Madrigal v. Quilligan

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal class action lawsuit filed out of Los Angeles County, California, in 1976. Dolores Madrigal, the lead plaintiff in the case, was one of ten women who filed the suit against Dr. James Quilligan, as well as additional officials from the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. According to the case, the women alleged they were either coerced into having a sterilization procedure or the procedure was performed without their informed consent. The case is one example in a history of questionable sterilizations across the United States involving women of color. Some scholars point to the eugenics movements and racism in general as what prompted the twentieth century sterilizations of women of color in the United States. Eugenics refers to the scientifically unsubstantiated theories surrounding racial improvement that is often associated with World War II (1939–1945) and the Holocaust.

In Madrigal v. Quilligan, prosecutors referenced the then-newly decided case of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade acknowledged a woman’s reproductive rights to have an abortion or to have children. Attorneys for the ten Latinx women involved in Madrigal v. Quilligan, argued those rights were taken away from their clients. Dr. Bernard Rosenfeld was the whistleblower who first spoke of the problems within the USC hospital. He gathered information and petitioned journalists and civil rights organizations for help. Attorneys Antonia Hernandez and Charles Navarrete, as well as Gloria Molina, a Chicana activist, took on the case and obtained the women’s stories. Although the courts sided with the medical center, the case and the women’s stories influenced the California Department of Health to change their sterilization and consent procedures.

Background

Coerced sterilization within the United States has a lengthy history, particularly when dealing with racial minorities, individuals with disabilities, and those in low socioeconomic levels. The US Supreme Court decision in Buck v Bell legitimized sterilization practices in 1927. As the Nazi regime in Germany began implementing a similar eugenics strategy, opinion changed within the United States and a counter-movement began. Although the case Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942) did not overturn Buck v Bell, the decision stated that compulsory sterilization laws should be subject to the strictest scrutiny. The decision also stated that eugenic sterilization was not a legitimate state goal.

However, sterilization and sterilization abuse did not cease. Legal scholar Maya Manian reported that a 1970 fertility study indicated that 20 percent of both married Black women and Chicana women had been sterilized. In California, Mexican-American women were repeatedly targets for sterilization. This contributed to California’s frequently noted history of questionable sterilization.

Eugenics theory, or the practice of eugenics, involves reproduction between those with looked-for traits or characteristics to create a more desirable gene pool. Historically, this has meant eliminating or hindering the reproduction of those who have criminal records, poor intelligence, lower socioeconomic status, or illness. From a linguistic standpoint, the term eugenics means “good creation.” The ancient Greek philosopher Plato is believed to have first promoted the concept of eugenics when he discussed the creation of a super society. Eugenics is frequently discussed in terms of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, but it also has roots in the United States. In the twenty-first century, eugenics is more typically addressed in terms of genetic engineering. Although it is still controversial, proponents argue that scientists are more ethically responsible and focused on eradicating genetic diseases.

Overview

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a civil-rights class-action lawsuit filed out of Los Angeles, California. The plaintiffs included ten women: Dolores Madrigal, Guadalupe Acosta, Estella Benavides, Maria Figueroa, Rebecca Figueroa, Consuelo Hermosillo, Georgina Hernández, Maria Hurtado, Helena Orozco, and Jovita Rivera. All of the women were from East Los Angeles, which was largely Latinx and had poor medical and educational resources available to its population. Madrigal was chosen as the lead plaintiff in the case. She entered the hospital to deliver her second child and rejected a nurse’s suggestion of a sterilization. During her delivery, Madrigal overheard the nurse telling Madrigal’s husband that she would die if she became pregnant again, a fact that was untrue. Madrigal signed the consent form without reading it, and wrongly believed that the procedure was reversible.

Dr. Bernard Rosenfield was the whistleblower who brought the questionable sterilizations to the public eye. Rosenfield sought help by reaching out with evidence to journalists, attorneys, and other public groups. Attorneys Antonia Hernandez and Charles Navarrete of the Model Cities Center for Law and Justice worked with Gloria Molina of Comisión Feminil on the case. The case centered on whether the medical center performed sterilizations without informed consent and whether Latinx patients were specifically targeted. Attorneys used Roe v. Wade as a basis for their suit, arguing that women possessed the right to an abortion as well as to procreate. Advocates also criticized that documents were not written in Spanish.

Karen Benker, a hospital employee, spoke out against Dr. James Quilligan. Benker testified that Quilligan believed sterilization was good because poor, minority women were having too many children and placing a strain on society. Ultimately, the court decided on behalf of the defendants, citing poor communication and unfortunate circumstances. However, the plaintiffs won the case in the public’s eye. California’s Department of Health reevaluated its sterilization procedures, adding a seventy-two-hour waiting period between consent and the actual procedure. The department also required materials in Spanish, as well as English.

In May of 2023, Prism, an independent, non-profit news outlet, reported that more than five-hundred people who had been sterilized against their will between 1909 and 1979 had not yet come forward to receive a portion of the $4.5 million available as part of the state’s Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program. The program was created in 2021, but as of April of 2023, only eighty of more than six-hundred people eligible had applications approved.

Bibliography

“Eugenics.” History, 28 Oct. 2019, www.history.com/topics/european-history/eugenics. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Manian, Maya. “The Story of Madrigal v. Quilligan: Coerced Sterilization of Mexican-American Women,” University of San Francisco Law Research Paper, 6 Mar. 2018, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract‗id=3134892. Accessed 7 June 2023.

“1978: Madrigal v. Quilligan.” Library of Congress, guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/madrigal-v-quilligan#. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Phillips, Craig. “Renee Tajima-Peña on the Women of the Madrigal vs Quilligan Case.” PBS, 29 Jan. 2016, www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/renee-tajima-pena-on-the-women-of-the-madrigal-vs-quilligan-case/. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Reyes, Montse. “California Struggles to Locate Victims of Forced Sterilization for Compensation Program,” Prism, 18 May 2023, prismreports.org/2023/05/18/california-struggles-locate-victims-forced-sterilization/. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Stern, Alexandra Minna. “Sterilized in the Name of Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health, 95(7): 112801138, prismreports.org/2023/05/18/california-struggles-locate-victims-forced-sterilization/. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Valdes, Marcela. “When Doctors Took Family Planning into their Own Hands,” The New York Times Magazine, 1 Feb. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/magazine/when-doctors-took-family-planning-into-their-own-hands.html. Accessed 7 June 2023.