Editing Compulsory sterilization (section)

==== Criminal justice system ====
{{Further|Compulsory sterilization of disabled people in the U.S. prison system}}
In addition to eugenics purposes, sterilization was used as a punitive measure against sex offenders, people identified as homosexual, or people deemed to masturbate too much.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last1=Amy |first1=Jean-Jacques |last2=Rowlands |first2=Sam |date=2018-04-19 |title=Legalised non-consensual sterilisation – eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 2: Europe |url=http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30595/3/Forced%20sterilisation-EJCRHC-MS-Part%202%20SR%20comments%20addressed%20JJA.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=194–200 |doi=10.1080/13625187.2018.1458227 |issn=1362-5187 |pmid=29671357 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200305183759/http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30595/3/Forced%20sterilisation-EJCRHC-MS-Part%202%20SR%20comments%20addressed%20JJA.pdf |archive-date=2020-03-05 |access-date=2019-12-16 |s2cid=4981162}}</ref> California, the first state in the U.S. to enact compulsory sterilization based on eugenics, sterilized all prison inmates under the 1909 sterilization law.<ref name=":9" /> In the last 40 years, judges have offered lighter punishment (i.e. probation instead of jail sentences) to people willing to use contraception or be sterilized, particularly in child abuse/endangerment cases.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ginzberg |first=Janet F. |date=Fall 1992 |title=NOTE: COMPULSORY CONTRACEPTION AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION: THE USE AND ABUSE OF NORPLANT |journal=Brooklyn Law Review |volume=58}}</ref> One of the most famous cases of this was ''People v. Darlene Johnson'', during which Johnson, a woman charged with child abuse sentenced to seven years in prison, was offered probation and a reduced prison sentence if she agreed to use [[Norplant]].<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last=Berger |first=Emily |date=May 2007 |title=THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE POOR AND MINORITY TO HAVE FAMILIES: JUDGES AS FAMILY PLANNERS, THE VILIFICATION OF THE POOR, AND DESTRUCTION OF THE BLACK FAMILY |journal=Rutgers Race & the Law Review |volume=8 |pages=259–290}}</ref>

In addition to child abuse cases, some politicians proposed bills mandating Norplant use among women on public assistance as a requirement to maintain welfare benefits.<ref name=":10" /> As noted above, some judges offered probation in lieu of prison time to women who agreed to use Norplant, while other court cases have ordered parents to cease childbearing until regaining custody of their children after abuse cases. Some legal scholars and ethicists argue such practices are inherently coercive.<ref name=":10" /> Furthermore, such scholars link these practices to eugenic policies of the 19th and early 20th century, highlighting how such practices not only targeted poor people, but disproportionately impacted minority women and families in the U.S., particularly black women.

In the late 1970s, to acknowledge the history of forced and coercive sterilizations and prevent ongoing eugenics/population control efforts, the federal government implemented a standardized informed consent process and specific eligibility criteria for government funded sterilization procedures.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |last1=Borrero |first1=Sonya |last2=Zite |first2=Nikki |last3=Creinin |first3=Mitchell D. |date=October 2012 |title=Federally Funded Sterilization: Time to Rethink Policy? |journal=American Journal of Public Health |volume=102 |issue=10 |pages=1822–1825 |doi=10.2105/ajph.2012.300850 |issn=0090-0036 |pmc=3490665 |pmid=22897531}}</ref> Some scholars argue the extensive consent process and 30-day waiting period go beyond preventing instances of coercion and serve as a barrier to desired sterilization for women relying on public insurance.<ref name=":11" />

Though formal eugenics laws are no longer routinely implemented and have been removed from government documents, instances of reproductive coercion still take place in U.S. institutions today. In 2011, investigative news released a report revealing that between 2006 and 2011, 148 female prisoners in two California state prisons were sterilized without adequate informed consent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stern |first=Alex |date=23 July 2013 |title=Sterilization Abuse in State Prisons |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sterilization-california-prisons_b_3631287 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140421075350/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-stern/sterilization-california-prisons_b_3631287.html |archive-date=2014-04-21 |website=Huffington Post}}</ref> In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB 1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure shall be required in a medical emergency to preserve an inmate's life.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SB 1135 |url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1135 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141002061808/http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1135 |archive-date=2 October 2014 |access-date=17 September 2014 |publisher=CA Gov}}</ref>