{"id":6483,"date":"2018-03-27T21:27:41","date_gmt":"2018-03-28T01:27:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/?p=6483"},"modified":"2018-03-27T21:27:41","modified_gmt":"2018-03-28T01:27:41","slug":"forced-sterilization-programs-in-california-once-harmed-thousands-particularly-latinas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/latinamericasecurityreport.com\/?p=6483","title":{"rendered":"Forced Sterilization Programs in California Once Harmed Thousands \u2013 Particularly Latinas"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"
Postcard of the Napa State Hospital in Napa, Calif., circa 1905. Over 1,900 Californians were recommended for sterilization while patients here. The collection of Alex Wellerstein<\/figcaption><\/figure>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In 1942, 18-year-old Iris Lopez, a Mexican-American woman, started working at the Calship Yards in Los Angeles. Working on the home front building Victory Ships<\/a> not only added to the war effort, but allowed Iris to support her family.<\/p>\n

Iris\u2019 participation in the World War II effort made her part of a celebrated time<\/a> in U.S. history, when economic opportunities opened up for women and youth of color<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, before joining the shipyards, Iris was entangled in another lesser-known history. At the age of 16, Iris was committed to a California institution and sterilized.<\/p>\n

Iris wasn\u2019t alone. In the first half of the 20th century, approximately 60,000 people were sterilized<\/a> under U.S. eugenics programs. Eugenic laws in 32 states empowered government officials in public health, social work and state institutions to render people they deemed \u201cunfit\u201d infertile.<\/p>\n

California led the nation in this effort at social engineering. Between the early 1920s and the 1950s, Iris and approximately 20,000 other people \u2013 one-third of the national total \u2013 were sterilized in California state institutions for the mentally ill and disabled.<\/p>\n

To better understand the nation\u2019s most aggressive eugenic sterilization program, our research team<\/a> tracked sterilization requests of over 20,000 people. We wanted to know about the role patients\u2019 race played in sterilization decisions. What made young women like Iris a target? How and why was she cast as \u201cunfit\u201d?<\/p>\n

Racial biases affected Iris\u2019 life and the lives of thousands of others. Their experiences serve as an important historical backdrop to ongoing issues in the U.S. today.<\/p>\n

\u2018Race science\u2019 and sterilization<\/strong><\/p>\n

Eugenics was seen as a \u201cscience\u201d in the early 20th century<\/a>, and its ideas remained popular into the midcentury<\/a>. Advocating for the \u201cscience of better breeding,\u201d eugenicists endorsed sterilizing people considered unfit to reproduce.<\/p>\n

Under California\u2019s eugenic law<\/a>, first passed in 1909, anyone committed to a state institution could be sterilized. Many of those committed were sent by a court order. Others were committed by family members who wouldn\u2019t or couldn\u2019t care for them. Once a patient was admitted, medical superintendents held the legal power to recommend and authorize the operation.<\/p>\n

Eugenics policies were shaped by entrenched hierarchies of race, class, gender and ability. Working-class youth, especially youth of color, were targeted for commitment and sterilization during the peak years.<\/p>\n

Eugenic thinking was also used to support racist policies like anti-miscegenation laws<\/a> and the Immigration Act of 1924<\/a>. Anti-Mexican sentiment in particular was spurred by theories that Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans were at a \u201clower racial level.\u201d<\/a> Contemporary politicians and state officials often described Mexicans as inherently less intelligent, immoral, \u201chyperfertile\u201d and criminally inclined.<\/p>\n

These stereotypes appeared in reports written by state authorities. Mexicans and their descendants were described as \u201cimmigrants of an undesirable type<\/a>.\u201d If their existence in the U.S. was undesirable, then so was their reproduction.<\/p>\n

Targeting Latinos and Latinas<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a study published March 22<\/a>, we looked at the California program\u2019s disproportionately high impact on the Latino population, primarily women and men from Mexico.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
A sample sterilization form for a 15-year-old woman in California. Sterilization and Social Justice Lab, University of Michigan, CC BY-SA<\/figcaption><\/figure>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Previous<\/a> research<\/a> examined racial bias in California\u2019s sterilization program. But the extent of anti-Latino bias hadn\u2019t been formally quantified. Latinas like Iris were certainly targeted for sterilization, but to what extent?<\/p>\n

We used sterilization forms found by historian Alexandra Minna Stern to build a data set<\/a> on over 20,000 people recommended for sterilization in California between 1919 and 1953. The racial categories used to classify Californians of Mexican origin were in flux during this time period, so we used Spanish surname criteria as a proxy.
\nIn 1950, 88 percent of Californians with a Spanish surname were of
\nMexican descent<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We compared patients recommended for sterilization to the patient population of each institution, which we reconstructed with data from census forms. We then measured sterilization rates between Latino and non-Latino patients, adjusting for age. (Both Latino patients and people recommended for sterilization tended to be younger.)<\/p>\n

Latino men were 23 percent more likely to be sterilized than non-Latino men. The difference was even greater among women, with Latinas sterilized at 59 percent higher rates than non-Latinas.<\/p>\n