Eugenic sterilization as population improvement
01
What institutions accepted
Government, judicial, welfare and medical institutions treated disability, psychiatric diagnosis and socially defined “unfitness” as inherited population defects, and treated preventing selected people from reproducing as a legitimate way to improve the population. In practice, those classifications also absorbed judgments about poverty, sexuality, ethnicity, institutional status and conformity.
02
What the evidence supports now
Eugenic sterilization systems joined a false scientific generalization to an abuse of state and clinical power. They collapsed heterogeneous conditions and social labels into simple hereditary defects, overstated how reliably a diagnosis or category predicted a descendant's health, and converted that prediction into authority over another person's fertility. Some conditions genuinely have genetic components, but inheritance ranges from single-gene disorders to complex and environmentally mediated risks; neither genetic risk nor a social classification supplies consent. Sterilization requires the individual's full, free and informed decision and must be free from discrimination, coercion and violence.
03
Evidence for the overall belief
Open sources, locators and notes
- DocumentsHistorical beliefEugenics and Scientific RacismNational Human Genome Research Institute
Where in the source: “The Big Picture” and “What are eugenics and scientific racism?”
The federal genomics institute describes the erroneous simple-inheritance model for intelligence, social behavior and complex disease and its use to justify involuntary sterilization of people labelled unfit.
- SupportsPresent correctionEugenics and Scientific RacismNational Human Genome Research Institute
Where in the source: “The Big Picture”
Explains why eugenics' selective-breeding theory and simplistic Mendelian treatment of complex traits are scientifically inaccurate.
- SupportsPresent correctionEliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilizationWHO, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF
Where in the source: overview and pp. 5, 13–14
Joint UN standard that sterilization must rest on the individual's full, free and informed decision and be free from discrimination, coercion and violence.
- SupportsImpactEugenics and Involuntary Sterilization, 1907–2015Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Where in the source: abstract
Cross-national review supporting the scale of U.S. and German programs and their shared reliance on eugenic heredity claims.
04
Impact
The five episodes were separate legal and administrative systems, so their totals are not directly additive. U.S. states sterilized at least 60,000 people under eugenic laws; Nazi Germany forcibly sterilized approximately 400,000. Sweden reported 62,888 operations under its 1935–1975 laws, with the later inquiry distinguishing voluntary cases, operations without consent, coercion-like conditions, pressure and unclassified files. Japan now describes about 25,000 people as victims of sterilizing operations under its former law. In Czechoslovakia, formally neutral medical rules were applied through racialized welfare and clinical practices that particularly harmed Romani women. Later remedies ranged from national annulment, inquiry and compensation to narrower or still-troubled successor-state programs.
Context
Counts in this field depend on the category being measured: statutes enacted, orders approved, operations performed, formally non-consensual cases, or procedures accepted under pressure. The Swedish official inquiry, for example, separated roughly 6,000 operations without consent, 15,000 under coercion-like circumstances and just over 6,000 with signs of persuasion or pressure; a later scholarly review used the broader estimate of approximately 32,000 involuntary procedures.
The scientific correction does not claim that heredity is irrelevant to every condition targeted. It rejects the institutional leap from a broad diagnosis or social judgment to a deterministic forecast about descendants and then to irreversible reproductive coercion.
Formal repeal ended the legal authority at different times, while acknowledgment and remedy often followed decades later. A correction status here describes the documented institutional response to the historical program; it does not imply that surgery can be undone or that every survivor received compensation.
people sterilized under U.S. state eugenic laws by the 1970s
people forcibly sterilized under the Nazi Hereditary Health Law
total sterilizations reported under Sweden's 1935–1975 laws, not all classified as coerced
sterilization victims now identified by Japan under the former Eugenic Protection Act
Historical totals and effects are presented as contextual evidence, not as universal causal claims.
Institutional episode 01
United States
North America
Indiana enacted the first U.S. eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and 32 states passed such statutes between 1907 and 1937. State institutions sterilized tens of thousands of people classified as unfit. In Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's law and Carrie Buck's sterilization order, allowing a medical and social judgment about supposed hereditary “feeblemindedness” to become enforceable constitutional policy.
Institutions involved
- Virginia General Assembly
- Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded
- Supreme Court of the United States
Institutional context
The United States had no single federal eugenic-sterilization authority. States enacted and administered their own laws through hospitals, custodial institutions, welfare officials and courts. Virginia shows the chain that produced the nationally influential precedent: its legislature enacted the 1924 law, the state colony selected Carrie Buck as a test case, and the Supreme Court upheld the order in 1927. Comparable systems operated across dozens of states.
Why this persisted
EnforcementState statutes authorized officials and institutions to petition for or order sterilization; medical testimony supplied hereditary classifications, and judicial review—including Buck v. Bell—legitimated the resulting surgery.
How correction happened
Partially corrected2001–2015
Action: Virginia formally expressed profound regret for its role and later created a compensation program paying $25,000 per verified eligible claim.
The documented remedies addressed particular state systems. Virginia acknowledged the false science and harm and funded compensation for a defined class of verified survivors, but those measures covered one part of a nationwide, state-administered pattern.
Consequences
- At least 60,000 people were sterilized under state eugenic laws by the 1970s
- Institutionalized people and people labelled disabled, “feebleminded” or socially unfit were targeted
- Buck v. Bell supplied constitutional authority for compulsory sterilization under Virginia's procedure
- State programs disproportionately harmed women, disabled people, poor people and racialized communities
- Apologies and compensation arrived state by state and covered only defined groups of survivors
Evidence for this episode
7 evidence linksOpen sources, locators and notes
- SupportsConsequencesEugenics and Involuntary Sterilization, 1907–2015Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Where in the source: abstract
Reviews Indiana's 1907 law, the 1927 Supreme Court decision, institutional targeting and the approximately 60,000 U.S. sterilizations.
- ContextualizesContextDemographic Patterns of Eugenic Sterilization in Five U.S. StatesNational Institutes of Health
Where in the source: project abstract
NIH-supported research project describing state eugenic laws and demographic analysis of their discriminatory implementation across five states.
- DocumentsInstitutional carrierBuck v. Bell — Library of Virginia document contextLibrary of Virginia
Where in the source: “Context,” paragraphs 2–7
Identifies Virginia's legislature, state colony, test-case strategy and the Supreme Court's role in making the state system nationally influential.
- DocumentsMechanismU.S. Reports — Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)Supreme Court of the United States / Library of Congress
Where in the source: 274 U.S. 200, 205–208
Primary opinion upholding Virginia's hearing and order procedure and allowing compulsory sterilization of Carrie Buck to proceed.
- ContextualizesContextEugenics and Scientific RacismNational Human Genome Research Institute
Where in the source: “What did eugenics look like in the United States?”
Connects U.S. eugenic classifications to racism, ableism and at least 60,000 involuntary sterilizations by the 1970s.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionHouse Joint Resolution No. 299 — Honoring the memory of Carrie BuckVirginia General Assembly
Where in the source: enrolled H.J.R. 299 (2002)
Official resolution records Virginia's profound regret and calls the sterilization act false, discredited science and a source of harm.
- DocumentsInstitutional correction12VAC35-240 — Victims of Sterilization Fund AdministrationVirginia Register of Regulations
Where in the source: 12VAC35-240-70
Official rule establishing $25,000 compensation for a verified eligible claim, contingent on available funding.
Institutional episode 02
Nazi Germany
Europe
The 1933 Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases made a blanket hereditary forecast enforceable through medicine, administration and special courts from January 1934. Broad psychiatric, neurological, sensory and social diagnoses were treated as reliable evidence that descendants would have severe hereditary defects. The system compulsorily sterilized approximately 400,000 people before the Nazi regime ended.
Institutions involved
- Reichsministerium des Innern
- Erbgesundheitsgerichte
- Erbgesundheitsobergerichte
- Gesundheitsämter und Amtsärzte
Institutional context
The Interior Ministry directed implementation of the July 1933 law. Public-health offices, physicians and institution directors reported and initiated cases; Hereditary Health Courts, each combining a judge and physicians, issued orders; Higher Hereditary Health Courts heard appeals; and hospitals performed the operations. Once an order was final, the statute permitted sterilization against the person's will with police assistance.
Why this persisted
EnforcementStatutory diagnostic categories, compulsory reporting, medical assessment and special-court orders converted eugenic heredity claims into surgery enforceable by police-backed physical compulsion.
How correction happened
Corrected1998
Action: The German Bundestag legislatively annulled surviving sterilization decisions of the former Hereditary Health Courts.
The coercive machinery ended in 1945, while formal rehabilitation lagged. The Bundestag later recognized the sterilizations as National Socialist injustice and in 1998 removed the continuing legal force of the court orders.
Consequences
- Approximately 400,000 people were forcibly sterilized under the Hereditary Health Law
- Nine diagnostic categories were converted into statutory grounds for reproductive surgery
- Elastic labels such as “congenital feeblemindedness” absorbed social nonconformity and disputed testing
- Special courts and medical reporting made eugenic prediction a routine administrative process
- Survivors waited decades for formal condemnation and annulment of the court orders
Evidence for this episode
7 evidence linksOpen sources, locators and notes
- DocumentsInstitutional carrierLaws and Decrees — Sterilization LawUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Where in the source: section “Sterilization Law”
Documents the July 1933 law and the state classification of specified physical and mental conditions as hereditary disease.
- SupportsConsequencesLaws and Decrees — Sterilization LawUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Where in the source: section “Sterilization Law”
- DocumentsInstitutional carrierErbgesundheitsgerichte im Regierungsbezirk Magdeburg, 1934–1946 — Bestand C 136 ILandesarchiv Sachsen-Anhalt
Where in the source: archival description, Bestand C 136 I
Official archive description identifies the health offices, medical officers, Hereditary Health Courts, appellate courts and Interior Ministry directions in one regional record system.
- DocumentsMechanismErbgesundheitsgerichte im Regierungsbezirk Magdeburg, 1934–1946 — Bestand C 136 ILandesarchiv Sachsen-Anhalt
Where in the source: archival description, Bestand C 136 I
- SupportsConsequencesEugenics and Involuntary Sterilization, 1907–2015Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Where in the source: abstract
Scholarly review estimates that German Hereditary Health Courts approved at least 400,000 sterilization operations.
- DocumentsMechanismLaw for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases — 14 July 1933German History in Documents and Images
Where in the source: §§1–12
Primary law text defines the diagnostic grounds, court composition, appeal process and compulsory enforcement of final orders.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionDraft law annulling sterilization decisions of the former Hereditary Health Courts — 1998German Bundestag
Where in the source: Bundestagsdrucksache 13/10708, pp. 1–4
Legislative record characterizes the sterilizations as National Socialist injustice and provides for annulment of surviving court decisions.
Institutional episode 03
Sweden
Europe
Sweden's 1934 and 1941 sterilization laws operated from 1935 through 1975 through a centralized permit system and local medical and welfare actors. A later government inquiry found that practice changed substantially over time, from predominantly coercive, population and racial-hygiene rationales toward predominantly voluntary family planning. Its file review nevertheless documented operations without consent, coercion-like conditions and official pressure.
Institutions involved
- Medicinalstyrelsen
- Socialstyrelsen (from 1968)
Institutional context
Medicinalstyrelsen—and from 1968 Socialstyrelsen—was the central permit authority and issued guidance. Applications could be initiated or shaped by institution directors, physicians, child-welfare and poor-relief bodies, and approved procedures were carried out in hospitals. Formal applications or signatures did not necessarily show free choice: sterilization could be made a condition of discharge, abortion, marriage permission or public assistance.
Why this persisted
Administrative adoptionA central permit system joined medical indications to applications assembled by local clinical, institutional and welfare officials; dependence on release, abortion or assistance could turn nominal consent into conditional coercion.
How correction happened
Corrected1975–2000
Action: Sweden replaced the earlier laws with a consent-based 1975 statute, commissioned an official inquiry and enacted a 1999 compensation law for qualifying people sterilized against their will or on another person's initiative.
The coercive legal framework ended, and the later national response documented the state's responsibility and created a standardized compensation route. By October 2000 the compensation board had decided about 1,500 cases and approved roughly 82 percent of applications.
Consequences
- Sweden recorded 62,888 sterilizations under the laws in force from 1935 through 1975
- The official inquiry classified about 6,000 as without consent and 15,000 as occurring under coercion-like conditions
- Just over 6,000 further files showed persuasion or pressure, while more than 4,000 could not be classified
- Ninety-three percent of all people sterilized during the period were women
- Vulnerable and institutionalized people were especially exposed to official pressure
Evidence for this episode
7 evidence linksOpen sources, locators and notes
- DocumentsInstitutional carrierSteriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935–1975 — SOU 2000:20Sveriges riksdag / Statens offentliga utredningar
Where in the source: main report and Annex 2, “Tvång – frivillighet”
Official inquiry identifies the central permit authority and the clinical, institutional and welfare actors that initiated and implemented applications.
- DocumentsMechanismSteriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935–1975 — SOU 2000:20Sveriges riksdag / Statens offentliga utredningar
Where in the source: Annex 2, “Tvång – frivillighet”
Shows how institutional confinement and conditions attached to abortion or discharge could produce coercion despite a formal signature.
- SupportsConsequencesSteriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935–1975 — SOU 2000:20Sveriges riksdag / Statens offentliga utredningar
Where in the source: statistical overview and Annex 2
Records 62,888 operations and analyzes coercion, voluntariness and pressure rather than treating every procedure as equivalent.
- ContextualizesContextLegalised non-consensual sterilisation — eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 2: EuropePubMed
Where in the source: abstract; pp. 194–200
Comparative review gives the broader estimate of about 32,000 involuntary Swedish sterilizations and follows later acknowledgment and reparation.
- ContextualizesContextCompulsory sterilisation in SwedenBioethics
Where in the source: abstract; Bioethics 12(3), pp. 236–249
Contemporary ethical analysis distinguishes autonomy, biological-skepticism and caution arguments in evaluating the Swedish policy.
- SupportsConsequencesRedogörelse för steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige åren 1935–1975 och regeringens åtgärderGovernment of Sweden / Sveriges riksdag
Where in the source: section 4.2, “Omfattningen och karaktären”
Government report separates about 31,000 voluntary cases, nearly 6,000 without consent, 15,000 under coercion-like circumstances, more than 6,000 with pressure and more than 4,000 unclassified.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionRedogörelse för steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige åren 1935–1975 och regeringens åtgärderGovernment of Sweden / Sveriges riksdag
Where in the source: sections 2–3 and 5
Describes the 1999 compensation law, eligibility rules, official inquiry and early decisions of the compensation board.
Institutional episode 04
Japan
East Asia
Japan's Eugenic Protection Act operated from 1948 until its eugenic provisions were removed in 1996. It expressly ranked people with specified diseases or disabilities as an undesirable reproductive category and authorized sterilizing operations through national guidance, prefectural review and medical implementation. The government now describes approximately 25,000 people as victims of sterilizing operations under the former law.
Institutions involved
- Ministry of Health and Welfare (厚生省)
- Prefectural Eugenic Protection Review Boards (都道府県優生保護審査会)
- Central Eugenic Protection Review Board (中央優生保護審査会)
Institutional context
The 1948 Act stated that it sought to prevent the birth of “inferior descendants” from a eugenic viewpoint. The Ministry issued implementation instructions to prefectural governors; prefectural boards reviewed compulsory cases, a central body performed supervisory or review functions, and designated physicians and medical institutions carried out the operations. The statutory scheme also sought consent for some categories in a context the Supreme Court later held could not make the eugenic operation voluntary.
Why this persisted
EnforcementStatutory disability lists, ministry circulars, prefectural review-board decisions and designated medical providers turned a eugenic population objective into approved and, in specified cases, physically compelled operations.
How correction happened
Corrected1996–2025
Action: Japan removed the eugenic provisions in 1996; in 2024 the Supreme Court held them unconstitutional and the Diet enacted a new apology and compensation law, effective in 2025.
The Grand Bench held that the eugenic purpose was unjustifiable, that both compulsory and nominally consent-based provisions violated constitutional dignity and equality, and that the state could not use the old exclusion period to defeat the claims. The 2024 law accepted responsibility, apologized and established compensation for survivors, spouses and certain bereaved relatives.
Consequences
- About 25,000 people underwent sterilizing operations under the former Eugenic Protection Act
- People with specified disabilities or diseases, and in some provisions their spouses or relatives, were singled out
- Prefectural review boards converted statutory disability classifications into compulsory-operation approvals
- Government implementation guidance permitted restraint or deception in carrying out some approved operations
- Survivors faced decades of barriers before the Supreme Court recognized state liability
Evidence for this episode
7 evidence linksOpen sources, locators and notes
- ContextualizesContextJapan turns pro-life — recent change in reproductive health policy and challenges by new technologiesReproductive Health
Where in the source: “Eugenic Protection Law and its transition to Maternal Body Protection Law”
Reviews the Act's eugenic purpose, compulsory provisions and 1996 removal of the eugenic clauses.
- SupportsConsequencesJapan turns pro-life — recent change in reproductive health policy and challenges by new technologiesReproductive Health
Where in the source: Table 1 and historical policy discussion
- DocumentsInstitutional carrierMeasures concerning the implementation of amendments to the Eugenic Protection ActJapan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Where in the source: Ministry circular 発衛第132号, 23 July 1952
Primary ministry circular to prefectural governors documents national implementation and the review-board structure after the 1952 amendments.
- DocumentsMechanismMeasures concerning the implementation of amendments to the Eugenic Protection ActJapan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Where in the source: Ministry circular 発衛第132号, implementation instructions
- SupportsConsequencesPosition of the Lump-Sum Payment Certification Review Board under the former Eugenic Protection ActJapan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Where in the source: “Reference: number of eugenic operations,” p. 1
Official review-board material reports approximately 25,000 eugenic operations under the former Act and notes that surviving direct records exist for only about 3,000 people.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionSupreme Court Grand Bench judgment 2023 (Ju) 1319 — former Eugenic Protection ActSupreme Court of Japan
Where in the source: Grand Bench judgment of 3 July 2024, reasons §§1–8
Holds the eugenic-operation provisions unconstitutional under dignity and equality guarantees, finds the legislative act unlawful and rejects the state's limitations defense.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionAct on compensation payments under the former Eugenic Protection Act — Act No. 70 of 2024Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Where in the source: preamble and arts. 3–5, 10–16
The 2024 statute accepts responsibility, apologizes and establishes compensation for survivors, spouses, relatives and people subjected to specified abortions.
Institutional episode 05
Czechoslovakia
Eastern Europe
The 1972 sterilization directives were formally ethnicity-neutral and described consent procedures, but their administration did not guarantee free and informed choice. Doctors and social workers disproportionately and coercively applied sterilization to Romani women. Historical scholarship traces this practice through continuities among eugenics, medical genetics and socialist population and welfare policy, while the Czech Ombudsman's inquiry documented unlawful operations and systemic defects in informed consent.
Institutions involved
- Ministry of Health of the Czech Socialist Republic
- Ministry of Health of the Slovak Socialist Republic
- Sterilization commissions established under the 1972 directives
Institutional context
Parallel Czech and Slovak rules placed decisions in hospital-based sterilization commissions and included genetic indications. The written rules required an application or consent, yet medical and social-welfare personnel shaped access, information and incentives. Later investigation found sterilizations without valid informed consent and a wider state-supported setting in which Romani women were disproportionately targeted; unlawful practice also continued beyond the socialist period in the territory of the successor Czech Republic.
Why this persisted
Administrative adoptionHealth-ministry directives created medical indications and hospital commissions; clinicians and welfare officials then controlled information, applications and benefits in ways that could convert nominal consent into coercion.
How correction happened
Partially corrected2009–present
Action: The Czech government apologized in 2009, and a law effective in 2022 created lump-sum compensation for unlawful sterilizations performed from 1966 to 2012 on the territory of today's Czech Republic.
The Czech successor state created an acknowledgment and remedy, but the response is territorially narrower than the former Czechoslovak system and its administration has remained troubled. The Czech Ombudsman documented delayed decisions, overly formal demands for missing medical records and other barriers in the compensation process.
Consequences
- Romani women were disproportionately subjected to sterilization without full and informed consent
- Welfare pressure and financial incentives could make formally signed requests coercive
- Hospital commissions and clinicians could turn social and ethnic judgments into irreversible surgery
- Missing or destroyed medical files later obstructed proof and compensation claims
- The Czech remedy covers unlawful procedures on present-day Czech territory, while the episode involved a former federal state
Evidence for this episode
8 evidence linksOpen sources, locators and notes
- DocumentsInstitutional carrier1972 sterilization directive of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Socialist RepublicASPI / text of Ministry of Health directive
Where in the source: §§2, 5–11 and annex; effective 1 January 1972
Primary Czech directive names the health ministry, defines medical and genetic indications and establishes hospital sterilization commissions.
- DocumentsMechanism1972 sterilization directive of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Socialist RepublicASPI / text of Ministry of Health directive
Where in the source: §§5–11
Sets out applications, commission approval, guardian participation and the written-consent process through which the procedure was administered.
- SupportsInstitutional carrierThe Forced Sterilization of Roma Women between the 1970s and the 1980s — The Rise of Eugenic SocialismAmsterdam University Press / Cambridge Core
Where in the source: pp. 177–202
Historical study traces medical, genetic and social-policy institutions involved in the disproportionate sterilization of Roma women.
- SupportsConsequencesThe Forced Sterilization of Roma Women between the 1970s and the 1980s — The Rise of Eugenic SocialismAmsterdam University Press / Cambridge Core
Where in the source: pp. 177–202
- SupportsConsequencesFinal Statement of the Public Defender of Rights in the Matter of Sterilisations Performed in Contravention of the Law and Proposed Remedial MeasuresPublic Defender of Rights, Czech Republic
Where in the source: executive summary and Parts 3–4
Official inquiry documents procedures performed without legally valid informed consent, the disproportionate impact on Romani women and the role of social-policy pressure and incentives.
- ContextualizesContextEliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilizationWHO, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF
Where in the source: sections on ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities
Provides the modern rights standard for assessing nominal consent where disability, ethnicity, dependency or institutional pressure shaped the decision.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionVictims of unlawful sterilisations are one step closer to compensation, the Act passed the House of RepresentativesPublic Defender of Rights, Czech Republic
Where in the source: 4 June 2021 announcement
Official Ombudsman account records the 2009 government apology and the adoption of legislation for a CZK 300,000 lump-sum remedy.
- DocumentsInstitutional correctionThe handling of claims for compensation for unlawful sterilizations is accompanied by errors at the Ministry of Health, the Ombudsman has foundPublic Defender of Rights, Czech Republic
Where in the source: 20 October 2023, findings and background
Confirms that claims opened in 2022 for unlawful sterilizations from 1966–2012 and documents delays, poor communication and improper evidentiary barriers in administration of the remedy.
Source registryEach source is registered once and can carry several precise evidence relationships.26 sources
- 01Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization, 1907–2015Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics3 evidence links
- 02Demographic Patterns of Eugenic Sterilization in Five U.S. StatesNational Institutes of Health1 evidence link
- 031 evidence link
- 04Laws and Decrees — Sterilization LawUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum2 evidence links
- 05Erbgesundheitsgerichte im Regierungsbezirk Magdeburg, 1934–1946 — Bestand C 136 ILandesarchiv Sachsen-Anhalt2 evidence links
- 06Steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige 1935–1975 — SOU 2000:20Sveriges riksdag / Statens offentliga utredningar3 evidence links
- 071 evidence link
- 081 evidence link
- 092 evidence links
- 10Measures concerning the implementation of amendments to the Eugenic Protection ActJapan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare2 evidence links
- 111972 sterilization directive of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Socialist RepublicASPI / text of Ministry of Health directive2 evidence links
- 131 evidence link
- 143 evidence links
- 15Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilizationWHO, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF2 evidence links
- 16U.S. Reports — Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)Supreme Court of the United States / Library of Congress1 evidence link
- 17House Joint Resolution No. 299 — Honoring the memory of Carrie BuckVirginia General Assembly1 evidence link
- 1812VAC35-240 — Victims of Sterilization Fund AdministrationVirginia Register of Regulations1 evidence link
- 19Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases — 14 July 1933German History in Documents and Images1 evidence link
- 201 evidence link
- 21Redogörelse för steriliseringsfrågan i Sverige åren 1935–1975 och regeringens åtgärderGovernment of Sweden / Sveriges riksdag2 evidence links
- 22Position of the Lump-Sum Payment Certification Review Board under the former Eugenic Protection ActJapan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare1 evidence link
- 231 evidence link
- 24Act on compensation payments under the former Eugenic Protection Act — Act No. 70 of 2024Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare1 evidence link
- 25Victims of unlawful sterilisations are one step closer to compensation, the Act passed the House of RepresentativesPublic Defender of Rights, Czech Republic1 evidence link
- 261 evidence link