‘I would have been a great mother’: California finally pays reparations to woman it sterilized

Geynna Buffington knew she had little time to get pregnant when she was released from prison at the age of 40. For over a year she tried to have a child. She didn’t know that a pregnancy would be unlikely due to a procedure she had undergone almost a decade earlier.

In 1998, while Buffington was incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, she underwent an “endometrial ablation” to treat what a prison doctor told her was an abnormal Pap smear. The procedure destroys the uterine lining and should not be performed for people who have any desire to become pregnant in the future, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But Buffington was not told how the procedure would affect her fertility.

“That’s such a low human level for someone to make the decision that I don’t deserve to have children because I’m in prison,” says Buffington (58). “I would have been a great mother.”

Buffington finally received recognition this month that the state deprived her of her reproductive freedom. Securing that recognition came only after a lengthy court battle to make her eligible for California’s historic rehabilitation program for people forcibly sterilized while in state prisons, state hospitals and shelters.

Her case could have far-reaching implications for other people sterilized by the state and whose applications have been submitted for the 2021 recovery program. were rejected by the California Victim Compensation Board on technical details.

The board has denied Buffington’s request for $35,000 in reparations four times, writing that ablations do not qualify as sterilizations under the law because the procedure “was performed to treat her underlying medical condition” and “does not eliminate fertility.”

That all changed when an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled earlier this year that the compensation commission had wrongly denied her reparations, stating that “informed consent is a linchpin of the statute.”

In another signal that the program has not lived up to its promise, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law on September 30 that gives survivors who had previously been denied access until January 1 the opportunity to file a return. appeal. The compensation committee has a further fifteen months to assess these appeals and process applications. The program, which was supposed to end last month, will now end in January 2026.

The Compensation Commission is a government agency that collects restitution and works to compensate crime victims. It is overseen by three members: State Comptroller Malia Cohen; Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton; and a representative of Newsom’s cabinet, Secretary of Government Operations Amy Tong.

The agency told CalMatters via email that its executive officer, Lynda Gledhill, “is unable to provide an interview regarding this specific matter as it is subject to litigation.”

The email also noted that the agency “sent letters to all claimants who had documentation and received denials, informing them of their opportunity to request additional review of their denial.”

Thousands were forcibly sterilized in California institutions

Since the early 20th century, more than 20,000 people—disproportionately poor women, people of color, and people with disabilities—have were involuntarily sterilized in statehouses and hospitals under California’s eugenics laws. These laws were repealed in 1979, but the practice persisted. A 2014 state audit found that between 2005 and 2013, at least 794 people in state prisons underwent various medical procedures that “could have led to sterilization.”

The most recent wave of sterilizations involved James Heinrich, a doctor who worked at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla. According to state prison medical records obtained by KQEDHeinrich ordered at least 80 ablations between 2006 and 2012. He did not perform the procedure on Buffington.

In 2013, the Center for Investigative Reporting, which first reported the sterilizations, reported quoted him that the state did not pay doctors a significant amount of money for the sterilizations “compared to what you save in social services for these unwanted children – because they reproduced more.”

The government agency that oversees prison health care, in a 2014 memo obtained by CalMatters through the California Public Records Act, recognized that ablations and dozens of other procedures “had the potential for sterilization or diminished capacity for future conception.” These procedures, the memo said, should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny “effective immediately.” It was sent to top prison health officials just three months before the state finalized the decision audit on forced sterilization in California prisons.

“They knew we were coming,” said Hannah-Beth Jackson, the former state senator who requested the state audit. “I think that memo was clearly a response to what they knew was going on, or what they needed to do to make sure they covered their butts and make sure the doctors and healthcare providers understood that there was indeed permission was required in advance.”

California passed a recovery law in 2021, authored by Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo, to “recognize the unlawful sterilization of thousands of vulnerable people,” according to the legislation.

Since then, more than 75% of claimants have been denied reparations, according to the compensation commission.

Among applicants who volunteered their demographic information, the majority identified themselves as black or African American. The compensation commission approved payments to only 118 applicants as of Oct. 4. KQED and UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program spoke earlier with six people who had ablations and whose applications were rejected by the compensation committee. At least four of the ablations were ordered by Heinrich.

Carrillo, a Los Angeles Democrat, acknowledged the denials and delays during an August hearing. “For all surviving relatives and individuals who still have an ongoing case: know that you are heard, you are seen, the compensation commission cares about what happened to you in a state institution where you were denied the opportunity to become a parent, to become a mother – that should have been your choice… the compensation committee is doing everything it can to ensure that you receive an answer to your appeal.’

‘Sterilization is unambiguous’

After the compensation board’s fourth denial of Buffington’s request for reparations, her attorneys, WookSun Hong and John Moore, filed a petition in Alameda County Superior Court, arguing that the board’s decision was not based on law or science . She is one of four survivors who filed a lawsuit against the compensation board.

Buffington’s petition included a statement from Cynthia Chandler, an attorney who helped draft the law and now works for Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.

“We collectively and consciously chose NOT to define or limit the sterilization methods by which survivors may qualify for compensation because we recognized that there are many different methods by which reproductive capacity can be destroyed and we did not inadvertently create a qualifying class wanted to exclude from recovery under the compensation program,” Chandler wrote.

Judge Michael Markman ruled on June 25 that the compensation commission abused its discretion and interpreted the recovery law too narrowly. He determined that an endometrial ablation meets the compensation requirement because there was no evidence that Buffington had given her informed consent before undergoing the procedure.

In addition, Markman wrote that the online medical resource the compensation committee relied on to support the justification for Buffington’s denials “did not suggest that fertility is preserved after the procedure.”

He ordered the compensation commission to reconsider Buffington’s application “without legal error.” About two months later, the compensation board approved her application.

“The court has determined that ‘sterilization’ is unambiguous and implies the permanent inability to reproduce,” the compensation board wrote in its decision to release the money. “The court sided with Geynna B. and ruled that all procedures leading to sterilization are prohibited if there is no informed consent.”

Last week – four months after the Alameda District Court ruled in her favor – she received her payment.

“I felt like justice was done — that I was seen,” Buffington said. “It was a terrible thing that happened to us. And it doesn’t deserve to be overlooked.”

Advocates for the survivors praised the court’s ruling, saying it is a first step in opening the door to help for others who were denied access.

“This ruling indicates a need for far-reaching justice that has not been met,” Chandler said.

Will the administration release reparations to others?

Today, Buffington works as a certified peer support specialist for people in recovery and as an assistant director at Footprints Around the World Inc., a nonprofit organization serving homeless and low-income families in Los Angeles. She plans to put away the money she received as reparations for her retirement.

“This is one of those cases where an underprivileged person who has nothing was prejudiced and treated like a number and then cast aside,” said Hong, one of her lawyers. “To me it is significant that a government agency has acknowledged their mistake, but it is also sad that it took a court order to correct their mistake.”

Chandler said she is pleased the court has put “a wrench” in the compensation board proceedings.

“They were determined to deny this claim, I believe, because they know they have let down an entire class of people,” she said. “I hope this ruling sets a precedent to force the compensation commission to be accountable.”

The compensation commission has not said how it plans to apply the court order to other survivors who have been wrongly denied reparations. Without new policies, advocates have raised concerns that survivors may continue to face barriers to receiving compensation, including time, money and legal resources.

“I’m curious to see what this means for the hundreds of other survivors who were turned away because the state said the procedure they followed was not sterilizing,” said Jennifer James, an associate professor of sociology at UC San Francisco and a member of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners who helped survivors with their applications. “I hope that the compensation committee will proactively change their decisions and award them compensation so that they do not have to seek legal support.”

___

This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.