The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina

A. Brophy, Elizabeth Lea Troutman
{"title":"The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina","authors":"A. Brophy, Elizabeth Lea Troutman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2650083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina” places North Carolina into the social, political, and legal context of the movement in the United States that resulted in the sterilization of more than thirty thousand people from the 1920s through the 1960s. We sketch the social and political arguments that were mobilized to support sterilization, as well as the arguments judges developed alongside these arguments from the 1910s through the 1930s. State courts slowly accepted sterilization until the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 1927 in Buck v. Bell. Then courts and legislatures around the United States more readily accepted it, even as legal scholars expressed reservations about sterilization. North Carolina was one of those states that embraced sterilization. The machinery of the state went into facilitating sterilization. The Eugenics Board of North Carolina, the state board in charge of reviewing petitions from public health officials for sterilization, produced pre-printed forms to facilitate the approval of sterilization. They presided over the petitions and routinely granted the vast majority of them. The few sterilization orders that were challenged in court were also routinely upheld.For nearly two decades, until the United States’ entrance into World War II, sterilization was broadly accepted by courts. But the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Skinner v. Oklahoma in 1942 began to turn the tide against sterilization, as did unease with a procedure that was reminiscent of what was happening in Germany during the War. Yet, even after Skinner v. Oklahoma and after World War II ended, as the rest of the nation began to abandon sterilization, sterilizations continued in North Carolina.We conclude with a discussion of the recent legislation in North Carolina to provide modest payments to the victims of the state’s sterilization program. In particular we discuss the design of a payment regime and how the legislature can justify payments for this concentrated episode of state infringement on personal liberty. And we suggest that the North Carolina legislation may provide a model for future legislative action aimed at payments for people sterilized involuntarily in other states.","PeriodicalId":82179,"journal":{"name":"North Carolina law review","volume":"94 1","pages":"1871"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North Carolina law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2650083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

“The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina” places North Carolina into the social, political, and legal context of the movement in the United States that resulted in the sterilization of more than thirty thousand people from the 1920s through the 1960s. We sketch the social and political arguments that were mobilized to support sterilization, as well as the arguments judges developed alongside these arguments from the 1910s through the 1930s. State courts slowly accepted sterilization until the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 1927 in Buck v. Bell. Then courts and legislatures around the United States more readily accepted it, even as legal scholars expressed reservations about sterilization. North Carolina was one of those states that embraced sterilization. The machinery of the state went into facilitating sterilization. The Eugenics Board of North Carolina, the state board in charge of reviewing petitions from public health officials for sterilization, produced pre-printed forms to facilitate the approval of sterilization. They presided over the petitions and routinely granted the vast majority of them. The few sterilization orders that were challenged in court were also routinely upheld.For nearly two decades, until the United States’ entrance into World War II, sterilization was broadly accepted by courts. But the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Skinner v. Oklahoma in 1942 began to turn the tide against sterilization, as did unease with a procedure that was reminiscent of what was happening in Germany during the War. Yet, even after Skinner v. Oklahoma and after World War II ended, as the rest of the nation began to abandon sterilization, sterilizations continued in North Carolina.We conclude with a discussion of the recent legislation in North Carolina to provide modest payments to the victims of the state’s sterilization program. In particular we discuss the design of a payment regime and how the legislature can justify payments for this concentrated episode of state infringement on personal liberty. And we suggest that the North Carolina legislation may provide a model for future legislative action aimed at payments for people sterilized involuntarily in other states.
北卡罗来纳州的优生学运动
“北卡罗来纳州的优生学运动”将北卡罗来纳州置于美国优生学运动的社会,政治和法律背景中,该运动导致20世纪20年代至60年代有3万多人绝育。我们概述了动员起来支持绝育的社会和政治论点,以及法官从20世纪10年代到30年代在这些论点的基础上发展起来的论点。各州法院逐渐接受绝育,直到1927年美国最高法院在巴克诉贝尔案中做出裁决。然后,美国各地的法院和立法机构更容易接受它,即使法律学者对绝育持保留意见。北卡罗来纳州是那些接受绝育的州之一。国家机器开始促进绝育。北卡罗莱纳州优生学委员会是负责审查公共卫生官员要求绝育的请愿书的州委员会,该委员会制作了预印表格,以方便批准绝育。他们主持请愿,并照例批准了绝大多数请愿。少数在法庭上受到质疑的绝育命令也通常得到支持。在美国加入第二次世界大战之前的近二十年里,绝育手术被法院广泛接受。但1942年,美国最高法院在斯金纳诉俄克拉何马州一案(Skinner v. Oklahoma)中做出的裁决开始扭转反对绝育的趋势,人们对一种让人想起二战期间德国发生的事情的程序感到不安。然而,即使在斯金纳诉俄克拉何马州案和第二次世界大战结束后,当美国其他地区开始放弃绝育手术时,北卡罗来纳州仍在继续绝育手术。最后,我们讨论了北卡罗来纳州最近的立法,向该州绝育计划的受害者提供适度的赔偿。我们特别讨论了支付制度的设计,以及立法机关如何为这一国家侵犯个人自由的集中事件提供支付的理由。我们认为,北卡罗莱纳州的立法可能为未来的立法行动提供一个模式,旨在为其他州非自愿绝育的人支付费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书