In Spite of Arbitrary Adjudications, or Maybe Because of Them, Contributor Herein Challenges “Pre-Determined Outcomes”/”Evidence-Based,” extortionist, grant driven, morally devoid “Trauma-Induced/’Informed’ Outcomes,” and Extreme that On Any Given Day, the “Game” Goes to Most Unwitting, Worthy “Player” Who Knows He/r and His Worth . . .
Pearls, ancient symbols of secret wisdom, appearance forged by the temperature of the water in which it is harvested, its metabolism, and the random sediments that permeate its shell in formation, and so they are valued in their rarity. What man is so bold that he or s/he professes to possess the requisite knowledge to predict chance and the forces of nature?
Author of this post and this blog Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and Our Children Who Want to Come Home, for My Little Jewel, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, grew up thinking that the ideal role model, a pillar of justice strong and true, was former US Supreme Court Justice, (Hon.) Sandra Day O’Connor. In fact, in one of my application essays to Bryn Mawr College, I urged that the commencement speaker should be Justice Sandra Day O’Connor before I later found out that s/he indeed had been the commencement speaker at Bryn Mawr College the previous year.
Some children are born knowing what they were put on this earth to do with such an intensity and ambition from as early as the age of two years- old when they first start talking, and for some, even learning to write, and, in author’s case, at the age of three, was teaching the adults in neighborhood how to spell author’s name on chalkboard and blackboard, and “teaching” out of old workbooks a woman in Grandma’s church group didn’t need for her classes any longer.
The idea that every individual was not born free to determine his/he/r success–meaningful impact of some great import and significance that defined each individual, and that gobs of money and wealth naturally flowed from such self-evident and somehow logical truth–did not exist for this author. If anyone else would have suggested even the mere thought, I would have dismissed them as truly barbaric, uncivilized, immature, and lazy, or even worse–unmotivated and intellectually under-stimulated (Heaven forbid)!
To all of those similarly real individuals who were brought up to disregard outward, superficial appearances and those who boasted of the trivialities that those with real class, wealth, or inward nobility– even if they never owned anything other than their own body, mind, and spirit (other than the Good Lord and Creator divine of course)–I relate the day I learned and lamented the real truth that everything The Holy Bible says about this world and those of it is absolutely true. For, indeed, we were not promised a “rose garden,” but rather a “valley of tears” that awaited my then five year-old son, julian: of family, saloom, in Judge Lisa Millard’s and Associate Judge Conrad Moren’s 310th Harris County Court in Houston, Texas, being a eugenicist legislative family court of fraud (but even still an incompetent one at that ), or, “CPS Cluster Court East Texas” of fraud, adoption, may [or may not’s, rather shall not obey the code nor the law], misprision, malfeasance, organized crime, racketeering, and, fundamentally, based on the beliefs, base and those below, the family “civil” court originally founded as a racial hygiene court of ethnic cleansing, the precursor to all mass genocides throughout history:
. . .but about the court that ratified CPS in cabal and cahoots with my son’s father after pulling a Marcia Kleinman style actual or alleged sexual abuse allegations against the father to master engineer a custody-switching scam to put money back in Texas Attorney General Fund best interest pocket, make no mistake, the reason that my now eight year-old son who was kidnapped by CPS and child’s father and family who had threatened exactly what they delivered since I failed to have an abortion that was terroristically coerced by my son’s father in 2006 under the literal threat that he and family would “ruin” me, and my private property, intellectual, artistic expression manifest corporeal, living, imbued with the spirit ALMIGHTY GOD, and a Gift from Him to private property-owner, being the vessel on whose waters he was berthed, little natural male my “son”. suffers maternal deprivation and all that implies for three years with no meaningful contact with me (not even phone calls or birthday cards or gifts ) make no mistake, CPS Nazi, Eugenicist, . . . cabal and roots are running the show in every one of its “Cluster” courts in America. Given their originally high genetic standards, however, I must question their arbitrary reversals of a rather paradoxical nature. Has anyone seen who is running the show, lately?
Read also, “Emily Court’s” wonderfully informative, yet sad and tragic toned multi-series piece on the Lebensborn projects and White Rose Society also featured on he/r blog, Family Court Injustice, and also on this blog (www.familycourtinjustice.wordpress.com/tag/lebensborn-program/).
13 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 1(1996)
MEDICINE, EUGENICS, AND THE SUPREME COURT: FROM COERCIVE STERILIZATION TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM *Paul A. Lombardo **** Ph.D., J.D., Associate Professor of the General Faculty of the School of Law and Director, Center for Mental Health Law, Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University of Virginia.
The idea that the human race can be gradually improved and social ills simultaneously eliminated through a program of selective procreation was widely accepted through the first third of the twentieth century. The term applied to this seductive notion was eugenics, and it gave rise to a movement that found adherents throughout American society. Every president from Theodore Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover was a member of a eugenics organization, publicly endorsed eugenic laws, or signed eugenic legislation without voicing opposition.
Between 1900 and 1970, proponents of eugenic theory drafted and endorsed nearly one hundred statutes that were adopted by state legislatures. Most of this legislation focused on limiting the reproductive rights of some individuals, and on eliminating purportedly inheritable “defects” such as crime, poverty, or mental disorder. Physicians, the most influential advocates in the eugenics movement, lobbied for laws that reflected eugenic theory and defended those laws in the courts. Their campaign emphasized the foundations of eugenics as a part of genetic science. They also adopted the rhetorically powerful language of public health law and characterized unchecked procreation among the “socially inadequate” as an epidemic force.
Three cases that challenged laws written by self-proclaimed eugenicists between 1924 and 1935 were eventually heard by the United States Supreme Court: Buck v. Bell (endorsing sterilization of the mentally deficient), Skinner v. Oklahoma (prohibiting sterilization of habitual criminals), and Loving v. Virginia (overturning prohibitions on interracial marriage). Each of these cases revolved around a state law containing explicit eugenic assumptions. . .
A. Social Deviance as a Eugenic Category
Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, and others who called themselves eugenicists believed in improving the human condition through the use of science. They understood their field as the marriage of the biological sciences, including medical genetics, with the then new discipline of biostatistics. The most passionate of American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, wished to develop a taxonomy of human traits and to categorize individuals as “healthy” or “unhealthy,” and “normal” or “abnormal,” within their classification scheme. Working under the presumption that most, if not all, human traits are transmitted genetically, the eugenicists encouraged educated, resourceful, and self-sufficient citizens to mate and produce “wellborn” eugenic children. In contrast, the dysgenic were discouraged from reproducing. Harry Laughlin called dysgenic groups “socially inadequate” and defined them to include: the feeble-minded, the insane, the criminalistic, the the mentally deficient,the epileptic, the inebriated or the drug addicted, the diseased – regardless of etiology, the blind, the deaf, the deformed, and dependents (an extraordinarily expansive term that embraced orphans, “ne’er-do-wells,” tramps, the homeless, and paupers). ), Skinner v. Oklahoma (prohibiting sterilization of habitual criminals), and Loving v. Virginia (overturning prohibitions on interracial marriage). Each of these cases revolved around a state law containing explicit eugenic assumptions. . . .
Laughlin’s list of the “socially inadequate” emphasized three major tenets of the eugenicists:
1) that social, moral, physical, and mental qualities are transmitted in predictable patterns by the mechanisms of heredity;
2) that the human race can be improved by selective mating; and
3) that the ills of society (disease, crime, poverty, and other social abnormalities) can be eradicated by discouraging, or preventing if necessary, the reproduction of socially deviant individuals.
The eugenicists were successful in incorporating these assumptions into American law, in large measure by portraying their legal program as a public health initiative. Eugenicists relied upon the image of diseased “germ plasm,” their analogue for genetic material or “DNA,” combined with the alarming rhetoric of a spreading epidemic of crime, poverty, and feeble-mindedness to help garner support for their proposals. Finally, they enlisted the coercive power of public health law, a body of law that sets aside the usual restrictions that surround much of medical jurisprudence, as the solution for eliminating social problems.
It is worth noting that Abraham Flexner’s report on the shortcomings of medical education was Laughlin’s list of the “socially inadequate” emphasized three major tenets of the eugenicists:
The eugenicists were successful in incorporating these assumptions into American law, in large Buck was the first and only instance in which the Court allowed a physician, acting as the agent of state government, to perform an operation that was neither desired nor needed by the “patient.” A previous US Supreme Court decision forbade even court ordered medical examination.
As early as 1891, in Union Pacific Railway v. Botsford, the Court refused to order a plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by the defendant’s doctor. Justice Gray said:
“No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others . . .
. . .The inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow.”
The eugenicists were successful in incorporating these assumptions into American law, in large measure by portraying their legal program as a public health initiative. Eugenicists relied upon the image of diseased “germ plasm,” their analogue for genetic material or “DNA,” combined with the alarming rhetoric of a spreading epidemic of crime, poverty, and feeblemindedness to help garner support for their proposals. Finally, they enlisted the coercive power of public health law, a body of law that sets aside the usual restrictions that surround much of medical jurisprudence, as the solution for eliminating social problems.
It is worth noting that Abraham Flexner’s report on the shortcomings of medical education was published in 1910, and that by the 1920’s the increased professionalization of medicine was underway, with growing emphasis on scientific and laboratory based inquiry.
As public health became one of the leading areas in medicine, prominent public health professionals used eugenic theories to explain social problems. Political attitudes toward the evolution of medicine were ripe for the eugenicists’ message that societal ills could be cured with a scientific prescription and that the law could provide a ready antidote to the poison of defective “germ-plasm,” which threatened America’s future.
II. Legal Impact of American Eugenicists: 1924
The Federal Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 was adopted in the banner year in the history of the American eugenics movement. The Act’s major provisions were crafted by Harry Laughlin, and prominent eugenicists advocated its passage. The law was meant to combat the “rising tide of defective germ-plasm” carried by suspect groups migrating from Southern and Eastern Europe, most notably Jews and Italians. The eugenicists thought these immigrants would threaten public morality, poison the “American” gene pool, and were “liable to become … public charges.” The Act was signed by President Calvin Coolidge, whose commentary in favor of such laws echoed eugenic rhetoric: “America must be kept American [because] biological laws show … that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races.“
A. Medical Elimination of the “Socially Inadequate” :
1. Buck v. Bell(1927)
While this article has explained the connection between the eugenic message and the rhetoric promising a scientific solution to social ills, the connection between “medicine” and eugenics implied by the article’s title must be clarified. The public health rationale, so often invoked as justification for coercive legislation which the eugenicists supported, provides one link. The eugenicists insisted that the “social problem classes” were a public health issue and a medical problem. The specific methods advocated to achieve eugenic objectives, most notably segregation and sterilization, were also medical. Medical segregation, the separation of undesirable germ-plasm.
The eugenic intent of the Act, and the national origins quota system it enforced, remained in place until they were repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Two eugenic measures adopted by the Virginia General Assembly also became law in 1924. These laws eventually led to two US Supreme Court opinions:
The Eugenical Sterilization Act challenged in Buck v. Bell (1927), and the Virginia Racial Integrity Act, considered by the Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967). A third eugenics case dealt with a 1935 Oklahoma law titled the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, which was considered by the Court in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). . . .
Except in the context of vaccination for contagious disease, coercive court ordered medical procedures had not been endorsed by the Supreme Court prior to Buck.
Buck also did not change the general tenor of US Supreme Court commentary on coercive medicine. Twenty-five years after Buck, in Rochin v. California, a unanimous Court overturned a conviction for illegal possession of morphine because the defendant’s stomach had been forcibly pumped at a hospital to retrieve evidence of illegal drugs.
“The personal intrusion that such a process required, said Justice Felix Frankfurter, involved “conduct that shocks the conscience.”. . .
A comparable result was reached thirty-three years later in the 1985 case of Winston v. Lee. That case involved a request to surgically remove a bullet from a criminal defendant as evidence of his participation in a robbery. According to the Court, “[a] compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion may be “unreasonable,’ [under the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures] even if likely to produce evidence of a crime.”
In the light of this reluctance to allow state mandated medical intrusions even in the criminal law context, Buck stands out as an anomaly in Court history.
B. How did Buck v. Bell get to the US Supreme Court?
The Buck case was necessary because of a medical malpractice lawsuit contesting a doctor’s use of the “therapeutic prerogative” to sterilize women without their consent. In 1916 Dr. Albert Priddy sterilized a woman and her daughter who were brought to the [Virginia State] Colony [for Epileptics and Feeble Minded] allegedly because of their disreputable habits-they had been accused of prostitution. When Priddy subsequently was sued for damages, he claimed that the operation was a therapeutic necessity, and that as the Colony’s physician, it was his prerogative and duty to provide whatever medical care Colony residents required. The jury accepted Priddy’s explanation, but he was warned that he should not pursue further sterilizations without specific legal authority. Subsequently, Priddy asked to have the Virginia sterilization law written to provide him with immunity for eugenical sterilization operations. Thus, on at least one level, the Buck case was about protecting doctors from lawsuits.
The expert testimony Dr. Priddy and his colleague, Dr. Joseph DeJarnette, provided at the Buck trial focused, however, not on legal immunity, but on the eugenic values incorporated into the sterilization law. Regarding Carrie Buck’s mother, Priddy stated:
“[She] has [a] record during life of immorality, prostitution, and untruthfulness; has never been self-sustaining; was maritally unworthy, having been divorced from her husband on account of infidelity; has had a record of prostitution and syphilis; has had one illegitimate child and probably two others … These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South.”
Priddy’s testimony was based on the assumption that such behavioral traits and social conditions were hereditary and could be eliminated by sterilization. . . .Regardless of the motives of the eugenicists, one might ask how the result in Buck could have been justified by the Court. The answer lies in the public health law connection.
In writing the Buck opinion, Justice Holmes borrowed language directly from the Virginia law’s preamble, and repeated its conclusion that “experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, [and] imbecility ….” Holmes then endorsed the law’s procedures and approved the reasoning and result in the Virginia courts that reviewed the law, concluding with one of the most callous and elitist statements in US Supreme Court history:
“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.”
In singling out the helplessly dependent genetic imbecile and the congenitally deficient criminal, Holmes emphasized the genetic determinism that eugenic theory had incorporated. Holmes’ choice of a public health law analogy wedded the imagery of a plague with the idea of cleansing the social fabric through sterilization;
“the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
This statement suggests that wiping out an epidemic with a vaccine was comparable to wiping out crime and mental disease with sterilization. Justice Holmes’ most dramatic statement in the opinion included a memorable comment that posed a seemingly irrefutable public policy conclusion: “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The “danger to society” rationale was borrowed from Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a public health case decided in the wake of a smallpox epidemic. In Jacobson, the Court upheld a Massachusetts statute that compelled citizens to receive smallpox vaccinations and assessed fines upon those who refused. Jacobson was the only precedent cited by Justice Holmes in Buck. As this analysis shows, the opinion Justice Holmes wrote endorsed both an explicitly eugenic rationale and the public health underpinnings of the Virginia law.
The success of the Buck case energized Virginia’s eugenicists to push for maximum use of the “surgical solution,” and Dr. DeJarnette led the charge in published comments encouraging the use of sterilization. In a series of official reports to Virginia’s Governor and General Assembly, Dr. DeJarnette repeated his support for the Virginia sterilization program. By the 1930’s Dr. DeJarnette challenged the state to emulate the Nazi’s success with sterilization:
“No person unable to support himself on account of his inherited mental condition has a right to be born … In Germany the sterilization law embraces chronic alcoholics, certain hereditary physical diseases, the hereditarily blind and deaf, the criminally insane, feebleminded and epileptic.”
[By] December 31, 1934 Germany had sterilized 56,224 [persons]. Dr. DeJarnette continued to express admiration for Hitler’s campaign in his last official comment on sterilization in 1938:
“Germany in six years has sterilized about 80,000 of her unfit while the United States with approximately twice the population has only sterilized about 27,869 to January 1, 1938, in the past 20 years. The death rates in Virginia from sterilization is negligible – not over one in a thousand… The fact that there are 12,000,000 defectives in the United States should arouse our best endeavors to push this procedure to the maximum.”
Following the Court’s endorsement of sterilization in Buck, over thirty states eventually passed sterilization laws. To some eugenicists, legal change only signaled the beginning. The ambition of DeJarnette, and others of his ilk, was to rival the efficiency of the Nazi program, which claimed between 360,000 and 3,500,000 victims (the numbers are elusive) between 1933 and 1945. . .
fair use and disclaimer
Author of this blog and post is not a lawyer, nor legal practitioner. Therefore, explicitly, there is no “legal advice,” as there could not be.
- CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
- (1) This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
- (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
- (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
- (4) If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, so that Author has a fair and full reasonable opportunity to modify or retract.