Posted on 02/02/2015 11:51:07 AM PST by Huntress
Link only: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/motherofsix-with-learning-disabilities-could-be-sterilised-after-authorities-ask-court-for-permission-to-force-entry-into-her-home-10018414.html
Is this a permissible way to post material from the UK Independent? If not, please edit or pull thread.
It's not just because she's mentally disabled.
Guess the Nazis won after all.
I saw that. I’m just not sure that I buy that explanation.
Nonetheless, the report also says the woman wants to be left alone. So leave her alone. If she gets pregger and dies, so be it. It is her right. And if you take away her ability to make a decision based on her mental state, watch where you end up in a generation. I mean c’mon, England has a single payer health care system. You know where it will end up.
How Adolf & Himmler of them.
Isn’t their main concern that this woman keeps producing more and more ‘Bastard Wards of the State’ if you’ll pardon my old world blunt language?
I think the prospect of yet another child
born to an unprepared, ill-equiped single parent inspires them to take such drastic measures. Yet another child who will need state care for the next twenty years at least.
No mention of the dirtbag(s) who keeps knocking her up? Seems like a visit from the child support police should straighten his crank out? Maybe she’s just breeding cheap labor Morlocks for HG Wells’ Eloi to use?
Cool. Lets leave her COMPLETELY alone, and not give her welfare either.
If she is too stupid to know how to avoid getting pregnant, maybe they are too stupid to know that sex causes pregnancy.
You expect a headline writer to write a non-inflammatory title to a story? They have ad space to sell! Truth and accuracy be damned!
Buck v Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
SCOTUS decision, penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did NOT violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.
The Supreme Court has NOT expressly overruled Buck v. Bell. (However, the recent trend has seen many federal and state courts severely criticizing and questioning it.)
The final two paragraphs, in their entirety:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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. [p208]
But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course, so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.
Judgment affirmed.
(And we will hear this phrase MANY times if we elect another Bush, despite Jeb not actually being a third generation.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.