When California Sterilized 20,000 of Its Citizens
By Alexandra Minna Stern,
Zocalo Public Square
| 01. 06. 2016
Untitled Document
Not too long ago, more than 60,000 people were sterilized in the United States based on eugenic laws. Most of these operations were performed before the 1960s in institutions for the so-called “mentally ill” or “mentally deficient.” In the early 20th century across the country, medical superintendents, legislators, and social reformers affiliated with an emerging eugenics movement joined forces to put sterilization laws on the books. Such legislation was motivated by crude theories of human heredity that posited the wholesale inheritance of traits associated with a panoply of feared conditions such as criminality, feeblemindedness, and sexual deviance. Many sterilization advocates viewed reproductive surgery as a necessary public health intervention that would protect society from deleterious genes and the social and economic costs of managing “degenerate stock.” From today’s vantage point, compulsory sterilization looks patently like reproductive coercion and unethical medical practice.
At the time, however, sterilization both was countenanced by the U.S. Supreme Court (in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case) and supported by many scientists, reformers, and law-makers as one prong of a larger strategy to improve...
Related Articles
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
By Roxanne Khamsi, The Atlantic | 07.07.2026
When Ludivine Verboogen and Romain Alderweireldt’s third child was born in Belgium in late 2015, they marveled at his long fingers. Perhaps one day he will be a famous pianist, they thought. But soon Ludivine grew worried that her son...
By Anna Louie Sussman, The New York Times | 07.01.2026
Birthrates in much of the developed world are at record lows, but there’s one demographic group that’s exploring new frontiers of fertility: ultrawealthy men. Deploying nearly limitless resources, a small number of them are reproducing at such an extraordinary scale...
By Emily Baumgaertner Nunn, The New York Times | 06.11.2026
When scientists at Columbia University announced they had used a newer technology to precisely edit the genes of human embryos last week, they set the academic community ablaze with debate. Is this good news or bad? How fast will...