Buck v. Bell and the History of Forced Sterilization Laws

“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. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” — Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

These are the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., upholding the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, which provided for the compulsory sterilization of “mental defectives.” Buck v. Bell was the test case used to set legal precedent in the practice of forced sterilization in the United States. Eugenics has a disturbing history, with many forced sterilizations being performed on people with mental illness or minorities.

Forced sterilization was a key component in the eugenics movement of the late 19th Century. Eugenics is a term coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, meaning “well-born.” The field consisted of both positive eugenics, encouraging people of “good stock” to reproduce, and negative eugenics, preventing or forbidding the reproduction of people with “undesirable” traits. In the U.S., the movement culminated in practices believed to result in a fitter populace such as Better Babies contests, where babies were judged on their mental and physical health, as well as landmark immigration legislation installing quotas based on nationality. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was authored by Washington State Representative to Congress and eugenics proponent Albert Johnson.

Many forced sterilization laws were modeled after Eugenics Records Office secretary and director Harry H. Laughlin’s Model Eugenical Sterilization Law. The Virginia law litigated in Buck v. Bell was one such law. Over 30 states eventually passed forced sterilization laws. And by 1961, with the consent of the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell, over 60,000 people had undergone forced sterilization procedures. Washington State accounted for at least 685 of these forced sterilization victims, almost three-quarters of which were women.

Washington Law

Washington was at the forefront of the movement to legislate forced sterilizations. The state was only the third in the country to pass a compulsory sterilization law. Washington’s law, Laws of 1909, ch. 249 § 35, was intended to be punitive and provided for “prevention of procreation” for any person “adjudged guilty of carnal abuse of a female person under the age of ten years, or of rape, or shall be adjudged to be an habitual criminal.” The law was challenged as cruel and unusual punishment, but was upheld in State v. Feilen, 70 Wash. 65 (1912). The statute remains on the books today at RCW 9.92.100.

A separate set of legislation was passed in 1921 aimed at additional segments of the population. The legislation, introduced at the behest of progressive women activists, required state institution superintendents to report to the Institutional Board of Health, “all feeble minded, insane, epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates and sexual perverts, who are persons potential to producing offspring who, because of inheritance of inferior or anti-social traits, would probably become a social menace or wards of the State.” In a 1942 challenge to the law, the Washington State Supreme Court recognized the police power of the state to sterilize inmates as determined in Buck v. Bell, but declared the law to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The law was repealed five years later, making way for the alternative practice of lobotomy.

Although Buck v. Bell has never been overturned, another U.S. Supreme Court case casts doubt on the practice of sterilization. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.” Since then, non-consensual procedures have become frowned upon and many states repealed their laws. The topic of sterilization, however, is not settled and today has moved into the realm of disability rights. (SC)

For further reading from the State Law Library’s collection:

· Eugenic Sterilization in Virginia : Aubrey Strode and the Case of Buck v. Bell by Paul A. Lombardo, Library Lower Level KF 3832 L66 1983

· Eugenic Sterilization compiled and edited by Jonas Robitscher, Library Lower Level HQ 767.7 E8

· The Smart Culture : Society, Intelligence, and Law by Robert L. Hayman, Jr., Main Reading Room KF 480 H37 1998

Additional reading and listening:

· Georgia State University College of Law Buck v Bell Documents

· Encyclopedia Virginia’s Buck v. Bell entry

· Encyclopedia Virginia’s entry for Buck v. Bell litigant Carrie Buck

· University of Virginia Eugenics, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Virginia, Eugenics & Buck v. Bell

· University of Vermont Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

· University of Washington Eugenics and Disability: History and Legacy in Washington

· Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement

· NPR’s Hidden Brain Podcast Emma, Carrie, Vivian: How A Family Became A Test Case For Forced Sterilizations