Carrie Buck Case

1243 Words3 Pages

On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
Carrie Buck was perceived as being part of the next generation of feeble-minded Bucks after her mother, Emma, gave birth to her and her siblings. Many people of Charlottesville, Virginia witnessed the upbringing of Carrie and saw that she, along …show more content…

The Virginia Sterilization Law legalized the sterilization of feeble-minded and epileptic individuals whom were already “lawfully” committed to state hospitals. The board of the State Colony would soon implement the sterilization on its occupants, but they would first need a test case. Carrie would be the first to be sterilized at the State Colony. In order to test the legality of her sterilization, the board would appoint Irving Whitehead to defend Carrie Buck against Albert Priddy, the superintendent of the Colony and the doctor whom performed the sterilization. Whitehead was chosen because of his connections to the Virginia State Colony. Whitehead sat on the very first board of the Colony and it was evident that this influenced his defense of Carrie. The Colony would win the initial case, Buck v. Priddy, because of his inadequate defense and lack of preparation. Buck v. Bell would go on to the Supreme Court in 1927 to argue the constitutionality of her sterilization. It was argued that the sterilization law violated Carrie Buck’s right to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and her right to due process of law (Smith and Nelson …show more content…

Albert Priddy testified before the Board of the Colony that the “harmless” operation would help Carrie to be self-sufficient and be released to from the institution. He stood firm with his belief that she could not be returned to society and must be “kept in custody during the period of childbearing” without the sterilization (Smith and Nelson 1989). The Board later claimed that the sterilization would not cause any “detriment to her general health” and would only help her overall welfare (Lombardo 2008). Another “advantage” of Carrie’s sterilization was being reunited with her foster parents. Strode claims that the only thing “prevent[ing] her having an independent home is her child-bearing capacity” and that the Dobbses did not want the “risk” of her conceiving another child (“Buck” 1926,

More about Carrie Buck Case

Open Document