State Dating Laws Near Sanger

California

Number of Victims

In total, 20,108 people weresterilized in the state of California prior to 1964. California had by far thehighest number of sterilizations in the United States (one third of allsterilizations nationwide). The numbers of men and women sterilized were aboutequal. Of the total sterilizations, almost 60% were considered mentally ill andmore than 35% were considered mentally deficient. Men and women of Mexicanorigin represented between 7% and 8% of those sterilized (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 111). African Americans made up 1% of California's populationbut accounted for 4% of the sterilizations (Stern, Eugenic Nation,p.111). However, because of the sensitive nature of sterilizationrecords,many are difficult to access or have been altered. This suggests thatthe totalknown number of sterilizations may be conservative compared to theactual number (Stern, 'From Legislation to Lived Experience,' p. 97).

Period during whichsterilizations occurred

Thefirst sterilization law was passed in 1909. From here, sterilizations occurredat a steady increasing rate until about 1950. Prior to 1921, there were2,558 sterilizations and this rate continued to increase until around 1950.California differed from many other states, in that, sterilizations did notsignificantly decrease with the Great Depression (Clayton, p. 43). After 1950,the rate slowed, and only 85 sterilizations occurred after 1960.

Carson dating site online.

Temporal Pattern ofsterilizations and rate ofsterilization

Free Dating In Sanger, TX - Sanger Singles In Texas. Welcome to LetsHangOut.com! Meet dating singles in Sanger, TX and areas nearby (50 miles). View and chat with local dating profiles and personals on our 100% free Sanger dating site or use the links below to view nearby single men and women elsewhere in Texas.

Passage of Laws

1. Jun 14, 2016 There are probably some crazy laws in Wyoming that you are not familiar with. Here are some of those lesser-known laws. While some of these are for your own good, there are some laws that just make no sense at all. If you're going to spend any time out here, here are a few things to know about Wyoming law and order.
2. States minor laws define the age at which a citizen is considered an adult in the eyes of the law, also known as the 'age of majority.' Although these laws can vary, West Virginia is like most states and has an age of majority of 18 years old, or 16 if you are married.

Eugenicistin California saw sterilization as a tool with a broad range of applications,all of which were applied to prevent the procreation of undesirable traits, overcrowdingof state institutions, and to alleviate fiscal constraints on the state(Bruinius, p. 211).
The first state sterilization law in California was enacted on April 26, 1909and remained largely unopposed for the next 70 years (Laughlin, p. 1). This was the first of three laws passed in California and it targeted patientsin state hospitals and institutions for the mentally retarded, as well asprison inmates. Of the prison inmates, those labeled sex offenders werethe most commonly targeted. At the time of the passage of this law, theapproval of the superintendent of the institutions, the superintendent of thestate hospitals and the secretary of the State Board of Health were consulted.If two out of three of them approved, the sterilization could be carried out(Paul, pp. 256-257).
A second law was passed on June 13, 1913. This law repealed the first lawand established different guidelines (Gottshall and Laughlin, p. 2). It allowedfor a wider range of people to be sterilized. Anyone who was 'afflictedwith hereditary insanity or incurable chronic mania or dementia' (Braslow, pp.33-34) could be sterilized. This law also established the State LunacyCommission, which had the power to order sterilizations. However, this law didcall for parental consent in the case of the sterilization of minors (Braslow,p. 34).
The third law, enacted at the end of July, 1917, created modifications to the1913 sterilization law by expanding the scope of who could be sterilized(Kline, p. 50). Two amendments were made to the 1913 law which includedspecific references to the Sonoma State Home and the Pacific Colony (Laughlin,pp. 3, 7, 8). The law established the Pacific Colony and allowed the Board ofTrustees of this institution to grant permission for sterilizations of thoseliving there (Gottshall).
The sterilization laws were significant largely for their overt language,effectively applying to anyone who we deemed abnormal, as well as for the omissionin terms of patient rights (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience,' p. 101). There was nolegal mechanism for patients to challenge the sterilization order, no writtennotification required to be sent to the patient of family, and no opportunityfor a hearing that the institutional level (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience,' p.101).
In both 1935 and 1937, legislation was drafted that would have established aState Eugenics Board and further expanded the state's authority to performsterilizations to include inmates and residents of behavioral and othernon-mental reformatory institutions. However, the bills failed and neverbecame law (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 83).
The California sterilization law saw further changes in the 1930's (Currell andCogdell, p. 34). Ann Cooper Hewitt, a rich heiress, attempted to sue hermother, Dr. Tilton E Tillman and Samuel G. Boyd for sterilization withoutconsent. Ann's mother had requested sterilization for her daughterbecause of sexual misconduct (Currell and Cogdell, p. 35). The casebrought up an unexplored the constitutionality of sterilization in a privatepractice (rather than public institution) without consent. While thecurrent law did not specify if those doctors that performed sterilizations atprivate practices were protected, Judge Tuttle dismissed the case, saying thatsterilization performed at private practices without consent of the patientwere perfectly legal as long as a guardian had requested the operation (Currelland Cogdell, p. 36). This was a significant specification. The scopeof sterilization was widened to include those who were not in institutions, butwhose parents or guardians deemed sterilization necessary for their unrulychildren (Currell and Cogdell, p. 36). Further, this case exemplifiedthe growing shift from using heredity as the main reasoning forsterilization. Now, questionable sexual behavior was enough. Thosewho were diagnosed with this 'disorder' were predicted to be unfit forparenthood (Currell and Cogdell, p. 35). Further, for some,sterilization became a private family matter where the guardian could simplysign a few papers in order to get his/her child sterilized-alleviating theburden on eugenicists and expanding sterilization to the middle and upperclasses of society (Currell and Cogdell, p. 36). Butler saw this decisioncould have a large impact of nationwide sterilization rates and as a steptoward preventing race degeneration. Consequently, he sent hundreds ofcopies of the decisions to private physicians all over the country (Currell andCogdell, p. 37).

In part as a result of the Garcia v. State Department trial, in 1951, thelaws were amended to require full authorization from the patient in order toperform sterilizations (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 102). This effectively made the process ofsterilization much more burdensome for the physician-causing a decrease insterilization rates. In 1950, Sonoma sterilized 5, 550 patients, two yearslater, they would sterilize just 4. These transitions along with statementsmade by the Department of Mental Hygiene, and others, throughout the 1950sfurther affirmed the psychiatric movement away from sterilization (Paul, p.267). These laws, combined, allowed eugenic sterilizations to occur in thestate of California through 1964 (Gottshall).
In 1927, in an 8-to-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld theconstitutionality of Virginia's—and, by extension, California's—mandatorysterilization law in the case of Buck v. Bell. However, in 2003, the CaliforniaSenate issued Senate Resolution No. 20 to apologize for California's eugenicslaws (see Center for Science, History, Policy, and Ethics).

Groups identified in the Law

The1909 law was aimed specifically at those in prisons and with mentaldisabilities that caused them to be institutionalized. Of those withmental disabilities, the law targeted patients in state hospitals andinstitutions of the feeble-minded. In terms of the prisoners, the lawtargeted those who were inmates for life, showing 'sex or moral perversions',or were certain repeat offenders (Gottshall and Laughlin, p. 7). The 1913 lawexpanded to target all inmates in state hospitals or homes for thefeeble-minded (except voluntary patients in state hospitals), as well as allrepeat offenders in state prisons (Laughlin, p.7). The 1917 amendments greatlyexpanded the groups targeted even further to include those who had hereditarymental diseases, 'those suffering from perversion or marked departures fromnormal mentality', and those with sexually-transmitted diseases (Laughlin,pp. 7-8). These two later laws expanded to include virtually any individualdeemed unfit. About 70% of all sterilization were performed on people who were labeled mentally ill(see Paul, p. 261).

Process of the Law

In1909, in order to legally sterilize someone, the approval of any two of thethree following individuals was required: the superintendent or residentphysician of the institution, the superintendent of state hospitals, and thesecretary of the State Board of Health (Gottshall). If these approvalswere given, sterilization could occur (Gottshall). In 1913, the jurisdictionover sterilization in California expanded to include the 'State LunacyCommission' and gave it the authority to order the sterilization of anindividual with certain mental illnesses. In 1917, after theestablishment of the institution called the Pacific Colony, which dealt withthe sterilization of epileptics and mentally delayed individuals, authorizationprocedures for sterilization changed. Sterilizations required the authorization by a Board ofTrustees, and a clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. (Gottshall). For all,although consent from the sterilized individual or their family was notrequired, it was usually received (Butler). However, many individuals may havegiven consent so that they would be allowed to leave the hospital (Braslow, p.43). Neither records nor reports were required by any of the Californiasterilization laws to be kept (Laughlin, p. 137).

Precipitating Factors andProcesses

Around the turn of thecentury, increased immigration led to changes in California's demographics(Stern, Eugenic Nation, pp. 57-59). Between the years 1890-1910, 12million people immigrated into the United States (Bruinius, p. 256). To curb thisinflux, legislation such as Theodore Roosevelt's Gentleman's Agreement, and theChinese Exclusion Acts, were enacted (Bruinius, p. 256). Especiallyimportant was the influx of Mexicans looking for work. Their presence cost thestate a lot of money in charity and welfare. Further, Mexicans were stereotypedto be diseased. Eugenicists such as Charles M. Goethe warned their presencein the United States would cause the spread of diseases such as Tuberculosis(Kline,p. 67). This began a process of trying to keep undesirable Mexicans out of the United States (Stern, Eugenic Nation,pp. 57-59). Between the years 1926-1928, 40% of those deported in the UnitedStates were Mexicans (mostly from Southern California) (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 213). As a result, progressives began to look for away to easily eliminate degeneracy and disorder in the new chaos (Gottshall).European settlers sought to establish a community, based on modern science,which fulfilled the Manifest Destiny and downplayed the Spanish and Mexicanpast of the territory (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 85). Furthermore,African-American men were seen as being excessively virile and this needed tobe controlled to protect women (Kline, p. 9). Similarly, the idea of 'racesuicide' emerged on a national level. This concept stated that women ofgood stock should be having children in order to ensure that the white middle classnot be taken over by inferiors (Kline, p. 11).
The changing economy led to changing gender roles in society. As the economybecame more corporate, white men were becoming perceived as less masculine dueto the desk jobs they often occupied (Kline, p. 9). At the same time more andmore women began to work outside of the home. These women were seen as overlysexual and challenging to the traditional roles of middle class women (Kline,pp. 10-11). Many doctors were concerned with women giving birth out of wedlock.This caused doctors to sterilize some women in order to prevent this fromhappening (Braslow, p. 47). Progressive Era reformers saw these changes andbegan to implement eugenic programs to help 'better' society (Stern,'Sterilized,' p. 1123).
The driving force behind the statutes regarding sterilization in California wasmainly eugenic in nature, although they were also allegedly designed to benefit inmates in aphysical, mental, moral, or therapeutic manner. There was a somewhat punitivemotivation behind them as well (see Laughlin, p.7). After World War I, and thechange in the perception of 'feeble-mindedness' from a crime to a disease, there was a notedshift across the country from 'institutions' to 'hospitals' and 'inmates' to'patients' (Kline, p. 45). In the waning years of sterilization in California,the rationale shifted from eugenics to 'fears of overpopulation, welfaredependency, and illegitimacy' (Stern, 'Sterilized,' p. 1132).

Groups Targeted andVictimized

Thoseindividuals targeted generally fell into one of three categories, dependent,delinquent, or mental deficient (Bruinius, p. 10). They were thought tothreaten the strength and wellbeing of the race (Kline, p. 37).

Those who were 'dependent' generally lacked formal education and receivedwelfare payments from the government. Motivated to prevent theprocreation of the poor, eugenicists attempted to eradicate this undesirable traitfrom the general population (Kline, p. 38). Further, becauseof their lack of education, these individuals were vulnerable and easy tovictimize. This resulted in many sterilizations of refugees from the Dust Bowlin the later 1920s and early 1930s (Clayton, p. 44).
The definition of 'delinquency' varied with men and women (Kline, pp. 37-40). Women who were seen as sexually promiscuous were often sterilized as a'cure' for their actions. (This wasbecause sexual promiscuity was seen as a symptom of feeblemindedness (Kline, p.36). Further, it attacked the termed 'high grade moron' that Goddardthreatened could have the greatest negative effect on a race because, althoughthey seemed mentally normal and would go undetected on intelligence tests,their sexual deviance could cause the procreation of more sexually deviantwomen (Kline, p. 37). Men differed in that sterilization was seen as arehabilitative treatment to prevent destructive traits such as petty crime(Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 96).
Mental deficiency was a very broad term, including everything fromthe socially undesirable traits such as sexual promiscuity, to schizophrenia.These included alcoholics, epileptics, individuals with Down's syndrome, theinsane, and those who were manically depressed (Gottshall). The range ofthose targeted was expanded as the result of the laws over the years. These individuals were disproportionately female and racial minorities.Mexicans and African Americans were also disproportionately sterilized (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 111). Inmates in prisons, especially those whose crimes weresexual in nature, were targeted in the early years of the program. Later,the focus shifted primarily to target those with mental illnesses (Gottshall).
However, in practice, the law was also applied to many others, ranging fromalcoholics to paupers to people infected with syphilis (Center for Science,History, Policy, and Ethics, see Senate Resolution No. 20). Of those theSonoma State Home sterilized through June 30, 1916, about half werecharacterized as 'manic depressive', with another third characterized as eitherhaving 'dementia praecox' or being epileptic (Laughlin, p. 53). Inaddition, rather than sterilize them, the Sonoma State Home participated in aprogram to deport 'mentally defective' immigrants—at a rate of about 37 immigrantsper year, with about half being Mexican or Filipino (Kline, p. 59).

Other Restrictions placed onthose identified in the law orwith disabilities in general

Manyof those who were released went on to live relatively normal lives. They weremarried, and although without children, were able to support themselves(Butler). Although they were not in fact disabled, Mexicans weredisproportionately targeted. Many were targeted because of the traditionallylarge families of Mexican Americans. In order to prevent an increase in theirnumbers, sterilization was often utilized (Stern, 'Sterilized,' p. 1132).

Major Proponents

(Photo origin: Wikipedia.com; available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Popenoe)

Paul Popenoe was raised inCalifornia and studied Biology. As a journalist, he wrote columns promotingeugenics. He believed that charity was the reason society had so manydegenerates that had survived for so long. He conducted extensive researchabout IQs and the individuals who had been sterilized in order to promotethe cause (Stern, Eugenic Nation, pp. 105-107). Working with E.S.Gosney, he researched California's eugenic institutions and helped promote theprogram (Braslow, p. 41). Although he continued to work on Eugenics for therest of his life, he eventually had to denounce negative eugenics as it fellout of favor in the 1940s (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 106).

(Phote origin: Wikipedia.com; available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._Gosney)

E.S. Gosney was aphilanthropist who helped to finance and promote the eugenics program(Popenoe). He worked along with Popenoe to collect data about sterilizations byresearching California's state institutions. He helped fund and createthe Human Betterment Foundation for well-known wealthy individuals whosupported eugenics. The HBF funded surveys to study the effects ofsterilizations and promote its benefits (Bruinius, p. 272). Unlike manyeugenic supporters of the day, his focus was primarily on the benefits forsociety, not the benefits for the individual (Braslow, p. 41).

F.O.Butler was the superintendent of Sonoma State home starting in 1918. Hebelieved that sterilization benefited both the individuals and society as awhole (Butler) Both through public promotion and actual operations, he waslargely responsible for thousands of sterilizations. He himself is estimated tohave performed at least 1000 sterilizations throughout his career (Kline, p.52). Preventative public health measure (Kline,p. 52).

CharlesM. Goethe was a businessman from Sacramento who promoted eugenics in the SanFrancisco area (Stern, 'Sterilized', p. 1129). He advocated for eugenic policyincluding immigration restriction, 'better breeding', and sterilization. With abackground in plants and animals, he viewed eugenics as a way of improving thehuman race (Center for Science, History, Policy, and Ethics).

Frederick W. Hatch, Jr. wasthe secretary of the State Lunacy Commission in California. After thesterilization law was passed in 1909, he became the General Superintendent ofState Hospitals. He held this position for the rest of his life, using it toimplement policy and hire hospital administrators in favor of eugenics. Whilehe held this position, about 3,000 people were sterilized in California(Gottshall). Even after his death in 1924, his legacy of an activeprogram for sterilization lived on through the next hospital superintendents.

Ulysses S. Webb was theattorney general of California during much of the Progressive Era, holding thatposition for 37 years. He was confident that eugenic sterilization laws,especially those requiring some form of consent, would survive a challenge bythe courts. He preferred that sterilizations be used as a medical treatment,rather than as a punishment by the courts (Gottshall).

Public Support
The Race Betterment Exhibit 1915 in San Franciscopromoted 'positive eugenics' as a way to counter race degeneracy. Also warnedagainst the 'moron girl', those who were abnormal as a biological threat (Kline, p. 30). Questionable sexual behavior indicated a primitivesavagery and qualified the afflicted individual and unfit to reproduce (Kline,p. 31).
A 1935-1941 Los Angeles Times 'Social Eugenics' column, written by Fred Hogue,summarized the American Eugenics Society meetings and cited publications of theHBF to promote the social and economic benefits of sterilization (Currell andCogdell, p. 38). Sacrifice of individual for public good. 66% approvedcompulsory sterilization according to 1937 Fortune Magazine survey (Currell andCogdell, p. 37).
Eugenics was integrated into the curriculum of California's publicschools. Biology, sociology, and home management textbooks all containedthe 'evidence' supporting the cause. This, in addition to the propagandafrom eugenics societies resulted in overall public support for the movement inCalifornia (La Chappelle, p. 34).

'Feeder Institutions' andinstitutions wheresterilizations were performed

(Photo origin: Alex Wellerstein; available at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/collection/)

The SonomaState Home was astate hospital founded in 1884 and was initially designed to helpeducatementally disabled children (Kline, p. 30). However, Sonoma wouldeventually become the institution that set the stage for sterilization,providing an example for institutions all over the world (Kline, p.30). This transition came with the emergence of eugenics. Sinceabnormal traits that were thought to be inherited, sterilization wasseen as away to prevent the degeneration of the race through the procreation ofthosewith undesirable traits (Kline, p. 30). Rather than protectingpatientsfrom society, institutions were instead used to protect society fromthe verysame patients. It was especially focused on sterilizing women whowereconsidered sexually deviant (Kline, p. 32). Many of thesewomen wereconsidered such because they had sex outside of marriage. Such an actwasconsidered an implication the mental deficiency of the individual andqualifiedthem for institutionalization and sterilization (Kline, p. 30). Underthedirection of Butler, Sonoma acted as a kind of 'revolving operatingroom' in anattempt to expand beyond the institution, Sonoma admitted patientssolely forthe purpose to be sterilized and then released. According to a studyconductedby Paul Popenoe, between the years 1922-1925, 25% of those femalessterilizedfell into this category (Kline, p. 53). This aggressive approachislikely the reason for Sonoma's comparatively high number ofsterilizations. Sonoma was said to have sterilized more 'mentaldefectives' than any other institution inthe world up to 1942 (Kline, p. 33). Often overlooked, Sonomaconducted dangeroustests and trials on patients into the 1960s. Testing in mentalinstitution alleviated the compensation and consent required forresearches. Such treatments, including radiation dosingexperiments,resulted in countless injuries and deaths that are still beinginvestigated (60Minutes). Still open today, renamed the Sonoma DevelopmentCenter, thereis no mention of the past on the website (State of California).

(Source: http://www.cdcan.info/node/212)

The Pacific Colonyin Pomona was an institution that was created under the 1917sterilization law and it dealt with the sterilization of epileptics andmentally delayed individuals. This was created as a result of theapparent growing number of 'feeble-minded' individuals. On March20,1921, the first patients were admitted to Pacific Colony with anexpectedcapacity of 50 patients. However, due to a lack of water and limitedaccess tothe colony, it soon became inappropriate for their needs and thefacilityclosed on January 23, 1923. Pacific Colony reopened and would act asthe onlyfeebleminded institution in California, apart from Sonoma, sterilizingpatients. However, after the Garcia v State Department of Institutionstrial,the judge contributed to the change in the current law. The newprovisionallowed patients the opportunity to fight sterilizations. Thisdramaticallydecreased the rate of sterilizations in all institutions in California.In1952, 225 sterilizations were conducted. This number droppeddramatically afterthe passing of the new law to just 51 in 1952 (Stern, 'From LegislationtoLived Experience', p. 96). Later renamed to 'Pacific State Hospital,'its most recent name is 'Frank D. Lanterman State Hospital andDevelopmental Center' (see 'History of Lanterman').
By 1921, in addition to the Sonoma State home and the Pacific Colony, several state mental hospitalsperformed sterilizations of some kind. On average, mental hospitals averagedfive times as many inmates as the feebleminded homes in California. In 1940,California mental hospitals held 22,953 patients as compared to 4,076 patientsin Sonoma and the Pacific Colony combined (Stern, 'From Legislation toLived Experience', p. 100).
This resulted in their performing more total sterilizations (12,000) thandid the feebleminded homes (8,000) ( Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 100). These hospitals included Patton, Agnews, Norwalk,Stockton, Camarillo, Mendocino, and Napa. Many of these were overcrowded. Between 1910 to 1955, the total population of residents increased fivefold(6,864-36,403). This was used as reasoning to sterilize more patients toincrease eugenic efficiency (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 104).

(Source: http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=File:Agnews5.png)

Also known as, the 'GreatAsylum for the Insane,' Agnewsopened in 1885 in Santa, Clara California. It was the third institution opened for treatment of the mentallyill. The 1906 earthquake severely damaged the facility and more than 100patientsdied (Santa Clara County). It reopened after the earthquake in 1911 asAgnews State Mental Hospital. The facility was a 'small, self-containedtown. ' It included shops, livestock and crops for food, as well as afire department. Individuals who possessed developmentaldisabilities were still admitted and treated until the facility closedin 1998, while those who are mentally ill were not longer admitted bythe year 1972. Currently, the land has been repurposed to be theR&D campus of Sun Microsystems. In 1997, the Agnews site wasadded to the National Register of Historic Places (Agnews DevelopmentCenter).

(Source: http://livingnewdeal.berkeley.edu/map/view.php?l=243)

Free Dating In Sanger, TX - Sanger Singles In Texas. Welcome to LetsHangOut.com! Meet dating singles in Sanger, TX and areas nearby (50 miles). View and chat with local dating profiles and personals on our 100% free Sanger dating site or use the links below to view nearby single men and women elsewhere in Texas.

Passage of Laws

1. Jun 14, 2016 There are probably some crazy laws in Wyoming that you are not familiar with. Here are some of those lesser-known laws. While some of these are for your own good, there are some laws that just make no sense at all. If you're going to spend any time out here, here are a few things to know about Wyoming law and order.
2. States minor laws define the age at which a citizen is considered an adult in the eyes of the law, also known as the 'age of majority.' Although these laws can vary, West Virginia is like most states and has an age of majority of 18 years old, or 16 if you are married.

Eugenicistin California saw sterilization as a tool with a broad range of applications,all of which were applied to prevent the procreation of undesirable traits, overcrowdingof state institutions, and to alleviate fiscal constraints on the state(Bruinius, p. 211).
The first state sterilization law in California was enacted on April 26, 1909and remained largely unopposed for the next 70 years (Laughlin, p. 1). This was the first of three laws passed in California and it targeted patientsin state hospitals and institutions for the mentally retarded, as well asprison inmates. Of the prison inmates, those labeled sex offenders werethe most commonly targeted. At the time of the passage of this law, theapproval of the superintendent of the institutions, the superintendent of thestate hospitals and the secretary of the State Board of Health were consulted.If two out of three of them approved, the sterilization could be carried out(Paul, pp. 256-257).
A second law was passed on June 13, 1913. This law repealed the first lawand established different guidelines (Gottshall and Laughlin, p. 2). It allowedfor a wider range of people to be sterilized. Anyone who was 'afflictedwith hereditary insanity or incurable chronic mania or dementia' (Braslow, pp.33-34) could be sterilized. This law also established the State LunacyCommission, which had the power to order sterilizations. However, this law didcall for parental consent in the case of the sterilization of minors (Braslow,p. 34).
The third law, enacted at the end of July, 1917, created modifications to the1913 sterilization law by expanding the scope of who could be sterilized(Kline, p. 50). Two amendments were made to the 1913 law which includedspecific references to the Sonoma State Home and the Pacific Colony (Laughlin,pp. 3, 7, 8). The law established the Pacific Colony and allowed the Board ofTrustees of this institution to grant permission for sterilizations of thoseliving there (Gottshall).
The sterilization laws were significant largely for their overt language,effectively applying to anyone who we deemed abnormal, as well as for the omissionin terms of patient rights (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience,' p. 101). There was nolegal mechanism for patients to challenge the sterilization order, no writtennotification required to be sent to the patient of family, and no opportunityfor a hearing that the institutional level (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience,' p.101).
In both 1935 and 1937, legislation was drafted that would have established aState Eugenics Board and further expanded the state's authority to performsterilizations to include inmates and residents of behavioral and othernon-mental reformatory institutions. However, the bills failed and neverbecame law (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 83).
The California sterilization law saw further changes in the 1930's (Currell andCogdell, p. 34). Ann Cooper Hewitt, a rich heiress, attempted to sue hermother, Dr. Tilton E Tillman and Samuel G. Boyd for sterilization withoutconsent. Ann's mother had requested sterilization for her daughterbecause of sexual misconduct (Currell and Cogdell, p. 35). The casebrought up an unexplored the constitutionality of sterilization in a privatepractice (rather than public institution) without consent. While thecurrent law did not specify if those doctors that performed sterilizations atprivate practices were protected, Judge Tuttle dismissed the case, saying thatsterilization performed at private practices without consent of the patientwere perfectly legal as long as a guardian had requested the operation (Currelland Cogdell, p. 36). This was a significant specification. The scopeof sterilization was widened to include those who were not in institutions, butwhose parents or guardians deemed sterilization necessary for their unrulychildren (Currell and Cogdell, p. 36). Further, this case exemplifiedthe growing shift from using heredity as the main reasoning forsterilization. Now, questionable sexual behavior was enough. Thosewho were diagnosed with this 'disorder' were predicted to be unfit forparenthood (Currell and Cogdell, p. 35). Further, for some,sterilization became a private family matter where the guardian could simplysign a few papers in order to get his/her child sterilized-alleviating theburden on eugenicists and expanding sterilization to the middle and upperclasses of society (Currell and Cogdell, p. 36). Butler saw this decisioncould have a large impact of nationwide sterilization rates and as a steptoward preventing race degeneration. Consequently, he sent hundreds ofcopies of the decisions to private physicians all over the country (Currell andCogdell, p. 37).

In part as a result of the Garcia v. State Department trial, in 1951, thelaws were amended to require full authorization from the patient in order toperform sterilizations (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 102). This effectively made the process ofsterilization much more burdensome for the physician-causing a decrease insterilization rates. In 1950, Sonoma sterilized 5, 550 patients, two yearslater, they would sterilize just 4. These transitions along with statementsmade by the Department of Mental Hygiene, and others, throughout the 1950sfurther affirmed the psychiatric movement away from sterilization (Paul, p.267). These laws, combined, allowed eugenic sterilizations to occur in thestate of California through 1964 (Gottshall).
In 1927, in an 8-to-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld theconstitutionality of Virginia's—and, by extension, California's—mandatorysterilization law in the case of Buck v. Bell. However, in 2003, the CaliforniaSenate issued Senate Resolution No. 20 to apologize for California's eugenicslaws (see Center for Science, History, Policy, and Ethics).

Groups identified in the Law

The1909 law was aimed specifically at those in prisons and with mentaldisabilities that caused them to be institutionalized. Of those withmental disabilities, the law targeted patients in state hospitals andinstitutions of the feeble-minded. In terms of the prisoners, the lawtargeted those who were inmates for life, showing 'sex or moral perversions',or were certain repeat offenders (Gottshall and Laughlin, p. 7). The 1913 lawexpanded to target all inmates in state hospitals or homes for thefeeble-minded (except voluntary patients in state hospitals), as well as allrepeat offenders in state prisons (Laughlin, p.7). The 1917 amendments greatlyexpanded the groups targeted even further to include those who had hereditarymental diseases, 'those suffering from perversion or marked departures fromnormal mentality', and those with sexually-transmitted diseases (Laughlin,pp. 7-8). These two later laws expanded to include virtually any individualdeemed unfit. About 70% of all sterilization were performed on people who were labeled mentally ill(see Paul, p. 261).

Process of the Law

In1909, in order to legally sterilize someone, the approval of any two of thethree following individuals was required: the superintendent or residentphysician of the institution, the superintendent of state hospitals, and thesecretary of the State Board of Health (Gottshall). If these approvalswere given, sterilization could occur (Gottshall). In 1913, the jurisdictionover sterilization in California expanded to include the 'State LunacyCommission' and gave it the authority to order the sterilization of anindividual with certain mental illnesses. In 1917, after theestablishment of the institution called the Pacific Colony, which dealt withthe sterilization of epileptics and mentally delayed individuals, authorizationprocedures for sterilization changed. Sterilizations required the authorization by a Board ofTrustees, and a clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. (Gottshall). For all,although consent from the sterilized individual or their family was notrequired, it was usually received (Butler). However, many individuals may havegiven consent so that they would be allowed to leave the hospital (Braslow, p.43). Neither records nor reports were required by any of the Californiasterilization laws to be kept (Laughlin, p. 137).

Precipitating Factors andProcesses

Around the turn of thecentury, increased immigration led to changes in California's demographics(Stern, Eugenic Nation, pp. 57-59). Between the years 1890-1910, 12million people immigrated into the United States (Bruinius, p. 256). To curb thisinflux, legislation such as Theodore Roosevelt's Gentleman's Agreement, and theChinese Exclusion Acts, were enacted (Bruinius, p. 256). Especiallyimportant was the influx of Mexicans looking for work. Their presence cost thestate a lot of money in charity and welfare. Further, Mexicans were stereotypedto be diseased. Eugenicists such as Charles M. Goethe warned their presencein the United States would cause the spread of diseases such as Tuberculosis(Kline,p. 67). This began a process of trying to keep undesirable Mexicans out of the United States (Stern, Eugenic Nation,pp. 57-59). Between the years 1926-1928, 40% of those deported in the UnitedStates were Mexicans (mostly from Southern California) (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 213). As a result, progressives began to look for away to easily eliminate degeneracy and disorder in the new chaos (Gottshall).European settlers sought to establish a community, based on modern science,which fulfilled the Manifest Destiny and downplayed the Spanish and Mexicanpast of the territory (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 85). Furthermore,African-American men were seen as being excessively virile and this needed tobe controlled to protect women (Kline, p. 9). Similarly, the idea of 'racesuicide' emerged on a national level. This concept stated that women ofgood stock should be having children in order to ensure that the white middle classnot be taken over by inferiors (Kline, p. 11).
The changing economy led to changing gender roles in society. As the economybecame more corporate, white men were becoming perceived as less masculine dueto the desk jobs they often occupied (Kline, p. 9). At the same time more andmore women began to work outside of the home. These women were seen as overlysexual and challenging to the traditional roles of middle class women (Kline,pp. 10-11). Many doctors were concerned with women giving birth out of wedlock.This caused doctors to sterilize some women in order to prevent this fromhappening (Braslow, p. 47). Progressive Era reformers saw these changes andbegan to implement eugenic programs to help 'better' society (Stern,'Sterilized,' p. 1123).
The driving force behind the statutes regarding sterilization in California wasmainly eugenic in nature, although they were also allegedly designed to benefit inmates in aphysical, mental, moral, or therapeutic manner. There was a somewhat punitivemotivation behind them as well (see Laughlin, p.7). After World War I, and thechange in the perception of 'feeble-mindedness' from a crime to a disease, there was a notedshift across the country from 'institutions' to 'hospitals' and 'inmates' to'patients' (Kline, p. 45). In the waning years of sterilization in California,the rationale shifted from eugenics to 'fears of overpopulation, welfaredependency, and illegitimacy' (Stern, 'Sterilized,' p. 1132).

Groups Targeted andVictimized

Thoseindividuals targeted generally fell into one of three categories, dependent,delinquent, or mental deficient (Bruinius, p. 10). They were thought tothreaten the strength and wellbeing of the race (Kline, p. 37).

Those who were 'dependent' generally lacked formal education and receivedwelfare payments from the government. Motivated to prevent theprocreation of the poor, eugenicists attempted to eradicate this undesirable traitfrom the general population (Kline, p. 38). Further, becauseof their lack of education, these individuals were vulnerable and easy tovictimize. This resulted in many sterilizations of refugees from the Dust Bowlin the later 1920s and early 1930s (Clayton, p. 44).
The definition of 'delinquency' varied with men and women (Kline, pp. 37-40). Women who were seen as sexually promiscuous were often sterilized as a'cure' for their actions. (This wasbecause sexual promiscuity was seen as a symptom of feeblemindedness (Kline, p.36). Further, it attacked the termed 'high grade moron' that Goddardthreatened could have the greatest negative effect on a race because, althoughthey seemed mentally normal and would go undetected on intelligence tests,their sexual deviance could cause the procreation of more sexually deviantwomen (Kline, p. 37). Men differed in that sterilization was seen as arehabilitative treatment to prevent destructive traits such as petty crime(Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 96).
Mental deficiency was a very broad term, including everything fromthe socially undesirable traits such as sexual promiscuity, to schizophrenia.These included alcoholics, epileptics, individuals with Down's syndrome, theinsane, and those who were manically depressed (Gottshall). The range ofthose targeted was expanded as the result of the laws over the years. These individuals were disproportionately female and racial minorities.Mexicans and African Americans were also disproportionately sterilized (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 111). Inmates in prisons, especially those whose crimes weresexual in nature, were targeted in the early years of the program. Later,the focus shifted primarily to target those with mental illnesses (Gottshall).
However, in practice, the law was also applied to many others, ranging fromalcoholics to paupers to people infected with syphilis (Center for Science,History, Policy, and Ethics, see Senate Resolution No. 20). Of those theSonoma State Home sterilized through June 30, 1916, about half werecharacterized as 'manic depressive', with another third characterized as eitherhaving 'dementia praecox' or being epileptic (Laughlin, p. 53). Inaddition, rather than sterilize them, the Sonoma State Home participated in aprogram to deport 'mentally defective' immigrants—at a rate of about 37 immigrantsper year, with about half being Mexican or Filipino (Kline, p. 59).

Other Restrictions placed onthose identified in the law orwith disabilities in general

Manyof those who were released went on to live relatively normal lives. They weremarried, and although without children, were able to support themselves(Butler). Although they were not in fact disabled, Mexicans weredisproportionately targeted. Many were targeted because of the traditionallylarge families of Mexican Americans. In order to prevent an increase in theirnumbers, sterilization was often utilized (Stern, 'Sterilized,' p. 1132).

Major Proponents

(Photo origin: Wikipedia.com; available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Popenoe)

Paul Popenoe was raised inCalifornia and studied Biology. As a journalist, he wrote columns promotingeugenics. He believed that charity was the reason society had so manydegenerates that had survived for so long. He conducted extensive researchabout IQs and the individuals who had been sterilized in order to promotethe cause (Stern, Eugenic Nation, pp. 105-107). Working with E.S.Gosney, he researched California's eugenic institutions and helped promote theprogram (Braslow, p. 41). Although he continued to work on Eugenics for therest of his life, he eventually had to denounce negative eugenics as it fellout of favor in the 1940s (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 106).

(Phote origin: Wikipedia.com; available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._Gosney)

E.S. Gosney was aphilanthropist who helped to finance and promote the eugenics program(Popenoe). He worked along with Popenoe to collect data about sterilizations byresearching California's state institutions. He helped fund and createthe Human Betterment Foundation for well-known wealthy individuals whosupported eugenics. The HBF funded surveys to study the effects ofsterilizations and promote its benefits (Bruinius, p. 272). Unlike manyeugenic supporters of the day, his focus was primarily on the benefits forsociety, not the benefits for the individual (Braslow, p. 41).

F.O.Butler was the superintendent of Sonoma State home starting in 1918. Hebelieved that sterilization benefited both the individuals and society as awhole (Butler) Both through public promotion and actual operations, he waslargely responsible for thousands of sterilizations. He himself is estimated tohave performed at least 1000 sterilizations throughout his career (Kline, p.52). Preventative public health measure (Kline,p. 52).

CharlesM. Goethe was a businessman from Sacramento who promoted eugenics in the SanFrancisco area (Stern, 'Sterilized', p. 1129). He advocated for eugenic policyincluding immigration restriction, 'better breeding', and sterilization. With abackground in plants and animals, he viewed eugenics as a way of improving thehuman race (Center for Science, History, Policy, and Ethics).

Frederick W. Hatch, Jr. wasthe secretary of the State Lunacy Commission in California. After thesterilization law was passed in 1909, he became the General Superintendent ofState Hospitals. He held this position for the rest of his life, using it toimplement policy and hire hospital administrators in favor of eugenics. Whilehe held this position, about 3,000 people were sterilized in California(Gottshall). Even after his death in 1924, his legacy of an activeprogram for sterilization lived on through the next hospital superintendents.

Ulysses S. Webb was theattorney general of California during much of the Progressive Era, holding thatposition for 37 years. He was confident that eugenic sterilization laws,especially those requiring some form of consent, would survive a challenge bythe courts. He preferred that sterilizations be used as a medical treatment,rather than as a punishment by the courts (Gottshall).

Public Support
The Race Betterment Exhibit 1915 in San Franciscopromoted 'positive eugenics' as a way to counter race degeneracy. Also warnedagainst the 'moron girl', those who were abnormal as a biological threat (Kline, p. 30). Questionable sexual behavior indicated a primitivesavagery and qualified the afflicted individual and unfit to reproduce (Kline,p. 31).
A 1935-1941 Los Angeles Times 'Social Eugenics' column, written by Fred Hogue,summarized the American Eugenics Society meetings and cited publications of theHBF to promote the social and economic benefits of sterilization (Currell andCogdell, p. 38). Sacrifice of individual for public good. 66% approvedcompulsory sterilization according to 1937 Fortune Magazine survey (Currell andCogdell, p. 37).
Eugenics was integrated into the curriculum of California's publicschools. Biology, sociology, and home management textbooks all containedthe 'evidence' supporting the cause. This, in addition to the propagandafrom eugenics societies resulted in overall public support for the movement inCalifornia (La Chappelle, p. 34).

'Feeder Institutions' andinstitutions wheresterilizations were performed

(Photo origin: Alex Wellerstein; available at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/collection/)

The SonomaState Home was astate hospital founded in 1884 and was initially designed to helpeducatementally disabled children (Kline, p. 30). However, Sonoma wouldeventually become the institution that set the stage for sterilization,providing an example for institutions all over the world (Kline, p.30). This transition came with the emergence of eugenics. Sinceabnormal traits that were thought to be inherited, sterilization wasseen as away to prevent the degeneration of the race through the procreation ofthosewith undesirable traits (Kline, p. 30). Rather than protectingpatientsfrom society, institutions were instead used to protect society fromthe verysame patients. It was especially focused on sterilizing women whowereconsidered sexually deviant (Kline, p. 32). Many of thesewomen wereconsidered such because they had sex outside of marriage. Such an actwasconsidered an implication the mental deficiency of the individual andqualifiedthem for institutionalization and sterilization (Kline, p. 30). Underthedirection of Butler, Sonoma acted as a kind of 'revolving operatingroom' in anattempt to expand beyond the institution, Sonoma admitted patientssolely forthe purpose to be sterilized and then released. According to a studyconductedby Paul Popenoe, between the years 1922-1925, 25% of those femalessterilizedfell into this category (Kline, p. 53). This aggressive approachislikely the reason for Sonoma's comparatively high number ofsterilizations. Sonoma was said to have sterilized more 'mentaldefectives' than any other institution inthe world up to 1942 (Kline, p. 33). Often overlooked, Sonomaconducted dangeroustests and trials on patients into the 1960s. Testing in mentalinstitution alleviated the compensation and consent required forresearches. Such treatments, including radiation dosingexperiments,resulted in countless injuries and deaths that are still beinginvestigated (60Minutes). Still open today, renamed the Sonoma DevelopmentCenter, thereis no mention of the past on the website (State of California).

(Source: http://www.cdcan.info/node/212)

The Pacific Colonyin Pomona was an institution that was created under the 1917sterilization law and it dealt with the sterilization of epileptics andmentally delayed individuals. This was created as a result of theapparent growing number of 'feeble-minded' individuals. On March20,1921, the first patients were admitted to Pacific Colony with anexpectedcapacity of 50 patients. However, due to a lack of water and limitedaccess tothe colony, it soon became inappropriate for their needs and thefacilityclosed on January 23, 1923. Pacific Colony reopened and would act asthe onlyfeebleminded institution in California, apart from Sonoma, sterilizingpatients. However, after the Garcia v State Department of Institutionstrial,the judge contributed to the change in the current law. The newprovisionallowed patients the opportunity to fight sterilizations. Thisdramaticallydecreased the rate of sterilizations in all institutions in California.In1952, 225 sterilizations were conducted. This number droppeddramatically afterthe passing of the new law to just 51 in 1952 (Stern, 'From LegislationtoLived Experience', p. 96). Later renamed to 'Pacific State Hospital,'its most recent name is 'Frank D. Lanterman State Hospital andDevelopmental Center' (see 'History of Lanterman').
By 1921, in addition to the Sonoma State home and the Pacific Colony, several state mental hospitalsperformed sterilizations of some kind. On average, mental hospitals averagedfive times as many inmates as the feebleminded homes in California. In 1940,California mental hospitals held 22,953 patients as compared to 4,076 patientsin Sonoma and the Pacific Colony combined (Stern, 'From Legislation toLived Experience', p. 100).
This resulted in their performing more total sterilizations (12,000) thandid the feebleminded homes (8,000) ( Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 100). These hospitals included Patton, Agnews, Norwalk,Stockton, Camarillo, Mendocino, and Napa. Many of these were overcrowded. Between 1910 to 1955, the total population of residents increased fivefold(6,864-36,403). This was used as reasoning to sterilize more patients toincrease eugenic efficiency (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 104).

(Source: http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=File:Agnews5.png)

Also known as, the 'GreatAsylum for the Insane,' Agnewsopened in 1885 in Santa, Clara California. It was the third institution opened for treatment of the mentallyill. The 1906 earthquake severely damaged the facility and more than 100patientsdied (Santa Clara County). It reopened after the earthquake in 1911 asAgnews State Mental Hospital. The facility was a 'small, self-containedtown. ' It included shops, livestock and crops for food, as well as afire department. Individuals who possessed developmentaldisabilities were still admitted and treated until the facility closedin 1998, while those who are mentally ill were not longer admitted bythe year 1972. Currently, the land has been repurposed to be theR&D campus of Sun Microsystems. In 1997, the Agnews site wasadded to the National Register of Historic Places (Agnews DevelopmentCenter).

(Source: http://livingnewdeal.berkeley.edu/map/view.php?l=243)

Camarillo State Hospital, located inVentura County California, had just 406 patients when it opened in 1936. The population grew to 1,082 in 1937; 2,501 in 1940, 4,123 in 1945, 4,960 in1950, 6,748 on April 8, 1953, 6,865 on June 30, 1955, and in excess of 7,000patients in 1957. This growth was similar to the trends seen in other stateinstitutions. During the 1950s-1960s Camarillo was thought to be at the forefrontof schizophrenia treatments. Camarillo was likely a place of numerous actsof patient abuses and negligent deaths despite claims of ground-breakingcures for insanity. Electroshock therapy ended at Camarillo in the1970s. Further, it was criticized for releasing patients who likely needed moresupervision. It closed as a hospital in 1997 because of low patientnumbers and rising costs per patient (California State Mental Hospital). Theland is now used for a California State University (Camarillo State MentalHospital).

MendocinoState Hospital, located in Ukiah, California, opened in the 1890s andclosed in the 1970s. It was located in an isolated part of NorthernCalifornia so as to keep the activities somewhat covert. However, ascompared to institutions such as Sonoma, Mendocino sterilizedcomparatively few people (Wellerstein).

(Source: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/collection/image.cgi?hospital_napa)

Napa StateHospital was opened on November 15, 1875. Again, similar selfsustaining farm and self sustaining facilities were incorporated ontothe site so that that hospital could keep patient costs low. Thefacility is still in use, and little can be found about the its likelycontroversial history. Currently, the facility's website statesthat its mission is to 'provide hope to adults with serious mentalillness and support each individual to achieve personal recovery' (NapaState Hospital).

(Source: http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=File:Norwalk.jpg)

NorwalkState Hospital was opened in 1915 through legislation signed byCalifornia Governor H. W. Johnson (1866-1945) (California Department ofMentalHealth). Similar to Agnews, the facility was self-sufficient in itsearly days, having livestock, and crops. This system was put inplace to keep costs down. It is now known as Metropolitan SateHospital, and it located in Los Angeles, California. It iscurrently still in use, and in July 2002 had about 825 patients. Unlike many other current mental facilities, it admits acutely illpsychiatric patients, resulting in short says and a high turnover rate('Metropolitan State Hospital')

(Source: http://www.asylumprojects.org/images/7/76/Patton.jpg)

State Dating Laws Near Sanger Virginia

Patton, located in San Bernadino, was opened in 1893 and acted and themain mental hospital for Southern California. In its peak year, there were 180sterilizations performed (98 men, and 82 women) (Stern, 'From Legislationto Lived Experience', p. 104). Since the passage of the 1909sterilization law, the superintendents at Patton were very pro sterilizationfor both eugenic and therapeutic purposes (Stern, 'From Legislation toLived Experience', p. 105). According to Superintendent Dr. John ARiely, the denial of parenthood was far outweighed by the benefits onsociety. His successor, Dr. G.M Webster, echoed Butler's strategy ofsterilizing every patient that entered the hospital to prevent furtherprocreation. Further, sterilizations were motivated because of theextreme overcrowding at the institution. Regularly reporting an excess of50%, Patton grew at an even greater rate as compared to the average for statemental hospitals (Stern, 'From Legislation to Lived Experience', p.105).

(Photo origin: Alex Wellerstein; available at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/collection/)

While Stockton State Hospitalhad a higher population than Patton, sterilization rates were lower because there was notas much overcrowding (Stern, 'From Legislation to Lived Experience',p. 107). The California State Hospital at Stockton performedthe largest amount of sterilizations out of the six state hospitals. Prior to June 1926, physicians at Stockton had performed over ten times as manysterilizations as at Agnews State Hospital, accounting for almost 40% of thetotal amount performed up to this date (Barslow, p. 36). The large-scalesterilization at Stockton was made possible because the physicians at Stocktonbelieved in the medical value of sterilization and demonstrated this convictionin their work. Even though these doctors did have hereditarian beliefs,these were not the ones that guided their decision to operate. Theygenuinely believed that patients that had undergone sterilization showed'marked improvement' (Barslow, p. 38). Rather than seeing sterilizationas a way to prevent the degeneration of the human stock, these physicians sawthe surgery as an intervention aimed at improving the individual's life. The belief in therapeutic benefits allowed for male sterilization prior to the1930s to escalate. Doctors believed that the patients felt mentally andphysically stronger after the surgery. Although this belief waned by themid-1930s, it made it possible for more sterilizations to occur. Inaddition, patients shared the belief that sterilization was therapeutic, makingit easier to perform the operation (Barslow, p. 44). This belief was alsodemonstrated in the sterilization of women. Sterilization of women wasguided by the belief that they were protected from psychological and socialstrains of childbirth and motherhood (Barslow, p. 46). This is what madeStockton unique. At Stockton, sterilization functioned as an allegedsolution to a patient's individual problems on a large scale (Barslow, p. 51).The Stockton State Hospital closed in 1996 and its ground is now part of theStockton campus of California State University, Stanislaus.

State Dating Laws Near Sanger Md

Not all superintendentswere as aggressive in their approach of eugenics as was the case for Sonoma. Dr. Leonard Stocking ofAgnews mental hospital exemplified this in his conservative approach. Between1903-1931, Stocking reported very few sterilizations. This cautiousapproach resulted from his belief that sterilization did not directly benefitthe patient and therefore should not be practiced ( Stern, 'FromLegislation to Lived Experience', 108)
The provision of the sterilization law, in congruence with a changing view ofthe ethical treatment of the mental ill, resulted in the phasing out of masssterilizations. The National Institute of Mental Health, and theFoundation of National Association of Retarded Children was founded helped tochange these interventions (Stern, 'From Legislation to LivedExperience', p. 110).

Opposition

Proponents of sterilizationsmet very little opposition to their ideas. They marketed it as good for societyand the individuals sterilized. Towards the later part of the eugenicsmovement, activist groups began protesting the injustices committed againsttheir members. These included both African Americans and Mexicans in the 1950sand 1960s (Stern, 'Sterilized,' p. 1134). There were also two court cases thatchallenged the sterilization law. The first of these was the Hewitt case inwhich a young woman was sterilized against her will but with the consent of hermother. However the case was not brought to trial (Paul, p. 262). The secondcase, known as the Garcia case, involved a petition to end the enforcement ofthe sterilization law. This case was also not heard because it supposedlylacked any facts justifying a hearing (Paul, pp. 265-266).

Commemoration

March2003, Governor Gray Davis apologized in Sacramento to all those affected by theeugenics movement in California. However, very few people have comeforward publically to be at the receiving end of this apology (Stern, EugenicNation, p. 211). Consequently, there is a lack of dialoguebetween the state and those sterilized. Without commemoration sponsoredby the government, the eugenics movement has the potential to a forgotten partof history.
In the fall of 2005, California's first ever exhibition of the state's eugenichistory was run for four weeks at the Library Gallery at California StateUniversity Sacramento. The exhibit was called 'Human Plants, HumanHarvest: The Hidden History of California Eugenics.' The public is unaware ofthis history and there was no common background or knowledge on the subjectupon which to build an exhibition. Therefore, the exhibit took the visitorsthrough a series of seven sections of visual chapters of flat wall-pieces thatwere mounted in between two huge sheets of Plexiglas. The exhibit utilizedhigh-quality reproductions of historical photographs and documents (Brave andSylva, p. 38). These images, although they spark interest, had to be usedcarefully because they range from 'ludicrous to loathsome' and therefore hadthe potential to be viewed as illegitimate pieces of information (Brave andSylva, p. 39). Since the images served as the major carriers ofinformation to the visitors, it was necessary to secure the visitors' trustthat this history did actually happen.
This exhibit was created for several reasons. One is that the eugenicsmovement has been underrepresented in visual media, while there has been manybooks published and read on the issue. As a visual culture, a visualrepresentation is necessary in order to reach the public. It was also createdbecause people were concerned that California's history of eugenics wouldremain unknown. However, some resisted the uncovering of this informationbecause they saw the exhibit as being perceived as more 'feel-bad' than 'feel-good'(Brave and Sylva, p. 42). Overall, however, many visitors viewed the exhibit asboth eye-opening and shocking, as 'powerful and beautiful in its truth telling'(Brave and Sylva, p. 43). There is no memorial for the 20,108 people sterilizedin California, and other than a governor's apologies for the past, this is thefirst public commemoration of California's eugenic past.

Bibliography

Agnews Developmental Center.' Wikipedia.org. Available at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnews_Developmental_Center>

'Agnews Insane Asylum.' 2011. Santa ClaraCounty. 15 Apr. 2011. Available at .
Braslow, Joel T. 1996. 'Inthe Name of Therapeutics: The Practice of Sterilization in a California StateHospital.' Journal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences51, 1: 29–51.
Brave, Ralph, and Kathryn Sylva. 2007. 'Exhibiting Eugenics: Response andResistance to a Hidden History.' The Public Historian 29, 3: 33–51.
Bruinius, Harry. 2006. Better for All the World. New York: AlfredA. Knopf.
Butler, F.O. 1945. 'A Quarter of a Century's Experience in Sterilization ofMental Defectives in California.' American Journal of Mental Deficiency49, 4. Available at
'California State Mental Hospital.' Available at .

'Camarillo State Mental Hospital.' Wikipedia.org. Available at

New York Dating Laws

Center for Science, History, Policy, and Ethics. 2005. 'Eugenics inCalifornia.' California State University. Available at .

Clayton, Stephanie E. 2003. Propagation of the Fittest: The Enduranceand Influence of The Human Betterment Foundation. Master's Thesis.Department of Sociology. Claremont Graduate University, 2003.
Currell, Susan, and Christina Cogdell. 2006. Popular Eugenics. Athens:Ohio University Press.
Gottshall, Jon. 1995. 'The Cutting Edge: Sterilization and Eugenics inCalifornia, 1909–1945.' The Welebaethan. Available at .

State Dating Laws Near Sanger Washington

'History of Lanterman Developmental Center.' State of California Developmental Services. Available at

Rogers dating tonight. Kline, Wendy. 2001. Building a Better Race:Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom.Berkeley: University of California Press.
La Chappelle, Peter. 2007. Proud to Be an Okie: Cultural Politics, Country Music,and Migration to Southern California. Berkeley: University of California.
Laughlin, Harry H. 1922. Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. Chicago:Municipal Court of Chicago.
'Metropolitan State Hospital.' California Department of Mental Health. Available at

'NapaState Hospital.' California Department of Mental Health. Available at

'Patton State Hospital.' Wikipedia.org. Available at

Paul, Julius. 1965. 'Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough: StateEugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice.' Unpublishedmanuscript. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
Popenoe, Paul. 1928. 'Eugenic Sterilization in California'. CanadianMedical Association Journal. April. 18(4): 467–468. Available at .
State of California. Department of Developmental Services. 'SonomaDevelopmental Center.' Available at
Stern, Alexandra Minna. 2005a. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers ofBetter Breeding in Modern America. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.
Stern, Alexandra Minna. 2005b. 'Sterilized in the Name of Public Health: Race,Immigration, and Reproductive Control in Modern California.' AmericanJournal of Public Health 95, 7: 1128–38. Available at
Stern, Alexandra Minna. 2011. 'From Legislation to Lived Experience: EugenicSterilization in California and Indiana, 1907-79.' Pp. 95-116 in ACentury of Eugenics in America, ed. Paul A. Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

'Stockton State Hospital.' Wikipedia.org.

State Dating Laws Near Sanger California

Wellerstein, Alex. 'Mendocino State Hospital'

State Dating Laws Near Sanger California