A Short History of Disability and Forced Sterilization in the State of California
This webpage provides a brief introduction to the history of eugenics and sterilization in the Bay Area and California as a whole. The coverage is limited due to the scarcity of available information at the Oakland Public Library on the topic and will be updating the site as more information is found. The suggested audience includes individuals in high school or above, engaged in academic research, personal exploration, or those who serendipitously come across the content. Content has been curated through the Oakland Public Library, Internet Archive & Newspapers.com (OPL has an account), external sites recommended by OPL librarians, and the Syracuse Library online.
[Meghan_Bennett_Disability History/Social Model Presentation]
eu·gen·ics
From A Dictionary of Public Health:
A word coined in 1883 by the British biologist Francis Galton (1822–1911) meaning good breeding. Galton believed that marital unions between people of what he regarded as “excellent genetic stock” could be expected to produce offspring with the same or similar qualities.
From then until the 1920s, eugenics was a prominent feature of public health theory, and textbooks such as Rosenau's Preventive Medicine and Hygiene (1913) contained extensive and detailed chapters on the practice of eugenics, with discussions about “sterilizing the unfit.”
The practice and the theory were soon discredited by demonstration of its failure as an approach to better population health, the taint of elitism, and its use by the Nazi regime in Germany. However, it was practiced until the 1970s in Sweden and in Alberta, Canada, until the 1960s.
Source from the Syracuse Library:
Porta, M. eugenics. In Last, J. (Ed.), A Dictionary of Public Health. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 Apr. 2024, from https://www-oxfordreference-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780191844386.001.0001/acref-9780191844386-e-1402.
fee·ble-mind·ed·ness
From A Dictionary of Public Health :
(An obsolete (and derogatory) term for mental retardation, the condition now often described as “intellectually challenged” or “intellectually impaired.”
Source from the Syracuse Library:
Porta, M. feebleminded. In Last, J. (Ed.), A Dictionary of Public Health. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 Apr. 2024, from https://www-oxfordreference-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780191844386.001.0001/acref-9780191844386-e-1499.
Social vs Medical Model of Disability:
According to the medical model of disability, ‘disability’ is a health condition dealt with by medical professionals. People with disability are thought to be different to 'what is normal' or abnormal. ‘Disability’ is seen 'to be a problem of the individual. From the medical model, a person with disability is in need of being fixed or cured. From this point of view, disability is a tragedy and people with disability are to be pitied. The medical model of disability is all about what a person cannot do and cannot be.
The social model sees ‘disability’ is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers. It therefore carries the implication that the physical, attitudinal, communication and social environment must change to enable people living with impairments to participate in society on an equal basis with others.
Source (IST 564, Week 2, module 2):
People with disability Australia. (2022). Social model of disability. Pwd.org.au. https://pwd.org.au/resources/models-of-disability/
California State Hospitals
In the early 1900s of California, mental health hospitals like Napa State Hospital housed and detained a diverse range of patients, many of these facilities functioned as major incarcerators, admitting individuals labeled as mentally deficient and those accused of minor crimes, such as theft. Even young boys committed for petty offenses found themselves in institutions like Stockton State Hospital. While not officially classified as mentally deficient, they fell under the same sterilization regulations as other patients.
Upon admission, patients underwent classification based on perceived intelligence and mental grade, often assessed through subjective IQ tests biased toward Anglo-American, middle-class norms, tests that are deemed flawed today. Consequently, many patients were people of color, living in poverty, or deemed to deviate from societal moral standards. For instance, unmarried mothers could be labeled as "feebleminded," suggesting mental unfitness based on perceived intelligence, socioeconomic status (linked to heredity assumptions), and lifestyle.
Diagnoses like "feebleminded" or "moron" often led institutions to recommend sterilization, purportedly as a therapeutic intervention but also as a means of reproductive control. Eugenic sterilization served as much for hereditary as social control, targeting individuals society deemed "problematic". Some patients were forced to choose sterilization to be release while others had no choice during their institutionalization.
Source from the Syracuse Library Online:
Anderson, M. (2019). The eugenic rubicon: California’s sterilization stories. Society of American Archivists. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-82.1.225
Image:
Brayton, J. G. (1867). Insane asylum, Napa, Cal. [Graphic]. Napa [Calif.]: J.G. Brayton. Retrieved from https://delivery.library.ca.gov:8443/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE110020
The Start of Sterilization
in California
In February 1909, Dr. F. W. Hatch, serving as the secretary of the State Lunacy Commission in California, achieved a significant win in advancing his view of eugenic sterilization. Firmly believing that most cases of insanity were hereditary and untreatable, he authored a sterilization bill. California passed its initial sterilization legislation, mirroring Indiana's approach by granting wide authority to institutional physicians to assess inmate records and authorize sterilization for individuals they deemed suitable candidates. This legislation particularly targeted prisoners. Four years later, this law underwent significant expansion, introducing two crucial amendments:
-
Individuals identified by the "state commission in lunacy" as afflicted with certain mental disorders could only be released from institutions if they agreed to undergo sterilization.
-
The updated law explicitly allowed for the sterilization of individuals classified as mentally disabled ("idiots"), contingent upon the written consent of parents or guardians.
This provision requiring consent may have shielded the law from constitutional challenges. As a result, over 20,000 institutionalized individuals underwent sterilization procedures in accordance with California's legislation.
Following the enactment of the statute, Dr. F. W. Hatch, assumed the role of general superintendent of state hospitals, granting him the authority to enforce the new legislation. From 1909 until his passing in 1924, Hatch zealously pursued a strategy of mass sterilization among institutionalized individuals, particularly those deemed insane. Under his guidance, surgeons across ten state hospitals performed sterilization procedures on approximately three thousand individuals.
Source from the Oakland Library:
Reed, J. (1991). The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States. Science, 252 (5014), 1863
Scientific Racism and Eugenic Exclusions in California
California embraced nativism alongside emerging eugenic ideas about biological differences and racial capabilities at the turn of the centry. Concerns about hereditary contamination from racial or immigrant groups were often framed in economic terms, with fears that "defective" genes would strain state resources. The Department of Institutions, initially established as the Commission in Lunacy in 1896 and later renamed in 1920, adopted exclusionary racial policies. In 1915, it established the Office of the Deportation Agent, tasked with expelling foreigners and nonresidents confined in state asylums and mental hospitals. This practice began informally as early as 1905. The deportation agent reflected the prevailing belief that California had become a haven for the mentally and physically ill, attracting individuals from across the country. Concerns intensified in the early 1920s as arrivals surged, attributed to eastern and midwestern doctors allegedly encouraging patients to move westward. Over twenty-five years, the Department of Institutions transported over eight thousand nonresidents across state lines and collaborated with federal immigration authorities to repatriate over two thousand foreign nationals, primarily to Mexico, the Philippines, and China. Concurrently, the Board of Charities and Corrections noted a "foreign problem," particularly among Mexican patients, who constituted nearly 5 percent of those treated in county hospitals in 1914.
Source from the Syracuse Library:
Stern, A. M. (2016). Instituting Eugenics in California. In Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (2nd ed., pp. 82–110). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt19631sw.9
Demographics of those sterilized
Source from the Oakland Library:
Sterilization for Human Betterment: A Summary of Results of 6,000 Operations in California, 1909-1929. (1930). JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 95(6), 434.
In the data gathered in California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies publication by Dede Alpert, primarily from biennial reports, only presents information categorized by "gender." The cumulative figures from both 1935 and 1945 indicate that more males underwent sterilization than females. This trend aligns with population reports showing a higher proportion of male admissions compared to female admissions across most facilities, averaging about 20%.
The Department's statistical branch compiled a report covering all sterilizations in California from 1909 to June 30, 1960. However, this data is only segregated into totals for all Hospitals for the Mentally Ill (MI) and all Hospitals for the Developmentally Disabled (DD), along with gender breakdowns, but lacks differentiation by individual hospital. Given that several hospitals were catering to the Developmentally Disabled (DD) population may have previously served the Mentally Ill (MI) population, or both, during the period from 1950 to 1960, accurately determining the number of sterilizations among mentally ill patients versus those from the developmentally disabled population poses challenges for the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
Source from the Oakland Public Library:
Alpert, D. (2003). California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies, 1909–1979. Sacramento, CA: Senate Publications.
From XII. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE STERILIZED FEEBLEMINDED by Paule Popenoe:
It is hardly necessary to point out that these families are not representative of all the families which are producing defective children in the state. In the first place, the well-to-do family may keep its defective child at home or place in it a private institution. In the second place, Sonoma gets more than a fair share of the delinquent feebleminded, and of those who come from broken families or have been supported by chanty, together with other special groups such as illegitimate children and foundlings. The quiet, well-behaved, but retarded child is rarely sent to an institution, for he fits into the community acceptably…. fought courageously and steadily for the legalization of what they consider a constructive agency in the betterment of the race.
Source from the Oakland Library:
Human Betterment Foundation, Gosney, E. S., & Popenoe, P. (1930). Collected papers on eugenic sterilization in California; a critical study of results in 6000 cases. (pp. 304).Human betterment Foundation.
Above is a map from October 1913 showing eugenics sterilization legislation across the United States. At that time California had laws based primarily on eugenics and secondarily on therapeutic motives.
Source (librarian recommendation):
Laughlin, H. (1914). Map of eugenic sterilization laws by state. Retrieved from http://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/items/show/6230
The Bay Area Eugenics Movement
BILLS STIR PROTEST OF EUGENICS' SOCIETY
Officers of the State Board of Eugenies of California have issued a call for an indignation meeting to be held tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock in Lincoln Hall, Thirteenth and Broad-way, where the members of the State and American societies of Eugenics will protest against the passage of Assembly bill, No. 964 and Senate bill, No. 733. which provide for the establishment of a health bureau. It is claimed by those opposing the measure that it attempts to give arbitrary and exclusive medical jurisdiction over home and school to a few high salaried public officials.
The speakers who will occupy places on the platform and voice their sentiment against the bill are Hugh Craig of Piedmont; Dr.
Eugenia Campbell, of San Francisco: Mrs. Jennie Chamberlain, of Oakland; Mrs. John Swift. Samuel Taylor and J. Right, of Berkeley.
Source:
Oakland Tribune. (1911, February 25). Bills stir protests of eugenics society. p. 8. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.newspapers.com/image/76434595/
Editors note: Hugh Craig was Mayor of Piedmont, California at the time. https://www.historyofpiedmont.com/craig
Source from the Syracuse Library:
Smith, J. S. (1914). Marriage, sterilization and commitment laws aimed at decreasing mental deficiency. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 5(3), 364-370. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/1133010 (p. 121).
In 1914, Jessie Spaulding Smith of Oakland, California, wrote an article, "Marriage Sterilization and Commitment Laws Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency" which was highly published advocating for sterilization laws aimed at reducing mental deficiency, citing benefits such as preventing criminal heredity, the inheritance of feeblemindedness, and the reduction of rape incidents. She highlighted the simplicity and effectiveness of sterilization procedures and mentioned eight states with laws requiring sterilization of criminals, idiots, and moral imbeciles. Smith noted that while some states enforced such laws, others, like Indiana, suspended enforcement due to constitutional concerns. In California, she noted approximately three hundred sterilization operations were performed, leading to "positive" outcomes. The discussion also addressed the need for segregation and sterilization to manage overcrowding in institutions for the feebleminded and proposed measures such as mandatory health certificates for marriage licenses and penalties for violating marriage laws related to diseases. Smith emphasized the importance of sterilization and segregation in improving societal conditions and suggested radical but practical approaches for addressing mental deficiency.
Editors note: There is not a lot of information on "Jessie Spaulding Smith". On Ancestry.com yearbooks from 1924-1950s at Oakland Techical High School have her listed as "Miss Jessie Smith", and only a few articles on newspapers.com mentioning her name in Oakland including being grated a "leave of absence" in the Oakland Tribune newspaper on Fri, Dec 06, 1929 ·Page 26.
Marriage Sterilization and Commitment Laws
Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency
by Jessie Spaulding Smith of Oakland, California
Sterilization, which is advocated by many, has for its object the prevention of criminal heredity and the inheritance of feeblemindedness, epilepsy, etc.; the prevention of rape and the punishment of rapists; and the benefit of the sexually perverted. It can now be done by a simple operation, which in most cases is followed by good results, and eight states now have laws requiring the sterilization of criminals, idiots, and moral imbeciles. The law passed in Indiana in 1907 is typical. It provides for compulsory sterilization of criminals, idiots, and imbeciles under certain circumstances and safeguards. This act is based upon the principle that heredity plays a most important part in the transmission of crime, idiocy, and imbecility. No operation may be performed except under the advice of skilled physicians and surgeons, and only in cases that have been pronounced unimprovable by experts. The law permits of any method of sterilization known to science.
Of these twelve states only two have enforced the law, namely, Indiana and California. In the former about two hundred operations have been performed, but the enforcement of the law has been suspended now, because the governor of the state believes it to be unconstitutional. In California some three hundred operations have been performed, and many good results have been noted. At the last session of the legislature the law of 1909 was repealed and another, Chapter 363 of the statutes of 1913, was enacted to take its place. Under this law any person who has been lawfully committed to any state hospital for the insane or to the Sonoma State home may be sterilized with or without his own consent. It also provides for the sterilization of criminals, especially rapists and sexual perverts, in fhe prisons of the state. The last provision is for the asexualization of any idiot under the direction of the medical superintendent of any state hospital with the consent of his parent or guardian...
At present there are but forty-two institutions for the feebleminded in the United States. However, there are in these many who could engage in some useful occupation outside under intelligent direction if it were not for the danger of reproduction. This would leave room for the training of those who now cannot be accommodated. It will thu be seen that both sterilization and segregation are necessary....
It will require physicians to report all cases of venereal disease, epilepsy, feeblemindedness, insanity, tuberculosis, mania for drugs or habitual drunkenness, and congenital blindness or deafmutism. It will require a health certificate from every person who applies for a marriage license, and it will forbid marriage between persons afflicted with any of the above diseases. Power to enforce these laws will be given to the proper authorities, and the penalty for the violation of them will be sufficiently heavy to insure respect for them...
An effort will be made to cure or improve the condition of the epileptics, and the high grade feebleminded will be trained for some useful work, but none will be dismissed from the institutions uncured without first being sterilized. All idiots and all imbeciles of low or medium grade will be sterilized, whether they are confined in institutions or not. These suggestions, though radical, are not impractical, and they point definitely toward radical improvement
Source (referral):
Smith, J. S. (1914). Marriage, Sterilization and Commitment Laws Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 5(3), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/1133010
1915, San Francisco
Eugenics exhibit in the Palace of Education and Social Economy during the Panama-Pacific International Exhibition. Signs read,
"Race Betterment: A popular non-sectarian movement to advance live saving knowledge." and
"Race Betterment means, to eat, to drink, to work, to play, to sleep to live biologically."
Source (referral) The Online Archive of California is a service of the UC Libraries, powered by the California Digital Library:
Race Betterment [Exhibit]. https://oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/k6v12crp/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4. Accessed 12 Apr. 2024.
EVIDENCE OF STERILIZATION AS RELIEF MEASURE FOUND IN FEW INSTANCES IN SURVEY
_____
INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY
A Grand Jury now is reported investigating 112 cases of sterilization performed at a Martinez, Calif. hospital. Some of these cases, it was charged, were performed at, the instance of local welfare officers.
Dr. Edwin W. Merrithew, Contra Costa County physician, said many relief clients had requested sterilization operations but was unable to say whether this resulted from pressure by local welfare officials.
He said there also were "quite a few persons seeking illegal operations.
"We performed no sterilization operations on our own initiative," he said. "None was granted unless the applicants brought recommendations for such operations from health centers or relief agencies."
The California State Relief organization denied any connection with the Contra Costa situation.
Source:
Sterilization acts under probe. (1935, March 21). Oakland Tribune, p. 15. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.newspapers.com/image/129106150/?match=1
BERKELEY, Feb. 26.-A bonus for each child born to "intelligent" parents as advocated today by Dr. Samuel J. Holmes, professor of zoology at the University of California.
Unless this method or some other means is employed to counteract the higher birth rate of the less intelligent portions of society, the world must look forward to a gradual decline in mental ability. avers the well known university savant in a new volume on "The Eugenic Predicament."
Sterilization of the unfit alone can not solve the problem of maintaining the quality of the human race, declares Prof. Holmes. Development of birth control method: as practiced most assiduously by the more intelligent people who should produce children has precipitated the present situation to a large degree, he says...
Source:
Bonus urged for infants of intelligent. (1934, February 26). Oakland Tribune. p. 7. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.newspapers.com/image/107186400/
Below on Jan 31, 1941, a sterilization recommendation for a 13-year-old girl at Pacific Colony in California who had an IQ of 47. (Today we have learned IQ tests measure how well an individual takes an IQ test and little more.) At the Pacific Colony, “Sterilization only” cases made up 21% of Sonoma’s residents and many were categorized as “retardates” (possessing an IQ of 80 or below) positioning them to be surgically sterilized and released from the program within a month’s time.
Sources through Syracuse's Library:
Stern, A. M., & University of Michigan, U. (2016). Eugenics, sterilization, and historical memory in the united states. História, Ciências, Saúde--Manguinhos, 23Suppl 1(Suppl 1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702016000500011
Stern, A. M. (2016). “I Like to Keep My Body Whole”: Reconsidering Eugenic Sterilization in California. In Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (2nd ed., pp. 111–138). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt19631sw.10
The Nazi Connection
From "Eugenics Lessons from a history hiding in plain sight":
"Why Hitler Says: 'Sterilize the Unfit!"was a graphic feature in the "Sunday Magazine" of the Times, showed pictures of institutions that were supposed to be lavish palaces for the so-called inferior stock, the unfit, the disabled, the lunatics, etc., and those people needed, according to Hitler, "to be sterilized."
Sources from the Oakland Public Library -
Above:
Paul A. Lombardo, “Eugenics: Lessons from a History Hiding in Plain Sight,” March 11, 2003, Senate Select Committee on Genetics, Genetic Technologies and Public Policy, California Legislature, June, 2003.
Left:
Whitney, L. F. (1934). The Case for Sterilization (p. 7). Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Decline in Popularity
Dede Alpert suggests the decline of eugenics gained momentum during World War II was initially due to a shortage of physicians in the United States. The Nuremberg trials in 1945 further accelerated this process by exposing Americans to the atrocities committed under Hitler's racial superiority ideologies. This revelation ignited public and legislative opposition to sterilization across states. "California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies" suggests various factors likely contributed to the demise of the eugenics movement as a whole. Shifting attitudes toward genetics and mental health treatment, coupled with new leadership at institutional levels, played significant roles. Moreover, advancements in science and mathematics revealed the inherent flaws in eugenics as a pseudo-scientific concept.
Despite the broader discrediting of eugenics in the mid-to-late 1940s, California continued its sterilization practices into the 1950s. The enactment of SB 730 in 1952 marked a pivotal moment, effectively halting the state's sterilization program. Dr. William Keating, a former physician who performed numerous sterilization procedures at the Sonoma State Home, noted that the new procedures introduced by the legislation were cumbersome and time-consuming, dissuading many physicians from pursuing sterilizations.
Sources from the Oakland Public Library:
Alpert, D. (2003). California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies, 1909–1979. Sacramento, CA: Senate Publications.
Senate Resolution No. 20 read and adopted by the Senate June 30, 2003:
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, That it hereby expresses its profound regret over the state’s past role in the eugenics movement and the injustice done to thousands of California men and women; and be it further
Resolved, That this resolution addresses past bigotry and intolerance against the persons with disabilities and others who were viewed as ‘‘genetically unfit’’ by the eugenics movement; and be it further Resolved, That all individuals must honor human rights and treat others with respect regardless of race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic status, disability, or illness; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate urges every citizen of the state to become familiar with the history of the eugenics movement, in the hope that a more educated and tolerant populace will reject any similar abhorrent pseudoscientific movement should it arise in the future, and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
Source:
California Legislature, Senate. (2003). Senate Resolution No. 20. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sr_20_bill_20030630_enrolled.pdf
A poster created by artist Rachael Romero for a Stop Forced Sterilization protest at the Civic Center in San Francisco on Feb. 12, 1977
Source (recommendation):
Romero, R. & San Francisco Poster Brigade. (1977) Stop Forced Sterilization. , 1977. [San Francisco: San Francisco Poster Brigade] [Photograph] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2015647473/.
Looking Back and Moving Forward
California's sterilization law, enacted in 1909 and overturned in 1979, resulted in an estimated 20,000 individuals being sterilized over its duration. Despite the repeal of the sterilization law, state-sponsored sterilizations persisted in California prisons until at least 2010, as reported by the State Auditor's office. This practice was finally prohibited in 2014. In 2003, Governor Gray Davis issued a formal apology to survivors, acknowledging the state's leading role in eugenics legislation, which influenced similar measures nationwide and served as a model for Adolf Hitler's policies during World War II.
Individuals who endured forced or coerced vasectomies or tubal ligations under California's sterilization laws were eligible for compensation. With a total allocation of $7.5 million, this fund aimed to support victims, both men and women, who underwent sterilization procedures without their consent or awareness Initiated on January 1st, the compensation program was integrated into the state's 2021-22 budget.
Survivors seeking compensation can apply through California's Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program, overseen by the California Victim Compensation Board. (1)
Today, in California, voluntary sterilization is permissible under the condition of informed consent. Individuals with disabilities who possess the capacity to consent to medical procedures must provide their explicit consent before undergoing sterilization. However, for those with developmental disabilities lacking the ability to provide consent, sterilization can only proceed through a court decree. Prior to such a decree, a formal hearing is mandated. Representation for the developmentally disabled individual is ensured either through a public defender or a private attorney during this hearing. Sterilization is sanctioned solely if specific criteria are satisfied, and if alternative, less invasive methods of birth control are unavailable. (2)
Sources -
(1) Syracuse Library:
Henry, T. (2022, Jan). The State of California Forced or Coerced Sterilization. Victims Can Be Compensated. Oakland Post https://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/state-california-forced-coerced-sterilization/docview/2622701593/se-2
(2) Oakland Public Library:
Alpert, D. (2003). California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies, 1909–1979. Sacramento, CA: Senate Publications.
IMPORTANT FOLLOW UP LINKS:
From the Sterilization and Social Justice Lab:
-
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund is a national civil rights law and policy center focused on advancing the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education, and public policy and legislative development.
-
Back to the Basics Community Empowerment Organization addresses the social traumas of a community through education, advocacy, and creating access to resources so individuals can experience a better quality of life. Provides educational workshops, service provider training, and life impact sessions to schools, employers, and community members, as well as crisis assistance to individuals after experiencing various forms of trauma and hardships through community intervention.
-
Black Women Birthing Justice is a grassroots collective in Oakland, California working to transform birthing experiences for Black women and birthing people.
-
California Coalition for Women Prisoners monitors and challenges the abusive conditions inside California women’s prisons, advocating for the release of women and trans prisoners, and supporting women and trans people in their process of reentering the community.
-
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) is a statewide organization committed to honoring the experiences of Latinas and Latinxs to uphold their dignity, their bodies, sexuality, and families. CLRJ builds Latinas’ and Latinx’s power and cultivates leadership through policy advocacy, community education, and community-informed research to achieve reproductive justice.
-
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence provides a map for finding domestic violence organizations within California.