2018/03/22 by Nicole L. Novak, Natalie Lira, Kate O’Connor +3 · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Medicine · #Medical History and Research #Race, Genetics, and Society #History of Medicine and Tropical Health #Eugenics #Sterilization (economics) #Medicine #Environmental health #Gerontology #Political science #Law #Business
paper · doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304369
openalex publication_date 2018/03/22 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
OBJECTIVES: To compare population-based sterilization rates between Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os sterilized under California's eugenics law. METHODS: We used data from 17 362 forms recommending institutionalized patients for sterilization between 1920 and 1945. We abstracted patient gender, age, and institution of residence into a data set. We extracted data on institution populations from US Census microdata from 1920, 1930, and 1940 and interpolated between census years. We used Spanish surnames to identify Latinas/os in the absence of data on race/ethnicity. We used Poisson regression with a random effect for each patient's institution of residence to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and compare sterilization rates between Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os, stratifying on gender and adjusting for differences in age and year of sterilization. RESULTS: Latino men were more likely to be sterilized than were non-Latino men (IRR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15, 1.31), and Latina women experienced an even more disproportionate risk of sterilization relative to non-Latinas (IRR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.48, 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: Eugenic sterilization laws were disproportionately applied to Latina/o patients, particularly Latina women and girls. Understanding historical injustices in public health can inform contemporary public health practice.