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

Selective Sterilization Why Is It Needed? The responsibility of parenthood requires a sound mind and a healthy body. Even though some children born to mental defectives may possess normal minds, they are seldom given the training needed to produce well balanced adults who will be an asset to the community. Morons are now doubling their number with each generation; over half the hospital beds in this country are occupied by mentally ill or mentally defective patients, and overcrowded institutions cannot begin to accommodate their increasing numbers. (In Connecticut 1500 mental patients produced 498 defective children while they were awaiting admission to state institutions.) In 1930 the White House Conference on Child Health pointed out: “There should be no child in America that does not have the complete birthright of a sound mind in a sound body, and that has not been born under proper conditions.” Selective sterilization can help to attain this goal. When Should It Be Used? Whenever lifelong protection from parenthood is needed; Whenever mothers need permanent protection from a pregnancy which would be fatal; When children must be shielded from being born to a heritage of insanity or feeblemindedness; When defenseless children must be saved the suffering and unhappiness of being brought up by an insane or feebleminded parent. What Effect Does It Have? The person sterilized, whether man or woman, can detect no effect except that children are not born. The sexual characteristics remain unchanged. Sterilization permits many persons with mental deficiency to live outside of institutions, to enjoy a measure of independence, and to marry without the psychological and economic overload of parenthood and child care. Studies in California, New Hampshire and elsewhere have shown that sterilization does not increase sexual delinquency. The effect on the community is far reaching: Sterilization reduces the number who must live in our overcrowded, understaffed institutions; it decreases the number of children who must be taken from insane or feebleminded parents to be raised in foster homes at public expense; it protects the next generation from a needless and tragic heritage. How Is It Performed? Sterilization in both men and women is performed by tubectomy – the closing of the tiny tubes through which the life-producing cells must pass in order to unite. Nothing is removed from the body. The male operation–vasectomy–is extremely simple and can be performed under local anesthetic in a doctor’s office in ten minutes or less. Sterilization in women – salpingectomy – requires an abdominal incision not more than two inches long. The ovaries are not disturbed and menstruation continues normally. The risk in either operation is slight, there is no mutilation and the individual’s emotional life is in no way altered. There is no change in physical appearance nor in voice tone. Where Is It Legal? Sterilization is legal in all states. Twenty-seven progressive states and Puerto Rico provide for the sterilization at state expense of persons suffering from insanity or feeblemindedness which may be inherited by their children. These states are: Arizona California Delaware Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Michigan Maine Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina South Dakota Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Other countries which provide for the sterilization of the mentally defective are: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Who Makes the Decision? Each individual need for this operation at state expense is carefully reviewed by a state board of medical and sociological experts and the consent of the patient or the patient’s family is sought. If not satisfied with the board’s decision, the patient may carry the matter to the civil courts. Such legal action is seldom taken, however, as the protection is almost always welcomed by those immediately concerned. It has been argued that legal sterilization might be abused and become a political instrument. The same objection can be applied to almost every legal regulation. Even prison parole, tax levies and school boards can be abused, but it is not suggested that these beneficial agencies be abolished because they can be occasionally misused. 50,193 sterilizations have been reported by state institutions in the 27 states without indication of abuse, 2,152 in North Carolina. Know And Understand The Sterilization Law Of North Carolina. Make sure that this law protects those who need protection and helps to spare children from a heritage of needless tragedy. How You Can Help Know and understand the sterilization laws of your state. Bring these laws to the attention of families who can be benefited by them. Encourage the discussion of Selective Sterilization by the civic and socially minded groups of which you are a member. Suggest that your public health, medical, educational and religious leaders investigate this important and far reaching better mental health measure. Write for additional copies of this and other pamphlets to distribute to your friends and community leaders. For further information, address: Human Betterment League Of North Carolina Incorporated P.O. Box 3036 Winston-Salem, N.C.

"Selective Sterilization," The Daily Tar Heel

Created in 1947, the Human Betterment League was a group dedicated to advocating for sterilization through media. In this issue of The Daily Tar Heel, an advertisement from the League promotes and provides information about selective sterilization and sterilization laws in North Carolina using a question-and-answer format. The advertisement emphasizes its claim that sterilization is a safe procedure that protects children from being born to “insane or feebleminded parents.” It also encourages readers to discuss the “benefits” of selective sterilization with their communities.

Contributed to DigitalNC by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View Original View Transcript

Chapel Hill, N.C. (Orange County)

The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina

Print/Download

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