-
3. Abortion, Eugenics, and Democracy
- The Catholic University of America Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 3 Abortion, Eugenics, and Democracy The Abortion Campaign as Part of the Eugenics Movement It has been seen that the abortion campaign was the product of eugenic concerns, as were all the reproductive and some of the social campaigns of the early twentieth century; the Eugenics Society, which began by promoting marriage, soon started to emphasize “negative” measures, including segregation, birth control, sterilization, and abortion, in response to the failure of the poor to avail themselves of reproductive controls (and sometimes, marriage). Since the Second World War, sterilization has had historical associations with Nazism, while abortion has come to be seen as emblematic of free choice. However, when the campaign for abortion emerged, it was seen as even more unacceptable than sterilization, since in taking innocent human life it was regarded by many as murder. Eugenicists , though supporting both, had their own reasons for preferring sterilization , and these have profound significance for the understanding of the abortion campaign. The Eugenics Society supported abortion reform on the basis of the Brock report, which recommended: “[T]he right to sterilization should be extended to all persons whose family history gives reasonable ground for believing that they may transmit mental disorder or defect .” According to the Brock Committee’s calculations, this would affect 3.5 million people, none of whom had requested sterilization; however, the committee felt it “idle to expect of this group, most of whom are of subnormal mentality, a proper sense of social responsibility. But we believe that many of them would be glad to be relieved of the dread of repeated preg78 nancies and to escape the recurring burden of parenthood, for which they are so manifestly unfitted.”1 These proposals were inherently flawed because of problems in defining mental deficiency and in obtaining authentic consent from those said to be affected. Under sterilization programs already enacted, the poor, the sick, and the disabled—termed the “unfit”—were unequal partners in the balance of power, often consenting to sterilization in order to gain release from institutions, as will be seen. The same flawed logic applied to abortion for mental deficiency, and women seeking abortion because of poverty would have little real choice even though, ostensibly, abortion would be voluntary. If the Eugenics Society’s proposals for sterilization and abortion had been accepted, they would undoubtedly have encompassed women classed as mentally deficient and placed in institutions as a result of becoming pregnant out of wedlock. One such, Meanwood Park “colony,” was opened by Samuel Wormold in 1920; inmates were unable to get out, even with family help, for many years; if they refused to work, they were deprived of food, or placed in solitary confinement. Wormold believed that “[b]y being allowed to repeat their type, the feeble-minded are increasing the ranks of the degenerate with disastrous consequences to the entire community.” The system remained in place until 1959.2 One of the signatories to the Eugenics Society’s Lancet letter calling for eugenic abortion during the Bourne case was Professor Edward Mapother, a prominent psychiatrist often consulted about abortions for poor women; significantly, he preferred such decisions to be left in the hands of the medical profession.3 ALRA’s evidence to the Birkett Enquiry was infused with eugenics; it cited women “who obtained therapeutic abortion” (although only after “repeated application,” with the “large majority” unsuccessful) and claimed that suicide attempts, neurasthenia, and neurosis “cases” were hopeless and not worth “replicating”; that is, they should not have children. One woman was “partially blind from birth. Husband blind from birth, subnormal mental development, given child’s work at school for blind. Quite un1 . Brock Report, in Trombley (1988, 125). 2. Meanwood Park, Leeds, Yorkshire (“Stolen Lives,” November 14, 1994, Channel 4 TV). 3. Mapother was psychiatrist in charge of the Maudsley Hospital, and psychiatrist at King’s College Hospital (Eugenics Society, evidence to Birkett Enquiry, April 12, 1938 [MH71-26 AC Paper 131]). Abortion, Eugenics, and Democracy 79 [3.94.102.228] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 11:48 GMT) able to earn sufficient money to live adequately.” Women denied abortion included a twenty-nine-year-old “[m]arried 8 years, 6 children and 1 miscarriage : eldest child six years old. General health very poor, severe debility, suffered from loss of memory and ‘mental vagueness.’ . . . a definite ‘pregnancy neurosis,’ with melancholic tendencies. Owing to her subnormal mental condition was quite unable to cope with birth control technique.” They also claimed: “Deaf and dumb women are almost always...