California Sterilization Bill Transcript
New Sterilization Bill Hailed as Best of a Kind: Authorities on Problem Presented by Unfit Hold California Needs Revision of Present Laws
</Headline>
<By-Line>
By Chapin Hall
</By-Line>
It is self-evident that propagation of the unfit constitutes a biological hazard to which no State is bound to stand committed.
There are enough rattle-brained nitwits at large in California without maintaining it as a breeding place for the feeble-minded; a happy hunting ground for the congenital experiments of individuals mentally incompetent to set or observe birth control limitations.
Which observations are made pertinent by a bill before the Legislature (A.B. 1607) which seeks to clarify and make definite the loosely drawn sterilization laws now on the statute books of this State. The measure should have the support of members and of the public at large.
<Subhead>
Protective Measure
</Subhead>
This question of sterilization is not very well understood. Until recently it was shushed out of hearing except in ribald company and even now many do not realize that is a protective measure involving no physical prerogatives other than a relinquishment of the doubtful “right” to procreate a species of subnormal humanity.
The attempt on the part of some to make new capital of the bill and to align religious or other interests in active opposition is uncalled for in view of the facts in the case. Eventually we must meet the broader challenge of eugenics through which a race of normal, average intelligentsia will be bred and mental supremacy assured. Surely humanity is as much entitled to scientific breeding as a race horse or a fine dog.
<Subhead>
Present Bill’s Scope
</Subhead>
That, however, is beside the present question which is consideration of Assembly Bill No. 1607 applying only to selected cases of the defective, insane and feeble-minded, committed to the State institutions of California. The present laws were drawn and passed many years ago. They consist of three separate acts, conflicting and indefinite in terms.
One is a part of the Penal Code, and is probably unconstitutional.
One act applies to Pacific Colony only.
The other is the general act, originally passed in 1909.
<Subhead>
Loosely Drawn Acts
</Subhead>
These acts were all loosely drawn. They provide for different procedure in administration, and use terms which do not definitely direct the State officials and medical staffs in the performance of the duties with which they are charged in administering the laws; and do not clearly and definitely define the rights of the patient or the procedure whereby his rights may be protected, and his constitutional right to a day in court secured.
<Subhead>
Purpose of Changes
</Subhead>
The changes sought are intended to clarify and make definite these statutes, and place all sterilizations under one clearly defined procedure. These changes will not alter the fundamental principles or grounds of sterilization now in use, or widen, increase, or decrease, the number of sterilizations in these institutions; nor will they add to the expense of the State in any way. They will protect the State officials and surgeons in the discharge of their duties, and protect the patient and all his representatives in all of their rights, providing for his appearance, if desired, in any proceedings, and his appeal to the courts by a simple process if he is not satisfied with the board’s ruling.
In California, sterilizations are rarely performed without the written consent of the patient, husband, wife, or next of kin; all of whom are usually anxious for the protection afforded by sterilization and the supervised parole which follows.
<Subhead>
Proposal Approved
</Subhead>
The bill has the hearty approval of the director of the Department of Institutions and of all the medical directors of the eight institutions in the State where sterilizations are begin done under the existing laws. Sterilization of hereditary defectives as administered in California, has had the hearty approval of the relatives, families, and the patients themselves after sterilization; as well as the physicians, probation and parole officers, and social workers generally, who have come in contact with the results of these California cases. This State it committed to this preventive, humane protection of her hereditary defectives and posterity, by twenty-five years of successful experience.
<Subhead>
Make-Up of Board
</Subhead>
The State Board of Eugenics created by this bill is composed of the executive heads of the three State departments dealing with the State’s unfortunate, with offices in the same building; and it incurs no additional expense to the State. This competent, quasi-judicial board will assume the responsibility of deciding who shall be sterilized, which now rests upon the Director of State Institutions alone. It will give California the best law of its kind in the United States, instead of one of the poorest.
In spite of defects the California sterilization laws work. Up to January 1, 1935, 9931 patients in State institutions had been treated; about equally divided between men and women.
<Subhead>
Showing in Survey
</Subhead>
A survey made by the Human Betterment Foundation estimates that at least two-thirds of the feeble-minded patients who have been sterilized and paroled have “made good,” that is succeeded on their own outside the State institution after receiving final discharge. This would show an annual saving to the State of $51,000 in maintenance of these wards. The feeble-minded sterilized paroled and discharged in the last four years would on this basis be saving the State, in the cost of maintenance $204,000 annually.
<Subhead>
Importance Made Plain
</Subhead>
Sterilization is not a social cure-all, but enough has been demonstrated to show that it is an important aid in reducing the number of mentally, physically and congenitally unfit and on such a sowing alone it is entitled to a house cleaning and fresh start under more intelligent and easily enforced legal jurisdiction. While sterilization does not keep deficients from being born, because outside of institutions the State has no control, such statistics as are available all indicate that the step is in the right direction.
<Subhead>
California’s Problem
</Subhead>
While California leads every other State in population increase only 69 per cent of this increase is produced by native whites, a considerable part of the remainder being an undesirable residue from other States and countries many of whom eventually find their way into homes for deficients.
It is from this sources that we need and are entitled to the greatest meed [sic] of protection. In spite of population increase the only groups that are holding their own in California by birth rate are the Mexicans and a few of the minor racial groups.
<Subhead>
Most Serious Disease
</Subhead>
The most serious disease in the United States is dementia praecox if the number of hospital beds occupied by its victims is the measure. It is a constitutional disorder affecting body and mind alike, but severe attacks are classed as insanity. About one-half of the patients in all State hospitals for mental diseases are suffering from dementia praecox. It is estimated that if one parent has this disease, about 10 per cent of the children also will suffer from it in the average case. However, an additional 40 per cent of the children will be abnormal or peculiar in some way so that as a general statement it may be said that one-half of the children will be affected through one parent.
<Subhead>
Results in Germany
</Subhead>
In Germany it is estimated that about 200,000 sterilizations have been performed and that feeble-mindedness, split personality and epilepsy accounted for 93.1 per cent of the reasons the Nazi courts assigned for carrying out the operations. An average of 20,000 feeble-minded children were born each year in Germany before the sterilization edict became effective. The protective measure is said to have reduced the figure to 10,000.
Will Durant in a recent lecture said that he felt that the following eugenic principles would have to be adopted if our civilization is to be preserved: (1.) Require every prospective immigrant to meet certain standards of health, intelligence and character. (2.) Stop the reproduction of certified defectives—that is, of persons adjudged to be feeble-minded, habitually criminal, or afflicted with a disabling inheritable disease. (3.) Discourage the fertility of the incompetent by legalizing birth-control.
<Subhead>
University’s Study
</Subhead>
Students at a local university recently interrogated 1225 persons as to whether or not they approved of eugenic sterilization. They found that 83 per cent were in favor, 16 per cent opposed, and 1 per cent doubtful.
The students also took pains to learn whether the person interviewed really knew what sterilization is. It turned out that 22 per cent did not know. Of those who understood what the question meant, 92 per cent were in favor of sterilization. Of those who had an erroneous idea of sterilization, only 56 per cent favored it. The interviewers concluded that ignorance of what sterilization is and what it is not, is one of the main reasons for opposition to it, in Los Angeles county.
<Subhead>
Sterilizations in 1934
</Subhead>
State institutions sterilized 735 patients during 1934, according to figures compiled by the Human Betterment Foundation of Pasadena. Of these, 392 were men and 343 were women. State hospitals for the insane contributed 448 of these patients, and the remainder came from the two homes for the feeble-minded, 142 from Sonoma and 145 from Pacific Colony at Spadra.
From whatever angle this question of sterilization is approached it would seem to have the merit of common sense and community protection behind it. The bill now before the Legislature having to do with eugenic sterilization in California applies only to those who are legally committed as insane or feebleminded, to State institutions. The laws governing it have grown up piecemeal over a quarter of a century.
<Subhead>
Revision Essential
</Subhead>
California’s good record in sterilization is due to conservative, intelligent, and sympathetic administration rather than to the excellence of the statutes. The latter have long been in need of revision to bring them up to date and remove provisions that are vague, obsolete, or useless.
The bill for this purpose in the Senate is No. 380, by Difani of Riverside; int eh Assembly it is No. 1607, jointly introduced by Johnson, Fisher, Breed, Corwin, Cunningham, Martin and Wallace. This measure introduces no new elements or principles in the practice of sterilization in the State institutions. It merely clarifies the law, provides more definite procedures, and gives better protection alike to the patients and to the State officials charged with the administration of the law. Specialists who have have [sic] examined the bill say that, if adopted, it will give California the best sterilization statute in existence.