Who decides who is “fit” to have children? The subject of “Eugenics” has once again reared its ugliness. History saw it in the Deep South and Nazi Germany, and now it has landed in California. It is worse than unethical behavior; it is something far more sinister.
California, like several other states, had a eugenics law. Their law was supposedly ended in 1979 (it was written in 1909). But was it?
After exhaustive legal research, by California’s Center for Investigative Reporting, “it was found the state sterilized 144 women between 2005 and 2013 with little or no evidence that officials counseled them or offered alternative treatment.”
What is this?
Everything Possible?
The “State” has made the claim that the incarcerated women signed consent forms. However, Lorena Garcia Zermeño, for the advocacy group California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, found that about 40 of the women signed without being fully aware of the alternatives. It smacks of injustices going back decades. Women could be sterilized under the nebulous banners of “feeble mindedness” or “sexual deviance.” Except no one knew what exactly was meant by those terms. It was a moving target.
Under the original law that ended in 1979, relatively few of those women are still living. Under California’s Victim Compensation Board, researchers have been given about $2 million to find victims, there is $1 million for plaques set aside to honor the victims (which is ludicrous on many levels), and $4.5 million for reparations.
However, something quite sinister started in 1999. The State of California lumped tubal ligation under the general blanket term of inmate’s medical care. This was NOT a procedure necessary in the case of ovarian cancer, but a so-called voluntary sterilization.
In several cases, incarcerated women were frightened or did not fully understand the ramifications of the procedure. It took until 2014 before the state banned birth control sterilizations. The problem is that even if the money was made available to the more than 600 women forced into the procedure in “modern times,” it is difficult to find them.
Why would they trust the State?
Cottage Industry
As the investigation unfolds, it seems as though it wasn’t simply a State-run program, but local municipalities were also involved. Los Angeles County apologized to more than 200 women force-sterilized in the late 1960s to the mid-1970s.
The women were all poor, usually Latina or African American, and unable to understand what other options they might have had. In order for such an egregious injustice such as this to take place, it essentially required a lack of oversite on the part of the citizenry and politicians.
Now, the politicians are jumping on the bandwagon of outrage. Where was it then? Who challenged the system and their sterilizations? We can make a highly-flawed argument about ignorance 80 years ago, but what of the period between 2005 and 2013?
We normally see “need” as a quest for monetary gain. Aside from whatever medical schools or clinics were able to make off of the procedures, what was the gain? The need was power. It was control. And, to not allow a view through the lens of racism, homophobia or gender would be wrong in my opinion.
How could they rationalize their program? Was it a threat, perhaps? A warning? Or was the rationalization that of a political state making uncontrolled policy? What other programs in other states have yet to be uncovered? That is the scariest prospect of all.
Make no mistake. This is an ethical issue. It was the ultimate abuse of power by those who thought themselves above ethics. It happened in darkness and the double-speak of legalities, and only stringent ethical training and ethical expectations can prevent this from happening again.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
