Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:17:49.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Welfare, African Americans, and Coerced Sterilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Randall Hansen
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Desmond King
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford
Get access

Summary

Legal segregation, racism, and the relative economic backwardness of Southern states, which resulted in smaller government revenues for social spending, largely spared African Americans the experience of compulsory eugenic sterilization in the pre-Second World War years. Segregation denied them access to most of the institutions where sterilization occurred and to the welfare programs that would have brought them into contact with the state. In the postwar period, this situation changed. During the 1950s and especially the 1960s, as the number of eugenic sterilizations of the mentally ill and handicapped decreased (but did not end), sterilization emerged from institutions and, in a new federal policy, targeted African Americans.

Four factors account for this shift. First, the legal basis for such sterilizations had been there for decades: since the early 1930s, for example, North Carolina authorized the sterilization of people outside institutions, which made it an exception in the United States. Second, Clarence Gamble’s bankroll helped Birthright, Inc. set up a network of birth control clinics throughout the South beginning in the 1930s. Third, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established full rights of citizenship for African Americans. This entitlement included access to federal welfare programs, and, partly as a result of activist mobilization, African-American take-up rates for welfare rose. The result, in the 1950s and 1960s, was a perfect storm: large numbers of African Americans on welfare in some of the most conservative states, laws that made their sterilization legal, and social workers trained in a cultural context in which wealthy donors and foundations had propagated eugenic arguments for decades. Finally, the federal government allowed family planning funds, distributed from 1964, to be used for sterilization. Because of who implemented sterilization policy and how, the result was the coerced sterilization of African Americans across the United States.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sterilized by the State
Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth-Century North America
, pp. 237 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Noll, Steven, “Southern Strategies for Handling the Black Feeble-Minded. from Social Control to Profound Indifference,” Journal of Policy History 3, no. 2 (1991): 130–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C., Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
Popenoe, Paul and Williams, Ellen Morton, “The Fecundity of Families Dependent on Public Charity,” American Journal of Sociology 40, no. 2 (1934): 214–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, William P. and Gamble, Clarence J., “The Sterilization of the Insane and Mentally Deficient in North Carolina,” North Carolina Medical Journal 8, no. 1 (1947): 19–21Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, H. C., “A Prescription for the Alleviation of Welfare Abuses and Illegitimacy,” Journal of the Kentucky State Medical Association 61, no. 4 (1963): 319–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Richardson, and Gamble, , “The Sterilization of the Mentally Handicapped in North Carolina,” North Carolina Medical Journal 9, no. 2 (1948): 75–8.Google Scholar
Castles, Katherine, “Quiet Eugenics: Sterilization in North Carolina’s Institutions for the Mentally Retarded 1945–1965,” Journal of Southern History 68 (2002): 849–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, Johanna “Reassessing Eugenic Sterilization: The Case of North Carolina,” in Lombardo, Paul ed. A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Reston, James, “Foreign-Aid Problems: Birth Control Issue and Coordination with Allies Trouble the Administration,” New York Times, December 10, 1959.
Littlewood, Thomas B., The Politics of Population Control (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 1977), 44.Google Scholar
London, Gary D., “Family Planning Programs of the Office of Economic Opportunity: Scope, Operation, and Impact,” Demography 5, no. 2 (1968): 924–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Stern, Alexandra M., “Sterilized in the Name of Public Health: Race, Immigration, and Reproductive Control in Modern California,” American Journal of Public Health 95, no. 7 (2005): 1128–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mother of 8, Priest Disagree on Sterilization,” Jet Magazine, October 4, 1962, 50.
Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1974).
Kovach, Bill, “Guidelines Found on Sterilization,” New York Times, July 7, 1973
“H.E.W. Chief Issues Guidelines to Protect Rights of Minors,” New York Times, July 20, 1973.
Hern, Warren M., “Statement Concerning the Suppression of OEO Instruction 6130–2 (Guidelines for Voluntary Sterilization Services).” Presented before the Senate Health Subcommittee, Senator Ted Kennedy, Chairman, July 10, 1973Google Scholar
“OEO Official Withdraws Sterilization Guidelines,” Denver Post, May 31, 1972.
Vecsey, George, “Federal Sterilization Program in Doubt,” New York Times, May 28, 1972.Google Scholar
Bloom, Mark, “Sterilization Guidelines: 22 Months on the Shelf,” Medical World News, November 9, 1973Google Scholar
Garrow, David J., Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998)Google Scholar
Ziegler, Mary, “The Framing of a Right to Choose: Roe v. Wade and the Changing Debate on Abortion Law,” Law and History Review 27, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, JaneThe Indian Health Service and the Sterilization of Native American Women,” American Indian Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2000): 410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, Julius, “The Return of Punitive Sterilization Proposals: Current Attacks on Illegitimacy and the AFDC Program,” Law & Society Review 3, no. 1 (1968): 77–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, Bernard, Wolfe, Sidney M., and McGarrah, Jr Robert E.., A Health Research Group Study on Surgical Sterilization: Present Abuses and Proposed Regulations (Washington, DC: Health Research Group, 1973)Google Scholar
Will, George, “Sterilization and ‘Population Improvement,’” Washington Post, July 23, 1973
Wood, H. Curtis, “The Changing Trends in Voluntary Sterilization,” Contemporary Ob/Gyn 1, no. 4 (1973): 31–40.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×