Buck V Bell Case Summary

This controversial case ruled that a woman’s ability to be able to chose to get an abortion is considered a protected liberty. It also concluded that this

For around $400 and a referral from a well-respected doctor, Dr. George Loutrell Timanus performed abortions from the 1920s until 1951 (Reagan 1997, 158). Dr. Timanus, like many private practice physicians in his specialty performed abortions for women who came to him with varying reasons such as “poverty, excessive childbearing, and illegitimacy” (Reagan 1997, 158). Despite the general disapproval of abortions, Dr. Timanus practiced out in the open and was available for those who needed him. Dr. Timanus’ execution of these operations showed that though abortions were illegal at the time, there were many doctors who were sympathetic with different maternal cases. His decision to do what he thought was morally correct over the few decades is significant because it shows a change in attitude towards abortions in comparison with that of the early twentieth century. However, in 1951 Dr. Timanus’ office was raided and he, along with those who worked with and for him, was arrested for illegally performing abortions. In the beginning of the 1950s, people started to question whether or not abortions should be legal, thus why Dr. Timanus believed that he was doing nothing wrong and was well within his rights as a physician. Despite the fact that there were people and doctors who had similar beliefs as he did, not one of Dr. Timanus’ colleagues came to his defense as he was trialed for his crimes (Reagan

Buck versus Bell 274 U.S. 2000 (1927) was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statue instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded “for the protection and health of the state.” (Holmes) It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics which is the attempt of science to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives” from the gene pool. (Elof) Paul Lombardo argues (in N.Y.U. Law Review, April 1985, 60(30):30-62) that the Buck case was a milestone in government power over individual rights. (Lambardo) In his essay “Carrie Buck’s Daughter: a popular, quasi-scientific idea can be a powerful tool for injustice,” Stephen Jay Gould attacks

The central issue upon which the Supreme Court based their decision was in regard to the best interests of the child. They looked closely at the nature v. nurture argument, ruling that her psychological parents, the Racine’s, were capable of providing a healthier environment than her biological mother, Mrs. Woods. When looking at this case from a solely legal perspective, it is clear that the Court made the correct choice, considering Mrs. Woods’ ongoing battle with substance abuse coupled with her abusive relationship. However, this case, as with many could not be looked at simply from a legal perspective. Complex cultural aspects are embedded within the case that had to be considered in order to properly gauge the decisions and the effects of that decision. In the past, children were automatically placed with their biological parents or relatives, which, was viewed as standard procedure within the legal framework. Societal norms have progressed in such a way that allow for a more activist

In the state of Kansas between 1913 and 1961, Kansas practiced forced sterilization on mentally unstable women.” In addition to laws regarding sterilization, several marriage restriction bills were proposed in Kansas as part of the eugenics movement. Although they were never enacted as state law, marriage bills were proposed in 1915, 1917, and 1927, demonstrating the popularity of eugenic ideals.” (University of Vermont…Kansas). Dr. F. Hoyt Pilcher performed 150 sterilization in the Kansas State Home of the Feebleminded. Between the years 1913 and 1916 there were 1,274 women sterilized in Kansas. In the year 1921, sterilization in Kansas was at its all-time lowest. Between the years 1950 and 1963, sterilization in Kansas was at its peak. It is

Chapter 8 of Kitcher's novel, Inescapable Eugenics, identifies past abuses of eugenics resulting from inaccurate, misleading information; abuses that include dominant groups using eugenics to discriminate against other undesirable groups.

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

Therefore, enlightened eugenics calls for the education on the basis of minimalist eugenics while responsible eugenics would use reliable genetic tests in order to avoid neurological diseases and prevent the previously mentioned dangers caused by laissez-faire eugenics. Kitcher’s view of utopian eugenics envisions a society in which genetics allow people to make free and educated reproductive choices and in which the education broadens an understanding of the likely quality of a modest life.

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

Davis court case ties in with our government class in that Texas has to respect the Bill of Rights and incorporate them in every trial. Texas state courts have applied federal interpretations to provisions in state bills of rights similar in wording to the provisions in the United States Bill of Rights because there is a well-established federal supremacy. Texas has broken its promise to provide the appropriate right to a fair and unbiased sentencing hearing for this individual. With this said we can conclude that Mr. Buck’s right to a fair and speedy trial, under the sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights, has been abused. Therefore making the courts’ decision

The Buck v. Bell case began when Carrie Buck was seventeen and claimed that she was raped by J.T. and Alice Dobbs son and turn out to be pregnant. So when that happened a test revealed that Carrie had da mind of a nine year old which was consider being feeblemindedness. Her mother was also tested and considered to be feeblemindedness because her test revealed that she had the mind of an eight year old. Carrie and her mother were sent to the Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded (Buck v. Bell, 2006).

Future eugenicists can extort their knowledge and use it to their advantage. Eugenics is an interesting subject that is co-dependent on society; the future holds great possibilities for acknowledgment in this field of science.

In contrast to the "negative" eugenics position of the state of Virginia, involuntary sterilization laws emphasizing breeding restrictions for society's "unfit" neither benefit the welfare of the individual nor that of society for several moral and legal reasons. The legal validity of these involuntary sterilization laws would be challenged within the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell. In September of 1924, at the age of eighteen, Carrie Buck, an illegitimate daughter of an allegedly feebleminded woman, was admitted to the Virginia's State Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded. Six months earlier, the Virginia State Legislature decisively passed their involuntary sterilization bill authorizing the Superintendents of five state institutions to petition for the permission to sterilize inmates. Buck, who had a mental age of nine and an I.Q. of about fifty, had already given birth to an illegitimate child herself, who was allegedly feebleminded as well. At the time, the Superintendent of the State Colony, Dr. A. S. Priddy, petitioned for permission to sterilize this woman for fear that Buck would have more mentally defective children. The statute had provided that each Superintendent needed to receive permission from a special Board of Directors of that institution, who would hear the grounds for sterilization and determine whether or not to follow through on the operation. Priddy faced immense pressure from state officials to petition for sterilization, as

Justice Blackmun argued that historically abortion was accepted and legal since the times of the Greeks and Romans. He pointed out that under common law, it was without dispute that an “abortion performed before “quickening”—the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy—was not an indictable offense.” Indeed, it was only in the last two centuries that any real regulation had been passed to punish the abortion of “quickening” fetuses. The abortion of a “pre-quickening” child was not illegal in the United States until it was banned in New York in 1860. To be sure, Blackmun argued that abortion laws in the United States were relatively stricter in the 1970’s than they had been in the past two thousand years. Therefore, under Blackmun’s argument, the Roe v. Wade ruling was more in step with the past interpretation of abortion law up to the middle of the nineteenth century.

Both talked about principles of reproductive rights as a concept of human rights, discussing the topics surrounding reproductive rights, as well as the interconnected relationships between the rights, entities, viewpoints, and individuals involved in producing reproductive rights. Silliman et al. (2004) referred to some cultures around the world that females are second-class