Early proponents
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral".[12] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and "The Talented Tenth" of all races should mix.[13] W. E. B. Du Bois believed "only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race's heritage of moral iniquity."[13][14]
The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[11][15] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[16] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[7] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[17] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[18]
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder's Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to "investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood." Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[19][20] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[21] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[22][verification needed]
Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women's Clubs, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[23]
One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[24][25] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[24] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[26] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[27][28]
In the Deep South, women's associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[29] Between 1915 and 1920, federated women's clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[30] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Women's Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[31] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more "feebleminded" individuals.
Public acceptance in the U.S. was the reason eugenic legislation was passed. Almost 19 million people attended the PanamaPacific International Exposition in San Francisco, open for 10 months from February 20 to December 4, 1915.[32][33] The PPIE was a fair devoted to extolling the virtues of a rapidly progressing nation, featuring new developments in science, agriculture, manufacturing and technology. A subject that received a large amount of time and space was that of the developments concerning health and disease, particularly the areas of tropical medicine and race betterment (tropical medicine being the combined study of bacteriology, parasitology and entomology while racial betterment being the promotion of eugenic studies). Having these areas so closely intertwined, it seemed that they were both categorized in the main theme of the fair, the advancement of civilization. Thus in the public eye, the seemingly contradictory[clarification needed] areas of study were both represented under progressive banners of improvement and were made to seem like plausible courses of action to better American society.[34][verification needed]
Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded"[35] from marrying.[citation needed]
The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[36] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[37] The state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[38]
While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs.[39] An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.[40] The North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved proposals brought before them by local welfare boards.[40] Of all states, only North Carolina gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization.[39] "Here, at last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method," wrote Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Board of Public Welfare. "The poor readily adopted the new techniques for birth control."[40]
The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among "inferior races". Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson's second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[41]
The League allied themselves with the American Breeder's Association to gain influence and further its goals and in 1909 established a Committee on Eugenics chaired by David Starr Jordan with members Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Vernon Kellogg, Luther Burbank, William Ernest Castle, Adolf Meyer, H. J. Webber and Friedrich Woods. The ABA's immigration legislation committee, formed in 1911 and headed by League's founder Prescott F. Hall, formalized the committee's already strong relationship with the Immigration Restriction League. They also founded the Eugenics Record Office, which was headed by Harry H. Laughlin.[42] In their mission statement, they wrote:
Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and creating a healthier, saner society in the future."[42]
Money from the Harriman railroad fortune was also given to local charities, in order to find immigrants from specific ethnic groups and deport, confine, or forcibly sterilize them.[7]
With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[43][verification needed] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[44] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[45]
Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[46][47] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[44][48]
Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of "fit" and "unfit." By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one's genetic fitness.[49] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominantly white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of "superior strains."[31] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that those deemed "unfit" were predominantly of the lower classes.[31]
Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more "family minded," and to help better the race.[50] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper class women sterilization and birth control.[51]
Since poverty was associated with prostitution and "mental idiocy," women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed "unfit" and "promiscuous."[31]
In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[52][53] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[54] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[55]
Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[56] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[57] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[31] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[31] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[58][59]
Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[31] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less "desirable" members of society.[31] Eugenicists therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to "protect" white racial health, and weed out the "defectives" of society.[31]
A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[60]
In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[61] Although the sterilizations were not explicitly motivated by eugenics, the sterilizations were similar to the eugenics movement[according to whom?] because they were done without the patients' consent.
For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[62] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that "federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women."[31]
Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[63] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[63] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the "informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)."[64]
One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of "inferior" populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended "solutions" to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes. The most commonly suggested method was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[65]
In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[66]
Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[67]
Mary deGormo, a former classroom teacher was the first person to combine ideas about health and intelligence standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of "better baby" contests. She developed the first such contest, the "Scientific Baby Contest" for the Louisiana State Fair in Shreveport, in 1908. She saw these contests as a contribution to the "social efficiency" movement, which was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[21] deGarmo was assisted by the pediatrician Dr. Jacob Bodenheimer, who helped her develop grading sheets for contestants, which combined physical measurements with standardized measurements of intelligence.[68] Scoring was based on a deduction system, in that every child started at 1000 points and then was docked points for having measurements that were below a designated average. The child with the most points (and the least defections) was ideal.[69][verification needed]
The topic of standardization through scientific judgment was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scientific community, but has often been downplayed as just a popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort, and money were put into these contests and their scientific backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as local and state government practices.[70][verification needed]
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People promoted eugenics by hosting "Better Baby" contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching campaign.[13]
First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, Fitter Family competitions, continued all the way up to World War II. Mary T. Watts and Dr. Florence Brown Sherbon,[71][72] both initiators of the Better Baby Contests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to come up with fitter family competitions.[73]
There were several different categories that families were judged in: Size of the family, overall attractiveness, and health of the family, all of which helped to determine the likelihood of having healthy children. These competitions were simply a continuation of the Better Baby contests that promoted certain physical and mental qualities.[74] At the time, it was believed that certain behavioral qualities were inherited from your parents. This led to the addition of several judging categories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative features that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspiciousness, high temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that were included as physical traits to be judged when looking at family lineage.[75]
Doctors and specialists from the community would offer their time to judge these competitions, which were originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[75] The winners of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well as champion cups called "Capper Medals." The cups were named after then Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper and he would present them to "Grade A individuals".[76]
The perks of entering into the contests were that the competitions provided a way for families to get a free health check up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and prestige that came from winning the competitions.[75]
By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families, which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[77]
After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[67] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's.[8]
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[78] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[7][79]
Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:
You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.[80]
Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[81] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler's 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the "science of racial cleansing". Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the "common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics."[82]
After 1945, however, historians began to attempt to portray the US eugenics movement as distinct and distant from Nazi eugenics.[83]Jon Entine wrote that eugenics simply means "good genes" and using it as synonym for genocide is an "all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States." According to Entine, eugenics developed out of the Progressive Era and not "Hitler's twisted Final Solution."[84]
Barbara Rothman and Gareth Thomas, writing for AMA Journal of Ethics, wrote that prenatal screening can be considered a form of contemporary eugenics because it prevents the birth of people with conditions considered undesirable.[85]
Read this article:
Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia
- The quiet return of eugenics - The Spectator - June 15th, 2024 [June 15th, 2024]
- Ep 2 | The Monster Masterminds of Eugenics | The Beck Story - iHeart - June 15th, 2024 [June 15th, 2024]
- Ridding the Race of His Defective Blood Eugenics in the Journal, 19061948 | NEJM - nejm.org - March 4th, 2024 [March 4th, 2024]
- The Progressive Ideas That Fueled America's Eugenics Movement | Bradley Thomas - Foundation for Economic Education - March 4th, 2024 [March 4th, 2024]
- Few People Know The Real Story About North Carolinas Eugenics Program - Only In Your State - March 4th, 2024 [March 4th, 2024]
- University Art Museums Become Unlikely Homes for These Portraits - The New York Times - October 23rd, 2023 [October 23rd, 2023]
- Real-world Influences of Frank Herbert's 'Dune' - Dune News Net - October 23rd, 2023 [October 23rd, 2023]
- Everything you don't know about neurodiversity The Mass Media - The Mass Media - October 23rd, 2023 [October 23rd, 2023]
- Details of Japans experiment with eugenic sterilization released - BioEdge - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Give more people with learning disabilities the chance to work ... - EurekAlert - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- 'They Cloned Tyrone' ending explained - Mashable - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Failing Learning Disabled People: The Contradictions of 1945 ... - Byline Times - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- What happened during Marc Tessier-Lavigne's tenure as Stanford ... - Palo Alto Online - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Planned Parenthood: 'Virginity is a social construct' - The Christian Institute - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Is evolutionary biology racist? Why Evolution Is True - Why Evolution Is True - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Beware the anti-democratic liberal centre - Morning Star Online - July 26th, 2023 [July 26th, 2023]
- Unveiling the dark past: eugenics and its role in legitimising racism - Epigram - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Has the MCU's Scariest Villain - CBR - Comic Book Resources - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- Fox News in Spanish bombards viewers with right-wing propaganda - MSNBC - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- The Reproductive Movement Must Reclaim Its Radical Roots and Be ... - Literary Hub - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- 3 judges who chipped away abortion rights to hear federal abortion pill appeal - ABC News - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- Eugenics: Definition, Movement & Meaning - HISTORY - HISTORY - January 22nd, 2023 [January 22nd, 2023]
- Iris flower data set - Wikipedia - December 28th, 2022 [December 28th, 2022]
- Canadas policies are a death sentence for disabled people. The country must reckon with its modern eugenics - Toronto Star - December 28th, 2022 [December 28th, 2022]
- Op-Ed: Eugenics is making a comeback. Stop it in its tracks - Los ... - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Eugenics, Anti-Immigration Laws Of The Past Still Resonate Today ... - November 21st, 2022 [November 21st, 2022]
- Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present) - Genome.gov - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- 150000 Black Women Were Forced Into the Eugenics Program - History of Yesterday - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- 20 million black babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Where is the equity in that? - Washington Examiner - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- What Is a 'Healthy' Cereal, Anyway? - Lifehacker - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Eugenics and Scientific Racism - Genome.gov - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Eugenics Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- The shameful support of eugenics by the Lewiston Evening Journal - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Understanding "longtermism": Why this suddenly influential philosophy ... - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- NYU Local: Women's Health: Involuntary Sterilization Then and Now - Government Accountability Project - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- A Desire to Cure, Not to Punish: Women Physicians and Eugenics in the American West, 19001930 by Jacqueline D. Antonovich - Smith College Grcourt Gate - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- In unaired portions of Tucker Carlson interview, Ye made antisemitic remarks, spoke of fake children infiltrating his home - The Hill - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Black women and reproductive freedom meet a crossroad in the fight for abortion rights - Afro American - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- The difference between race and ethnicityand why it matters - Fast Company - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Letter to the Editor Removal of Luther West's name is just - North Wind Online - October 11th, 2022 [October 11th, 2022]
- Behind the Shield: The Power and Politics of the NFL - Boing Boing - October 11th, 2022 [October 11th, 2022]
- I Lived In An Asylum Turned Childrens Institution, Said To Be Haunted By Its Horrifying Past. - HuffPost - October 11th, 2022 [October 11th, 2022]
- The Evolution of Godless Practices: Eugenics, Infanticide, and Transhumanism - The Epoch Times - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Disability campaigners accuse government of 'back-door eugenics' as families struggle to survive inflation - Morning Star Online - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Fox News host predicts that clean energy will lead to eugenics - Media Matters for America - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Rockwell Kent at the Fleming: Art into hands of many, rather than the few - Rutland Herald - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Review: 'Amsterdam' is a star-filled comedy that loses its way - Star Tribune - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Pros & Cons of Eugenics | Healthfully - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- History Highlight: Proponents of eugenics, population control, and ... - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- 31 days of horror movies: 2007s Frontiers is a masterpiece of French Extremity - 1428 Elm - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Explaining Church Teaching on IVF The Torch | Boston College's Catholic Newspaper - The Torch - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- The Vaccine That Could Cure America: Reversing Roe - The Chattanoogan - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Takeaways from Episode 1 of The U.S. and the Holocaust - - St. Louis Jewish Light - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Lloyd Benes: Challenging 8 arguments that support unrestricted abortion - Loveland Reporter-Herald - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- 11 Disability Rights Activists on Where the Fight for Justice Stands - Teen Vogue - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- What Ballot Initiatives Will Californians Face in the Nov. 8th Election? - California Globe - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- The U.S. and the Holocaust. Revisiting America's Role | THIRTEEN - New York Public Media - MetroFocus - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- A new University of Virginia board member once brought a eugenicist to campus. Students are angry. - Higher Ed Dive - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- World Wars, Eugenics, Mass Extinctions: Would You Believe Were Talking About Splatoon? - Kotaku Australia - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- Freaks Controversy Explained: Was Tod Browning's 1932 Horror Movie Exploitative Or Progressive? - /Film - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- Eugenics Wars | Memory Alpha | Fandom - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Behind the Scenes: The U.S. and the Holocaust - GBH News - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- The 32 Most Anticipated TV Shows of Fall 2022 - TIME - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- BSO and GBH Host 'An Evening With Ken Burns, Lynn Novick, And Sarah Botstein' at Symphony Hall Next Month - Broadway World - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Paper: Train future psychologists to dismantle racism, injustice in society - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Croydons Pearson feels the pressure in MasterChef kitchen - Inside Croydon - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- SCOTUS Claims Abortion Proponents Are Motivated by Eugenics and Eliminating the 'Unfit'But History Says Otherwise - Ms. Magazine - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Birth of the Abortion Industrial Complex: Eugenics Evolves - Capital Research Center - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Mendels genetic revolution and the legacy of scientific racism - Peoples Dispatch - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- When Sperm And Eggs Are Monetized, Existence Is Transactional - The Federalist - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Historian shares history of the dark ending of the diverse Malaga Island community - Press Herald - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Why We Are Not 'In This Together' - LA Progressive - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- How Close Are We to War with China? | Guests: Rep. Chris Stewart & Eric Schmitt | 8/2/22 - The Glenn Beck Program - iHeartRadio - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- STAM: Alma Adams, eugenics and radical abortion The North State Journal - North State Journal - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Moving from Rights to Justice: Uprooting Ableism and Cultivating Disability Justice - Next City - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Body politics: the secret history of the US anti-abortion movement - The Guardian - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- 'The View' will tap Alyssa Farah Griffin as permanent co-host following Meghan McCain exit, sources say - FOX Bangor/ABC 7 News and Stories - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- There's a straight line from eugenics to 'biblical family values' to white supremacy and the anti-abortion movement - Baptist News Global - July 7th, 2022 [July 7th, 2022]
- Viewpoint: In response to historical misuse of genetics to defend eugenics, some egalitarians call for defunding. Here's why that's not the solution -... - July 7th, 2022 [July 7th, 2022]
- To Be or Not to Be a Mother: A Timeless Question with New Urgency - Justia Verdict - July 7th, 2022 [July 7th, 2022]