Let's compensate victims of California's forced sterilization program — quickly, before they die
By The Times Editorial Board,
Los Angeles Times
| 05. 18. 2018
As appalling as it sounds today, the practice of sterilizing mentally ill women and men to prevent them from passing on their supposedly defective genes was routine and accepted across the United States in the first half of the 20th century. But nowhere was the eugenics movement, as it was called, more entrenched and aggressively pursued than in California.
An estimated 20,000 people in the care of state homes and hospitals in California were sterilized because they were deemed mentally ill, "feeble-minded" or, in some cases, just sexually promiscuous; that's one-third of all the sterilizations that were performed under eugenics programs around the country. A disproportionate number of those sterilized, unsurprisingly, were poor or Latino. Many were pressured into giving consent; others were forced. Doctors in state institutions could order patients to undergo the procedure; the State Commission on Lunacy, created in 1913, often approved those decisions. The law allowing sterilizations was not repealed until 1979.
California has officially apologized; Gov. Gray Davis did so in 2003. But that's not enough. Academics and advocates have long argued for something more...
Related Articles
By Katherine Long, Ben Foldy, and Lingling Wei, The Wall Street Journal | 12.13.2025
Inside a closed Los Angeles courtroom, something wasn’t right.
Clerks working for family court Judge Amy Pellman were reviewing routine surrogacy petitions when they spotted an unusual pattern: the same name, again and again.
A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental...
By David Jensen, The California Stem Cell Report | 12.11.2025
California’s stem cell and gene therapy agency today approved spending $207 million more on training and education, sidestepping the possibility of using the cash to directly support revolutionary research that has been slashed and endangered by the Trump administration.
Directors...
By Sarah Kliff, The New York Times | 12.10.2025
Micah Nerio had known since his early 30s that he wanted to be a father, even if he did not have a partner. He spent a decade saving up to pursue surrogacy, an expensive process where he would create embryos...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...