In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell.
A young woman was committed to an institution, due to the state’s concerns about her disability and vulnerability. After a formal legal proceeding, it is determined that she should be sterilized.
The question before the court: is the law authorizing sterilization of a disabled person valid under the 14th Amendment?
Facts of the Case
This episode’s case starts at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, hereinafter called the Virginia State Colony. A doctor, AP, filed a petition under Virginia law to sterilize his 18-year-old patient CB.
Before she was sent to the Virginia State Colony, CB lived with an adoptive family because her own mother had been institutionalized for allegedly being “feebleminded” and promiscuous. CB herself completed up to the first 6 grades of school before being taken out of school. When she was 17, CB became pregnant and was herself institutionalized for allegedly being “feebleminded” and promiscuous, just like her mother.
According to the Virginia law, superintendents of state institutions could prescribe sterilization of patients if they felt that doing so would be in the best interest of the health of the patient and if the patient suffered from ailments considered to be hereditary. Men would get a vasectomy, while women would get a salpingectomy – basically, surgical removal of the Fallopian tube. Prior to conducting the operation, however, the superintendent was required to submit a petition and hold a hearing before their board of directors in order to obtain approval for the treatment. The patient and their guardian needed to be informed of the hearing at least 30 days prior so they could challenge the petition.
AP successfully petitioned the board of directors of the Virginia State Colony to allow for the sterilization of CB, but seeing the case as a test of the constitutionality of the Virginia law, he convinced CB’s guardian to appeal the decision prior to conducting the procedure.
The case next went to the Amherst County Circuit Court. The man who drafted the Virginia law represented the Virginia State Colony, and a former member of the Colony’s board represented CB. The Circuit Court affirmed the finding of the Virginia State Colony’s board. The case was again appealed, this time to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, with the same result.
Finally, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Ruling of the Relitigated Justices
Click here to show how the Relitigated justices ruled on the case…
Votes By Party
Buck
3
Argued by Nikki
v.
Bell
0
Argued by Jarret
Votes By Justice
Chief Justice Sarah
Buck
Justice Chris
Buck
Justice Serena
Buck
References
Buck v. Bell, Superintendent, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Burgdorf, R.L., & Burgdorf, M.P. (1977). The wicked witch is almost dead: Buck v. Bell and the sterilization of handicapped persons. Temple Law Quarterly, 50, 995-1034. [https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=fac_journal_articles]
Equal Justice Initiative. (2013, October 1). Racial eugenics. https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-racial-eugenics/
EJI. (2017, July 24). Tennessee county coercive sterilization program recalls racial eugenics policies of the past. https://eji.org/news/tennessee-county-sterilization-program-recalls-past-racial-eugenics-programs/
Ghandakly, E.C., & Fabi, R. (2021). Sterilization in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE”s) detention: Ethical failures and systemic injustice. American Journal of Public Health, 111(5), 832-834. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306186
Lombardo, P.A. (1985). Three generations, no imbeciles: New light on Buck v. Bell. New York University Law Review, 60, 30-62. [https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2593&context=faculty_pub]
National Public Radio. (2016, March 7). The Supreme Court ruling that led to 70,000 forced sterilizations. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations
Siegel, S.A. (2005). Justice Holmes, Buck v. Bell, and the history of equal protection. Minnesota Law Review, 90, 106-143. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=936698]
Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124 (2001).