Buck v. Bell

Post Reply New Topic

What do you think of the Court's decision on the case?

I don't know, really. On narrowly defined constitutional grounds, there does appear to be a contradiction between the statute and the 14th Amendment, and this was invoked by the plaintiff.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th Amendment.

On the other hand, if a person can be quarantined for bearing a disease, then this seems to be denying liberty and to treat a person unequally, thus also seeming to contradict the 14th Amendment. And if a person is not allowed to spread disease for public concerns, then why not bad genes?

The opinion written by Holmes seems significant:
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

I would have to side against the eugenic argument, but I do take it seriously. Even though eugenics is rejected today, a lot of that is due to scientific concerns over our ability to do this well, and due to other questions that have emerged since then. However, back in those days the consequential grounds seemed to favor eugenicists, and if one goes in with that belief, Holmes has a strong argument for eugenics.

While I would, in theory, oppose such a restriction on any human, in the context of modern society, where overpopulation is going to doom us all, I would say that we need to use every excuse to keep people from reproducing we can find.

However, using surgery as a means of enforcement is a little gruesome for my tastes. I understand it is the only reliable way to keep the children from being conceived, but still... The idea of the state mutilating someone against their will leaves a bad taste in my mouth.