Morality v. Eugenics
During the early twentieth century, the theory of Social Darwinism, a continuation of Darwinism that states that sociological eliteness stemmed from intergroup vie, became a prevalent topic in the United States. This induced the spreading of Sir Francis Galton’s, Darwin’s half-cousin, idea of eugenics, or the theory which argues that the human race can and should be improved with controlled breeding by encouraging reproduction among those with desirable traits and vice versa. Attention was directed at 18 year-old Carrie Buck, involuntary member of Virginia’s State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble Minded, when the young rxxe victim contested the state’s right to sterilize her for being “promiscuous” and “feeble-minded” (Berson & Cruz). The 1927 Buck v. Bell Supreme Court Case ruled that the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, which advocated for compulsory sterilization of the “unfit”, did not breach the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment; however, the validity and soundness of the derived decision must be evaluated.
I.P. Whitehead, Buck’s defense attorney, roots his argument in the constitutionality of forced sterilization through the terms of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whitehead contests that an involuntary salpingectomy violates the right of bodily integrity, as defined in Munn v. Illinois as the “‘deprivation of life’”, not only literally, but also including “‘…whatever God has given everyone with life…’” (Supreme Court 201). As the right to procreate is in innate ability, permanent restriction on this is an infringement. Whitehead assumes that the Court justly granted Buck procedural due process of law, so he, to Buck’s disadvantage, primarily challenges the substantive due process. He alleges whether or not the act is considered a “valid exercise of police power of the State and therefore a valid enactment under the Constitution of the United States” (202). Even though Whitehead affirms that police power is necessary and crucial, he contends that police power must be surrendered when it conflicts with constitutionality because state police power is inferior to the right to bodily integrity. Whitehead should have argued that procedural due process was not granted because Buck’s attorney was a part of the Board of Directors for Virginia’s State Colony of Epileptics and the Feeble Minded. Being that Whitehead was that person, there was a conflict of interest. He strongly supported negative eugenics, so his bias was extraordinarily high (Berson & Cruz). Whitehead moves on to arguing for the equal protection clause, defending that the feebleminded are unfairly discriminated against (Supreme Court 202). He makes no claims against the validity of the prosecutor’s evidence by avoiding the questions of whether or not feeblemindedness is heredity and simply assuming that Buck was indeed feebleminded. He concludes by alluding to Plato’s Republic to make the argument that eugenics has roots in out-dated ideas; he argues that contemporary eugenics is too unjust and utopian (203). He fails to call upon any witnesses for Buck’s case (Coghlan).
Opposing Buck’s legal defense, Abrey Strode, drafter of the Virginia sterilization law, composes an original brief that is over twice as long as Whitehead’s (Berson & Cruz). He commences by instituting “cruel and unusual punishment” by stating that because no serious pain would be inflicted upon Buck, a salpingectomy is neither cruel nor unusual (Supreme Court 203). However, this statement falls to the argument of futility because Whitehead never claimed that Buck’s Eighth Amendment rights had ever been violated. Strode then claims thats that this case exemplifies acceptable police power because constitutional limitations are generally negligent to the courts; under correct due process of law, this argument holds true. He effectively compares Buck’s operation to a constitutional vasectomy, but unsuccessfully compares it to compulsory vaccination statutes. A vasectomy is essentially equivalent to a salpingectomy, the sole difference being gender; however, vaccinations are created to prevent disease, not the potentiality of life. He also states that sterilization benefits the individual and, taking a utilitarian stance, also society. Strode makes the claim that the salpingectomy is not a punishment because it instead benefits Strode by granting greater liberty to her: “…whether the State in its judgment of which is best for the appellant and for society may through the medium of the operation provided for by the sterilization statute restore to her the liberty, freedom and happiness which thereafter she might safely be allowed to find outside of institutional walls” (204). Strode asserts that Carrie’s liberty is already restricted in the colony. She in unable to procreate in there, and Virginia law already prohibits her from getting married. While this is true, he gives a false dilemma: either remain confined to the institution, where the right to procreate is already prohibited, or become a free and contributing member to society, simply lacking an ability she already had restricted beforehand. He fails to realize the tertiary option is freedom with the right to procreate.
The Supreme Court issued out their ultimate decision on the second of May, 1927, pronouncing the State Colony as victorious by an eight to one margin. Justice Holmes, writer of the Court’s opinion, proclaims that Buck’s question was within the law’s constitutional validity. He maintains that because multiple opportunities arose for Buck to appeal her prospective operation, due process of law was granted to her. Holmes reasons against the equal protection clause that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring to crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind” (207). Holmes mistakenly operates under the assumption that all people birthed by the feeble-minded eventually grow up to be delinquents or unable to care for themselves. He utilizes Jacobson v. Massachusetts as his argument for letting police power extend this far, as he agreed with Strode that identical logic could be applied to both of these cases. However, this false analogy erroneously avouches that compulsory sterilization benefits society. Though science suggests that compulsory vaccinations enhance the wellness of people, the same cannot necessarily be said about compulsory sterilization. Holme’s validity is also flawed when he label’s Buck’s daughter as also feeble-minded. Vivian Buck was diagnosed officially just one month posterior to contraception, solely under the basis that her mother was feeble-minded. According to the Ruth Macklin of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Vivian passed away because of smallpox when she was eight years old, but it should be mentioned that she was of slightly above average intelligence; she even made honor roll at her school once (Berson & Cruz). This example clearly contradicts Holme’s earlier statement of the feebleminded only reproducing other feebleminded, and of course, it also contradicts his famous quote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Supreme Court 207).
Despite some of the logic being reasonably sound in Buck v. Bell, the logic is not strong enough to result in the Supreme Court’s favor of the Virginia Colony. Even though Strode’s argument was extremely fallacious, Whitehead suspiciously gave such a weak argument that it was facile to negate it. Today, Buck v. Bell has gone down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s worst “failures”, enough to merit its name alongside other Court “failures” like Plessy v. Ferguson (Berson & Cruz). How could a verdict so censured slip through the Supreme Court in the first place? Well, the adjudication was decided upon before the case even opened. Advocates of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 had been hungry for a case to validate this law, and three years later, they got their satiation. Buck was sent to the institution to prevent disgrace to her family’s name because she was rxxxd by her foster parents’ nephew; it had nothing to do with her cognitive state at all. Her defense attorney, Whitehead, one of the founders of the institution, even had a building in the colony named after him; he had many people depending on him to advance humanity with eugenics. In fact, many well-known historical figures, including Theodore Roosevelt and Hellen Keller, supported eugenics. So with that context in mind, it is not difficult to see how the Court formed this decree. Although scientists have correlated intelligence with genetics in the contemporary era, human compassion has allowed us to transcend these unjust social policies.
Works Cited
Berson, Michael J. “Remembering Buck v. Bell.” Eugenics Past and Present, Socialstudies.org, http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/se/6505/650507.html.
Supreme Court. Buck v. Bell. 2 May 1927, http://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1081&context=buckvbell.