What the Buck?: American Eugenics Makes a Come Back
6:37 PM
Undesirable: (adj.) not wanted or desirable because harmful, objectionable, or unpleasant. (noun) A person considered to be objectionable in some way.
The term undesirable has been applied again and again to identify classes or groups of peoples throughout history. The times when this word has been most freely applied are undoubtedly man's darkest.
Who comes to mind?
Catholics? Eww.. Undesirable.
Blacks? Absolutely, undesirable.
Jews? Most definitely undesirable.
But who else? Historically, there isn't a man, woman, or child who can clear all of these tags; either genetically or by association: blind, deaf, insane, feeble-minded, paupers, alcoholics, epileptics, gypsies, tramps and thieves, prostitutes, and beggars.
All of these identifiers were enough to have you stripped of your rights and value.
Beginning in the late 1800's this term and what was associated with it became identified with a medical procedure to ease the ills of the lower socioeconomic class. The goal of the eugenics movement was to improve the genetic composition of various populations. This was done by "deterring" those with negative genetic traits. The idea was to disallow the undesirables to reproduce and encourage the desirable to - this would "prevent the American people from being replaced by alien or negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by over high birth rates among others in this country" (Ross, 149).
The Nazis and their attempted development of the paramount aryan race?
Not today, I'm not....
I'm talking about the American Eugenics movement; its traces are of yesterday and today. As a contemporary twenty-something, I'll be the first to put forward it's not far enough away. Especially with the latest news on the block.
Let's take a step back:
In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled on Buck v. Bell, a "go-ahead-run" to reproductive legislation using the philosophy put forward by a one Francis Galton. 17 year old Carrie Buck was determined to be "feeble-minded" - and therefore unfit to determine her own reproductive practices. This 8-1 ruling upheld the notion that the "unfit" and "undesirable" were not protected by the 14th Amendment - that they were not equal, nor did they merit equal protection.
Young Carrie Buck, was forcibly sterilized after the Court deemed "three generations of imbeciles is more than enough."
Carrie, at the time, had already mothered one child. The father of her daughter was the nephew of her adoptive parents for whom she served as domestic help. Carrie Buck was raped by this young man, and her mental, emotional, and physical despair was cast aside and marked instead as promiscuity.
This was seen as the ultimate endorsement of negative eugenics... it was the responsibility of the state to keep Carrie, and those like her, from infecting the population.
But, it soon ended, right?
Wrong.
Eugenics practices and forced sterilization were a common in the United States until the late 1960's.
But what now?
Today, news circulated that approximately 250 incarcerated women were subject to tubal ligation between 2006 - 2010, with reports suggesting another 100 women were operated on between 1997 - 2006 at the California Institution for Women in Corona and Valley State Prison for Women.
Reports show that doctors worked under contract with the prison system to sterilize women for the last 16 years without approval of any high state board.
The 16 year-stint cost $147,460...
In regards, the penitentiary OB-GYN Dr. James Heinrich said it:
"...isn't a huge amount of money compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children - as they procreated more."
These women - some of whom were in prison for less than two years were pressured into this permanent procedure by individuals who had no right to dictate their reproductive habits. This medical procedure will affect them and their families for the rest of their lives.
They are the revived-wave of deemed "undesirables" - by disallowing these women to make their own choices regarding the number and timing of their children and families these doctors were doing the "state" a favor. They were doing the more desirable a favor.
Witnesses account to medical staff and professionals pressuring inmates to have the procedure better-known as getting your "tubes tied" done while serving their sentence. Some women were given information about the procedure who were pregnant at the time, while others already had children, or none at all.
Witnesses account to medical staff and professionals pressuring inmates to have the procedure better-known as getting your "tubes tied" done while serving their sentence. Some women were given information about the procedure who were pregnant at the time, while others already had children, or none at all.
The knee-jerk of many, I fear, is that this notion seems right, or that it is correct in someway to prevent these women who have obviously made poor choices (as determined by a jury of their peers) - from determining when and how often their families grow.
But who is to be left out? And who is to decide? When does it stop? And who will it stop for?
But who is to be left out? And who is to decide? When does it stop? And who will it stop for?
The dire need to protect the social and economic mobility of women doesn't only depend on education and job creation. The conversation for the protection of women's reproductive rights cannot stop at a woman's right to choose. In fact, "right to choose" is inherently what we're talking about. This is not a debate of the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice movement - but one that all women need to be involved and invested in.
"Give me your tired, your poor" - but leave me your undesirable.... #saidnostatuteever
1 comments
You know how much I love Jodi Picoult, and one of her books (Second Glance) talks a lot about eugenics in America in the early 20th century. The rest of the book is kind of weird (there's a ghost involved), but you might like it just for the eugenics discussion!
ReplyDelete