This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Eugenic States

G.B.'s Sterilization

This page has annotations:

Contents of this annotation:
1. G.B.'s Sterilization

This page is referenced by:

Justifying Eugenic Sterilization Justification for eugenic sterilization by medical institutions varied, but often emphasized how a patient was incompetent and the potential “dangers” of their children as drains on state welfare and resources. Cases at the University of Iowa Psychopathic Hospital were no different. This facility was one of the institutions in Iowa that promoted and performed eugenic sterilizations, often praising the “recovery” of patients after sterilization, as one account attested in 1934. This document, a thesis by University of Iowa psychology student Florence Glassman, examined the results of eugenic sterilization on twenty-four women at the university hospital. Through her report, we can understand the perception physicians and medical professionals maintained when viewing patients categorized as “feeble-minded.” While some of the justification for sterilization may seem extreme by today’s standards, these metrics were ardently used under the eugenic belief that preventing specific people from reproducing would improve society. Glassman’s analysis often emphasized the “benefit” of sterilizations, as she did with one twenty-eight-year-old woman included in her study.

G.B. was sterilized on April 27, 1932. The profile Glassman provides focuses on “evidence” supporting the procedure, criticizing G.B.’s supposed intelligence and her abilities as a wife and mother. G.B. lived in a county home with her husband, who was blind. Two of her children were in an orphanage, and another had already died. This account depicts, albeit unintentionally, a difficult, and isolated life:
“She had few friends. She was unable to mix well and was quarrelsome. She fought with the inmates at the home and was unable to understand what they were talking about. She had a vivid imagination and told many lies.”[1]
Physicians at the Psychopathic Hospital used these seeming behavioral issues, promiscuity with extramarital relationships, and familial shortcomings as justification for her sterilization. However, her life seemed unchanged even after the procedure. As Glassman noted, no changes had occurred mentally or physically, and her behavior was much the same as before. In spite of this, Glassman surmised that G.B.’s sterilization was a success because it restricted the reproductive autonomy of a “feebleminded” woman because “now at least she is no worse and has not conceived.”[2]

Glassman concluded her analysis of G.B. here. She does not consider how G.B. herself viewed her diagnosis as “feebleminded” or subsequent sterilization. Reports such as this that delved into extreme detail about a patient’s life, passed judgement based on their behavior and environmental conditions, and determined their worth as a person were commonplace. Glassman’s analysis often emphasized the family history of a patient as a signifier of inferior heredity, reporting any sign of mental deficiency, poverty, or criminality as evidence in support of sterilization. We do not hear G.B.’s voice in this account and have limited information about how her life proceeded after sterilization. In reviewing documents like Glassman’s thesis, we must be cautious of this omission and consider how the views of the author influence the historical narrative. G.B.’s silence and Glassman’s dismissal of her life are indicative of this erasure.

[1] Florence S. Glassman, “A Study of Eugenic Sterilization in a Group of Twenty-Four Women” (master’s thesis, State University of Iowa, 1934), 26.
[2] Glassman, “Study of Eugenic Sterilization,” 26.