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.
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.
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.)