4 ms·

The scariest part of this is that the precedent is still holding... Could the government in the future apply this more?

• wahern 10y ago
  The precedent will always hold in as much as the Supreme Court is unlikely to categorical remove the ability for any court to order a forced sterilization. And because no state currently has, nor will likely have in the foreseeable future, a compulsory sterilization law, there'll never be an opportunity to overturn Buck v. Bell on narrow grounds. Striking down all forced sterilizations categorically could (nay, will) lead to unintended consequences. For example, a categorical prohibition relying on Kennedy's Fundamental Dignity doctrine could theoretically jeopardize even temporary sterilization of child rapists as a condition for parole. Such unintended consequences are unnecessary and easily avoidable as long as courts stick to focusing on the narrow context of each case. Courts do best when they stick to the immediate context of a case and refrain from broad proclamations. A sweeping proclamation is precisely what is most abhorrent about Buck v. Bell. In the historical context the forced sterilizations sound worse now than back then. Consider that by the 1970s 30% of American women were sterilized, the vast majority voluntarily (notwithstanding typical social and economic pressures). Before the advent of the birth control pill sterilization was common place and less stigmatized. Sterilization was still very common in other countries after that, and in some places still is. That's not a defense of eugenics. Just don't conflate sterilization with eugenics. And don't make the same mistake Holme's did, which was to succumb to the siren call of generalization.