanding of the history of eugenics, and the motivations behind the way of thinking. Although eugenics began to become popular in the United States in the mid to late 19th Century, the science had been around long before that. Eugenics was a term coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. According to Galton (1998), “Eugenics (Gk eu- good, well; Gk gen- genesis, creation), a term proposed by Francis Galton, was defined as "the science of improving the inherited stock, not only by judicious mating’s but by all other influences ..." (Galton 263). The idea of eugenics was to ensure that only the best for a society survived in a society. However, “Galton's work on eugenics makes very little reference to Greek social theories of eugenics and current standard works on eugenics make no reference to the Greek contribution” (Galton 263). The Greeks, as with other early civilization were very interested in creating a society of ‘good’ people. The Greek political philosopher Plato spoke a great deal in his works about the science of eugenics. According to Galton,

“Plato thought it vital to society that the correct arrangements should be made for such matings. He proposed that marriage for the guardian (upper) classes and that provision be made for men and women of the same natural capacities to mate. He even drew an analogy with the selective breeding of sporting dogs and horses in order to obtain the desired stock” (Galton 264).

Eugenic and involuntary sterilization in the United States

Eugenics in the United States followed in a similar belief system. Closely aligned with the ideas of Sir Francis Galton, who looked to a new brand of Darwinism (based on the Origins of Species –Charles Darwin, 1859) called Social Darwinism, which aimed to improve modern society. Early in the United States, the term eugenics was avoided and replaced with terms such as ‘cognitive elite’ and ‘cognitive disadvantaged,’ but the idea was the same (Ordover xiii). Many researchers have labeled the thoughts expressed by those who subscribed to eugenics in the United States as racist, class-biased, and xenophobic and those elements were there, but at the other end of that spectrum were those who simply desired to have what they considered to be a better society or a type of utopian society. One eugenics scholar emphasizes this stating that “The value eugenicists placed on marital (and maternal) happiness has received little attention from historians, but it may be as important as anxieties about ‘race suicide’ to understanding the doctrine’s broad appeal, especially among women” (Ladd-Taylor 301). Evidence of this can be seen with one of the first known followers of eugenics in the United States, Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922). In his 1883 text Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race, the famous inventor suggested not allowing deaf people to marry and procreate to avoid producing deaf children, which he discovered could be hereditary after studying deaf youth. “A history of eugenics that takes gender and family into account also casts doubt on one of the most enduring assumptions about North American eugenics: that negative eugenics made headway in the United States, while positive eugenics did not” (Kevles 27). It was through Alexander Graham Bell and American Breeders Association founded in 1903 that lobbied for eugenics to be practice in the United States. This movement was led by Charles Benedict Davenport (1866-1944), who has become considered the Father of American eugenics.

Prior to the first sterilization law was passed in Indian in 1907, American eugenicists long advocated for sterilization, and lobbied the government for legislation to be passed to limit or eliminate the reproductive rights of certain groups. Initially, these groups were immigrant groups, such as Poles, Slaves, and certain Asiatic groups after an influx of immigrants in the years preceding the First World War. Ordover (2003) states that “eugenicists then became involved in many campaigns to regulate sexuality and procreation among other marginalized groups, they began with social categories, and then sought to legitimize them with statistical and biological evidence” (Ordover 5). These petitions eventually culminated into legislation being proposed in the United States Congress that did not adopt the idea of eugenics but supported the idea of American homogeneity. The most widely known to be the Three Percent Restrictive Act (1917) and The National Origins Act (1924). The thought that these acts were enacted as legislation, shows the popularity of the Social Darwinism and the eugenics movements.

As mentioned, although the United States government never endorsed eugenics or the practice of sterilization, there was a blinded eye turned to it. The government did not find it fit to limit the freedom of another. However, the federal government, through the Supreme Court gave approval on the practice. In 1927 in the Buck v. Bell case in an 8 to 1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled,

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes” (Buck v. Bell).

The justices in the court looked at the family history of an 18-year-old named Carrie Buck, who had a child, had a history of being promiscuous, and was considered feeble-minded by her doctors. After researching her family lineage and seeing that her mother and grandmother were similar in the charter, the courts agree with Buck’s doctors, that she should not be to reproduce, to spare the society any more degenerate behavior, and to sterilize here would do society good in the future. This case gave eugenicists, the legal backing and basis for the practice of forced sterilization.

Legally and scientifically targeting the marginalized for involuntary sterilization

Once sterilization of those deemed socially unfit became widely accepted and popular in the United States, it opened the door for including more groups into this category. Eventually, different racial and ethnic groups were being considered socially unfit. It could not be easily justified just on the basis of their race, and therefore it had to be scientifically proven. “The notion that groups of human beings, especially blacks, Asians, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and mental and physical “defectives,” should be seen as innately different and inferior, was not new in the Progressive Era. Race prejudice may be as old as human history” (Leonard 688). However, it was during this time of scientific breakthrough that science because of the mask of racial. Economic, and social fears. Leonard continues, “what was new in the Progressive Era was the increasingly systematic use of a biological, deterministic discourse to explain and to remedy, often using racial categories, the root causes of economic problems, especially labor and immigration” (Leonard 688).

Scientifically, certain groups were found as mentally and socially incapable of being anything other than a nuisance to the greater society, and these nuisances, who produce of their kind, should not be allowed to procreate. Even Margret Sanger (1879-1966), who created the organization that went on to become Planned Parenthood, used these marginalized groups to advocate for abortive and other reproductive rights for women. These groups had been customarily considered to be the reason for the bad things that were happening in many of the urban centers in America, and therefore it was just to prevent them from bringing more problems to a society, as commonly felt sentiment even today.

Sterilization, the church, and its popularity in U.S. society

Many scholars look at the sterilization of these marginalized groups as a product of scientific reasoning being used to mask other ideals, however, it was not just the scientific community. It is an understatement that there is a lot of disagreement among the scientific and religious communities. Debates have been had over the creation of man, the evolution of man, and even the very existence of God. It seems that the scientific and the religious could never find common ground. However, the idea of eugenics and forced sterilization brought even these two opposing factions together. According to Bozeman (2004) “The largest and best-funded of these subcommittees in the American Eugenics Society, came to be the AES’s Committee for Cooperation with clergymen” (Bozeman 424). The subcommittee sponsored two national sermon contests, one in 1926 and another in 1928, the purpose was to the eugenic “gospel into the churches” (Bozeman 424). The clergy members who supported sterilization gave many sermons on sterilization, held major luncheons in places like New York, and distributed church published literature in support of sterilization.

Ministers and rabbis viewed the practice of sterilization and eugenics in general eugenics in an equally useful manner. Eugenics offered an “ideological avenue through which the physical Kingdom of God on earth could be brought to fruition while promising a solution to seemingly intractable social problems such as poverty and retardation” (Bozeman 427). Most of the clergy showed enthusiasm for eugenics in their teaching and their practices, but they displayed a relatively low level of commitment to the cause as a whole, and this was because it had not been widely accepted by the majority of the church community in the United States. Nevertheless, the idea that even some in the church community would endorse force sterilization, proves that this was a widely accepted and popular sentiment throughout the country.

Impact of forced sterilization on the marginalized

Forced sterilization had a pretty significant impact in the United States for those who were targeted. Stern (2005) puts the data into context, it states that if the utilitarian pursuit of the common good it necessitated “immunizing” the hereditarily defective in order to prevent the spread of bad genes. Once seen as integral to health prophylaxis and as a cost-saving recourse, sterilization programs intensified at a clipped pace across the country in the 1930s” (Stern n.p.). It became common practice by the 1930s to diagnose sterilization for anything from criminal activity, blindness to mental handicaps. “By 1932, twenty-seven states had laws on the books and procedures nationwide reached over 3900” (Stern n.p.). According to statistical data published by the State of California, “over 15 000 operations had been performed in the state, most since 1925” (Statistical Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, n.p.). Gosney and Popenoe (1929) found that in California alone,

“the foreign-born were disproportionately affected, constituting 39% of men and 31% of women sterilized. Of these, immigrants from Scandinavia, Britain, Italy, Russia, Poland, and Germany were most represented. These records also reveal that African Americans and Mexicans were operated on at rates that exceeded their population. Although in the 1920 census they made up about 4% of the state population, Mexican men and Mexican women, respectively, comprised 7% and 8% of those sterilized” (Gosney and Popenoe n.p.).

California was by no means alone in their conquest to correcting the woes of society through sterilization. According to Kaelber (2012), “more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals occurred…many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were considered mentally disabled or ill, or to have belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living on the margins of society” (Kaelber n.p.). In the United States, the practice of sterilization did not come to an end until the 1970s. “While Germany has taken important steps to commemorate the horrors of its past, including compulsory sterilization (350,000), the United States arguably has not when it comes to its practices of eugenics” (Kaelber n.p.). The practice ended in the United State, but steps are slowly being taken to right this wrong.

Steps were taken to right the wrong of involuntary sterilizations

There have been a few steps that have been taking to try to turn the tides of this grim portion of American History. The United States Congress has been hearing cases starting in 1972 about sterilization. In the 1972 testimony, it had been brought to their and the American public’s attention that at least 2000 or more cases of sterilization had occurred with women who participated in the welfare system, and some were aware they were being sterilized, and others did not. Ward (1986) points out that “an investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization” (Ward, 96).

Although the steps have been slow, more groups and scholars are looking into the effects of the forces sterilization form the beginning of the 20thh century until the 1970s. The research has led to states like North Carolina to try and correct the wrong. From 1972 to 1974, 7, 600 men and women in North Carolina were sterilized. According to the Charlotte News (2013), “unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with an I.Q. under 70, the mentally ill and children from poor families were just some of the many groups all routinely sought out and sterilized” (Charlotte News n.p.). The North Carolina legislature decided to divide 10 million dollars among those who were alive and sterilized. Although relatively low, it is a step in a positive direction.

Possible involuntary sterilization today in the United States

Forced sterilization played a very significant role in 20th Century America, nevertheless, it is very important to note, that sterilization practices and the belief in involuntary sterilization have not come to an end completely in the United States. Just as in the early part of the 20th Century, there are many supporters for forced or involuntary sterilization. There has not been a comprehensive law that has officially declared involuntary sterilization illegal in the United States. The most recent legislative petition that challenges the Buck v. Bell ruling is the Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital. In the case, the high court of the state of Virginia declared that involuntary sterilization was still constitutional and could be done. Therefore, since the mandate of the Supreme Court has not been overturned, and there at least 27 states where sterilization is still permitted, or at least the laws are still on the books. It is because of the history of not reporting involuntary sterilization and the high numbers of these practices, that is safe to assume, that this is possibly still occurring in the United States, especially since there has not been an official outlaw of the practice by the Supreme Court or the Federal government. A recent report from the Center for Investigative studies (2010) shed light on the practice of female sterilization in a California prison during a period of four years (2006-2010). The study found that “at least 148 women at the California Institution for Women in Corona and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla received tubal ligation, a surgical procedure for permanent sterilization in which a woman's fallopian tubes are closed” (Johnson. p.). Stories like this surfacing that the practice of involuntary sterilization is still going on, and possibly just not reported.

Conclusion

Involuntary sterilization and scientific ideology have been around for a long time, even before it was even given a name in the late 19th Century. Evidence shows that it was widely accepted in an ancient civilization like the Greeks. However, it did not get a strong root in the United States until the beginning of the 20th Century. The beliefs in eugenics became popular in the science community, in the religious community, and all throughout the country. There were many reasons, for the advocating of involuntary sterilization. History has analyzed in much detailed the fact that it was based on racial, economic, and xenophobic believes, but there was a positive aspect, and that is to prevent those things like crime, and other things that plague society. Those who advocate positive eugenics wanted a utopian society dominated by the family. In spite of those lofty intentions, many of the groups who were targeted were targeted for racial, economic, physical, and social reasons. Over the course of the 20th Century, in the United States, many people from certain historically marginalized groups in this county (blacks, disabled, gays and lesbians, immigrants, and Native Americans) were compulsively sterilized. Although there have been some redemptive attempts, such as the compensation of certain sterilized individuals in North Carolina, the U.S. still has not fully come to terms with this bleak history. In fact, many states still have sterilization laws on their books. This fact presents the possibility that involuntary sterilization may still be being practiced today.

Works Cited

Bozeman, John M. "Eugenics and the Clergy in the Early Twentieth-Century United States." Journal of American Culture 27.4 (2004): 422-431. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.

Buck v. Bell. Supreme Court. 6 May 1927. Justicia.com. Web. 9 Dec. 2013. <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/case.html#205>.

Galton, D.J. Greek Theories on Eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1998 Volume 24 Issue 4, (August), 263–267.

Gosney, Ezra S., and Popenoe Paul. Sterilization for Human Betterment: A Summary of Results of 6,000 Operations in California, 1909–1929. (New York: MacMillan), 1929.

Johnson, Corey. “Female Inmates Sterilized in California Prisons without Approval” Center for Investigative Reporting. Web 9 December 2013 from http://cironline.org/reports/female-inmates-sterilized-california-prisons-without-approval-4917.

Kaelber, Lutz. Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. The University of Vermont. Web Retrieved 9 December 2010 from http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/.

Kevles, Daniel J. ‘Is the Past Prologue? Eugenics and the Human Genome Project’, Contention, 2 (1993)

Ladd-Taylor, Molly."Eugenics, Sterilization and Modern Marriage in the USA: The Strange Career of Paul Popenoe." Gender & History 13.2 (2001): 298. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.

Leonard, Thomas C. "More Merciful and Not Less Effective": Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era." History of Political Economy 35.4 (2003): 687-712. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.

Statistical Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, Year Ending June 30, 1942 (Sacramento: CSPO, 1943), 98; California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies; Statistical Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, Year Ending June 30, 1935(Sacramento: CSPO, 1936).

Stern Alexandra M. “Sterilized in the name of public health: race, immigration, and reproductive control in modern California.” American Journal of Public Health. 2005; 95(7):1128–38.

Ward, Martha C. Poor Women, Powerful Men: America's Great Experiment in Family Planning. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.