Buck V Bell Violation of Due Process, Essay Example

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Error to the Supreme Court of the United States

Facts: Carrie Buck was admitted to a mental institution and the facts were this was a genetic generation situation of three prior generations with family members. The Virginia law mandated sexual sterilization based on the premise “to promote the health of the patient and the welfare of the society”. This will come to play with the constitutionality of this law later in this paper. The law required a precedent hearing before the procedure could be performed on any patient to determine if it was in the best interest of the patient and in the best interest of the public’s welfare.

The decision was important because it set precedent for this case and other cases involving sterilization of mental patients to be overturned. The reason for this is because this process violated the due process rights of the person and took away their right to choose. This was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which affords “equal protection under the laws.” This reminds me of the case. This law further violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The error in law came because the operation was performed for the purpose of “making Buck sterile.” Further the act is not about the procedure itself, it is about the substantive law. “It appears in no circumstances could an act of sterilization legally be permitted without violating a person’s due process rights and rights to equal protection under the law. The court failed to take into consideration if Buck would be a long-term patient and would be able to return to society as a productive and fertile citizen. They violated her rights by taking away her right to reproduce children. We cannot simply say that we will eliminate all possibilities of children that are “less competent” being born into this world. People should have an inalienable right to use “birth control” to prevent pregnancy. This would have been more in line with a legitimate welfare for the lady and best interests of the public, not permanent sterilization. See: Griswold v Connecticut (1965).

The most important issue that arose out of this case is that the process of substantive law was challenged. Obviously the law that governed the rights of people had to be challenged because sterilization was considered a freedom of choice of the individual under Constitutional Rights and could not be forced upon a person in the name of “for the best interests of the person and the best interests of the public.” Who is the law to state that the best interest of the public should be governed by the law when it came to private issues of bearing children? How could it be held constitutional that it was in the best interests of the public to make children that are normal? God gives the ability for all to procreate and sometimes a child is born retarded or slower than others. That is part of a normal society. That should not be governed by any legislature. There are other options to those who are mentally ill than to sterilize them. They can be put on birth control and they can be offered the option to put a child up for adoption if they cannot care for the child whilst in the mental institution. It is an absurd violation of any woman’s rights to take away her innate right to produce children simply because she is in a mental institution and may produce offspring that may be less than fortunate. Our world was not created to be a perfect one.

References

Buck v Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Retrieved October 25, 2010 from, http://www.justia.com/

Due Process of Law Retrieved October 25, 2010 from, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

Griswold v Connecticut (1965) Retrieved October 25, 2010 from, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496

Coffeco (2009) Should the Mentally Ill be on Mandatory Birth Control or Sterilized? Retrieved October 25, 2010 from, http://socyberty.com/issues/should-the-mentally-ill-be-on-mandatory-birth-control-or-sterilized/