[Rashputin]

Interesting stuff, especially since the USSC ruled in Buck vs. Bell that the State has the right to sterilize anyone they see fit to sterilize. There's not a lot of nuance in the ruling, either. If the law is passed in the usual and accepted manner it's the law and the State may proceed as they see fit to implement the law that defines who should be sterilized with or without the consent of the persons the State chooses to sterilize.

IOW, the USSC has ruled that the State has the authority to decide who may and who may not have children. The fact that no one has ever bothered to challenge Buck v Bell is an illustration of how little strategic thinking exists within the ranks of US Conservatives and Pro-Life activists. Of course, it's not like denying you the right to have children is going to take money out of your pocket so it's just not an issue I guess. I feel sure BarryCare will make it an issue at some point, though.

Reading through the legal issues at Nuremberg is one of the best places to see how and where such laws originated and were implemented.

[Tax-chick]

The fact that no one has ever bothered to challenge Buck v Bell ...

You can't challenge a Supreme Court ruling just by filing a form. You have to have an actual event of harm caused by enforcement of a law you say is unconstitutional. If any state were presently attempting to sterilize citizens against their will, then you'd have a cause of action to procede.

It's possible that a case of judge-ordered abortion on an underage or mentally incompetent woman could generate a challenge to this precedent, but it seems not to have happened.