1. Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Juvenile Research, Field Clinic, no. 6632, 4. Hereafter cited as BJR, Field Clinic, no. 6632. Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Juvenile Research, “Marie,” 1–3. Hereafter cited as BJR, “Marie.”

2. BJR, “Marie,” 2–3.Google Scholar

3. Ibid. See Goddard Papers, AHAP, M31.1, “Annual Report 1918–1919 Department of Clinical Psychology.”

4. See the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 3 (1930): 617–621.Google Scholar

5. Dikotter, Frank, “Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics,” American Historical Review 103, no. 2 (04 1998): 467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Mark B., ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar; Stepan, Nancy Leys, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca, 1991).Google Scholar

6. Many have claimed that by the early 1940s, to quote James Trent, “Only among its most diehard supporters did eugenics any longer have a public following” in the United States. Trent, James W., “‘Who shall say who is a useful person?’ Abraham Myerson's Opposition to the Eugenics Movement,” History of Psychiatry 12 (2001): 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Support for Trent can be found in numerous studies; see Mezzano, Michael, “The Progressive Origins of Eugenics Critics: Raymond Pearl, Herbert S. Jennings, and the Defense of Scientific Inquiry,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4, no. 1 (2005): 83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dowbiggin, Ian Robert, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880–1940 (Ithaca, 1997), 232Google Scholar; Degler, Carl N., In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York, 1991), 150–153Google Scholar; Kevles, Daniel, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York, 1985), 164Google Scholar; Cravens, Hamilton, The Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the Heredity-Environment Controversy, 1900–1941 (Philadelphia, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Linda, Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York, 1974), 272Google Scholar; Pickens, Donald, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville, 1968), 141–143, 179.Google Scholar

Many recent works convincingly emphasize the continuity and widespread acceptability of eugenic ideas after 1945; see Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”; Schoen, Johanna, Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare (Chapel Hill, 2005)Google Scholar; Black, Edwin, The War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003)Google Scholar; Castles, Katherine, “Quite Eugenics: Sterilization in North Carolina's Institutions for the Mentally Retarded, 1945–1965,” Journal of Southern History 68 (11 2002): 849–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kline, Wendy, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2001)Google Scholar; Ladd-Taylor, Molly, “Eugenics, Sterilization, and Modern Marriage in the USA: The Strange Career of Paul Popenoe,” Gender & History 13, no. 2 (08 2001): 298–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Carey, Allison C., “Gender and Compulsory Sterilization Programs in America, 1907–1950,” Journal of Historical Sociology 11, no. 1 (03 1998): 74–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vogel, Amy, “Regulating Degeneracy: Eugenic Sterilization in Iowa, 1911–1977,” The Annals of Iowa 54 (Winter 1995): 119–143Google Scholar; Dorr, Gregory Michael, “Principled Expediency: Eugenics, Naim v. Naim, and the Supreme Court,” American Journal of Legal History 42, no. 2 (1998): 119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, Susan L., “Race, Gender, and Welfare Reform: The Antinatalist Response,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 4 (03 1998): 419–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broberg, Gunnar and Roll-Hansen, Nils, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing, Mich., 1996).Google Scholar

7. On the widening of the historical study of eugenics, see Dikotter, “Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics,” 467–78; Childs, Donald J., Modernism and Eugenics: Woolf, Eliot, Yeats, and the Culture of Degeneration (Cambridge, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooke, Kathy J., “The Limits of Heredity: Nature and Nurture in American Eugenics Before 1915,” Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1998): 263–278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Ladd-Taylor, Molly, “Saving Babies and Sterilizing Mothers: Eugenics and Welfare Politics in the Interwar United States,” Social Politics 4, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the importance of the “myth of the menace of the feeble minded” for eugenics, see Haller, Mark H., Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, 1963), 96, 110Google Scholar; Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind, 155–82.

8. On the cultural complexity and continuity of eugenics, in addition to Stepan, Schoen, Kline, Cooke, and Ladd-Taylor, cited above, see Smith, Mark M., “Finding Deficiency: On Eugenics, Economics, and Certainty,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 64, no. 3 (07 2005): 887–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daniels, Cynthia R., “Procreative Compounds: Popular Eugenics, Artificial Insemination, and the Rise of the American Sperm Banking Industry,” Journal of Social History 38, no. 1 (2004): 5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Childress, Kelly Dahlgren, “Genetics, Disability, and Ethics: Could Applied Technologies Lead to a New Eugenics?” Journal of Women and Religion 19/20 (2003): 157–178Google Scholar; Dowbiggin, Ian, “‘A Rational Coalition’: Euthanasia, Eugenics, and Birth Control in America, 1940–1970,” Journal of Policy History 14, no. 3 (2002): 223–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tucker, William H., The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Schoen, Johanna, “Between Choice and Coercion: Women and the Politics of Sterilization,” Journal of Women's History 13, no. 1 (2001): 132–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gugliotta, Angela, “‘Dr. Sharp with His Little Knife’: Therapeutic and Punitive Origins of Eugenic Vasectomy in Indiana, 1892–1921,” Journal of the History of Medicine 53 (10 1998): 371–406Google Scholar; Larson, Edward J., Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore, 1995)Google Scholar; Larson, Edward J., “‘In the Finest, Most Womanly Way’: Women in the Southern Eugenics Movement,” American Journal of Legal Studies 39, no. 2 (1995): 119–147Google Scholar; Soloway, Richard A., “The ‘Perfect Contraceptive’: Eugenics and Birth Control Research in Britain and America in the Interwar Years,” Journal of Contemporary History 30 (1995): 637–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. On the grounding of individual agency and consent as ideals in American political culture, see Brewer, Holly, By Birth or Consent: Children, Law, and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority (Chapel Hill, 2005)Google Scholar; Block, James E., A Nation of Agents: The American Path to a Modern Self and Society (Cambridge, Mass., 2002).Google Scholar

10. See Rafter, Nicole Hahn, “Claims-Making and Socio-Cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics Campaign,” Social Problems 39, no. 1 (02 1992): 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mink, Gwedolyn, “The Lady and the Tramp: Gender, Race, and the Origins of the American Welfare State,” in Gordon, Linda, ed., Women, the State, and Welfare (Madison, 1990): 92–122Google Scholar. On “motherhood-eugenics,” see Grossmann, Atina, “The New Woman and the Rationalization of Sexuality in Weimar Germany,” in Snitow, Ann, Stansell, Christine, and Thompson, Sharon, eds., Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (New York, 1983), 153–171.Google Scholar

11. The photograph is from the Ohio Institution for Feeble-Minded Youth. Fifty-Sixth Report of the Institution for the Feeble-Minded; Second Annual Report to the Ohio Board of Administration (Columbus, 1913).

12. For a defense of Henry Goddard, see Zenderland, Leila, Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing (New York, 1998)Google Scholar. For interpretations contrary to Zenderland's and similar to the one here, see Degler, In Search of Human Nature, 59–211; Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind, 155–80; Tucker, William H., “‘A Scientific Result of Apparent Absurdity’: The Attempt to Revise Goddard,” Ethnic & Racial Studies 22, no. 1 (01 1999): 162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the origins of the bureau, see Emerick, Edison J., “The Problem of the Feeble-Minded,” in Publications of the Ohio Board of Administration, no. 5 (1915), 11Google Scholar; Goddard, Henry H., Feeble-Mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences (New York, 1914), 562–566, 568, 573, 585, 586–90Google Scholar. For a concise statement of Goddard's views on how to solve feeblemindedness and the consequent social problems, see Goddard, Henry H., “The Elimination of Feeble-Mindedness,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 37 (03 1911): 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. For the national figures quoted here, see Haller, Eugenics, 129. Goddard, Henry, “The Basis for State Policy,” The Survey 27 (03 1912): 1853–1855Google Scholar. Goddard, Henry H., The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness (New York, 1912), 11–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BJR, “Marie,” 1, 3, 5. Goddard, Henry, “The State's Program for Juvenile Research,” An Address to the State Conference of Charities and Correction, 17–18 December 1918 in Ohio, Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 25, no. 2 (07 1919): 36–38Google Scholar. On the medical acceptance of Binet's tests, see Zenderland, Leila C., “Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1986)Google Scholar; Gelb, Steven A., “Social Deviance and the ‘Discovery’ of the Moron,” Disability, Handicap, & Society 2, no. 3 (1987): 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Goddard, “The Elimination of Feeble-Mindedness,” 513. “Imbecile Peril and the Cure,” Cleveland Press, 12 December 1912, Mental Care-Cleveland and Cuyahoga Co, at the Cleveland Press Collection, Newspaper Clippings, Cleveland State University. See also Goddard, Henry H., “Responsibility of Children in the Juvenile Court,” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 3 (1912): 365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Goddard was invoking the judicial principle of parens patriae (the idea that the state holds a kind of eminent domain over children); see Sutton, John, Stubborn Children: Controlling Delinquency in the United States, 1640–1980 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988), 11.Google Scholar

15. Henry H. Goddard as quoted by Emerick, Edison J., Annual Report of the IFMY, 1913, 21Google Scholar. Henry H. Goddard as quoted by Joseph P. Shaffer, OBA, Annual Report, 1914, 26. OBA, Publication, no. 5, 1915. OBA, Annual Report, 1914, 30. For eugenic thinkers, social opportunity creates not social mobility but genetic castes: a “cognitive underclass.” See Herrnstein, Richard, I.Q. in the Meritocracy (Boston, 1971)Google Scholar; Herrnstein, Richard and Murray, Charles, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York, 1994).Google Scholar

16. Underwood and Underwood, “Advocates of Eugenic Forces with Signs,” New York City, 27 October 1915. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Visual Materials Archive, ID #2003. Writing on the back of the photograph provides the term “Eugenic Forces,” as well as information about its source.

17. On the image of the childhood innocence, see Higonnet, Anne, Pictures of Innocence (New York, 1998)Google Scholar; on the sacralization of childhood, see Zelizer, Viviana, Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar. Ohio, Annual Report of the Institution for Feeble-Minded Youth, 1913, 21.

18. See OBSC, Correspondence, OHS, 2504. OBSC, Scrapbook, OHS, 1004. OBA, Annual Report, 1914, 340–59. OBA, Annual Report, 1914, 340–59. Rupert U. Hastings to Henry H. Goddard, 15 September 1919, Goddard Papers, AHAP, M-31. OBA, Annual Report, 1913, 95–97. OBA, Annual Report, 1913, 95. Cleveland Press, “Boys Ruled Best by Reason,” 4 January 1913, Cleveland State University, Press Collection.

19. Ohio, Opinion of the Attorney General, no. 2047, 16 November 1916, 1799. See Carey, Allison C., “Gender and Compulsory Sterilization Programs in America: 1907–1950,” Journal of Historical Sociology 11, no. 1 (03 1998): 92Google Scholar. “Research Bureau Marks New Era Says Dr. Goddard,” date unknown (1919?), M31.1 Goddard Papers; Charles B. Davenport, “Heredity, Culpability, Praiseworthiness, Punishment, and Reward,” Popular Science Monthly 83 (July 1913): 33–39. For a more detailed analysis of the institutional and political troubles faced by Goddard's eugenic forces in Ohio, see Ryan, Patrick J., “Unnatural Selection: Intelligence Testing, Eugenics, and American Political Cultures,” Journal of Social History 30 (Spring 1997): 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Howett, Harry H., “Division of Child-Care,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 28 (12 1921): 36, 39Google Scholar; Howett, Harry H., “Physical Difficulties of the Visitor,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction (11 1912): 27Google Scholar; Williams, C. V., “The Children's Bureau,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 22 (1916): 115–121Google Scholar. Coshocton Tribune, 8 November 1915, OBSC, Scrapbook, OHS 1004. “The Children's Welfare Department of Ohio Board of State Charities Plays Stork to Many Ohio Families,” in OBSC, Correspondence, OHS, 2504, f. 1–2.

21. For the cottage construction process, see OBA, Proceedings, 10 March 1919, 22 July 1919, 20 October 1919, OHS, 467. The county had to “bear all expenses incident to the transportation of each child from such county to such ‘bureau of juvenile research.’” The Laws of Ohio, OL 103, HB 214, 1913. Ohio, General Code, 1920, section 1841–6. See also Hart, Hastings H., “The Ohio Children's Code,” The Survey, vol. 10, 07 19, 1913, 518Google Scholar. For a study of mortality at the Ohio Institution for the Feeble-minded between 1901 and 1925, see Martz, Eugene W., “Mortality Among the Mentally Deficient,” Training School Bulletin 31 (02 1934): 185–197.Google Scholar

22. The data were compiled from Ohio, Board of Administration, Publications, 19, “The Bureau of Juvenile Research, review of the Work, 1918–1920,” and Goddard, Juvenile Delinquency, 1923; see the draft of Mateer's annual report, Goddard Papers, M31.1, Archives of American Psychology, University of Akron.

23. A survey of Cleveland's social agencies in 1926 found that 1,590 “psychometric” tests had been administered to Clevelanders (most to juveniles). Only 19 tests (1.2%) were administered by the Bureau of Juvenile Research, whereas the juvenile court's own Child Guidance Clinic administered 151 tests in the county. Western Reserve University, The Social Adjustment of the Feeble-Minded: A group thesis study of 898 feeble-minded individuals known to Cleveland's social agencies (Cleveland, 1930), 36Google Scholar. Cuyahoga County contained about 1 million of the 5 million Ohioans in the 1920 census. The juvenile court in Cuyahoga dealt with 3,778 cases in 1920 and 3,151 in 1921. This would project to 34,645 youths being handled in the two-year period of 1918–20. Based on national averages of about 350 juveniles who were before the courts per 100,000 population in 1919, that would project to 37,000 in the state of Ohio. See the U.S. Census, Ohio, 1920, and Annual Report, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, 1929. “Research Bureau Marks New Era Says Dr. Goddard,” newspaper clipping in Goddard Papers, M31.1, AHAP.

24. See “Mental Examination of Juvenile Delinquents,” “Mental Survey of the Ohio State School for the Blind,” “The Increasing Cost of Crime in Ohio,” “Crime Prevention: The Study of Causes,” all by Thomas Haines, and “The Family of Sam Sixty” by Mary Storer Kostir, in Ohio. Board of Administration, Publications, nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Caldwell, Morris Gilmore, “Recent Trends in Juvenile Delinquency,” Journal of Juvenile Research 17 (1933): 179–190Google Scholar. Most of the testing (61.6%) was being done by the public schools to help sort students. Haines, Thomas H., “Detecting the Feeble-Minded in a City School Population,” Journal of Educational Psychology 10 (12 1919): 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. BJR, “Marie,” 2, 4. Henry H. Goddard to Superintendents of County Children's Homes, date unknown (1919–21), Goddard Papers, M-33, AHAP. Goddard, Henry H., “The State's Program for Juvenile Research,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 25, no. 2 (07 1919): 36.Google Scholar

26. Harford, A. E., “The Aims and Methods of the Church Home in Child Saving,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 21, no. 12 (01 1915): 110–114Google Scholar. See the essays between 91–115. (First name unknown) Saunders, “Children's Home Matrons,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 25, no. 1 (1917): 116–17; Saunders, , “Discipline and Recreation of Children, Or Reward Better than Punishment,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 20, no. 2 (1914): 77–80.Google Scholar

27. BJR, “Marie,” 4. Addams, George S., “Mother's Pensions,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 21, no. 1 (01 1915): 19Google Scholar; St. John, Lewis E., “The Inter-relation of the Children's Homes and the Juvenile Courts,” Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Correction 21, no. 1 (01 1915): 119.Google Scholar

28. For the national shift, see Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind, 180–82. At the bureau, the physicians, under Gertrude Transeau, led a revolt against the psychologists and Florence Mateer that resulted in eleven resignations on 4 April 1921 and a subsequent House probe into the operations of the bureau. (Goddard Papers, M-33.) Goddard described the resignations to the Columbus media as a result of “Mob Psychology,” Ohio State Journal, Columbus, 29 April 1921, Goddard Papers, AHAP, M-31.1. On the House probe's recommendation, Goddard's salary was cut from $7,500 to $4,000, staff salaries from $59,000 to $25,000, and capital outlays from $16,400 to $9,800. “Bulletin No. 16,” Ohio Institute for Public Efficiency, Goddard Papers, AHAP, M-31, Goddard Papers, AHAP, M-31.1.

29. BJR, “Marie,” 3–6. Goddard, The Kallikak Family, 11–12. A “defective delinquent” was someone who was by virtue of their feeblemindedness more likely to be involved in delinquent or criminal social behavior. Walter Fernald may have been the first person to use this phrase in 1912. See Scheerenberger, R. C., A History of Mental Retardation (Baltimore, 1983), 152Google Scholar; Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind, 155–83.

30. BJR, “Marie,” 5.

31. BJR, Field Clinic, no. 6632.

32. Murchison, Carl, “Mental Tests and Other Concomitants of Some White Women Criminals,” Pedagogical Seminary 33 (1926): 521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lowell as quoted in Rafter, Nicole Hahn, “Claims-Making and Socio-Cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics Campaign,” Social Problems 39, no. 1 (02 1992): 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Otis Castle writing for the American Bar Association in 1928, as quoted by Carey, “Gender and Compulsory Sterilization” (note 19 above), 86. Ryan, Patrick J., “Shaping Modern Youth: Social Policy and Growing Up Working Class in Industrial America” (Ph.D. diss., CWRU, 1998), 189–191Google Scholar. In 1939, 61 percent of mothers receiving aid for dependent children were widows. This did not change until the late 1950s, and by 1961 the figure had fallen to 7.7 percent. Abramovitz, M., Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Policy from Colonial Times to the Present (Boston, 1988), 321.Google Scholar

33. BJR, “Marie,” 5.

34. For the case law that established authority to incarcerate feebleminded adults committed as children, see “Doren v. Fleming,” Ohio Law Bulletin 50 (1905): 135Google Scholar. Ohio, Circuit Court Reports, New Series, vol. 6, 1905, 81–86. On the Women's Protective Association, see Van Tassel, David D. and Grabowski, John J., eds., The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History (Bloomington, 1996)Google Scholar. More generally, see Odem, Mary E., Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885–1920 (Chapel Hill, 1995).Google Scholar

35. Wembridge, Eleanor Rowland, “Work with Socially Maladjusted Girls,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology 17 (1922): 79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Derby, Mary Marrow, “The Upper Fifths,” Mental Hygiene 14 (1930): 12–39.Google Scholar

36. On the shift in sterilization, see Reilly, XXX The Surgical Solution (1991), 98; Guliotta, “‘Dr. Sharp with His Little Knife’”; Carey, “Gender and Compulsory Sterilization,” 84. See Ohio Race Betterment Association, “Race Betterment: A Symposium,” Brush Foundation Publication no. IV, in Brush Foundation Drawer no. 4 at Planned Parenthood of Greater Cleveland. On the Brush Foundation and maternal health in Cleveland, see Meyer, Jimmy, “Birth Control Policy, Practice, and Prohibition in the 1930s: The Maternal Health Association of Cleveland, Ohio” (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1993), 108, 114.Google Scholar

37. BJR, Field Clinic, no. 6632, 4. BJR, “Marie,” 7. Growdon, C. H., “A Preliminary Study of the Effectiveness of a State-Wide Behavior Clinic,” Quarterly Bulletin of the Managing Officers Association (Ohio) 12, no. 1 (1935): 6–12Google Scholar. Stogdill, Ralph M., The Behavior Cards: Manual of Directions of a Test-Interview for Delinquent Children (Columbus, 1941).Google Scholar

38. Growdon, Clarence Holmes, “A Study of Free Associations Based on a New Technique” (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1928)Google Scholar. Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Juvenile Research, “Marie”, 1, 3. See also case report no. 6632, Bureau of Juvenile Research, Department of Field Clinics, OHS-2510, B 21 8E, 2.

39. Popenoe as quoted in Ladd-Taylor, “Eugenics, Sterilization, and Modern Marriage in the USA,” 306. Ladd-Taylor, “Saving Babies and Sterilizing Mothers,” 143. On Terman and schools, see Chapman, Paul D., Schools as Sorters: Lewis M. Terman, Applied Psychology, and the Intelligence Testing Movement, 1890–1930 (New York, 1988)Google Scholar. Willrich, Michael, “The Two Percent Solution: Eugenic Jurisprudence and the Socialization of American Law, 1900–1930,” Law and History Review 16 (Spring 1998): 63–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rembis, Michael A., “‘I ain't been reading while on parole’: Experts, Mental Tests, and Eugenic Commitment Law in Illinois, 1890–1940,” History of Psychology 7, no. 3 (2004): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. Mitchell, C. Ben, “Hurtling toward Eugenics … Again,” Ethics & Medicine 18, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 3–5Google Scholar; Stolba, Christine, “Overcoming Motherhood: Pushing the Limits of Reproductive Choice,” Policy Review (12 2002–January 2003): 31–41Google Scholar. Announcement to the Third International Eugenics Congress as shown in Selden, Steven, “Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families: Archival Resources and the History of the American Eugenics, 1908–1930,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 149, no. 2 (06 2005): 203Google ScholarPubMed. See note 6 above for more on the interwar transition debate.

41. “Flashing Light Exhibit at Fitter Families Contest,” 1926. American Philosophical Society, AES, Am3, 575.06, 44. [Accessed 26 October 2006] online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/5.html

42. On the human sciences as a project where “man appears in his ambiguous position as object of knowledge and as subject that knows,” see Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York, 1970), 312Google Scholar. Sanger, Margaret, “Why Not Birth Control in America?” Birth Control Review (05 1919): 10–11Google Scholar; See Franks, Angela, Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility (McFarland, 2005). XXXGoogle Scholar

43. Offen, M. Lewis, “Dealing with Defectives: Foster Kennedy and William Lennox on Eugenics,” Neurology 61, no. 5 (9 09 2003): 668–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Human Betterment League and Birthright materials are shown in Vogel, “Regulating Degeneracy,” 135.

44. Fost, Norman, “America's Gulag Archipelago,” New England Journal of Medicine 351, no. 23 (12 2, 2004): 2369–2370CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. On the radiation experiments at the Fernald School, see D'Antonio, Michael, The State Boys Rebellion (New York, 2004)Google Scholar; Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Final Report (Washington, D.C., 1995)Google Scholar. On eugenic reforms, statutes, and cases in the 1950s and 1960s, see Paul, Julius, “The Return of Punitive Sterilization Proposals: Current Attacks on Illegitimacy and the AFDC Program,” Law and Society Review 3, no. 1 (08 1968): 77–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dorr, Gregory Michael, “Principled Expediency: Eugenics, Naim v. Naim, and the Supreme Court,” American Journal of Legal History 42, no. 2 (1998): 199–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Thomas, Susan L., “Race, Gender, and Welfare Reform: The Antinatialist Response,” Journal of Black Studies 28, no. 4 (03 1998): 419–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See the Applied Research Center's “The False Foundations of Welfare Reform, 2001” at http://www.colorado.edu/journals/standards/V7N2/FEATURE/reform.html. Morrison, J. L., “Illegitimacy, Sterilization, and Racism: A North Carolina Case History,” Social Science Review 39 (1965): 1–10Google Scholar. Macklin, Ruth and Gaylin, Willard, Mental Retardation and Sterilization: A Problem of Competency and Paternalism (New York, 1981), 69, 75–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As quoted in Amy Vogel, “Regulating Degeneracy” (1995): 140–41. As quoted in Howard v. Des Moines Register and the Tribune Company, and Dr. Roy C. Sloan, and Margaret Engel 283 N.W.2d 289. Jessie quoted in Thomas Fields-Meyer and Steve Helling, “Sterilized by the State, a Woman Fights Back” People, 18 August 2003, 87–88.

46. Herrnstein, and Murray, , The Bell Curve (New York, 1994), 519Google Scholar. See Thomas (1998); Mertus, J. and Heller, S., “Norplant Meets the New Eugenists: The Impermissibility of Coerced Contraception,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 11 (1992): 359–383.Google Scholar