Primary Source Set

The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina

Between 1929 and 1974, over 7,600 people were sterilized, or made unable to have children, in North Carolina. Sterilization was a key part of eugenics, a theory and movement that claimed it could improve humankind through selective breeding. Through sterilization, North Carolina restricted the fertility of individuals that were considered “undesirable.” Many were forced or coerced into sterilization. This primary source set uses newspaper articles, newspaper advertisements, and a bulletin to illustrate the effects of sterilization, eugenic ideas, and eugenic legislation in North Carolina.

Proceed with caution and care through these materials as the content may be disturbing or difficult to review. Many primary sources in this set use eugenicist ideas to support the discrimination of non-white people and people with mental illness or mental disability. Please read DigitalNC’s Harmful Content statement for further guidance.

Time Period

1912-2014

Grade Level

Undergraduate

Transcript

Legalized Immorality When the Pope spoke out in condemnation of sterilization, he was speaking of a matter of vital concern to all North Carolinians. When he condemned direct sterilization of innocent persons as always wrong, whether it be temporary or perpetual, he was repeating the statement of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical “Casti Connubii.” North Carolina has just such sterilization laws as are condemned by the Popes. In this state, there is eugenic sterilization of the mentally ill, the feebleminded and epileptics. State officials will be quick to say that such sterilizations are never performed without careful medical examinations and full permission of vitally interested parties, but the truth is that careful procedures still can not change wrong into right. It is as if the state passed a law permitted murder under certain legally established safeguards – which, of course, is exactly what they’ve tried to do in states where efforts have been made to legalize euthanasia. A natural continuation of the fallacious thinking that produces legalized eugenic sterilization. In some practice some rather heavy pressures are exerted on relatives of persons the state wishes to sterilize. Doctors at mental hospitals are told that if they are planning to perform abdominal surgery on any woman patient, they should get the necessary permission to sterilize. Those relatives who don’t give ready approval for such surgery are quietly pressured by the remarks of the doctors. The plain truth is that the State of North Carolina has legalized a procedure that the Christian world has always held to be wrong. It is certain that there are many in the state who feel this is an indication that North Carolina is a progressive state. They are deluded. You don’t progress by violating God’s moral law. What’s more, all the lawmakers in the would [sic] can not change God’s law. North Carolina’s Catholics should be vigilant. They should absolutely refuse sterilization of any member of their own families who the state might wish to sterilize. Then if doctors or state officials in any way attempt to pressure them into accepting the state’s verdict, they should report it to the North Carolina Catholic so that these pressures – whether they are insistent arguments or whether they are threats to refuse treatments – can be made known to the public.

"Legalized Immorality," The North Carolina Catholic

While North Carolina legitimized sterilization through legislation, not all of the state’s citizens approved of the procedure. At the height of sterilization’s popularity, Catholic communities in the state often spoke out against it due to their religious beliefs. This article from The North Carolina Catholic denounces sterilization. Additionally, it calls the procedure a moral wrong and criticizes how doctors pressured some people into sterilization.

Contributed to DigitalNC by Catholic Diocese of Raleigh

View Original View Transcript

North Carolina

Background

First proposed by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, eugenics claims humankind can improve through selectively breeding for traits that are considered desirable or superior. Although eugenics is scientifically incorrect and unethical, the early to mid-twentieth century saw the eugenics movement gain widespread popularity across the United States, including North Carolina. From 1929 to the late 1970s, North Carolina upheld and validated the eugenics movement through legislation and public promotion of sterilization.

Sterilization procedures allowed North Carolina to restrict or eliminate the fertility of people who were considered “undesirable.” Some examples of “undesirable” people included individuals with mental disabilities. In the articles and advertisements in this set, these individuals are often referred to as “feebleminded” and “mentally defective.” Eugenics supporters believed that the children of such people could inherit their “inferior” traits, causing a “burden” on the parents, the public, and the state. By sterilizing people, they thought the burden could be alleviated. While sterilization was aimed at people with disabilities, the procedure was also used extensively on non-white people or people whose sexual or social behavior was considered “defective.” Selective sterilization groups like the Human Betterment League claimed that the procedure was done with the consent of the patient or their family. However, many individuals were forced or coerced into sterilization.

In 1929, the General Assembly passed a law that permitted the sterilization of individuals held in any charitable or penal institutions in North Carolina when the sterilization was determined to be the best course of action for the individual or for the public good. In 1933, the General Assembly established the North Carolina Eugenics Board. Made up of five state government members, the Eugenics Board was responsible for reviewing and approving all sterilization procedures in North Carolina. In 1937, Assembly members passed another act that permitted state hospitals to temporarily admit and sterilize people who had been approved for the procedure by the Eugenics Board. While sterilization and eugenics were normalized and embraced in North Carolina during the early to mid-20th century, the 1970s saw public criticism rise. After a name change from the Eugenics Board to the Eugenics Commission in 1973, the group was abolished by the General Assembly in 1977.

In 2002, Governor Michael Easley made an official declaration to victims of forced or coerced sterilization. He apologized for the role that the North Carolina government had played in supporting and promoting selective sterilization. Easley also established a Eugenics Study Committee. In 2003, he repealed legislation that still made sterilization legal in the state. In a report made by the Eugenics Study Committee, members stated their belief that North Carolina should provide financial compensation to victims. Representative Larry Womble, who was part of the committee, later introduced a bill to give a sum of money to those affected by forced sterilization. However, it was not until 2010, when the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims was created, that a compensation plan was put in place. By 2014, eligible individuals who made a claim to the Office received $20,000 or more as payment. Some have called the program flawed, as many victims were thought to have died by the time it was created. Moreover, only individuals whose sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board could file a claim; others who were sterilized under a different authority’s mandate were not able to receive compensation from the Office.

Discussion Questions

  1. Consider the first and second newspaper advertisement from the Human Betterment League. How do they describe the consequences of not sterilizing “feebleminded” and “mentally deficient” individuals? What tactics do they use to defend and justify sterilization procedures?

  2. Many of the primary sources in this set are newspaper articles or advertisements that promote selective sterilization to the public. How did mass media–like newspapers–influence the North Carolina public’s perspective on eugenics and sterilization?

  3. From the early to mid-twentieth century, selective sterilization was normalized and even encouraged in North Carolina. What factors contributed to the normalization and general support of sterilization?

  4. While the North Carolina government eventually established a compensation initiative for forced sterilization victims in 2010 and began payments in 2014, many have pointed out the flaws in the initiative. What are some of the issues in the compensation program, and what could the North Carolina government have done to better support victims of forced sterilization? Is there anything North Carolina can do today?

  5. Consider the viewpoints in The Carolina Times article, The North Carolina Catholic article, and The News-Journal article. What different perspectives do you notice in each piece? How does criticism of sterilization in The Carolina Times article differ from that in The North Carolina Catholic piece?

  6. Take a look at the article from The Smithfield Herald, making sure to notice the ways in which “better babies” are described. How does the “Better Babies Health Contest” connect to other eugenicist concepts, like selective sterilization?

This primary source set was compiled by Isabella Walker.

Updated January 2025