Eugenics is defined by Coutts and McCarrick (1995, p.163) as the methods used in perfecting the human race thorough genetic technologies or the traditional genetic selection (Sparrow, 2010, p.288). But this definition was twisted to defend the enhancement of human beings by sterilizing those who are considered to be inadequate (Coutts and McCarrick, p.1995, p.163). The definition of an inadequate genetic heredity was defined by the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act to include feeblemindedness and sexual promiscuity, which is believed to be be passed on to the next generation (Claude, 2004). The first test subject for the sterilization law was Carrie Buck, which was committed to the Virginia Colony through a charge of feeblemindedness as well as sexual promiscuity after giving birth to an illegitimate child (Pitzer, 2009). However the reason for the illegitimate child was actually due to the rape of the foster parent’s relative (Claude, 2004).
Under the Virginia sterilization act the Virginia Colony, which houses the insane, epileptic, idiots, imbeciles, and mentally deficient criminals, the superintendent may at its consideration and with the approval of the special board of directors are authorized to sterilize the inmates (Cold, 2016). The requirement for the approval is that there is a petition, the superintendent’s affidavit, a copy of the petition given to the inmate, and a written notice of the petition (Cold, 2016). The main reason given for the first sterilization subject was that the three generations of Buck women were considered as feebleminded (Pitzer, 2009).
Prevalence of Judicial Activism
The involuntary sterilization was considered to be judicial activism since the General Assembly was unable to fully fund the Virginia Colony and its expanding number of inmates through reproduction and therefore used the Sterilization Act as a cost-saving strategy (Claude, 2004). The problem is that sterilized feebleminded inmates were hired out to serve normal families for a price (Claude, 2004). The classification of which inmate was considered for sterilization was primarily due to the opinion of the superintendent of the Virginia Colony (Cold, 2016). But the sterilization act was supported by 2 more sterilization act champions, which are the draft author of the law and the defense lawyer of Carrie Buck (Claude, 2004). The additional problem is that the defense lawyer, Irving Whitehead, was also a board member of the Colony (Claude, 2004). The draft author, Aubrey Strode, was the previous legal counsel of the Board, which implied that there is collusion on the part of the three men (Claude, 2004).
The weak defense given by Whitehead clearly disregarded the civil rights of Carrie Buck as seen in the lack of witnesses to disprove the feebleminded charge while Strode presented witnesses and experts (Claude, 2004). The first expert produced by Strode was Harry Laughlin, who was not able to personally examine or test Carrie Buck but was able to write a deposition with a sworn testimony on the feeblemindedness of the Buck family (Claude, 2004). The sworn testimony was primarily due to Emma Buck having syphilis and the perceived illegitimacy of Carrie (Claude, 2004). The problem is that Emma, previously with a last name of Harlow, was legally married at that time to Frank as concurred by the marriage license (Claude, 2004), which disputes the charge of illegitimacy. This means that this legal document disproved sexual promiscuity, which was testified to be true by one of Carrie’s teachers (Claude, 2004). The third generation, Vivian Buck was testified to have below average intelligence by a trained field worker from ERO, Arthur Estabrook (Claude, 2004).
There was only one test given, which Vivian Buck failed since she was distracted by the camera while a coin was flashed past her face (Claude, 2004). No further tests were given and the resulting verdict was that Vivian Buck is considered to be feebleminded, which was considered to be an inherited trait for previous generations (Claude, 2004). The problem with this is that Whitehead could have looked for undisputed evidence to counter this charge in the three years since the passing of the sterilization act (Claude, 2004).
One such undisputed evidence is Carrie’s report cards where it states that she had “very good” marks under deportment and lessons (Pitzer, 2009). Vivian Buck was later able to disprove the allegation of feeblemindedness by Estabrook when she made the honor roll (Pitzer, 2009). This means that the allegations of feebleminded can be easily countered with the due diligence of a responsible defense lawyer. The collusion of the three men to uphold involuntary sterilization resulted in the use of judicial activism in order to serve the needs of contemporary society (Pitzer, 2009). Based on the evidence provided by Whitehead and Strode the sterilization act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was implemented in 1927 (Pitzer, 2009).
This means that the law primarily failed to defend the civil liberties of its citizenry not only in the case of Carrie Buck but the more than 65,000 inmates that were involuntarily sterilized by the 30 U.S. states (Pitzer, 2009). The sterilization act was further adopted by eugenic supporters in Nazi Germany resulting to an additional unnamed number of victims (Pitzer, 2009). The suppression of the civil liberties of these victims cannot be changed as seen in the sincere apology given by Virginia Governor Mark Warner during the unveiling of the Carrie Buck memorial in 2002 (BBC, 2002). Warner stated that “the state government should never have been involved” or participated in eugenics (Claude, 2004a).
References
BBC News. (2002). Virginia apologises for eugenics policy. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1965811.stm
Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. (2004). Buck vs. Bell: The test case for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act. Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. University of Virginia. Retrieved from http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/3-buckvbell/
Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. (2004a). Carrie Buck revisited and Virginia’s apology for Eugenics. Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. University of Virginia. Retrieved from http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/5-epilogue/
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (2016). Virginia Sterilization Act of 3/20/1924. DNA Learning Center. Retrieved from https://www.dnalc.org/view/11213-Virginia-Sterilization-Act-of-3-20-1924.html
Coutts, M. C. and McCarrick, P. M. (1995). Eugenics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(2), pp.163-178.
Pitzer, A. (2009). U.S. eugenics legacy: Ruling on Buck sterilization still stands. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-23-eugenics-carrie-buck_N.htm
Sparrow, R. (2010). A not-so-new eugenics: Harris and Sevulescu on human enhancement. Asian Bioethics Review, 2(4), p.288-307.
Appendix A. Sterilization Act 1924
Appendix B. Marriage Contract of Emma Harlow and Frank Buck
