The governor's office referred CNN to the state Department of Developmental Services, which sent a two-sentence statement: "The State of California deeply regrets the harm caused to victims of involuntary sterilization that occurred through the first half of the 1900s. This was a sad and painful period in California's history, one that should never be repeated."

   

     Six decades ago, Charlie Follett was a teenager living in California's Sonoma State Home. As he did most days, Follett sat in a field, singing popular songs to himself, enjoying the sunshine and the solitude.
     Suddenly, someone came outside to get Follett and brought him to the hospital. They told him to lie down on an operating table, and then the needle came out.
"First, they shot me with some kind of medicine. It was supposed to deaden the nerves," he said. "Then the next thing I heard was snip, snip, and that was it."
The doctors didn't tell Follett what they were doing, but he knew anyway. Other boys at the Sonoma State Home had told him how much it hurt to have a vasectomy. Now it was his turn.  "When they did (my right side), it seemed like they were pulling my whole insides out," said Follett, now 82 and living in Stockton.

California: Leader in forced sterilizations

Follett was one of 20,000 Californians forcibly sterilized by the state from 1909 to 1963.  The goal was to rid society of people thought to be undesirable: people labeled "feeble-minded" or "defectives."
"It's one of the most horrific and shameful chapters in California's history," said Los Angeles civil rights attorney Areva Martin.
Thirty-two states had eugenics programs, but California was in a league of its own.
I think they're just waiting for the victims to die and forget this whole thing ever happened.
     The Golden State sterilized more than twice as many people as the next state, Virginia, which sterilized 8,300, according to Paul Lombardo, a professor at Georgia State University's College of
Law.
The law said that wards of the state like Follett had to be sterilized in order to be discharged from institutions like Sonoma, according to Christina Cogdell, a cultural historian at the University of
California-Davis and author of "Eugenic Design."
Men and women, boys and girls, were sent to state institutions for all sorts of reasons. Some had

serious developmental disabilities. Follett ended up at Sonoma because his parents were alcoholics and couldn't care for him.
In the mid-20th century, the country's intellectual elite such as doctors, geneticists and Supreme
Court justices supported forced sterilizations.
In California, the eugenics movement was led by figures such as William Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, and Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times.
In other states, the sterilization program would stop and start due to legal challenges, but California's ran strong for more than half a century, Cogdell said.
     "If you were deemed worthy of being sterilized by a doctor, there was no board where you could have a hearing to protest," he said.
In the mid-20th century, many U.S. doctors, geneticists and judges supported forced sterilizations.
In the mid-20th century, many U.S. doctors, geneticists and judges supported forced sterilizations.

     California's movement was so effective that in the 1930s, members of the Nazi party asked California eugenicists for advice on how to run their own sterilization program.
"Germany used California's program as its chief ex
ample that this was a working, successful policy," Cogdell said. "They modeled their law on California's law."
"It kills my last name"
     In 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis apologized for the forced sterilizations, but Follett wants compensation for not be able to have children of his own.
"What really ticks me off is, it kills my last name," Follett said. "If I should die tomorrow, everything's died."
Over the past few years, a friend of Follett's has tried to help him seek justice. Rudy Banlasan, a nursing student, has written letters and e-mails on Follett's behalf to Gov. Edmund "Jerry" Brown and other state politicians and officials.
He has not succeeded in getting any of them to speak with him. Banlasan keeps a file of the e-mails he's sent to politicians and the form letters he's received in return.
     "I hate to sound so cynical, but I think they're just waiting for the victims to die and forget this whole thing ever happened," Banlasan said.  The State of California deeply regrets the harm caused to victims of involuntary sterilization.  The governor's office referred CNN to the state Department of Developmental Services, which sent a two-sentence statement: "The State of California deeply regrets the harm caused to victims of involuntary sterilization that occurred through the first half of the 1900s. This was a sad and painful period in California's history, one that should never be repeated."
California's response to victims stands in stark contrast to North Carolina's.
     North Carolina task force recommends $50,000 for sterilization victims
In that state, Gov. Bev Perdue has sought out victims and held hearings where she apologized personally and heard their stories.
She also set up a task force to help the victims and recommended that each receive $50,000 in reparations.
"That's not happening in California," said Martin, the civil rights attorney. "To think that we're behind on this issue instead of leading on this issue is very troublesome."
"California has not done right"
     Art Torres is the former California state senator who wrote the 1979 legislation outlawing sterilization.
He said he's not surprised politicians are reticent on the subject.
     "I would venture to say most people in this legislature -- and most people in California -- aren't even aware there was a eugenics movement in California," Torres said.
Californians, he added, need to face their history and at least hold hearings and invite victims to tell their stories.
"California has not done right by these victims," Torres said. "But I think California and Californians need to be aware of their history."

What gives the right for either a European nation or a State of the U.S. to be given the authority to play God with God's Children?

     The substantive criteria that guide the decision maker are formulated into four kinds of legal rules. The Hayes opinion adopts the most common approach, which could be termed a "mandatory criteria" rule; under this type of rule a court can authorize sterilization only if several specific findings are clearly made.  This rule places a significant burden on the petitioner, limits judicial discretion, and makes it difficult to establish the desirability of sterilization.
     The "discretionary best interest" standard is a more flexible rule; instead of requiring specific findings, it directs judges to consider whether sterilization is in the incompetent person's best interest.  Grady directs the court to consider the Hayes criteria and any other relevant factors in order to make the decision that the disabled person would make for herself if she were competent.        Finally, a few jurisdictions simply prohibit the sterilization of anyone found by the court to be incompetent to give informed consent to the medical procedure.  On a functional level, the various legal rules seem to promote different objectives.  A rule prohibiting sterilization without the subject's informed consent apparently aims to protect only the right to procreate.  Sterilization is by definition a violation of this right, regardless of the person's preferences.

Is this what we used to do to our children in the United States of America? Really? Shame on you and your pathetic laws of the past.

     Custodial programs that segregate and warehouse retarded persons are no longer endorsed by professionals.  Today, programs for mentally retarded persons pursue the goal of "normalization' the development of skills that enable the individual to live as independently and self-sufficiently as possible.  Issues of sexual autonomy are an important aspect of the normalization trend; freedom and privacy in social and sexual relationships may be as important to mentally disabled persons as to others.  Furthermore, marriage and parenthood are realistic options for some mildly disabled persons who, with appropriate training, may be capable of fulfilling those roles.  
     Sterilization is viewed as rarely desirable because many mentally retarded persons are presumed to have at least a potential interest in having children.  
     The preceding factors have stimulated the reform of sterilization law in recent years. A few jurisdictions have banned sterilization of incompetent persons altogether.  Under most reform laws, however, the state may authorize sterilization under its parens patriae authority if certain conditions are met. First, the court must determine whether the individual is competent to make an informed medical decision about sterilization.  
     This inquiry seeks to protect the autonomy interest of the court determines that the person is incompetent, it must then consider specific factors and decide whether sterilization is in the competent person's best interest and who has no need for a surrogate decision maker best interest.      Most laws following the Hayes decision embody strict procedural and substantive requirements that create a strong presumption against sterilization. These laws presume that there is a conflict of interest between the child and the parent in this context and consequently exclude parents from any role in the decision in a formal "semi-adversarial" proceeding.  
     A court makes the sterilization.  The retarded individual is represented by an attorney, usually a guardian or a legitimate parent who most of the reform laws allow a court to order sterilization only upon findings may be directed to oppose the parents' petition for sterilization based on clear and convincing evidence.  In addition to procedural restrictions, these laws employ rigorous substantive criteria to guide the court's deliberations. 
     Some require inquiries into whether the individual is able to reproduce and whether she is "imminently" likely to engage in sexual activity.  The petitioner will be asked to demonstrate that less drastic forms of contraception have been tried and are not of feasible capacity to care for a child.  The court must also assess the individual and some states require a determination that sterilization is medically essential to preserve the life or the physical or mental health of the individual.  In some states, the court must also inquire into the disabled person's understanding of reproductive functions and the relationship between sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and childbirth.  
     Some laws direct the court to consider the psychological trauma associated with sterilization and alternatively with pregnancy and childbirth.  Additionally, an inquiry into the individual's preferences about sterilization may be required, although her objection is not determinable.  The Hayes decision and some later laws require findings that medical science is not on the verge of breakthroughs that will correct the individual's disability or make reversible sterilization available.  These various criteria create formidable substantive barriers to the sterilization of mentally retarded persons.  
     Current law explicitly or implicitly excludes some variables from the court's consideration, such as the state's interest in protecting society from the genetic and financial burden of children produced by retarded persons.  The parents' interest in protecting their child from unwanted pregnancy or in avoiding the inconvenience associated with menstrual hygiene is also excluded from consideration.  
     Finally, the disabled individual's interest in promoting family stability by reducing the stress associated with her care may not be considered.

The people that I have mentioned below are the worst type of people that ever roamed the earth.

Hubbard, Freud, Thompson, J. Watson, Comte, Decartes', Wundt, Galton, H. Glass, Davenport, James, G. Hall, Wittmer, Lightner, Halsted, Jung, W. Kelly, Olser, Weishaupt, Haldane, Haynes, Haywood, Le' Bon, Sighele, Tarde', Fredrick Jones are all people that are to be looked down upon, looked at with despise, sympathy, and an overall general feeling the definition of the word pathetic.

The crimes of psychologists from Wundt to Watson

The Hayes decision and some later laws require findings that medical science is not on the verge of breakthroughs that will correct the individual's disability or make reversible sterilization available. These various criteria create formidable substantive barriers to the sterilization of mentally retarded persons. Current law explicitly or implicitly excludes some variables from the court's consideration, such as the state's interest in protecting society from the genetic and financial burden of children produced by retarded persons.