{"id":3542,"date":"2021-03-02T00:40:34","date_gmt":"2021-03-02T00:40:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3542"},"modified":"2021-03-02T00:40:34","modified_gmt":"2021-03-02T00:40:34","slug":"forced-sterilizations-a-discriminatory-reality-not-a-relic-of-the-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2021\/03\/02\/forced-sterilizations-a-discriminatory-reality-not-a-relic-of-the-past\/","title":{"rendered":"Forced Sterilizations \u2014 A Discriminatory Reality, Not a Relic of the Past"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(Source)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Content warning: Rape, sexual assault.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has only been six months since a shocking whistleblower allegation<\/em><\/a> regarding forced hysterectomies and medical neglect at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (\u201cICE\u201d) detention center in Georgia. Dawn Wooten<\/em><\/a>, a licensed nurse who previously worked at the ICE detention center \u2014 the privately-operated Irwin County Detention Center \u2014 filed a complaint<\/em><\/a> regarding the numerous hysterectomies performed on Spanish-speaking immigrant women without any prior informed consent. She also expressed concern over the alleged deliberate \u201clack of medical care, unsafe work practices and absence of adequate protection against COVID-19<\/em><\/a>.\u201d In 2020, these allegations \u2014 reproductive organs being forcibly removed without the woman\u2019s consent \u2014 almost sounded too inhumane to be true. These allegations, however, have brought to light that forced sterilizations are a remnant of the long legacy of eugenics<\/em><\/a> in the United States and, contrary to popular belief, are not a relic of the past but a harsh reality even today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sir Francis Galton, Charles\nDarwin\u2019s half-cousin, coined<\/em><\/a> the term \u201ceugenics\u201d in 1883. The\nterm stemmed from an inaccurate interpretation of Gregor Mendel\u2019s pea pods and\nDarwin\u2019s theories<\/em><\/a>\nand stood for the idea that many social ills were perpetuated by rapid\nreproduction and growth of the \u201cwrong sort of people<\/em><\/a>.\u201d This theory was somehow\nglorified through the fa\u00e7ade of scientific veracity and \u201ceugenics,\u201d the\nso-called science of \u201cimproving humanity through better\nbreeding<\/em><\/a>,<\/em>\u201d\nemerged as the solution. The eugenics movement in the United States was a product\nof the early 1900s<\/em><\/a>  and\npeaked in the 1920s<\/em><\/a>. While the movement itself started\nlosing steam in the 1940s<\/em><\/a>,\n<\/em>the practice of\nsterilizations for eugenics purposes continued well into the 1970s<\/em><\/a>. Between 1907 to 1937, thirty-two U.S. states passed\nsterilization laws<\/em><\/a>.\nThese states\u2019 sterilization programs were federally funded<\/em><\/a> and government-created eugenics boards<\/em><\/a> in several states were tasked with\nlooking at petitions for sterilizations from\ngovernment agencies or family members<\/em><\/a> and mandating sterilizations accordingly. As such, almost\n70,000 Americans<\/em><\/a> <\/em>\u2014 a lot of them women \u2014 were\nsubject to forced sterilizations during the twentieth century. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As if the idea of forced\nsterilizations was not horrifying enough, a clear bias permeated the practice\nand the entire concept of eugenics. Not surprisingly, those who were considered\n\u201cunfit\u201d or \u201cdifferent\u201d were usually immigrants, Blacks, Indigenous\npeople, poor whites, and people with disabilities.<\/em><\/a> The eugenics movement became a\nflagbearer of racism and sexism. Women and people of color<\/em><\/a> were targeted disproportionately,\nas evidenced by North Carolina\u2019s eugenics board ordering the forced\nsterilizations of more than<\/em><\/a> 8,000 people, 65% of whom were Black women<\/em><\/a>. In the South, forced\nhysterectomies on Black women became so prevalent that they were given a\neuphemism: a \u201cMississippi appendectomy<\/em><\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The eugenics movement found its legal support\nin the 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell<\/em><\/a>, remembered for Justice Oliver\nWendell Holmes\u2019s parting thoughts: \u201cThree generations of imbeciles are\nenough<\/em><\/a>.\u201d\nCarrie Buck had been committed to a state mental institution, the Virginia\nState Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, after giving birth to an\nillegitimate child who was the product of rape. In 1924, Virginia adopted a statute<\/em><\/a> that authorized the state to\nsterilize \u201cso-called mental defectives or\nimbeciles<\/em><\/a>.\u201d Albert Priddy<\/em><\/a>, the physician superintendent at\nthe state mental institution where Buck was committed, decided to test the\nlegal validity of this newly-enacted eugenics law and selected Buck as the subject of the\nfirst sterilization<\/em><\/a>.\nUnder the Virginia law, a hearing<\/em><\/a> was required to determine whether\nthe sterilization was necessary. A sham<\/em><\/a> hearing was held for Buck, in\nwhich Priddy declared Buck \u201ccongenitally and incurably\ndefective<\/em><\/a>.\u201d\nThe Board of Directors then ordered the sterilization, which Buck challenged<\/em><\/a> initially in the Virginia court\nsystem, and then in the Supreme Court. In an eight-to-one decision<\/em><\/a>, the Supreme Court upheld the\nVirginia statute and declared that it was in the state\u2019s interest to have Buck\nsterilized. This decision, a huge victory for the eugenics movement,\nessentially legalized forced sterilizations for eugenics-motivated purposes in\nthe United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Buck, however, when interviewed by reporters years\nlater, stated<\/em><\/a> that she would have liked to have\nchildren and never really understood the nature of the sterilization procedure.\nBuck\u2019s statement echoes a common feature of most forced sterilization\nprocedures \u2014 a lack of information, and subsequently, the lack of informed consent<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> Either the procedure is administered without the woman\u2019s knowledge, or\nher right to consent is taken away from her<\/em><\/a>. The documentary No M\u00e1s Beb\u00e9s<\/em><\/a> showcased how, in the late 1960s\nand early 1970s, doctors used coercion tactics to obtain consent from Mexican immigrant\nwomen to perform sterilizations on them in a Los Angeles hospital. The doctors\nthreatened these non-English speaking women by withholding treatment or telling\nthem their babies might die in order to force them to sign consent forms. The\nwomen only found out later that the barely discernable papers they had signed\nin a state of disorientation and pain actually resulted in the loss of  their reproductive rights. The doctors\ntargeted vulnerable Latina women<\/em><\/a> who woke up after the procedure\nconfused and deprived of their reproductive rights due to coercion and a\ngeneral lack of information. These instances in the documentary echo the\ndescriptions of alleged forced sterilizations at the ICE detention center in\n2020. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the twenty-first century, most instances of forced sterilizations are illegal<\/em><\/a> <\/em>\u2014 doctors are required to follow established procedures and guidelines and inform patients of their reproductive rights. Additionally, forced sterilizations violate several international human rights standards<\/em><\/a>. Despite these international regulations, the practice still continues, especially in jails, prisons, and detention centers<\/em><\/a>. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly 150 women<\/em><\/a>, the majority of whom were Black and Latina<\/em><\/a>, were sterilized through tubal ligations against their consent in California prisons. Since federal funds could not be used<\/em><\/a> to pay doctors for performing these sterilizations, California used state funds to pay these doctors almost $150,000<\/em><\/a>. In discussing the payments to doctors to perform these sterilizations, one doctor noted that the nearly $150,000 of state funds used to pay the doctors \u201cpaled in comparison to \u2018what you save in welfare<\/em><\/a>,\u2019\u201d implying that the state would have paid more through its welfare program had these inmates had children after being released from prison. This kind of rationale has persisted, with a Tennessee judge, as recently as 2017, offering repeat offenders \u201creduced jail time in exchange for sterilization operations<\/em><\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Considering this country\u2019s torrid\nhistory with eugenics and sterilizations, the recent ICE incident should hardly\ncome as a surprise. The whistleblower allegations attracted widespread outrage,\nwith Representative Ayanna Pressley<\/em><\/a> and Representative Pramila Jayapal<\/em><\/a> calling for a Congressional\ninvestigation into these unconstitutional human rights violations. Hopefully\nthose responsible for the atrocities at the detention center will be held\naccountable. In the meantime, it cannot be emphasized enough that interferences\nwith individuals\u2019 reproductive rights and bodily autonomy are not a thing of\nthe past. They are very much a reality, even today, and disproportionately\ntarget the \u201cless fortunate and poorly educated<\/em><\/a>.\u201d Unless we collectively raise\nawareness to change policies, instigate and mobilize policy makers, and educate\non the importance of informed consent, the reproductive freedom that we so\ndesire is a far-fetched possibility in the battle against forced sterilizations.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>
\n

About\nthe Author: Madhura\nBanerjee is a 2L at Cornell Law School. She grew up in Kolkata, India and has a\nlaw degree from Jindal Global University, India. She is interested in corporate\nlaw and intellectual property and eventually hopes to pursue a career in those\nareas.  <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Suggested Citation: Madhura Banerjee, Forced Sterilizations \u2014 A Discriminatory Reality, Not a Relic of the Past<\/em>, Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol\u2019y, The Issue Spotter (Mar. 1, 2021), https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/forced-sterilizations-a-discriminatory-reality-not-a-relic-of-the-past\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Source) Content warning: Rape, sexual assault. It has only been six months since a shocking whistleblower allegation regarding forced hysterectomies and medical neglect at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (\u201cICE\u201d) detention center in Georgia. Dawn Wooten, a licensed nurse who previously worked at the ICE detention center \u2014 the privately-operated Irwin County Detention Center \u2014…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3543,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,15,16,17,18,19,21,25,27,28],"tags":[587,676,794,833,879],"class_list":["post-3542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-archives","category-authors","category-blog-news","category-certified-review","category-feature","category-feature-img","category-spotters","category-policycontributor-blogs","category-recent-stories","category-student-blogs","tag-eugenics","tag-forced-sterilizations","tag-human-rights","tag-informed-consent","tag-jlpp"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3542\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}