By Michelle Kessel and Jessica Hopper
Rock Center
Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.
“I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.
Riddick was never told what was happening. “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said. “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”
Riddick’s records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. The records label Riddick as “feebleminded” and “promiscuous.” They said her schoolwork was poor and that she “does not get along well with others.”
“I was raped by a perpetrator [who was never charged] and then I was raped by the state of North Carolina. They took something from me both times,” she said. “The state of North Carolina, they took something so dearly from me, something that was God given.”
It wouldn’t be until Riddick was 19, married and wanting more children, that she’d learn she was incapable of having any more babies. A doctor in New York where she was living at the time told her that she’d been sterilized.
“Butchered. The doctor used that word… I didn’t understand what she meant when she said I had been butchered,” Riddick said.
North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.
Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.
It began as a way to control welfare spending on poor white women and men, but over time, North Carolina shifted focus, targeting more women and more blacks than whites. A third of the sterilizations performed in North Carolina were done on girls under the age of 18. Some were as young as nine years old.
For the past eight years, North Carolina lawmakers have been working to find a way to compensate those involuntarily sterilized in the state between 1929 and 1974. During that time period, 7,600 people were sterilized in North Carolina. Of those who were sterilized, 85 percent of the victims were female and 40 percent were non-white.
“You can’t rewind a watch or rewrite history. You just have to go forward and that’s what we’re trying to do in North Carolina,” said Governor Beverly Perdue in an exclusive interview with NBC News.
While North Carolina’s eugenics board was disbanded in 1977, the law allowing involuntary sterilization wasn’t officially repealed until 2003. In 2002, the state issued an apology to those who had been sterilized, but the victims have yet to receive any financial compensation, medical care or counseling from the state. Since 2003, three task forces have been created to determine a way to compensate the victims. Officials estimate that as many as 2,000 victims are still alive.
Riddick was one of several victims to speak at a public hearing this summer. It was the first time that many survivors had told their stories publicly and that others heard of North Carolina’s tarnished past.
“To think about folks who went in…and their doctor told them this was birth control and they were sterilized…the folks who didn’t have the capacity to make the decisions, the uninformed consent,” said Perdue. “Those types of stories aren’t good for America and I can’t allow for this period in history to be forgotten, that’s why this work is important.”
Only 48 victims have been matched with their records, something necessary for them to eventually be compensated. State Representative Larry Womble has been advocating for the survivors of the state’s sterilization program for nearly 10 years. He helped fight for the repeal of the state’s law.
Womble said that if the government is “powerful enough to perpetrate this on this society, they ought to be responsible, step up to the plate and compensate.”
In August, a task force created by Gov. Perdue recommended that the victims be compensated, but they were unsure how much to award the victims. Previous numbers pondered range between $20,000 and $50,000. The task force also recommended mental health services for living victims and a traveling museum exhibit about North Carolina’s eugenics program.
Perdue said it’s a challenge to determine how much money each victim should be given.
“From my perspective, and as a woman, and as the governor of this state, this is not about the money. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay these people for what has been done to them, but money is part of the equation,” she said.
Riddick once sued North Carolina for a million dollars. Her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court declined to hear the case. “I would like for the state of North Carolina to right what they wronged with me,” she said.
Some victims and their advocates have questioned whether North Carolina is procrastinating in compensating them, hoping they’ll die before a solution is reached. “It’s an ugly chapter in North Carolina’s book, we have a wonderful book, but there’s an ugly chapter,” Womble said. “We must step up to the plate and we must realize and take responsibility.”
Perdue, for her part, said that she is committed to helping the victims.
“I want this solved on my watch. I want there to be completion. I want the whole discussion to end and there be action for these folks. There is nobody in North Carolina who is waiting for anybody to die,” Gov. Perdue said.
Despite the state social workers who declared Riddick was “mentally retarded” and “promiscuous”, she went to college and raised the son born moments before she was sterilized. Her son is devoted to his mother and a successful entrepreneur.
Elaine is proud of her achievements.
“I don’t know where I would be if I listened to the state of North Carolina,” she said.
Editor's note: If you think you or someone you know was a victim of North Carolina's eugenics program or for more information about the ongoing efforts to compensate the victims, visit the website for the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation: http://www.sterilizationvictims.nc.gov/
Leave a Comment:
Good god it's amazing how as a species we humans are incapable of learning from the past and how cruel we can be to one another. And that these atrocities continued to happen till 1977 which was only 37 years ago is surprising and appalling on every level.
If I read correctly NC was one of 31 states involved in the program. WTF?? I think we are bound to find out this atrocity isnt the only one that, we, as US citizens, have unknowingly been a part of.
Wow, the Government of North Carolina must have some Nazi heritage in thier blood. Dr Mengele would be so proud of these folks.
Or... Those NAZIS must have had some American blood in them...
It's all a matter of perspective.
Yes 40% of these women were minorities but 60% were white.....shouldn't we be upset about the entire thing instead of making it just about color? Its wrong all around no matter what color or race you are. Women should have the right to decide what they want done to their bodies not the government....
I must concur. It is not like they targeted only American Indian women and girls by a certain federal health service like Indian Health Services and never did admit it. Only 1.9M in this group so you can see what a 40% of the females being sterilized did to the entire race. This is true genocide with a federal backer. Think about that one and know it did not stop until it was exposed in the late seventies by women working for Indian Health Services or they would have continued to commit genocide. No one punished for this act.
Yes. Yes, we should be upset about the entire thing.
What's with the 70's stuff? The article clearly states it didn't get fully repealled until 2003.
The late 70s was the end of Eugenics as standard practice, and most states repealed the laws... However, ten States kept them on the books. It is inferred that the practice has been discontinued, but I am skeptical, as I've known a couple of people, now in their early to mid thirties/early forties, who were sterilized as teens, thus without their legal consent...
Glen Davis....
I just had to post to you about how your parents raised you. I am 21 have a great child that listens and is polite and good in public. I want to tell you that you are a very sad old man and had a horrible childhood. I don't think that by parents talking to(instead of at) and asking how school was, makes them bad I think that helps their children it shows them they are loved instead of just their to do chores because mom was to lazy. My 2 year old does chores around the house and helps with everything she has fun doing it. Also before you start on how disrespectful my generation is I want to say that I feel horrible you were treated so bad and that I mean absoutly no disrespect while telling you this. I say all of this as a professional that works with and studies children daily.
Fact of the matter is that Eugenics began in the United States, led by "intellectual superiors" such as Stanford President David Starr Jordan, who wrote a book supporting Eugenics. The 'epicenter' for the movement was in the state of California which sterilized more people, w/o their knowledge or consent than all other states combined. Unfortunately eugenics has hardly died out, it's just being sold under a different name; 'Bioethics' and is being taught at/by surprise surprise the same colleges that embraced Eugenics: Harvard, Stanford etc.
Yup, yup, yup. And everybody likes to think this came from Germany...
I think the term was actually coined by Darwin's cousin Dalton, but the idea and practice were developed in the US by the "intellectual aristocracy" (the aristocracy with the time to dabble in intellectualism)...
Fact of the matter is that Eugenics began in the United States, led by "intellectual superiors" such as Stanford President David Starr Jordan, who wrote a book supporting Eugenics. The 'epicenter' for the movement was in the state of California which sterilized more people, w/o their knowledge or consent than all other states combined. Unfortunately eugenics has hardly died out, it's just being sold under a different name; 'Bioethics' and is being taught at/by surprise surprise the same colleges that embraced Eugenics: Harvard, Stanford, Rockefeller University etc.
The philosophy has also (apparently, after reading here) become dangerously acceptable as part of the public consciousness. It is amazing that there is so much support for a spurious standardizing the "breed" of humans.
Foxdog, to begin with, I agree with everything you had to say regarding hitler's plans and designs. It was well known that he merely staged the attack on the German border to cause a justified reason to invade Poland and that hitler also focused his hatred of the Jews on the German people. All I'm saying is that hitlers means of cleansing Europe even though carried out to the extreme, I find a correlation with the policy exposed in North Carolina also as a cleansing method and both actions being accomplished against the will of the victims. I can't help but believe this to be morally wrong.
The Eugenics program was started by Dr. Eugen Fischer in the early 1900's. The first concentration camps were in Nazi held which is known as present day Namibia. It was led by Lt. General Lothar Von Trotha. It was during this time that Dr. Fischer was invited to visit the camp and study the Herero tribe. It was during this time that he wrote his book titled Principles of Human Heredity and Human Hygiene. He claimed that the Herero were animals. Adolf Hitler read this book while in prison and was inspired. He later modeled his Nazi concentration camps after the camps in Namibia.
Dr. Fischer also began experimenting with the Herero. He discovered that he could get animal viruses to cross species barriers if he first infected them with Hepatitis C. This involved monkey viruses.
Hitler later experimented on enemy soldiers, Gypsies, Gays and Jewish men, women and children. Some of these experiments can be googled. Many of the Nazi doctors who performed experiment in these Nazi camps were later brought to the U.S. under Project Paperclip. The Eugenics program in the U.S. was modeled after the one in Germany prior to WWII.
It is believed in some academic circles that the AIDs virus was introduced this way into the homosexual population via vaccines tainted with Reese monkey aids virus. The vaccine was suppose to be a vaccine against Hepatitus. I recommend everyone read the book Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz.
I wonder about your timeline. Only because Eugenics wasn't popularized in Germany until after the end of WW1. There were already laws on the books in the US by then...
Project Paperclip?
Ell, oh, ell... There's a joke about aborting Bill Gates in there somewhere.
"It looks like you're trying to rid the world of socially inept nerds with a**muncher syndrome. Can I help?"
Planned Parenthood is "the elephant in the room"
Yeah, and that elephant wants to rid the world of quality healthcare under the premise of planned personhood.
Quit invoking Godwin's Law as a subset of Roe, thankyouverymuch.
The doctors and hospitals who performed these sterilizations should sued and prosecuted. The doctors should be sent to prison. The supreme court wouldn't even hear the case? What a bunch of no good for nothings they are! The highest court in the land? What a joke!
Zack, these monsters are always exposed after thirty or more years after most of them are dead or really old and can't be punished.
That is right. Money can't buy you love but can buy you protection, favors and support for your social agendas.
Or maybe, alumette, you need to get over yourself and realize that there are PLENTY of birth control methods out there, and that sterilzing every woman of childbearing age and children....if you think the American people would ever stand for something like that, you are insane.
You are kidding, right? Because, in large part, the American public DID stand for it, and ten states are still "stand[ing] for it," now.
Women who were VICTIMS of RAPE should not be forcibly sterilized...it is NOT their fault.
The rapists are the ones who need to be steralized....
No, I am not kidding, and I think it is nothing short of shameful to blame the victims and sterilize them...this needs to stop.
Up until I read this story, I was not aware that the American public actually stood for this....it is not okay. Thanks for informing me on that....highly disturbing.
Sterilize the RAPISTS, not the women who are victims. Better yet, execute them.
"Your" information is incomplete, as (New York State) also participated, and probably still does, in a "Sterilization Program", as I had a (proceedure) done to me when I was in the custody of an agency known then as "BCW", now known as "ACS", the Administration for Children's Services, as an abandoned child, and while I survived the hell that was put upon me from the age of 6 to the age of (Today), there are those that were not so fortunate, as I am sure that there are records that exist to show what the "Suicide" rate regarding "Children" in the "system" was extermely high during the '60's and '70's. Try and check it out and experience the statements like "Sorry, You're not authorized to acess these Records", etc. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out my own Identity, (Without an "Identity" a "Name" is nothing but a word).
Here is a little more info about the history of this program in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eugenics_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Betterment_Foundation
Can you guess who funds these programs??
The government continues to tinker with intrusive ideas in order to make society "better". Eugenics is not a dead idea. Please be aware whenever a government agency wants to take your rights for your own good because you never really know what the true intent is.
Folks, our government frequently plays GOD all around the world. Why would should this surprise any of us.
Did you know that our government has been adding sterilizing compounds to immunizations sent to third world countries for decades.
If they're starving sterilize them and cut down on the population growth, eventually the problem will solve its self.
We are and have been the most powerful country in the world for 100 years. The power has gone to our governments head. We think of them as individuals, but they somehow manage to work as a multi headed monster when making these kinds of mistakes. If you cut off one head, another appears in its place.
Our government has been out of control for more than a centery and it will probably take a maricle or a millenium to get it under control.
All we can do is VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. Vote for those who are extremely religious and we might have a chance, because this country was founded by extremely religious men who believed in God, prayed about their descions and voted according to what they precieved God's answer to be.
Yes, and our forefathers were wise enough to understand that religion should be separate from government. As for your hairbrained assertion that sterilizing agents have been added to medicines sent to third world countries, the birth rates in any of those places would contradict your theory. I feel that bringing children into a world where they will likely starve is immoral. If you cannot feed yourself or your children the most ethical thing you can do is not subject any more innocents to painful deprivation and death. To that end, the first world countries should be providing all the birth control methods available for free and educating people as to their use. Just look at the news footage of refugee camps where people have no food, sanitary facilities, medical care, potable water, etc. How many of these families are shown with 4 or more children? They are starving, yet they certainly find the energy to procreate. Stupid. Until you are in a stable environment, the least you could do is delay adding to the problem with more children. Yes, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, but vote for a candidate who is governed by intelligence and common sense rather than one who touts religion as one of their assets. Some of the most ethical and moral people I know are not religious and some of the biggest hypocrites hide behind their religion.
Extreme religion has also brought this country down when mixed with politics. Look back at the historical black marks religion has left upon the lands of this country. From the first day the Europeans sat foot on this soil to current day America. I do not and never will buy into the rhetoric of the religious zealots. Give me a person who is ethical and practices the two tenets that were passed down to us from the Greeks the Corollary of Care and Proximity of Care any time. A person who follows these two tenets will always do the right thing and not be misguided by an invisible friend.
weebuny can you please site a source for your statement regarding add sterilization compounds to vaccines ?
HCG is added to many vaccines distributed in the third world. It can cause the body (of women) to develop an immune response that rejects pregnancy.
well now thanks for the useful info.
Not exactly a "compound"...
This is a naturally occuring hormone in the body. It plays a positive role not negative except perhaps when tumor related. Additionally and to the point for weebuny is that it can actually trigger ovulation and is used in fertility treatment not the opposite as was asserted That is diatribe if she meant what you think.
If anyone is interested in finding out how this relates to legalized abortion, read about Margaret Sanger, one of the eugenicists of the early 1900's. There is still uninformed persuasion to make a decision to have an abortion.
I'm not talking about religious zealots. I'm talking about people who are strong in their faith and believe in our constitution. LIKE OUR FOREFATHERS.
By the way seperation of church and state is not a law in this country. The constitution states that government cannot control religion. Not that religion cannot be apart of government.
Our currency says "IN GOD WE TRUST" our founding fathers didn't throw that in on a wim, they ment it.
Our pledge of aleagance says, "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." Not anymore, we are now one nation under special interests and corporate donations.
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT BIBLE THUMPING RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS. THEY BELIEVED IN GOD AND FOUNDED A COUNTRY BASE ON THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION. ALL WHILE PRACTICING FAITH IN THEIR OWN LIVES. IT WORKED THEN AND IT CAN WORK NOW. ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE LOOK TO LEADERS WIITH THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE MEN WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY
TRY READING THE CONSTITUTION, YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.
EVEN A STATE DRIVERS LICENSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THOSE OF US WHO DO NOT DRIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCE. PERSONALLY I THINK DRIVERS LICENSE ARE A GOOD THING, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WE ARE LOOSING ONE SMALL FREEDOM AT A TIME WHEN DO WE SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WHEN DO WE STOP LETTING OUR GOVERNMENT WALK ALL OVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Our founding fathers didn't put this on our currency. You are uninformed.
In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956. The phrase has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957. - from Wikipedia
Just to be clear this was not included in the original pledge of allegiance, and was added over a hundred years after our founding fathers had passed away.
The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942 - From Wikipedia
Like many folks who mis-represent the intents and practices of the founding fathers, you use faulty evidence, like the statements I have quoted above, to prove your position about the religious attitudes of our founding fathers. Please get your self educated by looking at the facts instead of searching for "evidence" to prove your position.
Sorry, you're right the facts are the facts. I was misinformed. Thank you for correcting my facts.
But you still missed the point. This country was founded by individuals seeking religious freedom. That is a fact. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the official document that started it all. Nature's God and The Creator are both mentioned in the first two sentences. This country did pretty well in the beginning under the leadership of government officials with religious beliefs, also a fact.
Thank God that somewhere along the way future religious leaders of this country decided that slavery and other such hideous acts were not to be tolerated.
I'm not referring to religious zealot. No extremest should be voted into office regardless of there beliefs. No one is perfect, but we certainly have picked a motley crew to run this country, right into the ground, morally and financially.
We could debate this until the end of time due to our different beliefs, so I'll say, "Ado."
Religious freedom does not just pertain to Christianity, inherent in freedom of religion is freedom to practice any or no religion. The idea was also to keep the influence of religious entities out of government. Our founding fathers came from a world where the Church of England had real power in the government (and still does) and this power was wielded against other religions in an official capacity.
We have freedom of religion in this country relative to those notions. People have the right to practice their beliefs as long as they are not antithetical to existing laws. And specific churches should not be represented in government. I have no problem with people being guided by their morals when making decisions, especially since most good people -whether religious or not - have a moral code that is pretty similar. The golden rule is pretty universal, and sane people believe in fairness and the protection of those that cannot protect themselves.
But to your point - I think that what you are saying is that we would be better off with religious types in politics because they are more moral. (btw do you mean any religion or just Christian?)
I can agree with you that we need moral people in politics, that is not something that I would debate you on - I just don't see that necessarily correlating to people of faith. Morality and faith are not a guaranteed pairing. Many who are religious are not moral and many that are moral are not religious. It does not take a belief in God to be moral, fair and a believer in justice.
Everybody in politics claims to be a person of faith, so really religious types are everywhere in government - and as you point out so far they have run us into the ground. So you actually prove MY point - focusing on making sure our politicians are religious has not worked out so well, maybe we need a better measure of a person's morality than their religion.
Maybe, just maybe, as the program grew, it did begin to target more blacks. Has anyone looked into the demographics based on the US Census that as the population grew during that period, maybe the poor black female population grew expotentially to that of the poor white female? I could be mistaken, but believe those were the demographic trends throughout the country during those periods.
Regardless, this was an atrocity commited against women of all races and those who participated will have to answer to their maker some day. They preyed upon the ignorant and that is unsettling. Even if some were given all the information, they most likely did not comprehend it enough to make those type decisions.
Where were their proponents while it was happening? It could have been avoided.
That being said, I agree whole heartedly with
Jeffrey f ". A womans womb, belongs to her and NO ONE else, Not the church, the government or any other person walking this planet. Her body, her rights. It's as plain as day and is carved in the granite of our Constitution..."
I am also a proponent of drug testing prior to a receiving ANY welfare/DHS benefits. YOu can also add state/federal unemployment payments to that as well.
I fully agree. I have to undergo random drug testing to maintain my job, so why shouldn't the person living off my tax dollars have to do the same.
weebuny can you please site a source for your statement regarding added sterilization compounds to vaccines ?
#2566.3 - Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:08 PM MST
We have a similar problem here in California. I am the caregiver of a eugenics victim. His name is Charles Follett. Here's a link to the investigative report on Charlie..
Charlie also has a facebook page.. please feel free to contact us there:
Charlie is seeking a formal apology and compensation/reparation from the State of California. If anyone can help.. please contact us on facebook or email: cfollett209@gmail.com
Thank you!
As a young woman born to alcoholic parents, the thought of this being done to children like me, because of the mistakes and diseases of their parents, sickens me, it makes me think that if I had been born in the wrong time or place I could never have children, and that thought brings tears to my eyes, THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WILL CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE.
I love how the majority were white people but they try to work a race issue into the story.
Got to love modern journalism, god help this country and world.
I'm sure many of these "doctors" had children or other relatives. Their names to be made public. I suggest a group of people band together and handle this matter, as the state seems to be confused as to what to do. These "doctors" and their relatives need to experience the hurt and shame that they've perpetrated among the many victims...an eye for an eye...
This is not about who did it. It is about why did it. See Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion by Jean H. Baker. Baker notes that "there were political reasons for Americans to accept sterilization that grew out of progressive attempts to provide protection for the poor. Along with criminals whose antisocial instincts were no believed inherited by their children, the unfit were becoming expensive in an era that was installing programs and institutions to support those who could not take care of themselves."