1997Social Politics International Studies in Gender State & SocietyRequires access

Saving Babies and Sterilizing Mothers: Eugenics and Welfare Politics in the Interwar United States

M. LADD-TAYLOR

Open publisher page 47 citations

Abstract

This article compares government-funded maternal and child health services with compulsory sterilization, two “eugenic” policies that rationalized reproduction in the United States from the 1910s to the 1930s. As Progressive Era reforms (though they did not achieve their biggest legislative successes until after the First World War), both were based on the optimistic belief that society could be improved through science and “expert” intervention. Yet they rested on very different ideas about the state's responsibility for social welfare. A comparison of the “baby-saving” and sterilization movements highlights the welfare, as opposed to racial (or even eugenic), function of compulsory sterilization in the United States. The association between sterilization and reducing welfare costs was undoubtedly one reason that sterilization programs achieved more lasting success in the United States than government-funded public health services.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article compares government-funded maternal and child health services with compulsory sterilization, two “eugenic” policies that rationalized reproduction in the United States from the 1910s to the 1930s. As Progressive Era reforms (though they did not achieve their biggest legislative successes until after the First World War), both were based on the optimistic belief that society could be improved through science and “expert” intervention. Yet they rested on very different ideas about the state's responsibility for social welfare. A comparison of the “baby-saving” and sterilization movements highlights the welfare, as opposed to racial (or even eugenic), function of compulsory sterilization in the United States. The association between sterilization and reducing welfare costs was undoubtedly one reason that sterilization programs achieved more lasting success in the United States than government-funded public health services.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 47 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article compares government-funded maternal and child health services with compulsory sterilization, two “eugenic” policies that rationalized reproduction in the United States from the 1910s to the 1930s. As Progressive Era reforms (though they did not achieve their biggest legislative successes until after the First World War), both were based on the optimistic belief that society could be improved through science and “expert” intervention. Yet they rested on very different ideas about the state's responsibility for social welfare. A comparison of the “baby-saving” and sterilization movements highlights the welfare, as opposed to racial (or even eugenic), function of compulsory sterilization in the United States. The association between sterilization and reducing welfare costs was undoubtedly one reason that sterilization programs achieved more lasting success in the United States than government-funded public health services.

Key concepts: Eugenics, Sterilization (economics), Welfare, Politics, Political science, Legislature, Economic growth, Birth control

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Saving Babies and Sterilizing Mothers: Eugenics and Welfare Politics in the Interwar United States — Research Paper | ScholarLens