Forcibly Silenced: The Sterilization of Mexican Women and the Madrigal Case
Uncover the history of forced sterilizations in the U.S., focusing on the Madrigal case and how For Rosa highlights the ongoing struggle for reproductive justice.
In the mid-20th century, sterilization became a covert tool for population control, deeply rooted in eugenics. This practice aimed to prevent certain communities—those deemed "undesirable"—from procreating. While initially targeting the disabled, sterilization policies soon expanded, disproportionately affecting women of color, particularly Latinas.
Eugenics and Population Control
Eugenics, a pseudo-science popular in the early 20th century, claimed to improve the human race by controlling reproduction. It categorized people based on perceived genetic worth, often tying traits like poverty, disability, or criminality to heredity. In the U.S., eugenicists promoted sterilization as a solution to "social ills," paving the way for laws in 32 states that allowed forced sterilizations. By the 1950s, these programs had sterilized over 60,000 people nationally, often without consent. California led the effort, sterilizing over 20,000 individuals—many of them women of color deemed "unfit" for motherhood.
Sterilization as a Tool of U.S. Global Influence
Beyond its domestic implementation, the United States exported sterilization programs abroad, often under the guise of humanitarian aid and economic development. For example, U.S.-supported programs sterilized over 300,000 women in Puerto Rico by the 1970s—one-third of the island’s female population. Similar campaigns in Peru during the 1990s targeted 300,000 Indigenous women, many of whom were sterilized without consent. These efforts reflected a global strategy to control marginalized populations through coercive reproductive policies.
Mexican Women Under Attack
Domestically, Mexican women were not spared from this eugenics-driven agenda. By the 1970s, the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center became infamous for coercive sterilizations targeting Mexican women. This practice reached its boiling point in the landmark 1978 Madrigal v. Quilligan case.
The plaintiffs—ten Mexican-American women who became known as the "Madrigal 10"—accused the hospital of coercing or tricking them into sterilization procedures while they were in labor or recovering from childbirth. One woman, Dolores Madrigal, testified that she was pressured to sign sterilization consent forms during labor pains and told the procedure could be reversed. "Under the severe pain of labor, and after being assured that the operation could be easily reversed, she signed these forms and was sterilized," her affidavit stated.
Another plaintiff, Maria Hurtado, discovered she had been sterilized only during a follow-up visit weeks after her C-section. She recalled being placed under anesthesia during the procedure and not signing any consent forms. For some women, doctors outright exploited their inability to speak English. Jovita Rivera, another plaintiff, was approached while groggy from anesthesia and told sterilization was necessary because "her children were a burden on the government".
The Court Battle
Represented by Antonia Hernández, a 26-year-old Chicana attorney fresh out of UCLA, the plaintiffs argued that their sterilizations were part of a broader, systemic violation of their rights. The case revealed how sterilization was weaponized against marginalized women. Doctors justified their actions by pointing to stereotypes that painted Mexican women as having too many children or abusing public resources.
The plaintiffs’ legal team presented evidence that hospital staff routinely pressured women in labor to sign consent forms in English, even if they only spoke Spanish. Hernández highlighted how these women were subjected to "opportunistic" sterilizations when they were most vulnerable.
Despite compelling testimonies, Judge Jesse Curtis ruled in favor of the doctors, accepting their claims that the sterilizations were performed with consent and without malice. However, Hernández’s argument—that the procedures reflected deep-seated biases against Latina women—gained national attention, sparking outrage and reform.
For Rosa: Bringing the Story to Life
The legacy of the Madrigal case inspired the 2021 HBO short film For Rosa, directed by Kathryn Boyd-Batstone and produced by Ashley Flores. Flores, a Chicana filmmaker and graduate of the Peter Stark Producing Program, brought her creative expertise to highlight the resilience of the Madrigal 10 and the larger issue of reproductive injustice. Her work ensures that this painful history reaches new audiences.
The film dramatizes the experiences of women like Dolores Madrigal through the lens of Eva, a fictionalized character who represents the Madrigal 10. Through Eva, For Rosa humanizes the injustices of forced sterilization and highlights the resilience of those who fought back. Melinna Bobadilla, who plays Eva, called the project "a testament to the courage of the Madrigal 10".
The film also draws parallels to modern violations, such as the forced sterilizations of migrant women in ICE detention centers in 2020. Reports revealed that detainees at a Georgia facility underwent forced hysterectomies, further emphasizing the need for vigilance in protecting reproductive rights.
A Call for Justice
The Madrigal case is a stark reminder of how systemic racism and sexism intersect to control marginalized communities. From the coercive sterilizations of Mexican women in the 1970s to the modern-day abuses in detention centers, these acts reflect a long history of reproductive violence.
The Madrigal 10’s bravery continues to inspire advocates fighting for reproductive justice today. As For Rosa poignantly illustrates, these stories compel us to confront the past and demand a future where bodily autonomy is respected for all.