Buck vs. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Carrie Buck was institutionalized as feebleminded and her guardian contended that Virginia's sterilization law violated her due process right to procreate. The law allowed for the sterilization of the "feebleminded" in state institutions. The Court held that Buck, her mother, and daughter were feebleminded and it was in the state's interest to sterilize her. Justice Holmes argued that the state's interest in a "pure" gene pool outweighed an individual's right to bodily integrity. He stated it was better to prevent the "manifestly unfit" from continuing their kind. The Court ruled that Virginia's steril
Original Description:
Constitutional Law 2, Case Digest, Due Process Case Digest, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Buck vs. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Carrie Buck was institutionalized as feebleminded and her guardian contended that Virginia's sterilization law violated her due process right to procreate. The law allowed for the sterilization of the "feebleminded" in state institutions. The Court held that Buck, her mother, and daughter were feebleminded and it was in the state's interest to sterilize her. Justice Holmes argued that the state's interest in a "pure" gene pool outweighed an individual's right to bodily integrity. He stated it was better to prevent the "manifestly unfit" from continuing their kind. The Court ruled that Virginia's steril
Buck vs. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Carrie Buck was institutionalized as feebleminded and her guardian contended that Virginia's sterilization law violated her due process right to procreate. The law allowed for the sterilization of the "feebleminded" in state institutions. The Court held that Buck, her mother, and daughter were feebleminded and it was in the state's interest to sterilize her. Justice Holmes argued that the state's interest in a "pure" gene pool outweighed an individual's right to bodily integrity. He stated it was better to prevent the "manifestly unfit" from continuing their kind. The Court ruled that Virginia's steril
FACTS: The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (Sterilization Act) was approved on March, 20, 1924 for the sterilization of those people who are mentally defective under the care of institutions supported by the Commonwealth, by which if these people who are mentally defective will be discharged now, would just become a menace to the society, but if incapable of procreation, might be discharged with safety and become self supporting with the benefit to themselves and to the society. The sterilization may be conducted through vasectomy in males and salpingectomy in females. It was believe to promote the health and welfare of the society for eugenicists believes that mental illness and retardation, epilepsy, alcoholism, and certain criminal behavior were genetically inherited and was feared to be weakening the gene pool of the general population. Carrie Buck is a feebleminded white woman who was an inmate to Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. She is the daughter of a feebleminded mother in the same institution, and a mother of an illegitimate feebleminded child as a result of rape. The Board of Directors of the State Colony ordered the authorization for Bucks sterilization, by which Buck and her guardian contended that the due process clause guarantees all adults the right to procreate which was being violated. They also made the argument that the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment was being violated since not all similarly situated people were being treated the same. The sterilization law was only for the "feeble-minded" at certain state institutions and made no mention of other state institutions or those who were not in an institution. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent by authorizing the petitioners sterilization denied her right to due process and equal protection of laws? RULING: No. It was held by the Court, that Buck, her mother, and her daughter were feebleminded and that it was the states interest to have her sterilized. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited that Carrie Buck is a probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she maybe sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of hearing in the institution is served to the inmate, and also upon his guardian and the board see to it that the inmate attends his hearing if desired by him or his guardian.
In support of Justice Holmes argument that the interest of the states in a
"pure" gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he expressed that It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. And that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough. The ruling legitimized Virginia's sterilization procedures until they were repealed in 1974.
in The Matter of The Petition For The Writ of Amparo and The Writ of Habeas Data in Favor of Melissa C Roxas (Melissa C Roxas Vs Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Et Al)