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

Eugenic States

Woodside Excerpt

[Section Title] IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND SUPERSTITION Under North Carolina law, eugenic sterilization is not offered to normal individuals but applies exclusively to the feeble-minded and mentally afflicted. The understanding of thse4 people is limited, many of them are illiterate, and lacking any consistent sense of purpose, they can be easily influenced. Their relatives, drawn from similar social groups, if not themselves defective (as often happens) are unlikely to be more than dull normal in intelligence, slow to accept new ideas, and incapable of viewing a situation except in immediate personal terms. It is extremely difficult for case workers to explain eugenic sterilization to such clients, allay their fears, and convince them of its value; and we note that of the 85 county welfare departments who had handled sterilization cases, 71 of them check “resistance of client and relatives” as a major problem. (See Appendix C, analysis of questionnaire returns.) Ignorance and superstition were mentioned again and again by workers with practical experience of interpreting the program; and the mental limitations of their cli9ents apart, we must remember that such characteristics are common to uneducated country people all over the world. One public health nurse who had undertaken a special sterilization project in a rural county described her difficulties as follows: Ignorance and lack of education were the biggest obstacles, not only where sterilization was concerned but in relation to all sorts of things such as child welfare and personal health. Men and women will agree to the operation, then back out later. “They believe you when you are talking to them” but then they get confused through talking to friends and relatives. This occurs especially in the case of men, who don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between vasectomy and castration even though they may apparently be convinced after you have explained it to them. Women are more receptive to the idea, but dislike going to the hospital and put off making arrangements; or their husbands may object on religious or selfish grounds. (Some notes on a visit made with this worker to the home of one of her clients will be found in Appendix D.) Confusion exists as to the exact nature of the operation, and analogies are drawn with familiar veterinary procedures on farm animals or with the effects of hysterectomy. Men are fearful that their sexual capacities may be impaired, women give heed to old wives’ tales about the dire results of interference with nature, and many of them are understandably reluctant to submit to a surgical operation which they cannot regard as urgent. The following extract from a social agency case record shows how firmly ingrained an irrational idea may become: Mrs. J., a white woman, wife of a butcher, has seven living and five dead children. One child was born with a deformed foot, another has a speech defect and is feeble-minded (I.Q. 60). Mrs. J. has been attending a psychiatric clinic for treatment of anxiety and depression and is considered of borderline intelligence. She also suffers from kidney trouble, backache, and hemorrhoids. The agency is trying to get her sterilized either on mental or physical grounds, but she will not agree to the operation because of what it may do to her. She has a sister who has been in the State mental hospital for about ten years. When this sister was 25 she had an operation and soon thereafter “lost her mind.” The doctor denied that he had removed the sister’s womb and the doctors at the State hospital say that the operation could not have affected the sister’s mind, but Mrs. J. and her relatives know better. They have asked “plenty of doctors” and they all say that the womb must have been removed. Mrs. J. is obviously convinced that this caused her sister’s mental condition. The case of Ada T. reported at length in the appendix, provides another example of ignorance, fear, and confused thinking on the part of a mentally defective unmarried mother, and the attempt to interpret sterilization to such people is indeed a discouraging and disappointing task. One welfare superintendent says: “There is still so much ignorance and superstition and fear among feeble-minded clients and relatives where any mention is made of sterilization that it is next to impossible to help them dispel these reactions.” Another, less pessimistic, says: “Clients and relatives require understanding, persuasion and encouragement. It takes plenty of time.”

This page has annotations:

Contents of this annotation:
1. Woodside Excerpt [Section Title] IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND SUPERSTITION Under North Carolina law, eugenic sterilization is not offered to normal individuals but applies exclusively to the feeble-minded and mentally afflicted. The understanding of thse4 people is limited, many of them are illiterate, and lacking any consistent sense of purpose, they can be easily influenced. Their relatives, drawn from similar social groups, if not themselves defective (as often happens) are unlikely to be more than dull normal in intelligence, slow to accept new ideas, and incapable of viewing a situation except in immediate personal terms. It is extremely difficult for case workers to explain eugenic sterilization to such clients, allay their fears, and convince them of its value; and we note that of the 85 county welfare departments who had handled sterilization cases, 71 of them check “resistance of client and relatives” as a major problem. (See Appendix C, analysis of questionnaire returns.) Ignorance and superstition were mentioned again and again by workers with practical experience of interpreting the program; and the mental limitations of their cli9ents apart, we must remember that such characteristics are common to uneducated country people all over the world. One public health nurse who had undertaken a special sterilization project in a rural county described her difficulties as follows: Ignorance and lack of education were the biggest obstacles, not only where sterilization was concerned but in relation to all sorts of things such as child welfare and personal health. Men and women will agree to the operation, then back out later. “They believe you when you are talking to them” but then they get confused through talking to friends and relatives. This occurs especially in the case of men, who don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between vasectomy and castration even though they may apparently be convinced after you have explained it to them. Women are more receptive to the idea, but dislike going to the hospital and put off making arrangements; or their husbands may object on religious or selfish grounds. (Some notes on a visit made with this worker to the home of one of her clients will be found in Appendix D.) Confusion exists as to the exact nature of the operation, and analogies are drawn with familiar veterinary procedures on farm animals or with the effects of hysterectomy. Men are fearful that their sexual capacities may be impaired, women give heed to old wives’ tales about the dire results of interference with nature, and many of them are understandably reluctant to submit to a surgical operation which they cannot regard as urgent. The following extract from a social agency case record shows how firmly ingrained an irrational idea may become: Mrs. J., a white woman, wife of a butcher, has seven living and five dead children. One child was born with a deformed foot, another has a speech defect and is feeble-minded (I.Q. 60). Mrs. J. has been attending a psychiatric clinic for treatment of anxiety and depression and is considered of borderline intelligence. She also suffers from kidney trouble, backache, and hemorrhoids. The agency is trying to get her sterilized either on mental or physical grounds, but she will not agree to the operation because of what it may do to her. She has a sister who has been in the State mental hospital for about ten years. When this sister was 25 she had an operation and soon thereafter “lost her mind.” The doctor denied that he had removed the sister’s womb and the doctors at the State hospital say that the operation could not have affected the sister’s mind, but Mrs. J. and her relatives know better. They have asked “plenty of doctors” and they all say that the womb must have been removed. Mrs. J. is obviously convinced that this caused her sister’s mental condition. The case of Ada T. reported at length in the appendix, provides another example of ignorance, fear, and confused thinking on the part of a mentally defective unmarried mother, and the attempt to interpret sterilization to such people is indeed a discouraging and disappointing task. One welfare superintendent says: “There is still so much ignorance and superstition and fear among feeble-minded clients and relatives where any mention is made of sterilization that it is next to impossible to help them dispel these reactions.” Another, less pessimistic, says: “Clients and relatives require understanding, persuasion and encouragement. It takes plenty of time.”

This page is referenced by:

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina The North Carolina Supreme Court established the Eugenics Board of North Carolina in 1933 after the Brewer v. Valk case in 1933, where a 1929 law strengthening eugenic sterilization was ruled as unconstitutional. The decision claimed that sterilization proceedings in North Carolina did not have provisions to allow for a hearing or right to appeal for individuals ordered to undergo sterilization. Members of the Eugenics Board included the State Commissioner of Public Welfare, the Secretary of the State Board of Health, the Attorney General, and medical professionals from state hospitals and institutions for “feebleminded” patients. Meetings occurred once a month, except in special hearing cases, to consider sterilization petitions from institutional and non-institutional actors. The Board approved 6,802 sterilization operations between July 1933 and June 1966, although 49 additional operations reportedly took place prior to the formation of the Eugenics Board. (Eugenics Board of North Carolina, Biennial Report, 1966) Sterilizations did decrease after 1966, but the Eugenics Board was not disbanded until 1977.

In 2011, the Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force created a system of restitution for sterilization victims and estimated that the Eugenics Board oversaw the sterilization of almost 7,600 total individuals between January 1929 and December 1974. (Governor’s Task Force, 2012, p.6) Although the annual number of sterilizations generally decreased on a national level after World War II, North Carolina’s Eugenics Board increased the number of performed operations during the 1950s and 1960s and reported the highest number of biennial operations between 1950 and 1952. (Schoen, 2005, p.80; Eugenics Board of North Carolina, Biennial Report, 1966, p.25) The Eugenics Board accepted sterilization petitions from a range of North Carolina’s institutions and actors including state hospitals, jails and prisons, youth reform schools, homes to address statewide poverty, local social workers, and public welfare agencies.

Reports from North Carolina showed that state’s eugenic sterilization program highly impacted young, single women, with a particular focus on women in poverty and recipients of public welfare. The Eugenics Boards’ approved operations demonstrated that race, class, and ideas about disability informed who was thought of as “unfit” for reproduction, and heavily impacted African American women. In promotional materials, the Board argued that sterilization would “protect persons from parenthood whose impairments seriously handicap them from assuming the responsibilities of parents.” Ideas that low intelligence, disabilities, poverty, criminal inclinations, and addiction could be inherited characterized eugenic beliefs about who should have children. Physicians and public health officials petitioned the Eugenics Board for patient sterilizations in state hospitals, but public welfare officials and social workers could also refer local welfare recipients for these procedures. Women who birthed children outside of marriage, had multiple children, or used public assistance funds to support their families were especially targeted for sterilization. Eugenicists in public health and social welfare programs argued that these women and their children were “public charges” and cost the state money to support, and warned that their children were likely repeat the same pattern.

Additionally, The Eugenics Board ordered sterilization procedures for African Americans throughout the twentieth century but after 1956, state officials began to sterilize more African American women than white women even though the white population in the state was much larger than the African American population. African Americans could not receive welfare relief in the 1930s and 1940s because of racial discrimination, but federal pressure in the 1950s to include African American people in social programs increased the population’s contact with public welfare officials who could refer clients for sterilization, even if the individuals were not in hospitals, prisons, or youth reform schools. North Carolina’s eugenic sterilization program’s actions to end the reproductive abilities of individuals deemed unfit on the basis of ability, class, and race were not unique when compared to other state programs, but it does shows us an example of how sterilization programs took place in a state with a notable African American population.

Social organizations that supported eugenic sterilization worked to publicly increase support for controlling the reproductive rights of “unfit” individuals. The Human Betterment League of North Carolina chapter was involved in various campaigns including sending pamphlets that advocated for sterilizing more individuals to lawmakers and powerful people in the state. The Human Betterment League also wrote opinion editorials in newspapers supporting sterilization and took out large spaces in newspapers across the state to convince the public that sterilization would limit the number of “mental defectives” that could reproduce and pass on “a needless and tragic heritage.” Eugenic groups described sterilization as a procedure that would only benefit society and potentially help prevent future generations. Dr. Clarence J. Gamble worked with the Human Betterment League to spread its influence, published eugenicist findings in medical journals, and offered funds to the Eugenics Board of North Carolina to support studies that would argue for the necessity of sterilization programs. These organizations thus established methods to influence the Eugenics Board and attempted to shape public perceptions of sterilization.

While some women and men asked for sterilization referrals to aide their family planning decisions, other individuals rejected the procedure and sometimes hearings occurred in cases when individuals or families refused consent. In 1950, sociologist Moya Woodside wrote Sterilization in North Carolina. While her work was in favor of eugenic sterilization and the Eugenics Board, it also shows that many medical professionals and social workers could not make people accept the idea that sterilization was a good decision for themselves or their families. Woodside noted that many social workers blamed “ignorance and superstition” and “uneducated country people” as complications to carrying out the sterilization program. (Woodside, 1950, p.61) One quoted welfare superintendent stated: “There is still so much ignorance and superstition and fear among feebleminded clients and relatives where any mention is made for sterilization that it is next to impossible help them dispel these reactions.” (Woodside, 1950, p.62) The interviews and social agency cases that Woodside quoted, however, showed that individuals in North Carolina had a great number of reasons to reject the operation. For example, one woman rejected a social worker’s suggestion for sterilization because she stated that her sister was sterilized when she was twenty-five years old and “lost her mind” after. (Woodside, 1950, p.62) Some individuals expressed religious opposition to sterilization and resisted the procedure. In other cases, Woodside explained that family members sometimes objected to the procedure and would not give consent. One welfare superintendent offered one instance in which “‘One [feebleminded] Negro girl had not been sterilized because of resistance from relatives. They did not think it fair to take away the right to have children.’” (Woodside, 1950, p.73) Although Woodside’s research was meant to support sterilization, we can read her work to see how people in North Carolina struggled against the Eugenics Board, social workers, and welfare agencies.