Facing America’s Dark History: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century

In early December 2022, West Virginia Senator Randy Smith revealed to his constituents that he plans to propose a sterilization-based bill to try to reduce drug-related offenses. “If you want to lessen your prison sentence, if you’re a man, you can get a vasectomy so you can’t produce anymore,” he explained to his audience. “If you’re a woman, then you get your tubes tied, so you don’t bring any more drug babies into the system.”[1] Smith went on to clarify that this would be a voluntary program, but that offenders would go to jail for “a very long time” if they refused sterilization. This, of course, means that the “voluntary” program would not be so voluntary: offenders would be forced to choose between their ability to reproduce or a significantly longer sentence. When one considers that Black people are 7.3 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in West Virginia—one of the highest disparity rates in the nation—it is clear that this legislation would disproportionately affect African American communities.[2] It’s shocking to see eugenics rhetoric appearing in recent months, but in a time where the Supreme Court’s decisions threaten bodily autonomy, it’s unsurprising to see other politicians draw from America’s dark history to inform their own policies.

The United States has a long history of implementing eugenics-based legislation to try to prevent “the unfit” from reproducing. During the twentieth century, over 60,000 people were sterilized in 32 states, including in Smith’s own West Virginia. The laws that allowed these sterilizations to occur used intentionally vague, broad definitions of “feeblemindedness” and “mental defects,” ensuring that they could be applied to whoever was deemed “unfit.” At first, this largely meant poor whites, but by the 1950s, Black women were being sterilized at significantly higher rates than any other group. In North Carolina, for example, Black women were three times more likely than white women and twelve times more likely than white men to be sterilized between 1950-1966.[3] While many think that these policies are a thing of the past—if they even know about them at all—they have, in fact, continued to persist into the twenty-first century. In California, forced sterilizations continued until at least 2013, when it was revealed that the state had sterilized at least 1,400 women in prison over the last fifteen years.[4] In September 2020, a whistleblower complaint alleged the forced sterilization of female detainees at a Georgia ICE detention center.

These recently uncovered sterilization projects, in addition to Senator Smith’s bill, make apparent how America’s legacy of eugenics is ongoing and integrally a part of contemporary debates about reproductive justice. Present-day rhetoric about eugenics is pervasive in nearly every level of government, including the Supreme Court. In 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a brief explaining how he believed that “from the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as a means of effectuating eugenics.”[5] Justice Alito echoed his sentiments in the 2022 draft decision, stating that “Some such supporters [of abortion rights] have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population.”[6] Statements like these allude to the parallel movements of eugenics, birth control, and reproductive justice but in a way that obscures the important historical context needed to fully understand the complexity of these movements. Undeniably, ideas about reproductive rights in the early twentieth century became associated with ideas about eugenics. Many reproduction rights activists of the early 1900s—most prominently Margaret Sanger—held connections to eugenicists. With historical context, though, it becomes clear that these connections do not equate pro-choice advocacy to pro-eugenics.

Eugenicists believed that a select few should decide who was “fit” for procreation (mostly well-to-do, educated whites) and who was “unfit” (mostly poor whites and people of color); they believed those deemed “unfit” should be sterilized and prevented from having children. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, believe that individuals should have the right to decide when and if they want to procreate. In other words, providing universal access to abortion in the United States is not equivalent to eugenics as Thomas and Alito imply. It is the opposite.

Historians, legal scholars, and medical experts were quick to fire back at the Justices Thomas and Alito, explaining that they misconstrued historical fact to fit their own agenda.[7] Prominent scholars of the eugenics movement like Adam Cohen, Paul A. Lombardo, and Alexandra Minna Stern have explained that most eugenicists of the early twentieth century were opposed to abortion and birth control for fear that the “fit” would use birth control, thereby reducing the “good” genetic pool. As Lombardo said, “I’ve been studying this stuff for 40 years, and I’ve never been able to find a leader of the eugenics movement that came out and said they supported abortion.”[8] Although the history of reproductive rights and the history of eugenics intersect, they by no means have had the same goals.

Eugenic philosophies have also appeared frequently during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, exposing how debates over reproductive rights bear on broader issues of bodily autonomy and disability. When the spread of COVID was at its peak and hospitals and long-term care facilities were overloaded with patients, many officials considered rationing beds to those who had a “better chance” at survival.[9] This meant that a literal “survival of the fittest” policy was implemented; people with pre-existing conditions and disabilities had a much lower chance of receiving care. Even as COVID infections decreased, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky implied that disabled people mattered less in this new world, saying that it was “really encouraging news” that most people dying from COVID had pre-existing conditions.[10] Dozens of advocacy groups criticized Walensky for this comment and outlined how dismissed and devalued their communities have been because of the historic discrimination against disability in the United States. Walensky later apologized for her comments, but still, little tangible action has been taken to ensure the safety of disabled and chronically ill individuals in a society where potential exposure to COVID-19 has become the norm. People with disabilities are forced to make a choice: risk catching COVID in order to return to “normal” life, or remain isolated from family, friends, and the rest of the world to protect their health. These debates have also left many wondering what discrimination awaits those who now suffer from chronic illnesses associated with “long COVID.”[11]

Whether to understand the connections between a worldwide pandemic and eugenics or to understand why a senator might be proposing a sterilization bill in 2022, studying the humanities is vital for understanding how the history of reproductive rights, disability, and race are interconnected. There is, after all, some level of irony in Senator Smith’s desire to sterilize individuals to prevent “drug babies” at the same time that the Supreme Court has expressed concern over a “domestic lack of infants” for adoption. The rhetoric utilized in these debates often revolve around the idea of “choice,” or the lack thereof, that individuals have over their lives in the face of changing policies. In our efforts to contextualize the past and reckon with our history as a means to understand our present moment, we can look for effective models from other scholars. This blog post highlights just a sampling of the frameworks we can implement in our own work. The responses of scholars like Cohen and Stern, for example, provide a blueprint in formulating our own responses to those who might twist historical facts to fit their own agenda. Others have used their own research into historical records to reckon with their organizational history; Planned Parenthood announced in 2020 that they would be removing Margaret Sanger’s name from their Manhattan Health Clinic because of her connections to the eugenics movement.[12] Viewing the eugenics movement through a humanities lens allows us to understand how topics as seemingly disparate as reproductive rights and ableism during a pandemic are connected across space and time.[13]

---

[1] Nick Reynolds, “Republican Looks to Lessen Prison Time for Drug Users Who Get Sterilized,” Newseek, December 7, 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/republican-looks-lessen-prison-time-drug-users-who-get-sterilized-1765495.

[2] “W.VA. in Top Five Worst States for Racial Disparities in Cannabis-Related Arrests,” ACLU West Virginia, April 20, 2020, https://www.acluwv.org/en/news/wva-top-five-worst-states-racial-disparities-cannabis-related-arrests

[3] Alexandra Minna Stern, “Forced Sterilization Policies in the US Targeted Minorities and those with Disabilities—and Lasted into the 21^st Century,” University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, September 23, 2020, https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st

[4] Hollie McKay, “New Documentary Highlights the Forced Sterilization of Women in California Prison,” Fox News, June 15, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-documentary-illuminates-the-forced-sterilization-of-women-in-california-prison

[5] Eli Rosenberg, “Clarence Thomas Tried to Link Abortion to Eugenics. Seven Historians Told The Post He’s Wrong,” The Washington Post, May 30, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/31/clarence-thomas-tried-link-abortion-eugenics-seven-historians-told-post-hes-wrong/

[6] Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, “Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows,” Politico, May 5, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473.

[7] Michelle A. Williams, “The Supreme Court is Misinformed on Eugenics,” The Boston Globe, June 23, 2022, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/06/23/opinion/supreme-court-is-misinformed-eugenics/ 

[8] Eli Rosenberg, “Clarence Thomas Tried to Link Abortion to Eugenics. Seven Historians Told The Post He’s Wrong,” The Washington Post, May 30, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/31/clarence-thomas-tried-link-abortion-eugenics-seven-historians-told-post-hes-wrong/ 

[9] Jacqueline Howard, “When the Hospitals Run Out of Beds, Here’s How They Ration Care,” CNN, September 13, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/health/rationing-care-hospital-beds-staff-explainer-wellness/index.html

[10] “Letter from the Disability Community to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky,” Austistic Advocacy, January 13, 2022, https://autisticadvocacy.org/2022/01/letter-from-the-disability-community-to-cdc-director-rochelle-walensky/ 

[11] Andrew Pulrang, “What Does ‘Living with COVID-19’ Mean for Disabled and Chronically Ill People?,” Forbes, December 28, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2021/12/28/what-does-living-with-covid-19-mean-for-disabled-and-chronically-ill-people/?sh=2b5d34c374f7

[12] Nikita Stewart, “Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics,” New York Times, July 21, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html 

[13] Historian Jacqueline Antonovich recently did an excellent podcast with Jonathan Van Ness on the subjects within this article. See “How Has White Supremacy F*cked With Reproductive Justice? With Professor Jacki Antonovich,” July 13, 2022, https://jonathanvanness.com/podcast/how-has-white-supremacy-fcked-with-reproductive-justice-with-professor-jacki-antonovich/