• Eugenics in California

  • Eugenics in America

    During the last decade of the nineteenth century and into the first few decades of the twentieth century, Americans saw their livelihoods change and economic situations shift dramatically. Many are familiar with some of the hallmark changes of the Progressive Era: personal income tax was written into the Constitution with the ratification of the sixteenth amendment (1913), food and drug production became regulated (Food and Drugs Act, 1906), child labor was on its way to being stopped (Keating-Owen Act, 1916), and women were eventually given the right to vote with the ratification of the nineteenth amendment (1920). Fewer are familiar with the eugenics movement, which, after picking up traction in America around the turn of the century, worked to classify society into two decisive and discrete groups: the strong/fit and the weak/unfit.


    Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. At first, Galton centered on the idea of improving society through the reproduction of physically and mentally “able” people, with the concept of improvement as the goal. Later on, especially in the United States (and Germany), eugenic ideas became focused on ridding society of the weak and “feeble-minded”, and on preserving the fit, the supposed upper echelon of society. The eugenics movement was based on the mindset that the weak, inferior members of society were definitively dragging the rest of society (the able, capable ones) down.


    Many soon saw connections between Galton’s ideas and his cousin Charles Darwin’s ideas of “evolution” and “natural selection”. A Brit named Herbert Spencer then helped bring the term and concept of “social Darwinism” to the fore, aided by using his phrase “survival of the fittest” to describe Darwin’s findings. Many combined Spencer’s interpretations of Darwin’s findings, namely natural selection, with Samuel George Morton’s (a widely respected University of Pennsylvania professor) “racial hierarchy” from 1839, which lays out four races in a prescribed standing based on various characteristics. Social Darwinists combined natural selection and Morton’s racist writings “to create a new ‘more scientific’ way of justifying prejudice and discrimination.


    The idea of “race suicide”--a term first used by Edward A. Ross at the turn of the century-- provided a convenient link from capability to race; the idea centers around red-blooded Americans committing not only a grave wrongdoing but a self-harming act, when they bred with other races (the term “race” was frequently used as more of an umbrella term over ethnicity and country of origin at this time). When this aberration occurred, the superior race was supposedly being polluted, and lead to its eventual demise were this behavior to continue. This was strikingly relevant to American society moving into the twentieth century given the influx of immigrants during the nineteenth century. In March of 1905, then president Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in which he mentioned by name the idea of “race suicide”, helping to popularize the concept.


    In the United States, this knot tied around purity and race became increasingly difficult to undo with the eugenicist immigration legislation of the Progressive Era. A central element of this increasingly tightening link was the tethering of eugenic “science” to government and law. For example, in 1920, “scientist” Harry Laughlin (of the Eugenics Record Office) appeared before the House of Representatives to enunciate his concern for the well being of the superior American race, and was appointed “expert eugenics agent” by the Committee Chairman. In this role, Laughlin went about ten years of research, which concluded in him asking congress to come up with an immigration restriction law in 1924, the result of which was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. Laws such as this were created specifically with the intention that, as then president Calvin Coolidge described: “America must remain American”.


    In addition to the American linkage of race and ability, was the defining of large groups of American citizens as “feeble minded” and “unfit” to reproduce, and more horribly, the sterilization and euthanization of many of these Americans. The largest of its kind in the United States, the Virginia State Epileptic Colony, often referred to as the Lynchburg State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded (or just as Lynchburg), in Virginia sterilized approximately four thousand patients from the nineteen twenties to the nineteen seventies. In 1927, the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell upheld Virginia’s 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act, upholding Lynchburg’s decision to sterilize teenager Carrie Buck. During the aforementioned 1905 speech in which Theodore Roosevelt explicitly mentioned “race suicide”, Roosevelt blamed women (in addition to immigrants) for this problem of lacking racial purity. Roosevelt encouraged able--specifically college-educated--women to reproduce, as it was their moral obligation to preserve their race. Among the thousands committed to institutions such as Lynchburg under umbrella diagnoses such as “feeble mindedness”, many were women who were victims of rape, or women who had had sex out of wedlock.


    The American eugenics movement that had begun during the Progressive Era became less popular during the nineteen-thirties, as the world moved towards World War II, with the less excusable actions of Nazi Germany. However, the lifespan of neo-eugenics, focused on reproductive technological advancements to augment characteristics being determined by the parents, has extended into much more recent history. Neo eugenics represents and is a manifestation of an important shift in generalized American mindsets away from those of the Progressive Era: reproductive rights should be in the hands of the individual as opposed to the hands of the state--increased government control having been seen as desirable during the early twentieth century. Despite the repeal of eugenic legislation such as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 (in 1965), and of the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924 (in 1974), many of the scars of the eugenics movement remain unattended to and untreated.

  • An exhibit in a 1929 exhibit about eugenics.

    Eugenic and Health Exhibit, Kansas Free Fair, 1929. 1929. Photograph. Accessed
    May 11, 2018. http://diglib.amphilsoc.org/islandora/object/

  • Eugenics in California

    While many states performed coerced or forced sterilizations, California was a leader, with a third of all sterilizations happening in the state. 20,000 Californians were unfairly deemed unfit to reproduce, and their right to create the families of their choosing was stripped from them. The eugenics movement, which began in the early 20th century, began as a manifestation of scientific advancements in understanding heredity and became an attempt to purify the white race of those deemed undesirable, such as the mentally ill or developmentally disabled. California’s eugenics program was seen as a model for other US states and foreign group such as the Nazis in Germany. As time went on, anti-immigrant sentiment and racism against the Asian and Latinx populations of California combined with this eugenic drive and further perpetuated unfair sterilizations. Many California institutions, such as universities like UC Berkeley and Stanford, were founded on eugenic principles and continue to recognize eugenicists in the names of spaces on these campuses.


    As researchers continue to uncover the history of this tragedy, California must grapple with how to confront our past, honor victims, and ensure such a thing does not happen again. Other states with robust eugenics programs, such as Virginia and North Carolina, have created systems of reparations, paying survivors of forced sterilization up to $20,000. And the legacies of other instances of systemic oppression and inequity, such as slavery, Jim Crow, or the oppression of women in the US have often been commemorated with markers, museums, and in educational curriculums to ensure they are not repeated.


    We invite you to explore this digital museum, and look through the artifacts we have collected from sites of eugenic sterilization across California. In preserving and sharing this history, we hope to ensure that eugenic programs built on ableism and racism are forever brought to an end, and that California may finally ensure reproductive justice for all people.


    (Note: Ableist language is used here only in primary source quotations to provide historical accuracy. These slurs and derogatory terms are not acceptable to use today.)

  • Sonoma State Hospital


    Early History

    Julia Judah and Frances Bentley started the California Association for the Care and Training of Feeble Minded Children in 1883. Ten years later they finally opened up a facility that has survived till the present under the name, the Sonoma Developmental Center. The Center was dedicated to serve people, especially children, with developmental diseases such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and even cleft palates but eventually turned into a center for people considered to be “feeble-minded,” including children who acted out or had parents who couldn’t care for them. Parents were encouraged to drop off their children at the Center and cut off all contact for the good of their family and their child.

    Dark Past

    Although the Center has survived till recently, it has had many dark and mysterious problems such as sterilizations, a very dark history of brutal experimentation on children with cerebral palsy, and much more recently, a rash of physical and sexual abuse cases. Today, the Center is extremely controversial, the government and the families of people who have benefited from its care argue over whether or not large hospitals dealing with care of people with developmental problems should stay open or whether these people should be transferred to smaller community care centers. Today, its closing has been set for the end of 2018.

    Early Photograph

  • DeWitt State Hospital

    DeWitt State Hospital, located in Auburn California was first used as a military base. It was purchased in 1946 to be used as a mental hospital. Originally, this hospital was only used to decrease overcrowding in other state hospitals. By 1950, Dewitt became a permanent hospital which accepted people from Modoc, Lassen, Sierra, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, and El Dorado. At its peak years, it had as many as 2,310 patients and 700 workers.


    Martin Ramierez

    Martin Ramirez, on the right, was apprehended by police in San Joaquin County California on January 31, 1931. He was committed to Stockton State Hospital because he was “confused and unable to care for himself”. Due to overcrowding, he was then transferred to DeWitt State Hospital. Ramirez was first diagnosed with manic depression but throughout his institutionalization he was also diagnosed with dementia praecox, catatonic form and incurable schizophrenia. During the 15 years he spent at the DeWitt State Hospital, he began to make astonishing pieces of artwork that are now on display in the MOMA. He died in the hospital in 1963 at 68 years old.

    Prisoner of War Camp

    The DeWitt State Hospital was used as a prisoner of war camp from 1945-1946. The tickets on the right, show the currency that was exchanged during that time.

    Hospital Conditions

  • Modesto State Hospital


    Changing Path

    In 1946, Hammond Army Hospital, was bought by the government and transformed into a mental institute to relieve crowding in filled institutions. The Hammond hospital was a wonderful temporary institution made to treat soldiers until its closing and reopening as a mental institution in 1946. Modesto State Hospital was bought and created in order to take in transfers from other mental hospitals, those included people who were perceived to be mentally deficient. In 1963, its patient numbers peaked at 2,300 people and the hospital closed in 1972.

    Hammond Army Hospital

  • Stockton State Hospital

    Stockton State Hospital was the site of more than 700 sterilizations during the years of 1851 to 1995. Originally opened as a residence for the mentally ill, they slowly started housing more and more people with developmental delays until switching entirely to serving that population. However, conditions were not favorable within the institution, and sterilization was perfected as a routine procedure, regardless of the ability of the patient to provide informed consent.

    Artifact 1

    A patient record from Stockton State Hospital approves their sterilization, with a note that a letter is attached to justify the procedure despite a lack of patient consent. This also highlights some of the challenges in bringing justice to survivors: the only marker of a person’s background is their Nativity, or where they were born, making it hard to prove a racial bias in sterilizations; and medical privacy standards mean researchers are ethically discouraged from reaching out to people to find survivors based on the names on their medical records.

    Artifact 2

    “I awoke the next morning in a horrific sweat, only to find that my experiences were not a dream, but reality. I was actually in the uncomfortable bed in an off-white room. The room was very dull in appearance with only the bed and a small table next to it. A window to my left had a view of a vast field... The attendant informed me that I was not to go beyond the limits of the hospital. It was at this instant that I finally realized I was a member of the Stockton State Mental Asylum.”

    This quote, from San Francisco Examiner reporter Frank Peltret in 1888, describes the conditions and fear of those within the Stockton State Hospital (at the time known as the Stockton State Mental Asylum). Peltret intentionally had himself committed in order to report on the conditions, spending a total of a few weeks inside the institution and writing an article which described the condition of patients he met and mentions occasional acts of cruelty he witnessed against patients, although he does not go into detail about what this cruelty was.

    Artifact 3

    Margaret Smyth was a surgeon and superintendent at Stockton State Hospital from 1900 to 1946. She attained recognition for perfecting the sterilization surgery, and was recognized by Hitler’s Nazi government for her eugenic efforts. Smyth was proud of this fact, stating in 1938 that “The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated only after careful study of the California experiment.”

  • Los Angeles County- USC Medical Center

    At the Los Angeles County USC Hospital, many Latina women were coerced into sterilization based on racial stereotypes. Hospital staff would repeatedly approach women in labor telling them to consent to sterilization based on the racist belief that the Latino population was growing too quickly. The women were in an incredibly stressful situation, and many of them did not speak English, so they signed their consent hardly knowing what would happen. In 1975, ten of the women who had been sterilized there came forward and sued the hospital in Madrigal v. Quilligan. The women lost their case, but they were instrumental to the 1979 repeal of California’s sterilization law.

    No Más Bebés

    In 2016, Renee Tajima-Peña made a documentary called No Más Bebés to bring publicity to the atrocities at USC Medical Center. The film gives insight into the racist ideologies of the hospital. It also gives women a chance to tell the story of how they were under informed and vulnerable, in the midst of labor and often unable to understand English.

    Consuelo Hermosillo

    This is a picture of Consuelo Hermosillo, one of the plaintiffs in the Madrigal case. She is standing in the building that used to house USC Medical Center.

  • Agnews State Hospital

    Agnews State Hospital, an institution for the mentally ill in Santa Clara, was one of the many hospitals that participated in the approximately 1,278 coercive sterilizations in California’s first 25 years of sterilization laws. Starting in the late 1880s, patients were sent there for vague reasons, the most frequent of which was masturbation. From its opening in 1888 to its destruction in the 1906 earthquake, the population swelled from 65 to 1,800 inmates.

  • Atascadero State Hospital

    Atascadero State Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in San Luis Obispo, was one of the many locations of forced sterilizations in California. Opened in 1954, the hospital housed many sex offenders, particularly men sentenced for homosexuality. Doctors there were known for their cruel treatments, particularly castration, which they saw as one of the most effective methods for preventing repeated offenses.

    “there are 1,500 minds at the hospital, each with its own problem which, in most cases, has left a trail of tragedy in its wake, a dead girl lying in a field, or a father shot to death by an irate son.” “One Atascadero citizen recently commented that ‘We shouldn’t be spending taxpayer’s money on such people. Shoot them, just like you would any wild animal.’”

    Quotes from the News

    This quote is an excerpt of a newspaper article from the 1960s describing the inmates at Atascadero. These quotes from The San Luis Obispo Tribune illustrate the views of people living near the asylum on its occupants.

  • Pacific Colony

    The 1917 sterilization law in California created the Pacific Colony, now known as the Frank D. Lanterman State Hospital and Developmental Center, which first admitted patients in 1921. It also granted the Pacific Colony’s board permission to sterilize its residents. One of two state institutions for the “feeble-minded” that performed sterilizations in California, along with the Sonoma State Home, the Pacific Colony institutionalized people based on their apparent intellectual capacity. Potential patients’ IQ scores were often taken into account, both for admittances and sterilizations, despite well-established evidence challenging the efficacy of IQ scores as a measure of inherent “intelligence.”

    Sterilization Form

    This is a form recommending the sterilization of a 13-year old child. The Pacific Colony would eventually sterilize over 1,800 people throughout its history, including a disproportionate number of people with Hispanic surnames, especially women. The institution also has a history of disregarding informed consent; the superintendent could even override a demand from a patient’s guardian to forego sterilization. Its relatively high number of sterilizations, combined with its history of racial discrimination and lack of appropriate policies surrounding consent, makes the Pacific Colony one of the most infamous eugenic institutions in the history of California.

  • Camarillo State Hospital

    When the Camarillo State Hospital was opened in 1930, it was recognized as the largest psychiatric hospital West of the Mississippi with an original population size of 410 patients. From 1940 to 1945, the population skyrocketed from 2,501 to 4,123, and by 1957, there were over 7,000 admitted patients. Despite its large population, the Camarillo State Hospital had one of the lowest sterilization counts amongst California State hospitals from 1909 to 1950: a mere 58, or .3% of the 18,792 sterilizations in this time period. After being shut down in 1957, the Camarillo State Hospital has since been redeveloped into California State University, Channel Islands.

    Total Numbers of Sterilizations

    Camarillo State Hospital had one of the lowest numbers of sterilizations, despite having one of the largest populations.

  • Norwalk State Hospital

    In 1913, the Norwalk State Hospital was opened in the metropolitan Los Angeles area. Following a study which concluded that another hospital was needed in the general area, its projected purpose was to serve psychiatric patients in addition to drug and alcohol addiction patients. With an original enrollment of 105 patients and 21 employees, the hospital’s population increased year by year and has survived into our modern society, despite a name change to the Metropolitan State Hospital in 1953. In comparison to other California state hospitals, the Norwalk State Hospital had a low rate of sterilization and little ethnic bias, with a total of 1,019 patients being recommended for sterilization from 1920 to 1945, and 95 of whom held Spanish surnames.

    Ethnic Bias in Sterilization

    At the Norwalk State Hospital, a proportionately small number of patients with Spanish surnames were sterilized in comparison to other state hospitals.

  • Napa State Hospital

    Opened in 1875, the Napa State Hospital is the oldest California state hospital still in use. It was originally built because the Stockton Asylum had reached capacity. Originally meant to contain just 500 patients, it now contains thousands. It was also built to be self sufficient, in order to reduce expenditures; it boasts its own gardens, dairy, and poultry facilities. During the eugenics era, Napa State Hospital housed mostly “civil commitments”; it switched to predominantly criminal cases in the 1980s. It was one of the institutions most prone to sterilization, performing procedures on upwards of 1,900 patients, many without consent. Unfortunately, much of its history in this area is lost or obscure. Today, its mission statement is to "provide hope to adults with serious mental illness and support each individual to achieve personal recovery."

  • Patton State Hospital

    Patton State Hospital (originally Southern California State Asylum) opened 1893 in Patton California. Being the busiest mental hospital in Southern California in the early 1900s, Patton State was faced with problems regarding overcrowding within their first few years of operation. Sterilizations for both therapeutic and eugenical purposes were being carried out at Patton by as early as 1904 and in 1909 when the Asexualization Act was passed, the rate of sterilizations in Patton greatly increased, as their leadership was now also in heavy support of sterilization as a method of hospital population control. At its peak population, Patton State was so overcrowded that they began to sterilize patients upon entrance to the hospital, sterilizing up to 180 patients in a single year in attempts to lower their residents. Patton State’s pro-sterilization policies resulted in at least 4,585 people being sterilized at the hospital, making up 24.4% of California’s total sterilizations during the eugenics era.

    Sterilization Form #1

    Sterilization Form #2

  • Mendocino State Hospital

    Mendocino State Hospital opened in 1889 in Ukiah California, servicing mental health patients in Northern California throughout the eugenics era. Due to its rather isolated location, Mendocino State Hospital was not as popular as other state mental hospitals, and it was also known to have “kept actions covert”, throughout their years of operation. Most of their patients came from different areas of Northern California, as this was the farthest north mental hospital in the state, and because individual hospitals had different rules on sterilization, patients would often be transferred from other hospitals to Mendocino State Hospital in order to be sterilized. In total, Mendocino State Hospital sterilized 364 patients, only 1.9 percent of the total sterilization count in California. This was relatively low compared to most hospitals, and they were criticized for this in a 1918 state hospital review for having a “poor record” of sterilizing less than 5% of their inmates.

  • Conclusion

    In 2003, California officially recognized the unjust sterilization of thousands of people with the following statement, "To the victims and their families of this past injustice, the people of California are deeply sorry for the suffering you endured over the years." Despite their late apology, the aftermath of California’s notorious sterilization procedures during the eugenics era have inevitably left detrimental effects on those targeted and cannot be forgiven with one apology.


    Recently, women victimized by the unjust American system of mass incarceration have reportedly been forced to undergo sterilization procedures while imprisoned. Between 2006 and 2010, approximately 150 female inmates were sterilized.. Furthermore, access to reproductive health services in our country and state remain under threat. As larger institutions attempt to control women’s bodies through restricting abortion, birth control, and comprehensive sexual education, we come close to repeating the injustices of the past. All people deserve the right to have control over their own reproduction, fertility, and sexual health, and to create the family they want, when they want it.


    California’s role in the eugenics era and its legacy of unjust sterilizations needs to be discussed in today’s society. By creating this museum, we hoped to take the first step in addressing this issue.. Our goal is to bring awareness and provide a platform for people to further analyze the role California had in eugenics. As for those affected by these sterilizations, we hope that this can be the first step in attempting to reconcile for all of those years of suffering.

  • Contact Us

    Feel free to reach out to us concerning our exhibit with any questions, comments, or concerns.

  • Sources (by section)

    American Eugenics Society:

    American Philosophical Society, "American Eugenics Society Records," American Philosophical Society Library, accessed May 9, 2018, https://search.amphilsoc.org/collections/view?docId=ead/Mss.575.06.Am3-ead.xml#abstract.


    Population Council, "Population Council," Population Council, last modified 2018, accessed May 9, 2018, http://www.popcouncil.org/.


    Eugenics in America:

    Thomas C. Leonard, "Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era," Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, no. 4 (Fall 2005): 207-208.


    Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, "Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924," University of Virginia, last modified 2004, accessed May 9, 2018, http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/2-origins/.


    Facing History and Ourselves, Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement (Brookline, Mass.: Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation, 2002), 47, 63-64.


    Adam Hochman, "Race Suicide," Eugenics Archive, last modified April 29, 2014, accessed May 9, 2018, http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/535eedb87095aa0000000250.


    Linda Alchin, "US Immigration Trends 1880 - 1900," US Immigration, last modified September 18, 2014, accessed May 9, 2018, http://www.emmigration.info/us-immigration-trends-1880-1900.htm.


    Paul Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration," Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement, accessed May 9, 2018, http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html.


    Georgetown University, "Chapter 2 Carrie Buck and The Lynchburg State Colony," Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics, accessed May 9, 2018, https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit4_2.html.


    Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, "Buck v. Bell: The Test Case for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act," University of Virginia, last modified 2004, accessed May 9, 2018, http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/3-buckvbell/.


    Lutz Kaelber, "California," Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States, accessed May 9, 2018, https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html.


    Georgetown University, "Chapter 4: The Rise and Fall of Eugenics," Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics, accessed May 9, 2018, https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/unit4_4.html.


    Armand Marie Leroi, "The Future of Neo-Eugenics," EMBO Reports, December 2006, 1185, accessed May 9, 2018, ​doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400860.


    Andrea DenHoed, "The Forgotten Lessons of the American Eugenics Movement," The New Yorker, last modified April 27, 2016, accessed May 9, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-forgotten-lessons-of-the-american-eugenics-movement.


    Los Angeles County- USC Medical Center

    Anderson, Tre'vell. "'No Más Bebés' revives 1975 forced-sterilization lawsuit in L.A." Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles), June 12, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2018. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-laff-no-mas-bebes-20150612-story.html.


    Archival postcard of Los Angeles County General Hospital. Image. Accessed May 22, 2018. https://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/03/05/12814/county-usc-average-emergency-room-wait-is-12-hours/.


    Manin, Maya. "The Story of Madrigal v. Quilligan: Coerced Sterilization of Mexican-American Women." SSRN, March 1, 2018. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3134892.


    "No Más Bebés Official Trailer." Video file, 02:53. YouTube. Posted by No Más Bebés Movie, December 6, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Aj9HMLcRQ.


    Stern, Alexandra Minna. "Eugenics, sterilization, and historical memory in the United States." SciELO, December 2016. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-59702016000900195&lng=en&tlng=en.


    Patton State Hospital

    Alex Wellerstein, “States of Eugenics: Institutions and Practices of Compulsory Sterilization in California,” in Sheila Jasanoff, ed., Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011), 29-58.


    Kaelber, Lutz. “California.” Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. Last modified 2012. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html.


    “Patton State Hospital.” Asylum Projects. Last modified April 26, 2018. http://www.asylumprojects.org/index.php?title=Patton_State_Hospital.


    Zhang, Sarah. “A Long-Lost Data Trove Uncovers California’s Sterilization Program.” The Atlantic (Boston, Massachusetts.), January 3, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/california-sterilization-records/511718/.

    Agnews State Hospital

    Black, Edwin. "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection." SF Gate (San Francisco), November 9, 2003. Accessed May 16, 2018. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php.


    Svanevik, Michael, and Shirley Burgett. "Matters Historical: Santa Clara’s hospital of horror, Agnews." The Mercury News (San Mateo), October 5, 2016. Accessed May 16, 2018. https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/05/spdn0916matters/.


    Atascadero State Hospital

    Jenkins, Philip. Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Digital file.


    Middlecamp, David. "Atascadero State Hospital inmate stories." Photos From the Vault. Accessed May 16, 2018. http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/slovault/2013/04/atascadero-state-hospital-inmate-stories/.


    State of California. "Department of State Hospitals- Atascadero." California Department of State Hospitals. Accessed May 16, 2018. http://www.dsh.ca.gov/atascadero/.


    Modesto State Hospital

    Main Gate, Hammond General Hospital. Photograph. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.militarymuseum.org/HammondGenHosp.html.


    Online Archive of California is an initiative of the California Digital Library. "Inventory of the Department of Mental Hygiene - Modesto State Hospital Records." OAC. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf267n98b9/.


    Stanislaus Historical Quarterly; Hammond General Hospital. 2008. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://library.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/files/pdf/shq/shq-v1-n1.pdf.


    State of California, Department of Mental Hygiene. Aerial view of the Modesto State Hospital. 1 1, 1952. Photograph. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/image/2423/.


  • Pacific Colony

    Kaelber, Lutz. “California.” Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. Last modified 2009. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html.


    Lira, Natalie. “’Of Low Grade Mexican Parentage:’ Race, Gender, and Eugenic Sterilization in California, 1928-1952.” Deep Blue. Last modified 2015. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/113441.


    Stern, Alexandra Minna. “Eugenics, sterilization, and historical memory in the United States.” Scientific Electronic Library Online. Last modified 2016. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/hcsm/v23s1/0104-5970-hcsm-23-s1-0195.pdf.


    Sonoma Developmental Center

    Dowd, Katie. "Historic asylums and sanitariums of Northern California." SFGate. Last modified June 16, 2016. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Historic-asylums-and-sanitariums-of-Northern-8200431.php#photo-10370760.


    Gamel, Jay. The former Main Administration Building of the Sonoma Developmental Center. Photograph. The Kenwood Press. 6 1, 2010. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.kenwoodpress.com/pub/a/4942.


    Mabrey, Vicki. "A Dark Chapter in Medical History; On Experiments Done On Institutionalized Children." 60 Minutes. Last modified February 9, 2005. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-dark-chapter-in-medical-history-09-02-2005/.


    State of California. "History of Sonoma Developmental Center." State of California Department of Developmental Services. Last modified 3 2, 2018. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.dds.ca.gov/Sonoma/History.cfm.


    Napa State Hospital

    Dowd, Katie. “Historic asylums and sanitariums of Northern California.” SFGATE. Last modified June 16, 2016. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Historic-asylums-and-sanitariums-of-Northern-8200431.php#photo-10370313.


    Kaelber, Lutz. “California.” Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. Last modified 2009. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html.


    Novak, Nicole L., and Natalie Lira. “California Once Targeted Latinas for Forced Sterilization.” Smithsonian. Last modified March 22, 2018. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/california-targeted-latinas-forced-sterilization-180968567/.


    State of California. “Department of State Hospitals - Napa.” California Department of State Hospitals. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.dsh.ca.gov/napa/.


    Zhang, Sarah. “A Long-Lost Data Trove Uncovers California’s Sterilization Program.” The Atlantic. Last modified January 3, 2017. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/california-sterilization-records/511718/.

    Mendocino State Hospital

    Anderson, Glenda. “Forgotten Mendocino mental hospital patients commemorated at mass graves.” The Press Democrat, 19 Sept. 2016. The Press

    Democrat, www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6106108-181/forgotten-mendocino-mental-hospital-patients?sba=AAS.

    Kaelber, Lutz. “California.” Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States, edited by Lutz Kaelber, 2012, www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html.

    “Mendocino State Hospital.” Asylum Projects, 13 Aug. 2017, www.asylumprojects.org/index.php/Mendocino_State_Hospital.

    Novak, Nicole L. Ethnic Bias in California’s Eugenic Sterilization Program, 1920-1945. Research report no. 16-866, U of Michigan, June 2016. Population Studies Center, www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr16-866.pdf.


    Stockton State Hospital

    Guillermo, Emil. “Stockton once leader in eugenics movement.” Record Net, January 8, 2003. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.recordnet.com/article/20030315/a_news/303159965.


    Starr, Neal L. “Stockton State Hospital.” San Joaquin Historian (San Joaquin, CA), July 1976. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.sanjoaquinhistory.org/documents/HistorianOS12-3.pdf.


    Zhang, Sarah. “A Long-Lost Data Trove Uncovers California’s Sterilization Program.” The Atlantic, January 3, 2017. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/california-sterilization-records/511718/.


    San Francisco Examiner, no date available, Oullahan Scrapbook, MS 194, Box 15, (Holt-Atherton Special Collections. University of the Pacific), 1.


    Introduction to Eugenics in California

    Stern, Alexandra. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016.


    Tillis, Thom. “State eugenics program victims deserve fair compensation.” USA Today, September 6, 2015. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/03/north-carolina-eugenics-victims-compensation-column/31423907/.


    Zhang, Sarah. “A Long-Lost Data Trove Uncovers California’s Sterilization Program.” The Atlantic, January 3, 2017. Accessed May 18, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/california-sterilization-records/511718/.

  • Norwalk State Hospital

    Stern, Alexandra Minna. STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health. July 2005. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449330/.


    Novak, Nicole, Kate O’Connor, Natalie Lira, and Alexandra Minna Stern. Ethnic Bias in California’s Eugenic Sterilization Program, 1920-1945. June 2016. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr16-866.pdf.


    Camarillo State Hospital

    “The Camarillo State Mental Hospital History Blog.” Camarillo State Mental Hospital. Last modified 2009. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagecamarillo.html.


    Novak, Nicole, Kate O’Connor, Natalie Lira, and Alexandra Minna Stern. Ethnic Bias in California’s Eugenic Sterilization Program, 1920-1945. June 2016. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr16-866.pdf.


    Wellerstein, Alex. States of Eugenics: Institutions and Practices of Compulsory Sterilization in California. 2011. Accessed May 24, 2018. http://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_statesofeugenics.pdf.