Arizona passes sexual sterilization legislation

March 9, 1929. The Legislature of Arizona passes "An act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith".

If the superintendent of a state institution determined that a patient, for hereditary reasons, was either a habitual sexual criminal, insane, idiotic, imbecilitic, feebleminded, or epileptic, then that patient could be sterilized; provided the operation also promote the health of both the patient and society (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §1-2, 114-117). However, certain further conditions had to be met before a sterilization operation could be occur, according to this legislation.

First, the superintendent had to get approval from a state board of medical examiners (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Second, a notification had to be delivered to the patient and their legal guardian, making them aware of the proposed surgery within a certain timeframe (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Third, if the patient desired to protest the proposed operation, a hearing had to be held by the board in order to review the case (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115-116. Fourth, and finally, the patient had to be able to appeal the board's decision to the supreme county court. And the operation had to be suspended until the court's decision was given (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §3, 117-118).

If all of these conditions were met, then a sterilization operation could proceed according to this legislation. Two sterilization methods could be prescribed: vasectomy for men and salpingectomy for females (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115).

Additionally, this legislation specified that no individuals involved in the sterilization process could be held civilly or criminally liable, and that records were to be kept of all hearings and sterilizations (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §5, 118).

Two things are noteworthy about this legislation. First, according to this legislations individuals could be sterilized regardless if consent was given so long as the proper legal processes were followed and upheld; that is, if either the county supreme court or the state medical examiners board upheld the superintendent's assessment. Second, the legislation borrowed its language and design heavily from other sterilization laws passed around the same time, for example, Mississippi.

In terms of impact, this legislation resulted in the sterilization of 30 individuals. Although the legislation was quite detailed, some authors have suggested that it was because of a lack of enforcement from the Superintendents of the Arizona State Hospital which resulted in low numbers of sterilizations (Paul, p. 252).

-Luke Kersten

  • State of Arizona. (1929). An Act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith. Acts, Resolution, and Memorials of the Regular Session of the State of Arizona.

  • Paul, J. (1965). “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:” State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Arizona passes sexual sterilization legislation

March 9, 1929. The Legislature of Arizona passes "An act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith".

If the superintendent of a state institution determined that a patient, for hereditary reasons, was either a habitual sexual criminal, insane, idiotic, imbecilitic, feebleminded, or epileptic, then that patient could be sterilized; provided the operation also promote the health of both the patient and society (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §1-2, 114-117). However, certain further conditions had to be met before a sterilization operation could be occur, according to this legislation.

First, the superintendent had to get approval from a state board of medical examiners (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Second, a notification had to be delivered to the patient and their legal guardian, making them aware of the proposed surgery within a certain timeframe (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Third, if the patient desired to protest the proposed operation, a hearing had to be held by the board in order to review the case (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115-116. Fourth, and finally, the patient had to be able to appeal the board's decision to the supreme county court. And the operation had to be suspended until the court's decision was given (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §3, 117-118).

If all of these conditions were met, then a sterilization operation could proceed according to this legislation. Two sterilization methods could be prescribed: vasectomy for men and salpingectomy for females (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115).

Additionally, this legislation specified that no individuals involved in the sterilization process could be held civilly or criminally liable, and that records were to be kept of all hearings and sterilizations (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §5, 118).

Two things are noteworthy about this legislation. First, according to this legislations individuals could be sterilized regardless if consent was given so long as the proper legal processes were followed and upheld; that is, if either the county supreme court or the state medical examiners board upheld the superintendent's assessment. Second, the legislation borrowed its language and design heavily from other sterilization laws passed around the same time, for example, Mississippi.

In terms of impact, this legislation resulted in the sterilization of 30 individuals. Although the legislation was quite detailed, some authors have suggested that it was because of a lack of enforcement from the Superintendents of the Arizona State Hospital which resulted in low numbers of sterilizations (Paul, p. 252).

-Luke Kersten

  • State of Arizona. (1929). An Act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith. Acts, Resolution, and Memorials of the Regular Session of the State of Arizona.

  • Paul, J. (1965). “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:” State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Arizona passes sexual sterilization legislation

March 9, 1929. The Legislature of Arizona passes "An act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith".

If the superintendent of a state institution determined that a patient, for hereditary reasons, was either a habitual sexual criminal, insane, idiotic, imbecilitic, feebleminded, or epileptic, then that patient could be sterilized; provided the operation also promote the health of both the patient and society (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §1-2, 114-117). However, certain further conditions had to be met before a sterilization operation could be occur, according to this legislation.

First, the superintendent had to get approval from a state board of medical examiners (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Second, a notification had to be delivered to the patient and their legal guardian, making them aware of the proposed surgery within a certain timeframe (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 114-115). Third, if the patient desired to protest the proposed operation, a hearing had to be held by the board in order to review the case (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115-116. Fourth, and finally, the patient had to be able to appeal the board's decision to the supreme county court. And the operation had to be suspended until the court's decision was given (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §3, 117-118).

If all of these conditions were met, then a sterilization operation could proceed according to this legislation. Two sterilization methods could be prescribed: vasectomy for men and salpingectomy for females (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §2, 115).

Additionally, this legislation specified that no individuals involved in the sterilization process could be held civilly or criminally liable, and that records were to be kept of all hearings and sterilizations (Acts, Res. & Mem. of the Reg. Sess. of the State of Arizona, ch. 44, §5, 118).

Two things are noteworthy about this legislation. First, according to this legislations individuals could be sterilized regardless if consent was given so long as the proper legal processes were followed and upheld; that is, if either the county supreme court or the state medical examiners board upheld the superintendent's assessment. Second, the legislation borrowed its language and design heavily from other sterilization laws passed around the same time, for example, Mississippi.

In terms of impact, this legislation resulted in the sterilization of 30 individuals. Although the legislation was quite detailed, some authors have suggested that it was because of a lack of enforcement from the Superintendents of the Arizona State Hospital which resulted in low numbers of sterilizations (Paul, p. 252).

-Luke Kersten

  • State of Arizona. (1929). An Act to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions in specific cases and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith. Acts, Resolution, and Memorials of the Regular Session of the State of Arizona.

  • Paul, J. (1965). “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:” State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.