
The Supreme Court Ruling That Led to 70,000 Forced Sterilizations - marojejian
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations
======
marojejian
The scariest part of this is that the precedent is still holding... Could the
government in the future apply this more?

~~~
wahern
The precedent will always hold in as much as the Supreme Court is unlikely to
categorical remove the ability for any court to order a forced sterilization.
And because no state currently has, nor will likely have in the foreseeable
future, a compulsory sterilization law, there'll never be an opportunity to
overturn Buck v. Bell on narrow grounds.

Striking down all forced sterilizations categorically could (nay, will) lead
to unintended consequences. For example, a categorical prohibition relying on
Kennedy's Fundamental Dignity doctrine could theoretically jeopardize even
temporary sterilization of child rapists as a condition for parole. Such
unintended consequences are unnecessary and easily avoidable as long as courts
stick to focusing on the narrow context of each case.

Courts do best when they stick to the immediate context of a case and refrain
from broad proclamations. A sweeping proclamation is precisely what is most
abhorrent about Buck v. Bell. In the historical context the forced
sterilizations sound worse now than back then. Consider that by the 1970s 30%
of American women were sterilized, the vast majority voluntarily
(notwithstanding typical social and economic pressures). Before the advent of
the birth control pill sterilization was common place and less stigmatized.
Sterilization was still very common in other countries after that, and in some
places still is.

That's not a defense of eugenics. Just don't conflate sterilization with
eugenics. And don't make the same mistake Holme's did, which was to succumb to
the siren call of generalization.

