THE TRUTH ABOUT MARGARET SANGER, ABORTION & EUGENICS

“While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
Margaret Sanger – 1920.

Margaret Sanger and Her Sons.

Margaret Sanger and Her Sons.

In 1916, Margaret Sanger, a nurse and Progressive Activist, opened a clinic in Brooklyn, New York, to provide women with health education on Birth Control, prevention of venereal diseases, and the use of prophylactics. It is hard for us in the 21st Century to understand why information about contraception was illegal, but it was. The Comstock Law of 1873 “was a federal law that made it a crime to sell or distribute materials that could be used for contraception or abortion, to send such materials or information about such materials through the federal mail system, or to import such materials from abroad.” My particular beef with all the fanfare about what a great woman Margaret Sanger was is the fact that virtually all bloggers intentionally leave out the fact that she was a fervent supporter of the Eugenics Movement in the United States who advocated for the FORCED STERILIZATION of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Was it a good thing to educate women and men about contraception? Yes. Was Margaret Sanger‘s intent to educate women based on the belief that she cared so deeply for them? No. Margaret Sanger was appalled and disgusted by the lower classes, the newly arrived immigrants, prostitutes, mentally ill, blind, crippled, developmentally disabled, and criminal types. Her intent was to rid these defective, delinquent, and dependent people from the American Melting Pot once and for all in order to produce a hearty, healthy, literate breed of educated Americans who would only bring children into this world that they could support and who didn’t drain the economy. She saw the devastation and mutilation to women’s bodies by self-inflicted and botched abortions and thought that abortion itself was barbaric; “that an educated society would never need to resort to such drastic measures.”

Was Margaret Sanger a great woman? You decide. As always, I present the facts and the historical documents FOR YOU TO READ FOR YOURSELF! To learn more about this issue and the history of Eugenics, click on the RED links below.

“The American Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger, President, The Birth Control Review, Volume VI, No. 8, Page 162, August 1922.

PRINCIPLES:
The complex problems now confronting America as the result of the practice of reckless procreation are fast threatening to grow beyond human control. Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born. In addition to this grave evil we witness the appalling waste of women’s health and women’s lives by too frequent pregnancies. These unwanted pregnancies often provoke the crime of abortion, or alternatively multiply the number of child workers and lower the standard of living. To create a race of well-born children it is essential that the function of motherhood should be elevated to a position of dignity, and this is impossible as long as conception remains a matter of chance.

We hold that children should be:
1. Conceived in love;
2. Born of the mother’s conscious desire;
3. And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health.

Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied. Every mother must realize her basic position in human society. She must be conscious of her responsibility to the race in bringing children into the world. Instead of being a blind and haphazard consequence of uncontrolled instinct, motherhood must be made the responsible and self-directed means of human expression and regeneration. These purposes, which are of fundamental importance to the whole of our nation and to the future of mankind, can only be attained if women first receive practical scientific education in the means of Birth Control. That, therefore, is the first object to which the efforts of this League will be directed.

AIMS: THE AMERICAN BIRTH CONTROL LEAGUE aims to enlighten and educate all sections of the American public in the various aspects of the dangers of uncontrolled procreation and the imperative necessity of a world program of Birth Control. The League aims to correlate the findings of scientists, statisticians, investigators and social agencies in all fields. To make this possible, it is necessary to organize various departments:

RESEARCH: To collect the findings of scientists, concerning the relation of reckless breeding to delinquency, defect and dependence.

INVESTIGATION: To derive from these scientifically ascertained facts and figures, conclusions which may aid all public health and social agencies in the study of problems of maternal and infant mortality, child-labor, mental and physical defects and delinquence in relation to the practice of reckless parentage.

HYGIENIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL instruction by the Medical profession to mothers and potential mothers in harmless and reliable methods of Birth Control in answer to their requests for such knowledge.

STERILIZATION of the insane and feeble-minded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him or her incapable of producing children.

EDUCATIONAL: The program of education includes: The enlightenment of the public at large, mainly through the education of leaders of thought and opinion—teachers, ministers, editors and writers—to the moral and scientific soundness of the principles of Birth Control and the imperative necessity of its adoption as the basis of national and racial progress.

POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE: To enlist the support and co-operation of legal advisors, statesmen and legislators in effecting the removal of state and federal statutes which encourage dysgenic breeding, increase the sum total of disease, misery and poverty and prevent the establishment of a policy of national health nd strength.

ORGANIZATION: To send into the various States of the Union field workers to enlist the support and arouse the interest of the masses to the importance of Birth Control so that laws may be changed and the establishment of clinics made possible in every State.

INTERNATIONAL: This department aims to co-operate with similar organizations in other countries to study Birth Control in its relations to the world population problem, food supplies, national and racial conflicts, and to urge upon all international bodies organized to promote world peace, the consideration of these aspects of international amity.” SOURCE: Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6, 1920, Page 162.

Captive Mother by Stephen Sinding.

Captive Mother by Stephen Sinding.

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda by Margaret Sanger

“[The following brief statement of the dependence of any sound and effective program of Eugenics upon BIRTH CONTROL, in view of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, recently held in New York at the Museum of Natural History, assumes a peculiar timeliness.]

Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigeant and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity.

The doctrine of BIRTH CONTROL is now passing through the stage of ridicule, prejudice and misunderstanding. A few years ago this new weapon of civilization and freedom was condemned as immoral, destructive, obscene. Gradually the criticisms are lessening-understanding is taking the place of misunderstanding. The eugenic and civilizational value of BIRTH CONTROL is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our BIRTH CONTROL propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for BIRTH CONTROL is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.

First: We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come “from within.” That is, it must autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. In other words, every potential parent, and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the primary and central responsibility of bringing children into this world.

Secondly: Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties will it ever be possible not alone to improve the quality of the generations of the future, but even to maintain civilization even at its present level. Only by self-control of this type, only by intelligent mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be awakened to the great responsibility of parenthood.

Thirdly: We have come to the conclusion, based on widespread investigation and experience, that this education for parenthood must be based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the submerged masses, can never be of the slightest value in effecting any changes in the mores of the people. Such systems have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted.

The almost universal demand for practical education in BIRTH CONTROL is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the diving spark of regeneration. It remain for the courageous and the enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education in Eugenics based upon this intense interest.

BIRTH CONTROL propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of BIRTH CONTROL, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.

BIRTH CONTROL is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future-nay of the generations of today-our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honestly at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.”
SOURCE: The Birth Control Review, Dedicated To Voluntary Motherhood, Margaret Sanger, Editor, Volume V., No.10, October 1921, Page 5 (43).

Definitions:
Propaganda – 1. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. The particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. (1)

Race Suicide – The extinction of a race or people that tends to result when, through the unwillingness or forbearance of its members to have children, the birthrate falls below the death rate. (1)

Infanticide – The practice of killing newborn infants. (1)

Abortion – Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (1)

Feticide – The act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion. (1)

Eugenics – Selective breeding. The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). (1)

Birth Control – Voluntary limitation or control of the number of children conceived, especially by planned use of contraceptive techniques. (1)

Privation – 1. Loss or lack of the necessities of life, such as food and shelter.
2. Hardship resulting from this. 3.The state of being deprived. (1)

Progressive Movement – A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement. (1)

Prophylactic – A protective measure against disease. A device, usually a rubber sheath, used to prevent conception or venereal infection; condom. (1)

Venereal Disease – Any of various diseases, such as syphilis or gonorrhoea, transmitted by sexual intercourse. (1)

Neo-Malthusian – Designating, or pertaining to, a group of modern economists who hold to the Malthusianism doctrine that permanent betterment of the general standard of living is impossible without decrease of competition by limitation of the number of births. (2)

SOURCES: 1. Dictionary.com, 2. Fine Dictionary.com.

Additional Reading:

Woman And The New Race by Margaret Sanger, 1920.

The Birth Control Review, Volumes 1-3.

Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6.

The Trend Of The Race by Samuel J. Holmes, 1921.

Definitions In Political Economy by Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus, 1827.

An Essay On The Principle Of Population by Rev. T.R. Malthus, 1888.

Studies In The Psychology Of Sex by Havelock Ellis, Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, Publishers, 1922.

Planned Parenthood 2013.

1907 Eugenics.

1912-1920 Eugenics in New York State.

1922 Eugenics New York State.

1843 A Christmas Carol

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!

My favorite story of all time is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. The story revolves around Ebenezer Scrooge, a stingy old man of business who is worth a fortune but will not spend any of his money, not even on himself. He lives in his dead business partner’s home and eats gruel or oatmeal for dinner. On Christmas Eve, he is visited by four ghosts who come to persuade him to change his ways, and of course, he does. There is so much more to this story and the time period in which it was written (1843), but at this time, I am focusing on what Dickens was talking about when he wrote the words: Bedlam, Treadmill, Poor Law, and Surplus Population.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens 1843

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens 1843

BEDLAM:
“There’s another fellow,” muttered Scrooge; who heard him: “my clerk, with fifteen shillings a week and a wife and family, talking about a merry Christmas. I’ll retire to Bedlam.”

The character Scrooge, along with political economists of 1843, felt that poor people had no right to marry. “Bedlam. A corruption of ‘Bethlehem,’ referring to the Hospital of St. Mary’s of Bethlehem in London, which was founded as a priory in 1247 but became a hospital for the insane as early as 1402. In 1547, after the dissolution of church property by Henry VIII, it was incorporated as a royal foundation as a madhouse. The term was current as early as the late sixteenth century…” (2)

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman. “I wish I could say they were not.”
The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoice. What shall I put you down for?’
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge.” Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas, and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Coldbath Fields Treadmill - Wikipedia

Coldbath Fields Treadmill – Wikipedia

I found a reference to a treadmill while searching for historical information on my own hometown of Rochester, Monroe County, New York.

TREADMILL:
The Treadmill or Treadwheel resembled a giant water wheel and served no purpose other than to punish the inmates of the prisons and workhouses. The inmates would walk on the rotating steps for hours at a time. “As the village grew in size it seems to have become more immoral, for the Telegraph of February 10th, 1824, after making the rather rash assertion that “probably no place in the Union of the size of Rochester is so much infested with the dregs and outcasts of society as this village,” speaks of a meeting that had been held during the previous week, at which a committee was appointed to draft a petition to the legislature for the passage of a law to erect a tread-mill, or ‘stepping-mill’ as it was called. Although the journal applauded the scheme as being likely to inspire non-resident criminals with such terror that they would stay away from this region, the law was never passed, public sentiment being then, and ever since then, too strongly opposed to it in this country, though Great Britain retained that form of torture until five years ago.” (1)

The Treadmill-The Victorian Dictionary

The Treadmill-The Victorian Dictionary

POOR LAW:
The Poor Law of 1834 in England
 was different than the New York State Poor Law of 1824 but the basic premise was the same; you had to pull your own weight. No one was allowed to be idle. No one received their food and shelter unless they worked for it. In New York State, we had county poor houses where families were required to work on the farm and in the house in order to survive, in addition to workhouses or penitentiaries. It appears that in Victorian England, they had only union workhouses.

In 1853, a workhouse was built in Rochester, NY. Its purpose was to segregate the minor offenses of vagrancy, prostitution, drunkenness, and indebtedness, from the hardened criminals. This was a place for short-term confinement of at least three months but not over six months. Before this time, all prisoners were held in the county jail with no distinction as to their misdemeanors or crimes. In 1858, The Workhouse changed its name to The Penitentiary. The county poorhouses, workhouses, and penitentiaries were deplorable, filthy places, and were phased out with the Social Security Act of 1935 in the U.S., and modern social welfare in the 1940s in England.

The Poor Law of 1834 provided that two or more parishes unite to provide a home for the destitute where they might labor in exchange for their room and board. It divided England and Wales into twenty-one districts and empowered in each a commissioner to form ‘poor law unions’ by grouping parishes together for administrative purposes and to build workhouses to contain the poor. The able-bodied were worked in penury, and their dependents were kept in the house where as little as possible was spent on food and shelter. They were characterized by strict discipline; the sexes were segregated and classified, and preliminary inquiries into the private lives of the inmates were generally conducted. It was considered a disgrace to go to such a place. Dickens fiercely attacked these institutions…” (2)

The Last of the Spirits by John Leech 1843

The Last of the Spirits by John Leech 1843

SURPLUS POPULATION:
An Essay on the Principle of Population
, by Thomas Robert Malthus, first published in 1798, foretold of the catastrophe that would occur when overpopulation caused a shortage of food supplies. The Surplus Population was the poor producing large families that they could not afford. I have mentioned Reverend Malthus, an economist, in a previous blog post about social welfare and eugenics. Although the term eugenics wasn’t coined until 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, it was definitely in use during the early nineteenth century in England and in the U.S. The whole point of rounding people up, dumping them in a union workhouse or a county poorhouse, and separating them, was done so that they could not breed. These places were intentionally made uncomfortable so that people would leave and seek employment. The problem was there were not enough jobs to go around. Many people would rather have committed suicide than to live in one of these places.

“This economist made clear ‘What the surplus is, Where it is’ when he wrote: ‘A man who is born into a world possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents, on which he has a just demand, and if society do not want his labour, has no claim of right of the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At Nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone…” (2)

SOURCES:
1. Peck, William F., History of Rochester and Monroe County, New York, New York and Chicago, The Pioneer Publishing Company, 1908, Pages 165-180.

2. Hearn, Michael Patrick, The Annotated Christmas Carol, A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, Illustrated by John Leech, Avenel Books, New York, 1976, Pages 64-65.

History of Rochester and Monroe County – Crime and Punishment – by William F. Peck 1908.

Thomas Malthus

The Victorian Dictionary

The Victorian Dictionary – The Mysteries of London, Volume II

1872 Scientific Charity Movement & Charity Organization Societies

On the surface, many of the key people who were involved in the Scientific Charity Movement during the late nineteenth century appear to be caring individuals who wanted nothing more than to lift the poor out of poverty with education and employment so that they could support themselves without government assistance. These charities did not receive state aid but depended on donations mainly from wealthy Americans. There is no doubt that these societies helped the plight of poor children, many of whom were under the age of 10 and working under terrible conditions in order to help out their families. But when it came to the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes, which was the label used to describe the insane, feeble-minded, blind, crippled, maimed, deaf and dumb, epileptic, criminal types, prostitutes, drug addicts, and alcoholics, the sincerity of their intentions to purely provide care to these individuals was overshadowed by the underlying goal of Eugenics.

@Columbia University 1

@Columbia University 1

Photo: Columbia University – Social Forces Visualized: Photography and Scientific Charity, 1900-1920.

They didn’t want to see these poor, unfortunate souls suffering in squalor on the streets and in the poor houses but their ultimate objective of eradicating poverty and the financial drain that it caused on society resulted in the building of more asylums for the sole purpose of removing the defective classes from society so that they could not procreate. The Charity Organization Societies wanted to isolate the defective class in asylums in order to stop them from “breeding,” Alienists wanted to study and experiment on them, Medical Students wanted their dead bodies, Pathologists wanted their brains, Anthropologists wanted their bones, and the general public was just happy that someone was taking care of the problem. With the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, the Poor Houses were abolished. Insane Asylums thrived and many remained in operation for over one hundred years. For more information, click on the RED links below.

@Columbia University 2

@Columbia University 2

Photo: Columbia University – Social Forces Visualized: Photography and Scientific Charity, 1900-1920.

Scientific charity built on Americans’ notion of self-reliance, limited government, and economic freedom. Proponents of scientific charity shared the poorhouse advocates’ goals of cutting relief expenses and reducing the number of able-bodied who were receiving assistance, as well as the moral reformers’ goal of uplifting people from poverty through discipline and religious education via private charity. In this model, individuals responded to charity and the government stayed out of the economic sphere. Individuals were seen as rational actors who freely made decisions based on their own self-interest and who were responsible for how they fared economically. Scientific charity fit well with the post–Civil War concept of social Darwinism, which held that humans were in competition and the strong survived and thrived while the weak did not. Not surprisingly, Charity Organization Societies were generally opposed to unions.

Two of the leading advocates for Charity Organization Societies were Josephine Lowell and S. Humphrey Gurteen. Lowell, who was from a radical abolitionist family, believed that idleness was a major cause of poverty, and she advocated giving those who requested relief a labor test (such as breaking stones or chopping wood) before they received private charity. During her life, she developed several principles to guide her social reform work. One of her key principles was that “charity must tend to develop the moral nature of those it helps.” Lowell opposed both local government relief and almsgiving (individual giving directly to the poor) since she felt this practice did not morally uplift the people and created dependency. She felt that charity agents and visitors could provide a personal relationship conducive to helping needy individuals instead of treating them as “cases.”  Lowell thought “that each case must be dealt with radically and a permanent means of helping it to be found, and that the best way to help people is to help them to help themselves.”

Gurteen provided many practical ideas to implement organized Charity Organization Societies. Gurteen’s plan was to have various groups already providing services to the poor coordinate their efforts. There would be a central office that served as a charity clearinghouse where “friendly visitors” (COS agents) involved in investigating the poor would meet to compare notes to determine who was worthy of relief and who was an imposter. This collaboration would result in a complete registry of every person in the city who was receiving public or private assistance. The goal of this organized approach was to stop providing relief to the undeserving poor but continue to provide the deserving poor with the assistance to solve their own problems. Gurteen believed that COS would end outdoor relief, stop pauperism, and reduce poverty to its lowest possible level.”  SOURCE: Excerpted from “Social Solutions to Poverty” Scott Myers-Lipton, Pages 68-69 © Paradigm Publishers 2006.

@Columbia University 3

@Columbia University 3

Photo: Columbia University – Social Forces Visualized: Photography and Scientific Charity, 1900-1920.

Social Darwinism: “Theory that persons, groups, and “races” are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had proposed for plants and animals in nature. Social Darwinists, such as Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot in England and William Graham Sumner in the U.S., held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest,” in Spencer‘s words. Wealth was said to be a sign of natural superiority, its absence a sign of unfitness. The theory was used from the late 19th century to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Social Darwinism declined as scientific knowledge expanded.”

Breaker Boys by Lewis W. Hine

Breaker Boys by Lewis W. Hine

“An illustration of these times and the rise of a professional beggar class was described in 1880 by Reverend Oscar C. McCulloch, Pastor of Plymouth Church, Indianapolis at the seventh annual meeting of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections. His presentation entitled “Associated Charities” detailed the need to organize charities:

“…Every worker among the poor in our cities finds himself saying, “Who is sufficient for these things?” Let him conscientiously attempt to dispense charity wisely in any one instance, and he is made sensible of the organization of pauperism, and of the complex problem of poverty; of suffering beyond his reach, and of setting tides of evil beyond his control. My own introduction to this work was in this wise: In a small room I found an old blind woman, her son, his wife and two children, his sister with one child. There was no chair, table or stool, a little ” monkey stove,” but no fire; no plates, or kettles, or knife, fork or spoon. Such utter poverty horrified me. I soon had coal, provisions and clothing there. Chance led me into the office of our township trustee, where the historical records of all applicants for public aid are registered. Here I found that I had touched one knot of a large family known as “American Gypsies.” Three generations have been, and are, receiving public aid, numbering 125 persons; 65 per cent. were illegitimate; 57 per cent of the children died before the age of five. Distinctions of relationship were ignored. In the case above cited, the child of the sister was by her own brother. Since then I have found that family underrunning our society like devil-grass. In the diagram which I hold before you, the extent of it is traced to over 400 individuals. They are found on the street begging, at the houses soliciting cold victuals. Their names appear on the criminal records of the city court, the county jail, the house of refuge, the reformatory, the State prison and the county poor asylum. I give this as an illustration of the organization of pauperism, which takes it beyond the control of the individual and of the single society, making necessary an organization of charitable forces if the evil is ever to be controlled….”

COS leaders wanted to reform charity by including a paid agent’s investigation of the case’s “worthiness” before distributing aid. They believed that unregulated and unsupervised relief caused rather than cured poverty. The paid agent, usually a male, made an investigation and carried out the decisions of the volunteer committee concerning each applicant, including maintaining records. A volunteer or “friendly visitor” was recruited to offer advice and supervise the family’s progress. COS visitors sought to uplift the family and taught the values of hard work and thrift to individuals and families. The COS set up centralized records and administrative services and emphasized objective investigations and professional training. There was a strong scientific emphasis as the COS visitors organized their activities and learned principles of practice and techniques of intervention from one another. COS views dominated private charity philosophy until the 1930s and influenced the face of social welfare as it evolved during the Progressive Era.
SOURCE: The Social Welfare History Project – Charity Organization Societies: 1877-1893 by John E. Hansan, Ph.D.

The Social Welfare History Project – Progressive Era by John E. Hansan, Ph.D.

The Social Welfare History Project – Theodore Roosevelt.

The Social Welfare History Project – Josephine Shaw Lowell.

Unsentimental Reformer: The Life Of Josephine Shaw Lowell by Joan Waugh, 1997.

In Memoriam: Josephine Shaw Lowell, The Charity Organization Society Of The City Of New York, 1906.

Almost Worthy: The Poor, Paupers, and the Science of Charity in America, 1877-1917 by Brent Ruswick, 2012. (Info on Reverend Oscar C. McCulloch).

Reverend Stephen Humphreys Gurteen – The Charities Review, Volume 8, March-February 1898-99, Page 364.

Eugenics, Past and Future by Russ Douthat, June 9, 2012, New York Times.

Columbia University – Social Forces Visualized: Photography and Scientific Charity, 1900-1920.

1915 State Charities Aid Association News

The State Charities Aid Association, S.C.A.A., was founded in 1872. The S.C.A.A. inspected all charitable institutions that included all New York State Hospitals, Custodial Institutions for the Feeble-Minded, Prisons, Tuberculosis Hospitals, County Poor Houses, Polio Clinics, Houses of Refuge, and Orphanages. Charity Organization Societies (COS), were part of the “scientific charity movement” that began in the late nineteenth century. S.C.A.A. News, Volumes 3-11, 1915 through 1923 is a TREASURE TROVE of information and photographs!

SCAA 01

SCAA 01

SCAA 02

SCAA 02

SCAA 03

SCAA 03

SCAA 04

SCAA 04

SCAA 05

SCAA 05

“Brief Facts About State Charities Aid Association:

The object of the State Charities Aid Association, which is a voluntary body of citizens of New York State, is to improve conditions in public institutions and to promote public health and child care.

It is an incorporated body, State-wide, but without State aid.

Its budget is about $329,000 a year, and is met by voluntary contributions.

It has 12,000 members; it has local committees in every county. Its volunteer visitors visit and inspect all public institutions. The Association employs abut 95 persons in its Central Office, and about 20 in the field. It devotes itself to the following objects:

Finding homes for destitute or orphaned children.

Assisting mothers with babies.

Preventing mental disorders and securing better care for the mentally sick and defective.

Visiting public institutions in order to improve conditions, to promote with welfare and comfort of patients and inmates.

Helping to provide suitable occupations for sick persons in hospitals and institutions.

Assisting in securing wise laws about public health, care of the sick, institutions, and the expenditure of public funds for these purposes.”
SOURCE: S.C.A.A. News, Published Monthly by The State Charities Aid Association, 105 East 22nd Street, New York, N.Y., Volume X, No. 9, June, 1922, Page 13.

1872 Miss Louisa Lee Schuyler – The State Charities Aid Association.

SCAA 06

SCAA 06

SCAA 07

SCAA 07

SCAA 08

SCAA 08

SCAA 09

SCAA 09

SCAA 10

SCAA 10

SCAA 11

SCAA 11

SCAA 12

SCAA 12

SCAA 13

SCAA 13

SCAA 14

SCAA 14

1920 Margaret Sanger & Eugenics

“While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.” Margaret Sanger – 1920.

Margaret Sanger and Her Sons.

Margaret Sanger and Her Sons.

October 17, 2013, marked the 97th Birthday of Planned Parenthood. I would not have known about this event if not for the fact that I am guilty of being a Facebook user. In 1916, Margaret Sanger, a nurse and Progressive Activist, opened a clinic in Brooklyn, New York, to provide women with health education on Birth Control, prevention of venereal diseases, and the use of prophylactics. It is hard for us in the 21st Century to understand why information about contraception was illegal, but it was. The Comstock Law of 1873 “was a federal law that made it a crime to sell or distribute materials that could be used for contraception or abortion, to send such materials or information about such materials through the federal mail system, or to import such materials from abroad.” My particular beef with all the fanfare about what a great woman Margaret Sanger was is the fact that virtually all bloggers intentionally left out the fact that she was a fervent supporter of the Eugenics Movement in the United States who advocated for the FORCED STERILIZATION of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood

Was it a good thing to educate women and men about contraception? Yes. Was Margaret Sanger‘s intent to educate women based on the belief that she cared so deeply for them? No. Margaret Sanger was appalled and disgusted by the lower classes, the newly arrived immigrants, prostitutes, mentally ill, blind, crippled, developmentally disabled, and criminal types. Her intent was to rid these defective, delinquent, and dependent people from the American Melting Pot once and for all in order to produce a hearty, healthy, literate breed of educated Americans who would only bring children into this world that they could support and who didn’t drain the economy. She saw the devastation and mutilation to women’s bodies by self-inflicted and botched abortions and thought that abortion itself was barbaric; that an educated society would never need to resort to such drastic measures. She’s probably rolling over in her grave.

ALL.org

ALL.org

Was Margaret Sanger a great woman? You decide. As always, I present the facts and the historical documents for you to read for yourself. To learn more about this issue, click on the RED links below.

“The American Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger, President

PRINCIPLES:
The complex problems now confronting America as the result of the practice of reckless procreation are fast threatening to grow beyond human control. Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born. In addition to this grave evil we witness the appalling waste of women’s health and women’s lives by too frequent pregnancies. These unwanted pregnancies often provoke the crime of abortion, or alternatively multiply the number of child workers and lower the standard of living. To create a race of well-born children it is essential that the function of motherhood should be elevated to a position of dignity, and this is impossible as long as conception remains a matter of chance.

We hold that children should be
1. Conceived in love;
2. Born of the mother’s conscious desire;
3. And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health.

Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied. Every mother must realize her basic position in human society. She must be conscious of her responsibility to the race in bringing children into the world. Instead of being a blind and haphazard consequence of uncontrolled instinct, motherhood must be made the responsible and self-directed means of human expression and regeneration. These purposes, which are of fundamental importance to the whole of our nation and to the future of mankind, can only be attained if women first receive practical scientific education in the means of Birth Control. That, therefore, is the first object to which the efforts of this League will be directed.

AIMS: THE AMERICAN BIRTH CONTROL LEAGUE aims to enlighten and educate all sections of the American public in the various aspects of the dangers of uncontrolled procreation and the imperative necessity of a world program of Birth Control. The League aims to correlate the findings of scientists, statisticians, investigators and social agencies in all fields. To make this possible, it is necessary to organize various departments:

RESEARCH: To collect the findings of scientists, concerning the relation of reckless breeding to delinquency, defect and dependence.

INVESTIGATION: To derive from these scientifically ascertained facts and figures, conclusions which may aid all public health and social agencies in the study of problems of maternal and infant mortality, child-labor, mental and physical defects and delinquence in relation to the practice of reckless parentage.

HYGIENIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL instruction by the Medical profession to mothers and potential mothers in harmless and reliable methods of Birth Control in answer to their requests for such knowledge.

STERILIZATION of the insane and feeble-minded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him or her incapable of producing children.

EDUCATIONAL: The program of education includes: The enlightenment of the public at large, mainly through the education of leaders of thought and opinion—teachers, ministers, editors and writers—to the moral and scientific soundness of the principles of Birth Control and the imperative necessity of its adoption as the basis of national and racial progress.

POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE: To enlist the support and co-operation of legal advisors, statesmen and legislators in effecting the removal of state and federal statutes which encourage dysgenic breeding, increase the sum total of disease, misery and poverty and prevent the establishment of a policy of national health nd strength.

ORGANIZATION: To send into the various States of the Union field workers to enlist the support and arouse the interest of the masses to the importance of Birth Control so that laws may be changed and the establishment of clinics made possible in every State.

INTERNATIONAL: This department aims to co-operate with similar organizations in other countries to study Birth Control in its relations to the world population problem, food supplies, national and racial conflicts, and to urge upon all international bodies organized to promote world peace, the consideration of these aspects of international amity.” SOURCE: Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6, 1920, Page 162.

Captive Mother by Stephen Sinding.

Captive Mother by Stephen Sinding.

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda by Margaret Sanger

“[The following brief statement of the dependence of any sound and effective program of Eugenics upon BIRTH CONTROL, in view of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, recently held in New York at the Museum of Natural History, assumes a peculiar timeliness.]

Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigeant and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity.

The doctrine of BIRTH CONTROL is now passing through the stage of ridicule, prejudice and misunderstanding. A few years ago this new weapon of civilization and freedom was condemned as immoral, destructive, obscene. Gradually the criticisms are lessening-understanding is taking the place of misunderstanding. The eugenic and civilizational value of BIRTH CONTROL is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our BIRTH CONTROL propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for BIRTH CONTROL is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.

First: We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come “from within.” That is, it must autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. In other words, every potential parent, and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the primary and central responsibility of bringing children into this world.

Secondly: Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties will it ever be possible not alone to improve the quality of the generations of the future, but even to maintain civilization even at its present level. Only by self-control of this type, only by intelligent mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be awakened to the great responsibility of parenthood.

Thirdly: We have come to the conclusion, based on widespread investigation and experience, that this education for parenthood must be based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the submerged masses, can never be of the slightest value in effecting any changes in the mores of the people. Such systems have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted.

The almost universal demand for practical education in BIRTH CONTROL is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the diving spark of regeneration. It remain for the courageous and the enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education in Eugenics based upon this intense interest.

BIRTH CONTROL propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of BIRTH CONTROL, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.

BIRTH CONTROL is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future-nay of the generations of today-our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honestly at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.”
SOURCE: The Birth Control Review, Dedicated To Voluntary Motherhood, Margaret Sanger, Editor, Volume V., No.10, October 1921, Page 5 (43).

Definitions:
Propaganda – 1. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. The particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. (1)

Race Suicide – The extinction of a race or people that tends to result when, through the unwillingness or forbearance of its members to have children, the birthrate falls below the death rate. (1)

Infanticide – The practice of killing newborn infants. (1)

Abortion – Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (1)

Feticide – The act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion. (1)

Eugenics – Selective breeding. The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). (1)

Birth Control – Voluntary limitation or control of the number of children conceived, especially by planned use of contraceptive techniques. (1)

Privation – 1. Loss or lack of the necessities of life, such as food and shelter.
2. Hardship resulting from this. 3.The state of being deprived. (1)

Progressive Movement – A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement. (1)

Prophylactic – A protective measure against disease. A device, usually a rubber sheath, used to prevent conception or venereal infection; condom. (1)

Venereal Disease – Any of various diseases, such as syphilis or gonorrhoea, transmitted by sexual intercourse. (1)

Neo-Malthusian – Designating, or pertaining to, a group of modern economists who hold to the Malthusianism doctrine that permanent betterment of the general standard of living is impossible without decrease of competition by limitation of the number of births. (2)

SOURCES: 1. Dictionary.com, 2. Fine Dictionary.com.

Additional Reading:

Woman And The New Race by Margaret Sanger, 1920.

The Birth Control Review, Volumes 1-3.

Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6.

The Trend Of The Race by Samuel J. Holmes, 1921.

Definitions In Political Economy by Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus, 1827.

An Essay On The Principle Of Population by Rev. T.R. Malthus, 1888.

Studies In The Psychology Of Sex by Havelock Ellis, Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, Publishers, 1922.

Planned Parenthood 2013.

1907 Eugenics.

1912-1920 Eugenics in New York State.

1922 Eugenics New York State.

Rome State School & Cemetery

New York State Custodial Institution at Rome for Intellectually Disabled Children and Adults.

1916 Rome State Custodial Institution For Feeble-Minded Children.
Rome Developmental Center Cemetery Names.
Rome State Custodial Asylum Map.

Rome State School

Rome State School

Photograph courtesy of The Museum of disABILITY History

“Although the initial purpose was essentially eugenic in nature, the scope of the institution expanded over the years. Educational training and independent living became central aspects, and several colony homes were established. The New York State Custodial Asylum for Un-Teachable Idiots was established in 1893 to address the growing public need for increased custodial provisions for ‘idiots’ deemed beyond the reach of education.  However, the staff soon realized that these individuals were capable of far more than the name of their institution implied. Led by Superintendent Charles Bernstein, the Board of Managers assumed a philosophy that focused on the recognition that people with disabilities “have a right to experiences and opportunities equivalent to those available to all other citizens.” Over fifty colony homes were established during Dr. Bernstein’s forty year superintendence, providing the people in attendance with many opportunities to live and work in the community.”

Rome Developmental Cemetery – This cemetery appears to be well maintained.
Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Rome State …, Volumes 1-12.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO They’re Buried Where? by Seth Voorhees

THE BAD NEWS: Thousands Remain Nameless! 6.15.2015.

THE GOOD NEWS: One Man Is Remembered! 6.14.2015.

 

Newark State School for Women & Cemetery

New York State School – Newark Custodial Institution for Developmentally Disabled, Childbearing Age Women. February 17, 1932, Begins Accepting Boys.

1878-1885: The Newark State School operated as part of the Syracuse State School.
1885: By statute erected as the State Custodial Asylum for Feeble-Minded Women.
1919: Name changed to Newark State School for Mental Defectives.
1927: Became a part of the Department of Mental Hygiene and name changed to Newark State School.
1932: Accepts boys.

1916 Newark State Custodial Institution For Feeble-Minded Women.
Early State Schools in New York.
State of New York Thirty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Newark State School for Mental Defectives, 1921 – Through – Fifty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Visitors of the Newark State School, at Newark, Wayne County, New York to the Department of Mental Hygiene 1943.

Newark State School 1937

Newark State School 1937

Newark State School 1937-2

Newark State School 1937-2

Newark State School 1937-3

Newark State School 1937-3

 

Newark State School for Women

Newark State School for Women

Photograph courtesy of The Museum of disABILITY History 

The New York State Custodial Asylum for Feeble-Minded Women was established in 1878 in response to an increasing awareness that almshouses were improper places for ‘feeble-minded’ women. Social reformer Josephine Shaw Lowell led the crusade, with assistance from the State Board of Charities. Lowell delivered several reports before the state legislature expressing her concern that feeble-minded women often disregarded moral and sexual restraint when placed in the undisciplined environment of an almshouse and frequently had illegitimate children who, in turn, became dependent on the state for their welfare. Women of child-bearing age, fifteen to forty-five, were admitted into this institution, in order to “prevent them from multiplying their kind.” (New York State Board of Charities Report, 1879).

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO They’re Buried Where? by Seth Voorhees

THE BAD NEWS: Thousands Remain Nameless! 6.15.2015.

THE GOOD NEWS: One Man Is Remembered! 6.14.2015.

1922 Eugenics – New York State

Thirty New York State Institutions were subject to the 1912 statute. One man and forty-one women were sterilized. It is interesting to read the opinions of the superintendents of the custodial institutions from which sterilization was tested or performed: Auburn State Prison; Rome Custodial Asylum for the Feeble-Minded (test case of Frank Osborn challenged the New York statute); Buffalo and Gowanda State Hospitals. To read the opinions in their entirety, click on the RED link below.

Eugenics Record Office, Annual Meeting of the Eugenics Research Association, 1918 (Laughlin in front, Stewart House in background) http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/index2.html?tag=1664

Eugenics Record Office, Annual Meeting of the Eugenics Research Association, 1918 (Laughlin in front, Stewart House in background) http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/index2.html?tag=1664

NAMES: 1. Alexander Weinstein, 2. Dr. Howard J. Banker, 3. Robert W. Kegner, 4. Sarah Oates, 5. Dr. Oscar Riddle, 6. Ella Newman, 7. Mrs. H.H. Laughlin, 8. George MacArthur, 9. Ruth Gardiner, 10. Laura Garrett (Mrs. Clafflin), 11. Leslie E. Peckhem, 12. Edna Rosselot, 13. Dr. Arthur M. Banta, 14. No Name, 15. Emilee Viccari, 16. Mathilda Koch, 17. Louise A. Nelson, 18. Nua A. Minns, 19. Dr. B. Onuf, 20. Annie Henchman, 21. Dr. Wilhelmina E. Key, 22. Mrs. Howard J. Banker, 23. Mrs. Helen Martin Pitcher, 24. Julia F. Goodrich, 25. Dr. Arthur H. Harris, 26. Ethel Thayer, 27. Mrs. W.B. Browning, 28. Caroline E. Conway, 29. Alfie M. Newbuk, 30. Marion Collins, 31. Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, 32. Mrs. Estella Hughes, 33. Dr. Rene Sand, 34. Mrs. W.L.F. Brown, 35. Frederick Hoffman, 36. Mary Kitchell, 37. Mrs. Charles B. Davenport. 

New York “The statute dates from 1912. Present status (January 1, 1922): Repealed 1920, after having been declared unconstitutional by the lower courts in 1918. Thirty (30) state institutions were subject to the act before its repeal; they performed eugenical sterilizing operations as follows:

1. State Prison, Auburn – 1 Vasectomy
2. Clinton State Prison, Dannemora
3. Sing Sing Prison, Ossining
4. Great Meadow Prison, Comstock
5. Farm for Boys, Valatie
6. Reformatory, Elmira
7. Eastern New York Reformatory, Napanoch
8. Agricultural and Industrial School, Industry
9. Training School for Girls, Hudson
10. Western House of Refuge for Women, Albion
11. Reformatory for Women, Bedford Hills
12. Institution for Feeble-Minded Children, Syracuse
13. Newark State School, Newark
14. Custodial Asylum, Rome – Frank Osborn Test Case for New York Statute
15. Craig Colony for Epileptics, Sonyea
16. Letchworth Village, Thiells
17. Matteawan State Hospital, Beacon
18. State Hospital, Utica
19. State Hospital, Willard
20. Hudson River State Hospital, Poughkeepsie
21. State Hospital, Middletown
22. State Hospital, Buffalo – 12 Salpingectomies
23. State Hospital, Binghamton
24. St. Lawrence State Hospital, Ogdensburg
25. State Hospital, Rochester
26. Gowanda State Hospital, Collins – 29: 24 Salpingectomies; 5 Ovariotomies
27. State Hospital, Kings Park
28. State Hospital, Central Islip
29. Long Island State Hospital, Brooklyn
30. Manhattan State Hospital, Ward’s Island, N.Y.
Total to January 1, 1921: (42) 1 Vasectomy; 36 Salpingectomies; 5 Ovariotomies

(Institutions 3, 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 29 did not supply historical comment.) 3. Sing Sing Prison, Ossining; 4. Great Meadow Prison, Comstock; 5. Farm for Boys, Valatie; 8. Agricultural and Industrial School, Industry; 17. Matteawan State Hospital, Beacon; 18. State Hospital, Utica; 19. State Hospital, Willard; 24. St. Lawrence State Hospital, Ogdensburg; 25. State Hospital, Rochester; 29. Long Island State Hospital, Brooklyn.

Auburn State Prison, Auburn, (a) Dr. Frank L. Heacox, Physician.
“The State Commission made a special study of a few cases, but no recommendations were made as to the cases investigated. One operation of double vasectomy was performed on one patient at his own and his family’s request. The patient was a youth twenty years of age, who was suffering from tubercular testicles.” Dr. Heacox stated that, in his opinion, the medical value of the statute was very little, but that eugenically it was invaluable. March, 1918. (b) “Our one case of eugenical sterilization was a voluntary one.” January, 1921.

Custodial Asylum, Rome. Dr. Charles Bernstein, Superintendent, from whose institution the test case for the New York statute arose, reported that there had been no operations under the law in his institution; that he could not in the ordinary course of professional practice perform any operation under this law that would be forbidden or illegal without it; that, in his opinion, “there was no medical value in the statute; and that, instead of being of eugenical value, the statute was a eugenical hindrance.” January, 1918.

Buffalo State Hospital (a) Dr. Arthur W. Hurd, Superintendent, in answer to inquiries, reported that he was doubtful whether the law, as it stood before tested in the courts, was applicable to inmates of the hospitals for the insane. He stated also that in reference to the medical value to the institution: “That it may be of a great deal of value in selected cases, as child-bearing, for instance, brings on recurrent attacks of insanity. Eugenically the statute is of much value in preventing the propagation of defectives. * * * Since 1912 six sterilizations have been done in this institution on women to produce sterility on account of the mental condition, which made it unwise that the patients should have any more children, and in two instances where the mental condition was in unmarried insane women and was accompanied by immoral tendencies. In each one of the cases we obtained the written consent of the relatives, which was filed in the case before such an operation was undertaken. We have always felt that indiscriminate sterilization among the insane was not indicated, but believe very strongly in it, and think it is of very great value in decreasing the number of people who would be born with a bad heredity, and also in saving the strength of women, for instance: If continued child-bearing would weaken the system, and in that way increase the tendency to mental breakdown.” February, 1918. (b) F. W. Parsons, Superintendent. “There have not been any untoward mental or physical effects resulting from our cases of salpingectomy, as the menstruation has continued uninterrupted. Before operating we obtain and file the written consent of husband, parent or guardian. Several defectives of bad moral tendencies were sterilized before they were allowed to go on parole, also a number of insane women with good intelligence and who had repeated attacks of insanity during pregnancy or the puerperium. The sterilization act is not in force in New York State. The hospital assumes the responsibility.” January, 1921.

Gowanda State Hospital, Collins. Dr. C. A. Potter, Superintendent. (a) In answer to inquiry concerning the medical and eugenical values of the statute, Dr. Potter replied: “If properly amended, the law would be of very great value in preventing recurrence of attacks of insanity, one of our cases has proven this conclusively. If enforced, after amendment, its eugenical value would be greater than any law of recent years which applies to institutions.” February, 1918. (b) “We note that several of our patients who have been sterilized have had no mental breakdown since the operation and have been able to fill their places in the household since they have not been exposed to pregnancy. Those cases which became insane on account of child-bearing or have a bad heredity but who could remain outside if not exposed to frequent child-bearing, are selected for sterilization and written consent is obtained from the husband or legal guardian, or nearest relative, the whole process and reasons therefor having been thoroughly explained. The public should be shown that insane, epileptics, feeble-minded and criminals have no right to procreate, from an economic standpoint as well as from the point of eugenics. The insane, feeble-minded, epileptics and criminals of child-bearing age should be sterilized.” January, 1921.”

1922 Eugenics Enforcement, Information and Opinions.

Eugenics Archive.

SOURCE: Reprinted from Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, Harry Hamilton Laughlin, D.Sc., Assistant Director of the Eugenics Record Office, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, and Eugenics Associate of the Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago. Published by Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, December, 1922, Pages 81, 82, 84-87.

1912-1920 Eugenics in New York State

This is the story of Frank Osborn, a twenty-two year old man who was chosen to be sterilized by the Board of Examiners of Feeble-Minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), Epileptics and Other Defectives in the State of New York in 1915. Frank had committed no crime. He was feeble-minded, which in today’s terms would mean he was developmentally disabled. Frank had the intelligence of an eight year old and had been an inmate at the Rome State Custodial Asylum, Rome, New York, since 1907. Previous to that time, he had been an inmate at the Rochester Industrial School at Rochester, New York. Frank must have born about 1893. I do not know when or where he died, or where he was buried.

The whole point of Eugenics was to stop the defective population (insane, feeble-minded, criminal), from procreating. Frank Osborn was not sterilized because the New York State statute was ruled unconstitutional. What I find disgustingly amazing is the attitude of doctors, lawmakers, and men in general toward women. On page 19 of the testimony given by Dr. Charles Bernstein (The Trial of FRANK OSBORN 9.17.1915), clearly states that a seventeen year old woman had been gang raped but because she was feeble-minded and had been sterilized, the incident was not handled by authorities. “The fact that she was sterile made the authorities feel that it was not a matter for them.” 

To read more about Eugenics in New York State, please click on:
EUGENICS – New York State Timeline 1912-1920

Definitions:
1.Salpingectomy – surgical excision of a fallopian tube.

2. Ovariotomies – surgical incision of an ovary. (Not sure if this procedure is the same as Oophorectomy – the surgical removal of an ovary, called also ovariectomy.)

3. Vasectomy – surgical division or resection of all or part of the vas deferens usually to induce sterility.
(SOURCE: Definitions by Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/).

4. Eugenics – is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population. It is a social philosophy which advocates for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of less desired people and traits.

5. Dysgenics (also known as Cacogenics) – is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species. Dysgenic mutations have been studied in animals such as the mouse and the fruit fly. The term dysgenics was first used as an antonym of eugenics – the social philosophy of improving human hereditary qualities by social programs and government intervention.

6. Defendant -is any party required to answer a plaintiff’s complaint in a civil lawsuit, or any party that has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. (Respondent is the parallel term used in a proceeding which is commenced by petition).

7. Respondent -is a person who is called upon to issue a response to a communication made by another. In legal usage, this specifically refers to the defendant in a legal proceeding commenced by a petition, or to an appellee, or the opposing party, in an appeal of a decision by an initial fact-finder.

8. Plaintiff – also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. In other words, someone who tries to sue. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy, and if successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages).

9. Appeal – is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision. The decision maker to whom the appeal is made may be a court, a board, a tribunal or even a single official. Generally, only the party aggrieved below has standing to appeal.
(SOURCE: Definitions by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

1907 Eugenics

The mid-nineteenth century was the dawn of scientific thought and research concerning evolution and the human condition. Three men made an influential mark in history with their provocative theories which are still debated today. These men were: Charles Darwin, “natural selection;” Herbert Spencer, “survival of the fittest;” and Sir Francis Galton, “nature versus nurture.” Galton invented the term “eugenics.” Eugenics is the science of selective breeding in order to manipulate the gene pool and improve the human race. In other words, only certain members of society should be allowed to procreate. One of the goals of the Eugenics Movement was to rid the United States of the dregs of society: the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes by means of forced sterilization.

15 states enacted Eugenics legislation in America: Indiana, Washington, California, Connecticut, Nevada, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Michigan, Kansas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota. Eugenics began on March 9, 1907, with Indiana being the first state to enact a law, and ended on December 13, 1921, with Oregon proving the law unconstitutional. But that wasn’t the end. Wisconsin’s law was still active on January 1, 1922. From 1913 to January 1, 1921, the state of Wisconsin performed 76 forced sterilizations on inmates at the Home for Feeble-Minded at Chippewa Falls: 15 males (Vasectomy); and 61 females (Salpingectomy).

New York State passed a Eugenics Law on April 16, 1912, Chapter 445; Declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Albany County, March 5, 1918, and by Appellate Division July 1, 1918; and Repealed by the State Legislature, May 10, 1920. Forty-two operations were performed in the State of New York “while the statute was in force, but none of them was performed under this statute; all were performed by special arrangement with the patients and their families under the laws and customs governing ordinary surgical operations.” An agreement was made between the inmate who was targeted for sterilization and the inmate’s family, for permission to perform the needed operation that would make the life of their loved one more comfortable, leaving them to lead a productive, “normal” life. One vasectomy (1) was performed at the Auburn State Prison; twelve salpingectomies (2) at the Buffalo State Hospital; and twenty-four salpingectomies (2) and five ovariotomies (3) by the Gowanda State Hospital at Collins. Buffalo State Hospital opened in December 1880 and Gowanda State Homeopathic Hospital (Collins Farm) opened on August 9, 1898. Both were for the care of the mentally ill and were located in Erie County, New York.

These are the people mentioned in the book as being considered for sterilization and/or involved in litigation. According to my research, none of them were sterilized, with the possible exception of Peter Feilen.

Washington:
Peter Feilen, convicted rapist, inmate; ordered vasectomy, Washington State Penitentiary Walla Walla.

William Henry Harrison, inmate; ordered vasectomy, Washington State Penitentiary Walla Walla.

John Hill, inmate (stole hams for his family); ordered vasectomy, Yakima County, Washington.

Chris McCauley, alias Harry Taylor, inmate; ordered vasectomy, State Reformatory, Monroe, Washington. Formerly at Washington State Penitentiary Walla Walla.

New Jersey:
Alice Smith, epileptic: ordered salpingectomy; State Village for Epileptics at Skillman.

Iowa:
Rudolph Davis, twice convicted of felony; ordered vasectomy; Penitentiary at Fort Madison.

New York:
Frank Osborn, feeble-minded; ordered vasectomy; Rome State Custodial Asylum.

Nevada:
Pearley C. Mickle or Mickie, convict; ordered vasectomy, Elko County.

Michigan:
Nora Reynolds, inmate; ordered sterilization, Michigan Home and Training School at Lapeer.

Oregon:
Jacob Cline, convict; ordered sterilization, Oregon State Penitentiary.

ALL of this information was taken from the book Eugenical Sterilization in the Untied States by Harry Hamilton Laughlin.

Fountain Of The Ages by Charles Haag

Fountain Of The Ages by Charles Haag

Keep The Life Stream Pure

Introduction
Dr. Harry H. Laughlin
, Eugenics Associate of the Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, and Eugenics Director of Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cold Springs Harbor, N. Y., has rendered the nation a signal service in the preparation of this work, “Eugenical Sterilization in the United States.”

Since the rediscovery of Mendel’s Law of Heredity and the recent advances made by the biologists and psychopathologists in respect to the causes of mental and physical defects in the human race, with the consequent revelation of the great role played by heredity as a producing cause, the science of eugenics has become of vital importance.

“Eugenics,” says Professor Irving Fisher, “stands against the forces which work for racial deterioration, and for improvement and vigor, intelligence and moral fiber of the human race. It represents the highest form of patriotism and humanitarianism, while at the same time it offers immediate advantages to ourselves and to our children. By eugenic measures, for instance, our burden of taxes can be reduced by decreasing the number of degenerates, delinquents and defectives supported in public institutions; such measures will also increase safeguards against crimes committed against our persons or our property.”

America, in particular, needs to protect herself against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and race suicide.

The success of democracy depends upon the quality of its individual elements. If in these elements the racial values are high, government will be equal to all the economic, educational, religious and scientific demands of the times. If, on the contrary, there is a constant and progressive racial degeneracy, it is only a question of time when popular self-government will be impossible, and will be succeeded by chaos, and finally a dictatorship.

Dr. Laughlin is well qualified for the work he has undertaken. For twelve years he has been in immediate charge of the Eugenics Record Office (founded in 1910 by Mrs. E. H. Harriman and since 1918 a part of the Carnegie Institution of Washington), located at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. There he is engaged in organizing and conducting eugenical investigations. He is, also, Expert Eugenics Agent of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives of Washington, D. C., and recently organized the exhibits of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York City.

As a product of scientific research the book will have permanent value. The importance and usefulness of the work is not to be gauged by the extent of its circulation. Enough copies will be published to reach the leaders of the medical, legal and clerical professions, the press and members of legislative bodies.

The Municipal Court of Chicago, which has for years made an intensive study of crime prevention, punishment and suppression, feels privileged to be able to make another notable contribution in this field.

The courts have special functions to perform in the suppression of crime. The first of these is to enforce the laws impartially and justly. Incidental to this duty much original information comes to the judges of our courts, and it has been the policy of the Municipal Court to make public such incidental information, as the relationship between degeneracy and crime and their relationship to heredity, through the reports of its Psychopathic Laboratory. In the performance of this duty the Municipal Court of Chicago has pointed out the need of the permanent segregation of incorrigible defectives, which serves three purposes: First, the protection of society from the individual offender; second, the protection of the individual from himself, and, third, the restriction of propagation of the defective type due to heredity. The alternative to segregation is to continue to do what we have been doing, that is, incarcerate the offender for a time, more or less brief, and then permit him freedom to repeat his offense, and to propagate his kind.

Segregation is necessary, even though sterilization were invoked. Sterilization protects future generations, while segregation safeguards the present as well. The segregation of incorrigible defectives on farm colonies as a measure of crime prevention is urgently needed in the State of Illinois. However, in a number of states, fifteen up to the present time, experiments have been made with sterilization. The two theories of segregation and sterilization are not antagonistic, but both may be invoked.

With the intention of covering every phase of crime prevention, the Municipal Court of Chicago publishes this work as an important contribution to that cause.

We desire to make acknowledgment to the sculptor, Charles Haag, for the use of his “Fountain of the Ages,” to illustrate the significance of heredity and the continuity of the blood stream. Harry Olson, Chief Justice.

Preface
This volume is intended primarily for practical use. It is designed to be of particular service to four classes of persons: First, to law-makers who have to decide upon matters of policy to be worked out in legislation regulating eugenical sterilization; second, to judges of the courts, upon whom, in most of the states having sterilization statutes, devolves the duty of deciding upon the constitutionality of new statutes, and of determining cacogenic individuals and of ordering their sexual sterilization; third, to administrative officers who represent the state in locating, and in eugenically analyzing persons alleged to be cacogenic, and who are responsible for carrying out the orders of the courts; and fourth, to individual citizens who, in the exercise of their civic rights and duties, desire to take the initiative in reporting for official determination and action, specific cases of obvious family degeneracy.

The work is designed also as an historical record of the several types of activities which characterized the early days of modern eugenical sterilization, and of the later working out, through legislation, litigation, experimental administration and scientific research, of a conservative state policy in reference to eugenical sterilization as an aid in protecting the country’s family stocks from deterioration.

The facts here reported have been secured, and the analyses and principles here given have been worked out during the past ten years. The present study was begun by the author in 1911, as secretary of a committee appointed by the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders’ Association “to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population.” Of this committee, Mr. Bleecker Van Wagenen was chairman. He reported a summary of the first year’s work to the First International Congress of Eugenics in London in 1912. In February, 1914, under the authorship of the secretary, it issued bulletins 10-a and 10-b of the Eugenics Record Office, entitled respectively, “The Scope of the Committee’s Work,” and “The Legal, Legislative and Administrative Aspects of Sterilization.”

The statistics reported in this work are brought down to January 1, 1921, and the legal records to January 1, 1922. Great care has been taken to insure completeness and accuracy of record and fact throughout the study, and an attempt has been made to cover the whole field of policy, legality and practice.

Thanks are due for hearty co-operation in securing the facts needed for this work, to the superintendents of the custodial institutions in which eugenical sterilizing operations have been performed, to state officials who willingly supplied copies of official records, to judges of the courts of law before whom seven sterilization statutes have been tested, to the attorneys-at-law who have generously given legal advice and opinions, to many physicians who have been consulted in reference to the medical aspect of the problem, to the scientific field investigators of the Eugenics Record Office, to surgeons who have furnished case-records of persons sexually sterilized, and to authors and publishers of the several text-books on anatomy and surgery who have kindly permitted quotations in reference to the technique of given sterilizing operations.

Besides these many persons who have so generously aided the investigations, special obligations are due to Dr. Charles B. Davenport, Director of the Eugenics Record Office, for many constructive suggestions and for constant encouragement throughout the investigations, and to Hon. Harry Olson, Chief Justice of the Municipal Court of Chicago, for kindly writing the foreword, for rendering an opinion on the legal aspects of sterilization, which appears as Section 1 of Chapter IX, and for publishing the whole of these studies under the auspices of the Psychopathic Laboratory of his court.

Harry Hamilton Laughlin. Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y., January 1, 1922.”

(SOURCE: Laughlin, Harry Hamilton, Eugenical Sterilization in the Untied States, Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, 1922, Pages v-viii).

Definitions:
1. Salpingectomy
– surgical excision of a fallopian tube.

2. Ovariotomies – surgical incision of an ovary. (Not sure if this procedure is the same as Oophorectomy – the surgical removal of an ovary, called also ovariectomy.)

3. Vasectomy – surgical division or resection of all or part of the vas deferens usually to induce sterility.
(SOURCE: Definitions by Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/).

4. Eugenics – is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population. It is a social philosophy which advocates for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of less desired people and traits.

5. Dysgenics (also known as Cacogenics) – is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species. Dysgenic mutations have been studied in animals such as the mouse and the fruit fly. The term dysgenics was first used as an antonym of eugenics – the social philosophy of improving human hereditary qualities by social programs and government intervention.
(SOURCE: Definitions by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

1912-1920 Eugenics in New York State.

1920 Margaret Sanger & Eugenics.

1922 Eugenics – New York State.