Sterilization of Latinas

Part of a series on
American Eugenics
show States States California North Carolina Oregon
show Race by race Latinas Native Americans
show Law Court cases Buck v. Bell Skinner v. Oklahoma Madrigal v. Quilligan Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital Stump v. Sparkman Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia Legislation Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924
show History Institutions Eugenics Record Office Race Betterment Foundation Human Betterment Foundation Society for Biodemography and Social Biology Pioneer Fund Human Betterment League Heredity Commission AASPIM General Jukes family Average Young American Male (1921) The Relf Sisters Oneida stirpiculture Selective Reproduction of Slaves
show Literature Books The Kallikak Family Eugenics manifesto The Bell Curve The Passing of the Great Race The Rising Tide of Color Journals Annals of Eugenics
show Proponents Academics Harry H. Laughlin Joseph DeJarnette David Starr Jordan Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen Charles Goethe Charles Benedict Davenport Gertrude Crotty Davenport Frederick Osborn Madison Grant Politicians Guy W. Bailey Wallace H. Kuralt. Sr.
show Theories Scientific racism Social purity movement Feeble-minded Racial nationalism
United States portal Category
v t

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] Some sources credit the practice to theories of racial eugenics.^[6]

Background[]

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.

Sterilization by ethnicity[]

Puerto Rican women[]

When Puerto Rico became a US territory in 1898, women were targeted as their province was considered problematic by mainland governments due to increased rates of poverty and overpopulation. Puerto Rican women in New York were also subjected to the same discrimination.

Sterilization procedures were justified as these women were utilized as experimental trials to further advance birth control methods in the US. ^[8] These methods often included women becoming patients at family planning clinics, exposure to contraceptive pills or shots, and clinical trials.^[9]

After the US gained ownership of Puerto Rico, it was viewed as a province in urgent need of a way to prevent greater poverty rates due to increased childbirths. This heavily impacted the US decision to begin implementing experimental birth control methods.^[10] Puerto Rican women in particular have served as test subjects for various contraceptive studies in the United States,^[11] 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.^[12] To decrease the population size of Puerto Ricans, a grant was given to the United States^{[by whom?]} to provide free sterilizations at the workplaces of Puerto Rican women.^[12] Though the sterilization was free, these women were often not given proper information about sterilization.^[12]

There is a thin line between deciding whether or not sterilization procedures performed on Puerto Rican women were voluntary or forced. This was due to their own laws passed about sterilization in the 1930s, thirty to forty years before the US legalized birth control and abortion laws. There were two sterilization laws passed in Puerto Rico in 1930, one was pertaining to eugenics and the other was contraceptive.^[10] There is a debate whether or not the eugenic sterilization procedures matched those of the US, as the sterilization was seen as more voluntary rather than involuntary in Puerto Rico

Out of all the different methods performed on these women, Puerto Rican women were led to believe the sterilization procedure of tubal ligation was the most efficient method to control childbirth.^[10]

Mexican women[]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

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.^[13]

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, 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.^[14] 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.

In Los Angeles, between 1969–1973, 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 LACMC,{clarify|What is the name of this hospital?|date=August 2021}} 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.^[8]

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.^[15]

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.^[16]

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 an unfortunate 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. Hysterectomy referring to the complete removal of a woman's uterus. 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.

Sterilization by state[]

California[]

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.^[17]

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.^[16]

Texas[]

Low-income minority women were more dependent on sterilization than other groups.^[18] In a study conducted in El Paso, Tx 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.^[18]

Indiana[]

Indiana passed the first sterilization law in the US during 1907. It was proposed as a part of the Progressive era wave in which public health advocacy began coming to light. ^[16]

Related court cases[]

Buck v. Bell (1927)[]

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 assaulter'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.^[19]

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.^[19]

Madrigal v. Quilligan (1978)[]

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.^[20] Women in the class were allegedly given false information regarding sterilization.^[20] The titular plaintiff, Dolores Madrigal, a Latina woman, was allegedly told several times by a medical professional that sterilization could be reversed.^[20] Other women involved in the case signed consent forms for their sterilizations because they were allegedly sedated or manipulated by doctors and medical staff.^[20] A common reason for forcing the sterilizations of these women was apparently the burden that their future children would be to “taxpayers.”^[20] Many of the women did not discover that they had been sterilized until they visited a doctor.^[20]

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.^[20] The judge, Judge Curtis, stated in his ruling that miscommunication between the doctors and the women, rather than malice, resulted in the sterilizations.^[20] 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.”^[20]

Further implications[]

In 1979, the practice was abolished in California.^[21] It is estimated that approximately 20,000 women were sterilized in total.^[22] There have been talks in the California State Assembly to formally compensate the women who were involuntary sterilized.^{[citation needed]}

See also[]

• Madrigal v. Quilligan
• No más bebés
• Sterilization law in the United States
• Eugenics in the United States
• Sterilization of Native American women

References[]