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 Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person.
[6] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the social workers did not have sovereign immunity and could be sued for violating the couple's Fourteenth Amendment right because the procedural due process requirements for performing a sterilization are clearly established by Buck v. Bell and were not met in this case.
[8] Under 22 United States Code section 2151b, foreign aid used for population planning and the combat of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria may not be used to fund "a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
The IHS requires for the patient to give informed consent to the operation, be at least 21 years of age, and not be institutionalized in a correctional or mental health facility.
[19] In 1978, a federal class action lawsuit was brought from Los Angeles County, California, involving the sterilization of Mexican American women.
Most of the women were monolingual Spanish speakers and testified that they did not understand that the procedures they were undergoing would affect their ability to become pregnant or sustain a pregnancy.
"[25] Three members of the Court dissented from the majority opinion and stated that the "individual’s capacity to understand the risks of pregnancy and childbirth [should also be part of] the test for determining one’s competence to make a decision regarding sterilization.
"[25] A person unable to give informed consent may only be sterilized if a Connecticut Probate Court determines it is in the patient's best interest.
[29] The court must find clear and convincing evidence the person is unable to give consent and the procedure is in the best interest of the individual.
[30] The statute expressly states that these requirements "are procedural and do not establish any new or independent right to or authority" over the individual regarding abortion or sterilization.
[32] Under Florida statute § 985.18, delinquent children ordered by the court to undergo psychological or physical health exams may not be given a "permanent sterilization" unless the procedure is medically necessary "to protect or preserve the life of the child.
[34] The beginning of the Eugenics movement in the islands of Hawaii have been traced back to the early 1900s when a plan to sterilize all persons that were deemed “unfit” for procreation was uncovered.
[39][40] In 1983, the Indiana Supreme Court authorized for the sterilization of a mentally ill twelve-year-old girl who engaged in self-destructive behavior such as pulling her hair, biting herself, banging her head, ripping her skin with her fingernails, and resisting the "restraints in order to hurt her own body.
[42] In 2003, the Supreme Court of Indiana recognized the medical malpractice tort of "wrongful pregnancy" when a woman became pregnant after a failed sterilization procedure.
The court may only approve of the petition for sterilization if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that the "procedure is medically necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the incompetent minor.
"[50] In 1991 the Appeals Court affirmed the substituted consent standard and wrote that "the guardian's petition" to authorize an abortion for their borderline retarded daughter "should have been allowed.
"[53] Rima Kundnani wrote that this case shows how "proper standards must therefore be established to avoid judicial abuse and to protect the reproductive rights of mentally ill women.
They targeted the “idiots, feeble-minded, insane, and epileptics, who are inmates of state institutions.”[60] More than half of all people who were sterilized were deemed to be "mentally deficient."
[66] In 2002, a New York County Court authorized the sterilization of a woman with an intellectual disability who gave informed consent to the procedure.
[72] In the early 1900s a law was passed allowing the sterilization of inmates and “so-called defectives, though it rarely happened with only thirty-nine known cases.
"[77] In 1972, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the sterilization of a seventeen-year-old mentally ill girl with a history of sexual and physical abuse by her family.
The Court based its decision on the recommendation of the State Board of Social Protection and the testimony of a psychiatrist who stated that the patient would never be able to provide parental guidance and judgment, saying, "she would never be able to provide the parental guidance and judgment which a child requires even though she might be able to master the skills necessary to take physical care of herself and a child.
"[78] The psychiatrist "based this conclusion on the girl's lack of emotional control, her consistent low scores in areas of judgment on psychological tests, and the likelihood that she would abuse a child.
Due to Rhode Island being a predominantly Catholic state, birth control such as sterilization was never made mandatory for any reason.
[81] In 2012, Katie Barnhill wrote that minimal laws exists in Texas for courts and guardians to know what to do if a non-medically necessary sterilization is in the best interest of the mentally incompetent person.
[87] The Appeals Court “remanded for a new hearing, with counsel appointed to represent K.M.”[87] The Ashley Treatment occurred in Washington state.
[88] Under section 54.25 of the Wisconsin Statutes, a court may determine that a person who was found incompetent has incapacity to consent to a sterilization procedure.
The guardian may not provide substituted consent for the incompetent person, unless the court determines the "individual is competent to exercise the right under some but not all circumstances.