On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
Carrie Buck was perceived as being part of the next generation of feeble-minded Bucks after her mother, Emma, gave birth to her and her siblings. Many people of Charlottesville, Virginia witnessed the upbringing of Carrie and saw that she, along
…show more content…
with her siblings, was not developing like the other children of the neighborhood. During this time, it was not uncommon for less fortunate children to live with middle class families, instead of their biological parents. Carrie would live with her foster parents, John and Alice Dobbs. While living with the Dobbs, she was treated more like a common housemaid than as a part of their family. When Carrie was seventeen, it would be discovered that she was pregnant with an illegitimate child. Mr. and Mrs. Dobbs were high-standing members of their community and had no other choice to send her away to protect their own reputations. In May 1924, Carrie Buck was committed to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded without accurate or sufficient evidence (Smith and Nelson 1989). Prior to Carrie’s commitment, a piece of legislation drafted by Aubrey Strode had just been passed.
The Virginia Sterilization Law legalized the sterilization of feeble-minded and epileptic individuals whom were already “lawfully” committed to state hospitals. The board of the State Colony would soon implement the sterilization on its occupants, but they would first need a test case. Carrie would be the first to be sterilized at the State Colony. In order to test the legality of her sterilization, the board would appoint Irving Whitehead to defend Carrie Buck against Albert Priddy, the superintendent of the Colony and the doctor whom performed the sterilization. Whitehead was chosen because of his connections to the Virginia State Colony. Whitehead sat on the very first board of the Colony and it was evident that this influenced his defense of Carrie. The Colony would win the initial case, Buck v. Priddy, because of his inadequate defense and lack of preparation. Buck v. Bell would go on to the Supreme Court in 1927 to argue the constitutionality of her sterilization. It was argued that the sterilization law violated Carrie Buck’s right to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and her right to due process of law (Smith and Nelson …show more content…
1989). First, the Supreme Court ruled that the sterilization was constitutional because of the potential benefits to society. They believed that sterilizing those who are believed to be “imbeciles,” would help put an end to the passing of undesirable genes. In the Supreme Court opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes states: “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. … Three generations of imbeciles is enough” (1927). He believed that prevent the passing down of unwanted traits would stop the “transmission of insanity and imbecility.” Equating it to the compulsory vaccination, he thought it was a necessary sacrifice to stop society from being “swamped with incompetence.” This in the eyes of the court did not qualify as a cruel and unusual punishment because it was just a small sacrifice in order to protect society from those who “sap the strength of the State” (Holmes 1927). Next, it was believed that the procedure would further help Carrie.
Albert Priddy testified before the Board of the Colony that the “harmless” operation would help Carrie to be self-sufficient and be released to from the institution. He stood firm with his belief that she could not be returned to society and must be “kept in custody during the period of childbearing” without the sterilization (Smith and Nelson 1989). The Board later claimed that the sterilization would not cause any “detriment to her general health” and would only help her overall welfare (Lombardo 2008). Another “advantage” of Carrie’s sterilization was being reunited with her foster parents. Strode claims that the only thing “prevent[ing] her having an independent home is her child-bearing capacity” and that the Dobbses did not want the “risk” of her conceiving another child (“Buck” 1926,
97). Lastly, eugenics played a key role in the court’s decision. Carrie was believed to be the “probable parent of socially inadequate offspring” (Holmes 1927). This probability was put to the test through the mental state of Carrie’s child. The child she gave birth to prior to her sterilization showed no signs of any mental defect. On October 15th, Dr. Priddy attempted to find evidence of mental retardation in the child before performing the surgery by writing to Caroline Wilhelm. She replied to Priddy saying that she “did not recall” and could not find any “mention in [their] files” about any mental defect being passed down (Wilhelm 1924). Later, Wilhelm would claim the child is not developing at the same rate as a Mrs. Dobbs’ daughter child, who was three days older than the Buck child. She even stated that her knowledge of Carrie’s capabilities may add “prejudice” to her judgement. The inquiry into the mental state of Carrie’s mother and siblings would seal the fate of the trial as an argument that imbecility is passed down through a family’s genetics. Dr. Jarnette would further reiterate the major role of eugenics in the case by testifying that feeble-mindedness is “inherited and acquired” (“Buck” 1926). On the other hand, the Supreme Court could have ruled that the sterilization was unconstitutional. The weak argument of due process of law was based on Priddy’s “observation” of Carrie. If his observation were really thorough, he would have been able to see that Carrie’s commitment papers were falsified and that she did not suffer from any epilepsy that was described in her records (“Carrie” 1924). A change in verdict would have changed the lives for thousands of people who were sterilized. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bell on the grounds that it would be better for society, better for Carrie Buck, and a basis of eugenics. After this ruling, more than 50,000 people were sterilized against their will. Over 30 states would pass similar sterilization laws which modeled Virginia’s law. The mass sterilization of those the government saw to be unfit would later be implemented by the Nazi regime in Germany under the Hereditary Health Law. Under this law, over two million people were sterilized between 1933 and 1945. Six words dramatically changed the life of Carrie Buck and thousands of others, “it is up to my people” (Smith and Nelson 1989). References Buck v Bell, 51-100 (February 6, 1926). http://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/buckvbell/32 “Carrie Buck Commitment Papers.” 1924. http://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/buckvbell/90/. Caroline Wilhelm to Albert Priddy. October 15, 1924. Central Virginia Training Center, Lynchburg, Virginia. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. Buck v. Bell, Superintendent, No. 292 (May 2, 1927). Lombardo, Paul A. Three Generations, No Imbeciles. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. Smith, J. David, and K. Ray Nelson. The Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Far Hills, New Jersey: New Horizon Press, 1989
A well-nourished, well-developed Hispanic female named Anna Garcia standing at 65 inches, 165 pounds and in her late thirties was found dead in her house after her concerned neighbor Doug Greene was suspicions as to why she didn't take her dog out like she did normally, and why the dog was barking constantly for two hours. The police received a call from Greene on August 31st at 9:45 am and arrived at the crime scene at 9:56am.The police found Anna lying face down in the hallway. Authorities observed a pool of blood around her head and some vomit beside her. It was 73 degrees inside Anna’s house, while it was 92 degrees outside. Anna was last seen alive by her former husband, Alex Garcia the night before her death. Investigators measured her rectal temperature, and came to a conclusion that she died at 7:00 am in that same morning. A medical examiner was also called to perform an autopsy to see what really caused Anna's death.
When conducting research for my project, I came across a website that contained a few primary sources regarding the Salem Witch Trials. One of these primary sources was the photo of a legal document explaining the death warrant and reasons for execution of a woman named Bridget Bishop. Bishop was claimed to be a witch in Salem during the year 1692, and the document explaining her significance involving witchcraft resides in the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. My thesis for this primary source is that the judge and jury believed they were seeking justice by executing Bishop, a woman whose death was truthfully based on her differences as a person rather than actual crimes she committed.
Carla Washburn, an incredible, inspirational woman that has sadly witnessed the 3 closest male figures in her life all pass on. This has resulted in Carla becoming depressed over the unbearable experience. Carla embraced in giving back to the community and that’s not surprising because she’s a person of spirituality. While, Carla is the client and is suffering through grief, it’s likely she’d benefit immensely from creating a program to work with the kids in the community and may give her a sense of worth she’s been seeking since these 3 tragedies.
Born on December 25, 1921, Clara grew up in a family of four children, all at least 11 years older than her (Pryor, 3). Clara’s childhood was more of one that had several babysitters than siblings, each taking part of her education. Clara excelled at the academic part of life, but was very timid among strangers. School was not a particularly happy point in her life, being unable to fit in with her rambunctious classmates after having such a quiet childhood. The idea of being a burden to the family was in Clara’s head and felt that the way to win the affection of her family was to do extremely well in her classes to find the love that she felt was needed to be earned. She was extremely proud of the positive attention that her achievement of an academic scholarship (Pryor, 12). This praise for her accomplishment in the field of academics enriched her “taste for masculine accomplishments”. Her mother however, began to take notice of this and began to teach her to “be more feminine” by cooking dinners and building fires (Pryor, 15). The 1830’s was a time when the women of the United States really began to take a stand for the rights that they deserved (Duiker, 552). Growing up in the mist of this most likely helped Barton become the woman she turned out to be.
US Supreme Court in 1927, in the case Buck v. Bell put a legal example that states can sterilize public institutions inmates (Lombardo, 2009). The argument of the court was that epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and imbecility are hereditary and it was important to the inmates from passing these defects to other generations. May 2nd 1927, the court ordered Buck Carrie, whom it referred as a feebleminded daughter to get sterilization following the 1924 Virginia act of Eugenical Sterilization. Carrie had a feebleminded daughter and her mother was feebleminded too. The case determined that obligatory sterilization laws did not infringe the due process given by the US constitution 14th amendment. It established the legal mandate and bolstered US eugenics movement for sterilizing over 60,000 citizens in over thirty states. Most of these practices ended in 1970s (Reilly, 1991).
Kenneth Edelin was a 35 year old third year medical resident at the Boston City Hospital. This hospital was known for many poor coming into it. This was also a place for research. By this time research was still being conducted on fetuses and embryos. When a patient came to the hospital for an abortion she also signed a waiver for them to test on her. They called her “Alice Roe” and she was only 17 years old but had the consent of her mother to proceed with the abortion.This patient was estimated by the supervisor over the residents, Hugh Holtrop, to be about twenty-two weeks pregnant but the other residents Enrique Giminez and Steve Teich disagreed. They estimated that she was about twenty-four weeks pregnant. Edlein was put in charge of doing the
Noonan, John T, Jr. A Private Choice: Abortion in America in the Seventies. Collier Macmillan Publishers, London: 1979.
Henrietta was born into a poor, black family. Her father was a tobacco famer and Henrietta never really knew her mother, since she was four years old when her mother died. After her mother’s death, Henrietta spent her childhood living with her grandfather in Clover, Virginia, in what they called the ‘home-house’. When Henrietta was fourteen, her first son Lawrence was born. Four years later, his sister Elsie followed. Elsie was ‘s...
In order to understanding how women have been discriminated against we must know the history behind the most controversial topic in women’s rights, abortion. For decade’s legal scholars, social movement activities, and historians, have agreed whether women actually had rights when it came to abortions and understanding the pro-life feminist reform. In Mary Zeigler, "Women's Rights on the Right: The History and Stakes of Modern Pro-Life Feminism.” Pro-life advocates have argued that “abortions cause more to the woman rather than help them.” (Zeigler233) One of the most popular known cases is Gonzales v. Carhart which attempted to justify abortion restrictions on the very basis of the physical or psychological harms that could or assumed to be caused or produced by the actual procedure.(Zeigler234) However, women protective claims, only one part of larger strategy that this Article calls prolife feminism. The article also identifies potential common ground among those proclaiming to be feminist with different positions on abortions. Both pro-choice and pro-life scholars have written extensively on how to their arguments as forwarding women
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The debate of abortion continues to be a controversial problem in society and has been around for many decades. According to Jone Lewis, “In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820’s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy” (1). This indicates that the abortion controversy has been debated far back into American history. Beginning in the 1900’s, legalized abortion became a major controversy. In 1965, all fifty states in the United States banned abortion; however, that was only the beginning of the controversy that still rages today (Lewis 1). After abortion was officially banned in the United States, groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League worked hard on a plan to once again legalize abortion in the United States (Lewis 1). It wasn’t until 1970 when the case of Roe (for abortion) v. Wade (against abortion) was brought...
In 1900 a law was passed banning women from having an abortion. Before 1900, abortions were a common practice and usually performed by a midwife, but doctors saw this as a financial threat and pushed for a law making abortions illegal. From 1900 until 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a women’s right to have an abortion, women who wanted to have an abortion did so secretly. These secret abortions were performed
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
Millions of illegal abortions were done by the 1950s, and over a thousand women died each year as result. Moreover, millions of women who had illegal abortions were rushed to the emergency ward; some died of abdominal infection, and other, found themselves sterile and chronically ill. In 1969, 75% of the women who died from these abortions were either poor or of color. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that woman had the right of privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to obtain an abortion, yet, keeping in mind that, protecting the health of the woman and the potential life of the fetus is the main interest. As result of this decision, safe and unpainful abortion services were offered to many women. In addition, some health care centers provided counseling, women’s group offered free referral services, and, non-profit abortion facilities were created. Nevertheless, legalization was not enough to ensure that abortions will be available to all women, women of low income and of color still found themselves without safe and inexpensive abortions. Between the early 1980s, feminist health centers provided low-cost abortions, however, by the early 1990s, only 20% of these centers survived the harassment by the IRS and the competition of other