CS AND THE HUMANITIES From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era PAUL A. LOMBARDO‘This book isa publication of Indiana University Press Morton Steet Bloomington, IN 474049797 USA fupress.indiana.eda Telephoncorders 800-842-6796 Faxonders 812. 855-7931 Ordersby email uporder@indiana.eda (© 2011by Indiana University Press Allright reserved No part ofthis hook maybe reproduced ‘orutlized in any form orby any means, ectronic or mechanical, inchiding ing and recording, orby any {© The paper used this publication _mcetsthe minimum requirements ofthe Manufactured in the United States of FOR CONNI, CHRIS, AND CLARE America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publ cation Data ‘Acenturyofeugenicsin Ameria: from the Indiana experiment to the human genome ra edited by Pal A Lombardo. scm. — (Bloethicsand the AIL Series: Boethics and the humanities [DNLM 1. Human Genome Project. 2. Eugenics —history—United States. 4, Bugenics—legisltion & jrspr ddence—United States 4, History, oth ‘Century—United States 5. History, astFIVE From Legislation to Lived Experience: Eugenic Sterilization in California and Indiana, 1907-79 ALEXANDRA MINNA STERN InFebruary 1950, the Fort Wayne State School in Indiana held a ste tion hearing for Vernon, a young biracial man, Since his original commit- ‘ment a decade earlier, atthe age of 9, Vernon had managed multiple es- ‘apes from the institution, and it was during one ofhis recent flights that the superintendent decided it was necessary to sterilize Vernon “for the protection of the community.” Following the requirements of Indiana's sterilization law, the superintendent filed a petition with the Fort Wayne State School's Board of Supervisors, asking them to approve Vernon's vasectomy based on the medical judgment that he was “definitely eeble- minded and incurable” and that his welfare and that of society would be promoted b ation. In addi ination hearing were served on him and his parents and sent to Indiana's Public Welfare Department. Assuming the surgery occurred 30 daysafter the hearing, which was the protocol, Vernon was one of 84 inmates steril- ized at Fort Wayne in 1950. ‘One month earlier and 2,000 miles away, the sterilization of a14-year- old Latina at the Pacific Colony in Spadra, California, was approved by the director of the Department of Mental Hygiene. In compliance with the state's legal provisions, Pacific Colony's superintendent checked the boxes on the sterilization order form indicating that the operation was ‘warranted because Esperanza, who had spent three years at the institu- tion, was aflicted with “feeble-mindedness” ofthe notices about Vernon's steril- departmental procedures, written consent for Esper been obtained from her father. Given that her sterilization request wasprocessed smoothly and with no objections, Esperanza was almost cere tainly one ofthe 4s patients, 30 of whom were female, who were sterilized at Pacific Colony in 1950. ‘These two snapshots o mmalization and sterilization capture histories of eugenics, mental health, dis- mn of reproduction in twentieth-century America. Like many ofthe more than 60,000 ized in institutions in 33 states from the earl and Esperanza were teenagers with unstable fa tial encounters with the county or juveni ‘commitment to a feebleminded home. ‘Their sterilizations w based on their mental classification as imbeciles and their alleged de- structive personalities, associated with thievery, truancy, and petty crime in Vernon's case, and “social” and “glandular” problems—euphemisms for perceived promiscuity and sexual impropriety—in Esperanza’ case, More broadly, these two examples ht themes, such as the play of race, gender, and class, as well as the formidable power of medical superintendent al diagnosis, and bureaucratic habituation, that scholars have examined over the past few decades in fruitful effort to broaden knowledge about the rise and fall of eugenic sterilization in mod- cern America.’ Yet the stories of Esperanza and Vernon also point toa series of un- explored questions. ‘These surgeries were ordered in 1950, atthe twilight of the era of state sterilizations, Within the next five years, operations jifornia and Indiana would drop considerably due to overlapping entrate on the period before forkd War Il (even though many states maintained robust ste programs ven into the 19608), itis important to explain why sterilizations did not abate until the mic decline, Explaining the reasons for this intriguing shift is particularly instructive for Indiana and California, which shared the distinction of spearheading eugenic sterilization even as their laws diverged markedly in terms of acceptance and implementation, “These two stories al into the lives of those sterilized and the social worlds ofinstitutions where thousands of children and adults were committed because of their pre- 19508 and what impelled their conspicuous luminating because they offer glimpses sumed mental defects and behavioral problems. Just as we know very litle about why approximately 1s states never passed ster thetwentieth century, puzzling questions remain about w! ‘varied so widely from state to state and in the same state. Some homes and hospitals carried out hundreds, even thousands, of procedures while others carried out few, ifany. In a related vein, because patient records are s0 difficult to find, alone access, lived experiences of reprodu demographics of patient populations, the rol family members in sterilization proceedings, and patterns of change over time. As windows onto the politics and practices of sterilization in the mid-twentieth century, these stories help t longevity of eugenic practices and ideas in two states that played c1 roles in American eugenics. CONVERGING AND DIVERGING STERILIZATION LAWS Indiana and California introduced eugenic sterilization statutes to Amer- {ca, passing the first and third laws, respectively, in 1907 and 1909 (Wash- ington passed a statute a few weeks before California).’ Indiana's steril- ization law was in many respects a legislative afterthought formulated to shield Dr. Harry Sharp, the medical superintendent at the Indiana Reformatory in eff ‘who had started to perform vasectomieson prisoners in 1899. . However, over the years, as he honed his surgical technique, Sharp began to see sterilization not just asa potential cure for supposed sexual disorders but as a method to prevent the transmission of the bad heredity of criminals from one generation to the next. As he wrote in the ‘pamphlet Vasectomy: A Means of Preventing Defective Procreation, “restrict- ing propagation seems to be universally agreed on as necessary for the relief of the downward tendency.”In March 1907, Sharp and the general superintendent ofthe Indiana Reformatory, William H. Whittaker, collaborated with a state representa: tive to introduce an act to “prevent the procreation of confirmed erimis nal imbeciles, and rapists.”* Urging the passage of this legislation, Sharp wrote, “No confirmed criminal or other degenerate ever begot a normal child, and for this reason I enter the plea for release of treated inmates and halt the trans. as physical defects” to offspring." After the ‘governor signed this law in April 1907, Sharp wasted no time, sterilizing 19 men in 1908 (over 1o percent of the reformatory’s average patient population of 1,100). In 1909 he reported that he had sterilized 456 men since 1899 and expressed his impatience to implement the “In- ies beyond Jeffersonville. Despite Sharp's enthusiasm, Indiana's governor, Thomas R. Marshal ‘was wary of Sharp'sactivities and unsure ofthe statute's co and in spring 1909 he ordered a moratorium on st s upheld this de facto ban on sterilizat ans were particu- no legal protections for patients or inmates.” Seeking some resolution, in 1919 Governor James Goodrich decided to test the law’s constitutionality. He appointed the Jeffersonville city attorney to defend Warren Wallace Smith, convicted ‘of rape and incest, against ast Reformatory’s board of trustee: Circuit Court, Dr. Charles F. Williams, the reformatory’s chief physi- ppealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which in turn sustained lated the state constitution and the U.S. Con- stitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, by depriving Smith “of life, liberty and property without due process of law” as well as the “equal protection of the laws.” This decision also stated "while vasectomy is physically ess severe than castration, ints results it is much the coarser and more vulgar, and is equally cruel and inhuman. ‘This unambiguous interpretation laid the groundwork and set the Timits for Indiana’s 1927 act, which pertained exclusively to institutions forthe feebleminded, insane, and epileptic, and was written to stress the preventive health benefits of insulating the populace against defective he- redity. After the passage of this new act, Indiana carried out the majority ofits sterilizations, bout 2,000 (of approximately 2,s00 total from 1907 to 1974). Over 1,500 0F 5 percent of these were performed atthe Fort Wayne ‘State School, which had been founded as an orphans’ home in 1879 and for feebleminded children in 1890. This institution I ages, who were instructed in basic subjects and ike cooking and table waiting (girls) and _shoemaking and brush making (boys) to be able to work in the hospital ‘and following possible out-placement and parole.!*In1920, excess capac- te School, which acfi Colony 1950 Thisis one of approximately 1,000 Mental “Anthology (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 281-09; Joel Braslow, Ment reatment i the First Half of the Twentieth Century | Wendy Kline, Building Better Race: 6. On Sharp's initial rationale For vasectomy, see Elof Axel Carlson, The Unf: A “Her ad en (Col Sprig Harbor NY Cold Spring Hab Laboratory Pre 3001), and Angela Guglots,""Dr Sharp wit 14 Pani ‘ire Orig eugene 19 rgeons to Deal wth Criminals Sharp, Vasectomy 2-3. See Goglott, Dr Sharp with His Litle Knife” Figures for 1908 were cau Iatedby archivist Vicki Castel, Ste 12, See Correspondence Folder, Thomas R. Marsha Sharp with His Little Knit Indianapolis Morning Star, March 7, 1907 10, 39, State of Indian the Supreme Coort arma 382 (1963): 275-89 16, See Sisy fist AnnualReport ofthe Fort Wayne State Schoo, Fort Way forthe Fiscal Year Ending Ju ‘:Nealy every annual report port ofthe Bort Wayne State School cal Year Ending September. Schoo! (also Thi Ending September 30, 1 Th Blenlt Report ofthe Department of 26 (Sacrament ler Breeding in Modern es the Supreme69, Delaware was the oaly state tha 10s, with arate raging between about 80 and 100 Indiana” notes inconsistent interpretations of 1 Sexual Sterilization of Inmates” (197 1avolving allegations of medical malpractice, demands for dam: izations for the (California State Archives. An abridged ‘Sona Rosas Garcia, State Department of situ ‘March 193.” Her operation occurred on March 3, 44, “Recommendation ad Approval Veectomyo Saget rhe Pe ‘Made (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006). 33. See "Background Pape," in Matoca ed, California's Compuliory Sterilization Police. sof Nathan Slate, Department of Mental Hygiene 1 Earl E Jensen, March 22,198. ‘M.Tones January, 92-54, Sonoma State Hospital,six Eugenics and Social Welfare in New Deal Minnesota MOLLY LADD-TAYLOR ‘Tena and Stewart had “many good traits and were fond of their chi but social workers found their living conditions “impossible.” It was and the couple “could not cope” with the “existing conditions” of depres- sion and unemployment. He drank, and she was “stepping out”—despite being pregnant with her fourth child. Their children appeared neglected and abused. After IQ tests found both parents to be feebleminded,' they ‘were committed to state guardianship, sent to the state institution, and sterilized. Stewart's parents quickly consented to his operation, and he returned home after two months, but Tena’s parents “caused” her opera tion to be delayed. She was reunited with her family eight months later, but the couple remained wards ofthe state. A social worker helped Stew- art get New Deal work relief and kept in “close touch” with Tena as she reestablished her home.” “Tena and Stewart were among the approximately 1,200 Minnesotans sterilized during the Great Depression.’ Their welfare dependency and problematic parenting brought them to the attention of the county child ‘welfare board, and their low IQ scores provided proof of their mental deficiency. ‘Their case, which was unusual only because both husband and wife were sterilized, was presented to the American Association for Mental Deficiency as an example of successful casework, The write-up made no reference to heredity or eugenics, however; the couple’s economic circumstances and parenting s ae ‘with positive social work intervention and surgery. Eugenic ster- this case, was a routine decision aimed at ensuring that a telfae-dependent family did ot have any more mouthsto feed and that