{"id":9365,"date":"2025-02-26T14:51:49","date_gmt":"2025-02-26T19:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/?p=9365"},"modified":"2025-02-26T14:51:51","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T19:51:51","slug":"buck-vs-bell-forced-sterilization-in-the-land-of-the-free","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/2025\/02\/26\/buck-vs-bell-forced-sterilization-in-the-land-of-the-free\/","title":{"rendered":"Buck vs. Bell: Forced Sterilization In The Land of the Free"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Tiernan Barbosa, Contributing Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buck v. Bell was a Supreme Court case that naturally followed as a result of not only the
American Eugenics movement but also the tragic and pertinent evil shadow that foreshadowed
the life of Carrie Buck and took hold of the associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of the
time.
Carrie Buck was born in Charlottesville, Virginia, and had two full-blood siblings from
the poor mother Emma Buck, who was abandoned by her husband early into their marriage and
was not too far later forced into the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded after
being accused of immoral sexual activity as it was understood back in the twentieth century.
Due to her mother being taken away, Carrie was placed into foster care under the
supervision of John and Alice Dobbs. When Carrie was seventeen years of age she was raped
and became pregnant by the man \u201cClarance Garland,\u201d Alice Dobbs\u2019 nephew. For this reason, the Dobbses admitted Carrie to the same institution as her mother on
tenuous grounds. After Carrie gave birth to a daughter, the Dobbses adopted the child and named
her Vivian.
In 1924, Carrie had virtually no legal or ethical recourse at retaining their bodily
autonomy, and neither did her daughter or mother. Virginia passed the Eugenical Sterilization
Act in 1924. As a result, the head of Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, Dr.
Albert Priddy sought to push his agenda of forced sterilization in lower court which was a policy
supported by his supposed opposition, Irving P. Whitehead. Mr. Whitehead also believed in
forced sterilization and was long-time friends with Aubrey E. Strode who drafted the Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924. This law essentially gave victims of forced sterilization no recourse in
seeking justice against doctors who engaged in malpractice against them.
Carrie Buck v. John Hendren Bell was then moved to The Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, which reviewed the case next. Whitehead, violating his legal oath, made a dismal effort
to defend his client, losing the case. Carrie appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S. where two
justices were wholehearted believers in eugenics. These men were Chief Justice and former U.S.
President, William Howard Taft, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. For the interest of deeper
context and to bring to light the type of man Holmes is; Holm<\/strong>es in 1921, told future Justice Felix
Frankfurter he had no problem \u201crestricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death
infants that didn\u2019t pass the examination,\u201d and was quoted saying \u201cThree generations of imbeciles
are enough.\u201d
The due process clause guarantees adults the right to procreate; however, this was
violated because the opposition sought to take this liberty away from the defendants. The defense
also argued that the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment was being violated since the
law affecting the defendant did not extend to all who were in institutions because the sterilization
law was to affect the \u201cfeebleminded\u201d only at select state institutions.
The defense\u2019s arguments were deliberately collusive. One can conclude this given the
state brought on the case and the state defended the case to test its validity and to test dissenting
opinions. Whitehead manipulated the Supreme Court by not providing effective evidence to the
court for them to make a \u201cfair decision.\u201d<\/strong> In 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court voted in a ruling of 8-1 that it was n in the state’s interest to have not only Carrie Buck sterilized but also her mother and Vivian who was of average intelligence receiving \u201cC\u201d grades in school. This ruling was repealed in 1974 but never
overturned.
As a result of this Supreme Court ruling more than seventy thousand people were forcibly
sterilized in the 20th century, the ruling mostly affected women of color. The precedent set by the
initial decision influenced the defense of Germany\u2019s sterilization laws during the Nuremberg
Trials. The prosecution then was undermined by the decision in the Skinner v. Oklahoma case.
Although Buck v. Bell has never been overturned, the decision’s reasoning has been
weakened. State statutes like the one upheld in Buck v. Bell have been repealed, and federal
statutes like the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
protect people with disabilities. In 2002, the governor of Virginia issued a formal apology to
those Virginians who had been involuntarily sterilized.
The ongoing debate regarding this case pertains to the \u201chistorical legacy as a symbol of
the harmful eugenics movement.\u201d The repeal of the law in 1974 set a precedent for reproductive
rights and bodily autonomy, but the law was not overturned which opens the gate for the
potential for misuse in modern discussion regarding population control and gene selection
leading us to legally move backward in time.
\u201cNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States\u201d – Fourteenth Amendment.
The legacy of Buck v. Bell stands as a stark reminder of the destructive power of
prejudice and pseudoscience when codified into law. Rooted in the American eugenics
movement, the case exemplifies the profound injustices suffered by Carrie Buck, her family, and
countless others who became victims of forced sterilization. It highlights how systemic biases. and collusion can erode constitutional protections like the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s 1927 ruling not only sanctioned the violation of individual liberties but also fueled broader abuses, both domestically and internationally, including its invocation during the Nuremberg Trials to justify Nazi sterilization programs. While subsequent decisions like Skinner v. Oklahoma, federal legislation, and state apologies have chipped away at its
reasoning, the ruling itself remains a chilling reminder of the judiciary’s potential to fail in
protecting vulnerable populations. Today, the case serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to vigilance in safeguarding reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Though the law enabling forced sterilization was
repealed in 1974, the lack of a formal overturn leaves open the possibility of its misuse in
discussions of population control and genetic engineering. The words of the Fourteenth
Amendment\u2014\u201cNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States\u201d\u2014remain a critical standard to which all laws and
policies must be held, lest history repeat itself.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Tiernan Barbosa, Contributing Writer Buck v. Bell was a Supreme Court case that naturally followed as a result of not only theAmerican Eugenics movement but also the tragic and pertinent evil shadow that foreshadowedthe life of Carrie Buck and took hold of the associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of thetime.Carrie Buck was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":9367,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

by Tiernan Barbosa, Contributing Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contributing Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buck v. Bell was a Supreme Court case that naturally followed as a result of not only the
American Eugenics movement but also the tragic and pertinent evil shadow that foreshadowed
the life of Carrie Buck and took hold of the associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of the
time.
Carrie Buck was born in Charlottesville, Virginia, and had two full-blood siblings from
the poor mother Emma Buck, who was abandoned by her husband early into their marriage and
was not too far later forced into the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded after
being accused of immoral sexual activity as it was understood back in the twentieth century.
Due to her mother being taken away, Carrie was placed into foster care under the
supervision of John and Alice Dobbs. When Carrie was seventeen years of age she was raped
and became pregnant by the man \u201cClarance Garland,\u201d Alice Dobbs\u2019 nephew. For this reason, the Dobbses admitted Carrie to the same institution as her mother on
tenuous grounds. After Carrie gave birth to a daughter, the Dobbses adopted the child and named
her Vivian.
In 1924, Carrie had virtually no legal or ethical recourse at retaining their bodily
autonomy, and neither did her daughter or mother. Virginia passed the Eugenical Sterilization
Act in 1924. As a result, the head of Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, Dr.
Albert Priddy sought to push his agenda of forced sterilization in lower court which was a policy
supported by his supposed opposition, Irving P. Whitehead. Mr. Whitehead also believed in
forced sterilization and was long-time friends with Aubrey E. Strode who drafted the Eugenical Sterilization Act of 1924. This law essentially gave victims of forced sterilization no recourse in
seeking justice against doctors who engaged in malpractice against them.
Carrie Buck v. John Hendren Bell was then moved to The Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, which reviewed the case next. Whitehead, violating his legal oath, made a dismal effort
to defend his client, losing the case. Carrie appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S. where two
justices were wholehearted believers in eugenics. These men were Chief Justice and former U.S.
President, William Howard Taft, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. For the interest of deeper
context and to bring to light the type of man Holmes is; Holm<\/strong>es in 1921, told future Justice Felix
Frankfurter he had no problem \u201crestricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death
infants that didn\u2019t pass the examination,\u201d and was quoted saying \u201cThree generations of imbeciles
are enough.\u201d
The due process clause guarantees adults the right to procreate; however, this was
violated because the opposition sought to take this liberty away from the defendants. The defense
also argued that the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment was being violated since the
law affecting the defendant did not extend to all who were in institutions because the sterilization
law was to affect the \u201cfeebleminded\u201d only at select state institutions.
The defense\u2019s arguments were deliberately collusive. One can conclude this given the
state brought on the case and the state defended the case to test its validity and to test dissenting
opinions. Whitehead manipulated the Supreme Court by not providing effective evidence to the
court for them to make a \u201cfair decision.\u201d<\/strong> In 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court voted in a ruling of 8-1 that it was n in the state's interest to have not only Carrie Buck sterilized but also her mother and Vivian who was of average intelligence receiving \u201cC\u201d grades in school. This ruling was repealed in 1974 but never
overturned.
As a result of this Supreme Court ruling more than seventy thousand people were forcibly
sterilized in the 20th century, the ruling mostly affected women of color. The precedent set by the
initial decision influenced the defense of Germany\u2019s sterilization laws during the Nuremberg
Trials. The prosecution then was undermined by the decision in the Skinner v. Oklahoma case.
Although Buck v. Bell has never been overturned, the decision's reasoning has been
weakened. State statutes like the one upheld in Buck v. Bell have been repealed, and federal
statutes like the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
protect people with disabilities. In 2002, the governor of Virginia issued a formal apology to
those Virginians who had been involuntarily sterilized.
The ongoing debate regarding this case pertains to the \u201chistorical legacy as a symbol of
the harmful eugenics movement.\u201d The repeal of the law in 1974 set a precedent for reproductive
rights and bodily autonomy, but the law was not overturned which opens the gate for the
potential for misuse in modern discussion regarding population control and gene selection
leading us to legally move backward in time.
\u201cNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States\u201d - Fourteenth Amendment.
The legacy of Buck v. Bell stands as a stark reminder of the destructive power of
prejudice and pseudoscience when codified into law. Rooted in the American eugenics
movement, the case exemplifies the profound injustices suffered by Carrie Buck, her family, and
countless others who became victims of forced sterilization. It highlights how systemic biases. and collusion can erode constitutional protections like the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's 1927 ruling not only sanctioned the violation of individual liberties but also fueled broader abuses, both domestically and internationally, including its invocation during the Nuremberg Trials to justify Nazi sterilization programs. While subsequent decisions like Skinner v. Oklahoma, federal legislation, and state apologies have chipped away at its
reasoning, the ruling itself remains a chilling reminder of the judiciary's potential to fail in
protecting vulnerable populations. Today, the case serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to vigilance in safeguarding reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Though the law enabling forced sterilization was
repealed in 1974, the lack of a formal overturn leaves open the possibility of its misuse in
discussions of population control and genetic engineering. The words of the Fourteenth
Amendment\u2014\u201cNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States\u201d\u2014remain a critical standard to which all laws and
policies must be held, lest history repeat itself.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7376,7377],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-opinion","et-has-post-format-content","et_post_format-et-post-format-standard"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9365"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9369,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9365\/revisions\/9369"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9367"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.umpi.edu\/utimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}