Wikipedia

Sterilization law in the United States

Sterilization law is the area of law, that concerns a person's purported right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and when a given government may limit it. In the United States, it is typically understood to touch on federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated, i.e. are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Federal law

edit

U.S. Supreme Court

edit

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. 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 principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [...] Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his infamous 1927 court opinion.[1]

In Buck v. Bell, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that a state statute that authorized compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an Oklahoma compulsory sterilization law that applied to "habitual criminals" but exempted those convicted of white-collar crimes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.[2][3]

Stump v. Sparkman (1978) is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.[4]

U.S. District and Appellate Courts

edit

In 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia. 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.[5] Under the Appellate Court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia, must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent.

In the 2001 case of Vaughn v. Ruoff, a husband and wife sued three social workers for coercing his wife, "diagnosed as mildly retarded", into getting a sterilization as a condition for getting their children back from state custody.[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.[6]

In 1975, in Cox v. Stanton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the statute of limitations for a lawsuit challenging the legality of a sterilization begins to accrue when the plaintiff discovers the sterilization.[7]

Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital concerned whether or not patients who had been involuntarily sterilized in Lynchburg Training School and Hospital, a state mental institution in Virginia, as part of a program of eugenics in the early and mid-20th century had their constitutional rights violated.[8]

United States Code

edit

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.[9]

Federal programs

edit

Department of Veterans Affairs

edit

The Veterans Health Administration or V.A. permits the sterilization of a patient, who is unable to give informed consent, if the guardian of the patient gives consent to the procedure; a witness, not associated with the V.A., witnesses the guardian signing the consent form; a healthcare committee completes a finding on the need for the procedure; and the Director of the facility approves of the procedure.[10]

Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects

edit

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration and all of their constituent agencies are only authorized to perform a sterilization on a patient if the individual is at least 21 years old, mentally competent, gave informed consent to the procedure, and at least 30 days but not more than 180 days passed since the individual gave consent to the procedure.[11] "Programs or projects to which this subpart applies shall not perform or arrange for the performance of a sterilization of any mentally incompetent individual or institutionalized individual."[12]

Indian Health Service

edit
See also: Sterilization of Native American women

Indian Health Service (IHS) is an operating division within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The IHS offers sterilization as a method of family planning. Tubal ligation and vasectomy are the only procedures which may be performed for the primary purpose of 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.[13]

Medicaid Services

edit

A state plan must provide that a Medicaid agency will pay for the sterilization procedure if the individual is at least 21 years old, mentally competent, voluntarily gave informed consent to the procedure, and must be done for a purpose other than for "rendering the individual permanently incapable of reproducing."[14] Medicaid will not pay "for the sterilization of a mentally incompetent or institutionalized individual."[14]

State law

edit

State sterilization laws are required to be in compliance with the United States Constitution.

Alabama

edit

In 1935 Dr W. D. Partlow proposed a bill to sterilize those with hereditary "mental disease".[15]

Alaska

edit

In 1981 the Alaska Supreme Court held that an Alaskan Superior Court has the authority to order the sterilization of a "mental incompetent" person upon petition by their legal guardian if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the intellectually disabled person's best interest.[16]

Arkansas

edit

Arkansas Code section 20-49-101 to -207 provides the guidelines for sterilizing an incompetent patient.[17]

In 1991, the Arkansas Supreme Court held the part of the Arkansas sterilization statute that allowed sterilization of an incompetent through direct medical channels, rather than approval from a court, to be unconstitutional because it denied the patient procedural due process. [18]

California

edit
See also: Eugenics in California
See also: Madrigal v. Quilligan

In 2013, the 4th District Court of Appeal held that a developmentally disabled adult with "mild mental retardation" may be reproductively sterilized if the court determines there is clear and convincing evidence that the procedure is medically necessary for the patient.[19] The court held that Probate Code section 2357 regulated the patients court order for medical treatment because the sterilization was incidental to acquiring medical care and not the purpose of the medical treatment; alternatively, Probate Code section 1950 et seq. applies when the objective is to prevent the patient from bearing children.[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.[20]

In 1985, the Supreme Court of California held that a California statute that completely prohibits the sterilization of the developmentally disabled is overbroad and unconstitutional because a mentally incompetent person has a constitutional right to sterilization if a less intrusive method of birth control is not available.[21]

The California Penal Code prohibits inmates from being sterilized unless the procedure is required to protect the life of the inmate or the procedure is necessary for treating a diagnosed condition and the patient gave consent to the procedure.[22]

Colorado

edit

Colorado Revised Statutes section 25.5-10-233 governs court-ordered sterilizations.[23]

In 1981, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a district court may authorize the sterilization of a "mentally retarded person" if the court finds with clear and convincing evidence the procedure is medically essential.[24] The Court defined "medically essential" as a procedure that is "clearly necessary, in the opinion of experts, to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mentally retarded person.[24]

In 1990, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a person "mentally incompetent to make some decisions is not necessarily incompetent . . . to grant or withhold consent to sterilization."[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]

Connecticut

edit

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.[26][27]

Florida

edit

A person unable to give informed consent may only be sterilized or given an abortion with specific authority from the court.[28] 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.[29] 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.[29]

A court may authorize for a surrogate to provide consent to the sterilization or abortion of another person,[30] after the surrogate petitions the court, provides supporting documents on the intent of the patient, gives notice to all relevant parties, and a hearing is conducted to review the matter.[31]

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."[32]

Georgia

edit

Under Georgia Code, an incompetent person may be sterilized after a petition requesting sterilization is brought by the parents or guardians, two physicians examine the patient, the hospital in which the sterilization is to be performed approves of the sterilization, and after a hearing the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence the patient is a person subject to this code.[33]

In 1983, the Supreme Court of Georgia held the Georgia sterilization code unconstitutional because it used the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and a court order that permanently deprives a person of a fundamental right requires a judicial finding of “clear and convincing” evidence. [34] Since this case, the Georgia legislature changed the code to require “clear and convincing” evidence in order to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.[33]

Hawaii

edit

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. The group of unfit peoples included those of low income, Native Americans, deadly criminals, and those diagnosed as criminally insane. In 1950, sterilization of women after they give birth, if considered unfit to procreate, was happening. This kind of sterilization was found to have been happening on plantations.[35] Doctors would say it was necessary for the mothers to stay healthy. As of 2010 there was a movement to pay “former and current drug users” approximately $200 to voluntarily be sterilized. This movement was named “Project Prevention.”[36] This was created in order to prevent “medical disabilities” from being passed down from generation to generation. Project Prevention was very controversial with people claiming was, “promoting stereotypes and prejudices against pregnant women.”[36]

Illinois

edit

In 2008 the Illinois Appellate Court held that in determining a petition for the sterilization of an incompetent ward, a court should apply the substituted consent standard if there is clear and convincing evidence regarding how the ward would decide if the ward were competent; however, the court should apply the best interest of the patient standard if the ward's substituted judgment cannot be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[37]

Indiana

edit

In 1907, Indiana enacted the first sterilization law.[38][39]

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."[40] The patient's parents and her doctors were both in agreement that a hysterectomy was necessary in order to prevent "hemorrhaging and infection, and possibly death" because the patient's excitement with her own blood may cause her "to induce bleeding by poking into her vagina or abdomen in an attempt to keep the blood flowing" once she develops her menstruation cycle.[40] The Court held that a specific Indiana statute authorizing sterilization was not necessary in order to authorize the sterilization, the juvenile court had the authority to authorize sterilizations if there was clear and convincing evidence that the medical procedure was necessary, and in this case there was overwhelming evidence that the sterilization was medically necessary.[40]

In 1990, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that an appointed guardian may consent to health care for an adult incapable of consenting if there is "clear and convincing evidence that the judicially appointed guardian brought the petition for sterilization in good faith and the sterilization is in the best interest of the incompetent adult."[41] Judge Sullivan wrote a concurring opinion stating that he was not convinced that in this present case the sterilization was done for healthcare, and consequentially, the consent of the guardian is not a factor in considering the legality of the sterilization. According to Sullivan a sterilization of an incompetent requires "an evidentiary hearing, following which the court finds clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the best interests of the individual concerned.[41]

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 decided that the damages may include the cost of the pregnancy but may not include the ordinary cost of raising the child.[42]

Iowa

edit

In 1988, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a district court has jurisdiction to authorize the sterilization of an incompetent person, even in the absence of an Iowa statute regulating sterilization.[43]

In 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court held that court approval is required for the sterilization of an incompetent person.[44]

Maine

edit

Under Title 34 B Chapter 7 of the Maine Revised Statutes, also known as the "Due Process in Sterilization Act of 1982," a hearing and a District Court order authorizing the sterilization is required if the sterilization is sought for "A. Persons under age 18 years and not married or otherwise emancipated; B. Persons presently under public or private guardianship or conservatorship; C. Persons residing in a state institution providing care, treatment or security, or otherwise in state custody; or D. Persons from whom a physician could not obtain informed consent."[45] The hearing to determine the patient's ability to give informed consent requires at least two disinterested experts in developmental disabilities or mental health, including at least one psychologist or psychiatrist to examine the person to determine competency. If the court determines the person is not competent to give informed consent the court will appoint at least three disinterested experts to examine the person for the beneficial or detrimental effects of sterilization.[45] The sterilization may be authorized if the court determines with clear and convincing evidence that the sterilization is in the best interests of the patient and other methods of contraception are inappropriate or unworkable for the person.[45]

In 1985, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard a petition from a mother requesting for the court to authorize the sterilization of her mentally incompetent daughter.[46] The court held that it did have the authority to grant a petition for sterilization if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient; however, in this case, the court did not grant the petition because the physicians did not state the patient was capable of reproducing.[46]

Maryland

edit

In 1982 the Maryland Court of Appeals held that circuit courts have the jurisdiction to hear a petition for the sterilization on an incompetent minor. 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."[47]

In Maryland, a minor has the same capacity as an adult to consent to the use of contraception other than sterilization.[48]

Massachusetts

edit

In 1982 the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that a court of general jurisdiction has the authority to hear a petition to sterilize a mentally retarded person. The court stated that the court must use substituted consent to determine if the sterilization should be authorized, and "no sterilization is to be compelled on the basis of any State or parental interest."[49]

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."[50]

In 2012 the Appeals Court overturned a decision by a lower court requiring a sterilization and abortion on a woman with "schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder and bipolar mood disorder." The appellate court wrote that the lower court did not follow the due process requirements for a sterilization and the decision to require the abortion was not made using the substituted consent standard.[51] The lower court judge later stated that she required the abortion because she believed that if the patient were healthy she "would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being."[52] 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."[53]

Michigan

edit

In 1998 the Michigan Supreme Court held that a probate court has jurisdiction to hear a petition by a guardian for authorization to consent to an extraordinary procedure, including sterilization, if the procedure is in the ward's best interest.[54]

In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3, which amended the Constitution of Michigan to establish an individual right to reproductive freedom. Proposal 3 defines the right to reproductive freedom to include the right to make decisions about sterilization.[55]

Minnesota

edit
See also: Eugenics in Minnesota

The sterilization law passed in Minnesota in 1925 stated that anyone of any age that was determined to be “feeble minded” was legally able to be sterilized, with or without permission. Around 1930, Minnesota began to be known as “the most feeble minded-conscious” state because of the way they care for the mentally disabled. Out of the population, around 2,350 people were victimized by this sterilization. 519 of these victims were men and 1,831 were women. Throughout the 1930s, sterilization rates were high, but as the war broke out, it became less of a priority and rates dropped tremendously. [56]

Mississippi

edit

As the 26th state to pass any kind of sterilization law, Mississippi began the first sterilization on an inmate. The people affected by this law were “persons who are afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy.” Approximately three people every year from the year 1938 to the year 1941 were involuntarily sterilized. Mississippi is rated number eighteen for most sterilizations of all stated in the United States.[57]

Missouri

edit

Laws considering sterilization in Missouri began by targeting criminals and slowly began to include people with any incurable disease, epilepsy, and eventually all with mental disabilities. Currently, one must be at least 21 years of age in order to be sterilized.[58]

Montana

edit

In total, 256 people were affected by sterilization in Montana. Around 74% of those people were women and 28% were men. These laws began in the early 1920s and peaked around the mid 1930s. They targeted the “idiots, feeble-minded, insane, and epileptics, who are inmates of state institutions.”[59]

Nebraska

edit

More than half of all people who were sterilized were deemed to be "mentally deficient." This sterilization was ended in 1963 . [60]

Nevada

edit

In the early 1900s, it was mandatory to sterilize all men by “means of vasectomy (but not castration)” if they were found to be guilty of child molestation. This law was not repealed until around 50 years later. [61]

New Hampshire

edit

In 1980 the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a probate court may approve a petition for the sterilization of an incompetent minor if a guardian ad litem is appointed to represent the minor and the court finds with clear and convincing evidence that the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient.[62]

New Jersey

edit

In 1980, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a mentally disabled woman has the right to be sterilized under the privacy rights of both the New Jersey and Federal Constitutions; however, the incompetent must be represented by counsel and the court may only authorize the sterilization if there is clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in the person's best interest.[63]

In 2011, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Guardianship Advocacy brought an appeal to challenge the procedures the court followed to authorize the sterilization of a severely mentally disabled girl for reasons of medical necessity.[64] The Division recommended more stringent procedures; however, the Superior Court dismissed the issue as moot because the girl was already sterilized.[64]

New York

edit

In 1983, the New York Supreme Court authorized the sterilization of an incompetent person.[65] In 2002, a New York County Court authorized the sterilization of a woman with an intellectual disability who gave informed consent to the procedure.[66]

North Carolina

edit

Under North Carolina General Statutes § 35A-1245, a mentally ill or mentally retarded patient who is unable to give informed consent may be sterilized with an order of the clerk or court after the clerk appoints an attorney to represent the patient and the clerk determines the sterilization is "medically necessary and is not solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience."[67]

In 1985, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a court has authority to authorize the sterilization of an incompetent person if the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient.[68]

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.[69][70] However, in 2016, a claimant was denied compensation for her involuntary sterilization because the sterilization did not occur under the authority of the Eugenics Board, so the Court was unable to allow compensation for the claimant.[71]

North Dakota

edit

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. Around ten years later, the law was deemed “invalid” because the basic human rights of each individual were not being accounted for. In a ten-year span, around 580 people were reported being sterilized. [72]

Ohio

edit

Under Ohio statutory law, "no resident shall be subjected to sterilization without the resident's informed consent" except as provided in the statute.[73]

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated part of a decision from a lower court that required for the defendant to make “all reasonable efforts to avoid conceiving another child” during his five-year probationary period.[74]

Oregon

edit

Under the Oregon Revised Statutes section 436.305, a court has the authority to order a sterilization on a patient who is unable to give informed consent if a hearing proves with clear and convincing evidence that the "sterilization is in the best interest of the individual.[75] Under the statute, "Best interest” means that: (a) The individual is physically capable of procreating; (b) The individual is likely to engage in sexual activity at the present or in the near future under circumstances likely to result in pregnancy; (c) All less drastic alternative contraceptive methods, including supervision, education and training, have proved unworkable or inapplicable, or are medically contraindicated; (d) The proposed method of sterilization conforms with standard medical practice, is the least intrusive method available and appropriate, and can be carried out without unreasonable risk to the life and health of the individual; and (e) The nature and extent of the individual's disability, as determined by empirical evidence and not solely on the basis of standardized tests, renders the individual permanently incapable of caring for and raising a child, even with reasonable assistance."[76]

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."[77] 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."[77]

Pennsylvania

edit

In 1993, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a mentally incompetent patient may be sterilized without her informed consent if there is clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in her best interest.[78]

Rhode Island

edit

It was not until the late 1900s that it became legal for “patients and doctors” to be sterilized by choice. Information regarding Rhode Island is difficult to find because proper records were never kept and most documentation was lost. Due to Rhode Island being a predominantly Catholic state, birth control such as sterilization was never made mandatory for any reason.[79]

Tennessee

edit

No sterilization laws were ever passed in Tennessee, though bills have been created. In the mid 1960s a bill was created to pass sterilization for mentally ill patients. Tennessee was a part of a series of surveys regarding mental stability in the southern states. An institution was then created for the “feeble-minded” as a result. Tennessee eventually supported said institution.[80]

Texas

edit

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.[81] It was stated in the mid 1800s that those with “undesirable traits” such as those who come from low income or who are mentally ill should be sterilized. [82]

Vermont

edit

Vermont does not have any kind of documentation regarding their sterilization laws open to the public. “Our understanding” of any laws that were created in regards to sterilization in this state is that all types of sterilization was completely voluntary. [83]

Virginia

edit
See also: Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924

An act, passed by the General Assembly of Virginia in 1988 and amended in 2013, provides the procedural requirements necessary for a physician to lawfully sterilize a patient capable of giving informed consent and incapable of giving informed consent.[84]

A physician may perform a sterilization procedure on a patient if the patient is capable of giving informed consent, the patient consents to the procedure in writing, and the physician explains the consequences of the procedure and alternative methods of contraception.[84]

A court may authorize a physician to perform a sterilization on a mentally incompetent adult or child after the procedural requirements are met and the court finds with clear and convincing evidence the patient is or is likely to engage sexual activity, no other contraceptive is reasonably available, the patient's mental disability renders the patient permanently unable to care for a child, and the procedure conforms with medical standards.[84]

Washington

edit

In 1980, the mother of a mentally incompetent minor petitioned the court for an order authorizing the sterilization of the minor.[85] The Washington Supreme Court held that the Washington Superior courts have authority under the Washington constitution to grant the sterilization; however, the mother failed to show with clear and convincing evidence the sterilization was in the best interest of the minor.[85]

In 1991, the Washington Court of Appeals heard a petition for sterilization brought by the parents of an incompetent child named K.M.[86] The Court held that the sterilization of a mentally incompetent patient can be constitutional; however, the incompetent must be represented by independent counsel and the attorney must take an adversarial role in defense of the incompetent’s reproductive rights.[86] Two physicians testified in support of K.M.’s psychological need for sterilization, however; the Court held that K.M.'s attorney did not take an adversarial role because the physicians and witnesses should have been cross examined, and every argument in defense of K.M. should have made.[86] The Appeals Court “remanded for a new hearing, with counsel appointed to represent K.M.”[86]

The Ashley Treatment occurred in Washington state.

West Virginia

edit

West Virginia allows sterilizations on competent non-minors who give informed consent to the procedure.[87]

Wisconsin

edit

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."[88]

In 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in State v. Oakley, upheld a lower court's decision to impose a probation requirement that prohibited a man from having more children "unless he shows that he can support that child and his current children." The Court held that the condition was reasonably related to Oakley's rehabilitation and not overly broad because Oakley already had nine children and intentionally refused to pay child support, and Oakley was eligible for prison so the condition was less restrictive than prison. Additionally, the Court held that the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny since the restriction was narrowly tailored because Oakley could have not intentionally refused to pay child support, and the restriction met the State's compelling interest of having parents support their children.[89]

See also

edit

Further reading

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ 274 U.S. 200 (Buck v. Bell) Archived 2011-10-09 at the Wayback Machine, Justia.com U.S. Supreme Court Center Archived 2021-05-06 at the Wayback Machine.
  2. ^ 316 U.S. 535 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)
  3. ^ Maggs, Gregory E. and Smith, Peter J. (2011) Constitutional Law. A Contemporary Approach. Thomson Reuters. p. 536. ISBN 978-0-314-27355-0
  4. ^ Kessler, Laura T. (2014-03-30). "'A Sordid Case': Stump v. Sparkman, Judicial Immunity, and the Other Side of Reproductive Rights". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN 2417972. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ^ Doe v. Dist of. Co, 489 F.3d 376 (2007).
  6. ^ a b "Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124, 1129 (8th Cir. 2001)". Case Text. It is also true that the mentally handicapped, depending on their circumstances, may be subjected to various degrees of government intrusion that would be unjustified if directed at other segments of society. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 442–47, 105 S.Ct. 3249; Buck, 274 U.S. at 207–08, 47 S.Ct. 584. It does not follow, however, that the State can dispense with procedural protections, coerce an individual into sterilization, and then after the fact argue that it was justified. If it did, it would invite conduct, like that alleged in this case, that is ripe for abuse and error.
  7. ^ "Cox v. Stanton, 529 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1975)". Case Text. If in the fall of 1970, as Miss Cox claims, she first discovered that she could never bear children, this discovery, under federal law, marks the time her cause of action accrued. Her averments that the defendants permanently deprived her of the ability to bear children allege the denial of a civil right." "Thus, the denial of her civil right did not accrue until the fall of 1970, and her suit, filed July 12, 1973, was timely.
  8. ^ Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital, 518 F. Supp. 789 (1981).
  9. ^ 22 United States Code section 2151b
  10. ^ 38 C.F.R. § 17.32 (g)(1)
  11. ^ "Sterilization of a mentally competent individual aged 21 or older, 42 C.F.R. 50.203 (2014)".
  12. ^ "Sterilization of a mentally incompetent individual or of an institutionalized individual, 42 C.F.R. § 50.206 (2014)".
  13. ^ "Indian Health Manual § 3-13.12(F)(5)". Indian Health Service. 1992-03-20. Retrieved June 5, 2016.
  14. ^ a b "42 C.F.R. § 441.252 - 441.255". Code of Federal Regulations.
  15. ^ "The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com.
  16. ^ "Matter of CDM 627 P.2d 607 (1981)". Supreme Court of Alaska. Retrieved June 13, 2016. This appeal raises the question of whether the superior court has the authority to order the sterilization of a mental incompetent upon petition by the incompetent's legal guardian. We conclude that the superior court, as a court of general jurisdiction, does have the authority to entertain and act upon such a petition. [...] Basic notions of procedural due process require that the incompetent be afforded a full judicial hearing at which medical testimony is presented and the incompetent, through a guardian ad litem, is allowed to present proof and cross-examine witnesses. The advocates of the proposed operation bear the heavy burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the best interests of the incompetent.
  17. ^ "Ark. Code §§ 20-49-101 to -207". 2015 Arkansas Code, Sterilization of Mental Incompetents. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  18. ^ McKinney v. McKinney, 305 Ark. 13 (1991) ("The statutory direct medical channels sterilization provisions questioned here, §§ 20–49–301 to –304, are first triggered by a mental incompetent’s parent or legal guardian. That parent or guardian can obtain sterilization on his or her child or ward by filing with an approved hospital the certificates of three doctors of medicine, reflecting that those doctors have examined the incompetent and a sterilizing procedure is justified. The sterilization may be consummated after the hospital’s sterilization committee reviews and approves the request. None of these statutory procedures mentions any notice to be provided an incompetent, any suggestion an incompetent is entitled to counsel, any opportunity for the incompetent to be heard as to the need for sterilization, or any right to cross-examine those seeking the incompetent’s sterilization. In sum, this procedure falls far short of the minimum requirements of procedural due process.").
  19. ^ a b CONSERVATORSHIP OF PERSON AND ESTATE OF MARIA v. Maria B., Objector and Appellant., G047889 (4th District Court Appeals July 31, 2013).
  20. ^ Pepe, Claudia S.; Saadi, Altaf; Molina, Rose L. (2023). "Reproductive Justice in the U.S. Immigration Detention System". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 142 (4): 804–808. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005335. ISSN 0029-7844. PMC 10510835. PMID 37734088.
  21. ^ Conservatorship of Valerie N., 40 Cal.3d 143 (1985) ("We conclude that the present legislative scheme, which absolutely precludes the sterilization option, impermissibly deprives developmentally disabled persons of privacy and liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. ... An incompetent developmentally disabled woman has no less interest in a satisfying or fulfilling life free from the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy than does her competent sister. ... Our conclusion that section 2356, subdivision (d), is constitutionally overbroad, and may not be invoked to deny the probate court authority to grant a conservator the power to consent to sterilization in those cases in which no less intrusive method of contraception is available to a severely retarded conservatee, does not open the way to unrestricted approval of applications for additional powers.").
  22. ^ "Sterilization of Inmates Cal. Penal Code § 3440". Retrieved February 15, 2017.
  23. ^ "C.R.S. § 25.5-10-233". Court-ordered sterilization.
  24. ^ a b Matter of A. W., 637 P.2d 366 (1981) ("Once the district court determines preliminary matters, it must find by clear and convincing evidence that the sterilization is medically essential. A sterilization is medically essential if clearly necessary, in the opinion of experts, to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mentally retarded person. The term “medically essential” is reasonably precise and provides protection from abuses prevalent in this area in the past. The term also avoids confusion as to whose interests are to be considered. It is not the welfare of society, or the convenience or peace of mind of parents or guardians that these standards are intended to protect. The purpose of the standards is to protect the health of the minor retarded person, and to prevent that person’s fundamental procreative rights from being abridged. In some circumstances, the possibility of pregnancy, if supported by sufficient evidence that it would threaten the physical or mental health of the person and that no less intrusive means of birth control would prove safe and effective, could justify granting a petition for sterilization as medically essential.").
  25. ^ a b Matter of Romero, 790 P.2d 819 (1990) ("An individual who is incompetent to make some decisions is not necessarily incompetent to make all decisions. Moe, 432 N.E.2d at 721; Grady, 426 A.2d at 483. Implicit in our holding in In re A.W. was a recognition that some mentally retarded individuals are competent to grant or withhold consent to sterilization.").
  26. ^ "Probate Court User Guide, Persons With Intellectual Disability" (PDF). Office of the Probate Court Administrator, State of Connecticut. 2015. Sterilization may not be performed for a person under guardianship or conservatorship unless the Probate Court finds that the procedure is in the person's best interest.
  27. ^ "Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 45a-691-700 (Rev. 2016)".
  28. ^ "Florida Statutes. § 744.3215 (4)(e)". Retrieved February 15, 2017.
  29. ^ a b "Fla. Stat. Ann. § 744.3725". Retrieved February 15, 2017.
  30. ^ Fla. Stat. § 765.113
  31. ^ Florida Probate Rule 5.900
  32. ^ Fla. Stat. Ann. § 985.18
  33. ^ a b "Ga. Code Ann., § 31-20-3". Retrieved January 9, 2017.
  34. ^ Motes v. Hall, 251 Ga. 373 (Ga. 1983).
  35. ^ "Honolulu Star-Bulletin Editorial". archives.starbulletin.com.
  36. ^ a b "Hawaii Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  37. ^ "In re Estate of K.E.J., 382 Ill.App.3d 401 (2008)". Illinois Appellate Court. Retrieved June 13, 2016. First, the party seeking sterilization may demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the ward, if competent, would have wished to be sterilized and would not have objected to the chosen method of sterilization. If the party seeking sterilization can meet this burden after all procedures have been followed and all relevant evidence has been taken into account, then the court may issue an order authorizing sterilization of the ward. The party opposing sterilization can attempt to produce clear and convincing evidence that if the ward were competent, she either (1) would not have wished to be sterilized if she could have foreseen her current situation, or (2) would not have consented to the chosen method of sterilization. If either of these things can be demonstrated, then following the substituted judgment standard provided for in the Probate Act, the ward's wishes prevail and the court should deny the petition for sterilization. No analysis of the ward's best interests is necessary under either of these scenarios. However, if the ward's substituted judgment cannot be proved by clear and convincing evidence either way, then the Probate Act instructs us to proceed to a best interests analysis, following the six Terwilliger factors outlined above. As discussed, the petition for sterilization should be granted if and only if the proponent of the petition can prove it is in the ward's best interests by clear and convincing evidence, when compared to other, less intrusive alternatives currently available to the ward, as well as potential future alternatives that may become available due to scientific or medical advances. If the court concludes, after analysis of all the above factors, that sterilization by the petitioned-for method is proven to be in the ward's best interests by clear and convincing evidence, then a petition authorizing the procedure may issue. Otherwise, the petition must be denied.
  38. ^ Ryan, Donna F.; Schuchman, John S.; Museum, United States Holocaust Memorial (2002). Deaf People in Hitler's Europe. Gallaudet University Press. ISBN 9781563681325.
  39. ^ Allen, Garland E. (1983). "The Misuse of Biological Hierarchies: The American Eugenics Movement, 1900-1940". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 5 (2): 105–128. ISSN 0391-9714. JSTOR 23328344. PMID 6398872.
  40. ^ a b c P.S. by Harbin v. W.S., 452 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 1983) (""She felt that due to the pattern that P.S. has shown so far it is very reasonable to feel that P.S. might try to induce bleeding by poking into her vagina or abdomen in an attempt to keep the blood flowing. This, of course, would result in hemorrhaging and infection, and possibly death.").
  41. ^ a b Lulos v. State, 548 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App 1990) ("The trial court incorrectly required clear and convincing evidence that a life threatening situation existed. The proper standard of proof requires clear and convincing evidence that the judicially appointed guardian brought the petition for sterilization in good faith and the sterilization is in the best interest of the incompetent adult.").
  42. ^ Chaffee v. Seslar, 786 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2003) ("By contrast, more than a decade ago this jurisdiction determined that the cause of action labeled “wrongful pregnancy” existed in Indiana.").
  43. ^ Matter of Guardianship of Matejski, 419 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1988).
  44. ^ In re Guardianship of Kennedy, 845 N.W. 707 (2014) ("we hold that section 633.635(2) required Maria to get prior court approval for Stuart's vasectomy.").
  45. ^ a b c "34-B M.R.S. §§ 7001-7017 (2016)".
  46. ^ a b In Re Debra B., 495 A.2d 781 (1985).
  47. ^ "Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hosp., Inc., 293 Md. 685 (1982)". Court of Appeals of Maryland. Retrieved June 15, 2016. We conclude, therefore, that as to incompetent minors circuit courts, acting in pursuance of their inherent parens patriae authority, have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a petition for an order authorizing a guardian to consent to the sterilization of an incompetent minor. [...] In addition to these factors, the trial court, before authorizing sterilization as being in the best interests of the incompetent minor, must find by clear and convincing evidence that the requested operative procedure is medically necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the incompetent minor.
  48. ^ "Md. Code Ann., Health - General §20–102(c)(5)" (PDF). Code of Maryland. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
  49. ^ Matter of Moe, 385 Mass 555 (1982) ("The issues presented seem to us to involve whether an incompetent person is to be given the same rights as those vested in a competent person, and, if so, how and by what means. . . . We find more persuasive the view expressed in most recent decisions that a court of general jurisdiction which has powers of equity over incompetents and their guardians, such as the Probate Court, has the power to hear and adjudicate petitions such as the one in the case at bar. . . . In utilizing the doctrine of substituted judgment, this court seeks to maintain the integrity of the incompetent person by giving the individual a forum in which his or her rights may be exercised. The court dons "the mental mantle of the incompetent" and substitutes itself as nearly as possible for the individual in the decision-making process.").
  50. ^ Matter of Moe, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 473 (1991).
  51. ^ Guardianship of Mary Moe., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 136 (2012) ("We reverse that portion of the order requiring sterilization of Moe. No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air. We vacate that portion of the order requiring Moe to undergo an abortion. We remand the case for a proper evidentiary inquiry and decision on the issue of substituted judgment.").
  52. ^ Eyder Peralta (February 21, 2012). "Retired Massachusetts Judge Defends Forced Abortion Ruling". NPR. National Public Radio. Retrieved January 22, 2016.
  53. ^ Kundnani, Rima (Fall 2013). "Protecting the Right to Procreate for Mentally Ill Women". Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice. 23 (59). University of Southern California. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  54. ^ "In re Wirsing, 456 Mich. 467 (1998)". Michigan Supreme Court. Accordingly, we hold that the probate court has jurisdiction to hear an application by a guardian for authorization to consent to an extraordinary procedure under M.C.L. § 330.1629; M.S.A. § 14.800(629), including sterilization, and to order such authorization if it determines the procedure is in the ward's best interests.
  55. ^ "Michigan Proposal 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2022)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  56. ^ "Minnesota". www.uvm.edu.
  57. ^ "Mississippi Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  58. ^ "Missouri Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  59. ^ "Montana Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  60. ^ "Nebraska Eugenics". www.uvm.edu. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
  61. ^ "Nevada Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  62. ^ "In Re Penny N. 120 N.H. 269 (1980)". New Hampshire. Retrieved June 12, 2016. If all of the above procedural requirements have been followed, we hold that a probate judge may permit a sterilization after making specific written findings from clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the incapacitated ward, rather than the parents' or the public's convenience, to do so.
  63. ^ Matter of Grady, 85 N.J. 235 (1981).
  64. ^ a b In re G.S., WL 2348746 (2011).
  65. ^ Application of Nilsson, 122 Misc.2d 458 (1983).
  66. ^ In re Guardianship of B, 190 Misc.2d 581 (2002) ("Upon applying the standards adopted in Nilsson the court concludes that the standards have been met and that it is in B’s best interests to authorize the tubal ligation operation.").
  67. ^ "Procedure to permit the sterilization of a mentally ill or a mentally retarded ward in the case of medical necessity". North Carolina General Statutes § 35A-1245.
  68. ^ Matter of Truesdell, 313 N.C. 421 (1985).
  69. ^ "Session Law 2013-360, Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013" (PDF). General Assembly of North Carolina.
  70. ^ "Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, N.C.G.S. § 143B-426.50". General Assembly of North Carolina.
  71. ^ In re House, 782 S.E.2d 115 (2016) ("There is no record evidence that the Eugenics Board was ever informed of Claimant's involuntary sterilization, nor that it was consulted in the matter in any way. Because the language of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143B-426.50(5) is clear, there is no room for judicial construction, and [this Court] must give it its plain and definite meaning.").
  72. ^ "Eugenics and Sterilization in North Dakota, 1913". Prairie Public Broadcasting. Jan 26, 2018.
  73. ^ "5123.86 Consent for medical treatment". Ohio Revised Code. Retrieved January 24, 2015.
  74. ^ State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (2004).
  75. ^ Oregon Revised Statutes § 436.305
  76. ^ Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 436.205 (West)
  77. ^ a b Cook v. State, 9 Or. App. 224, 227, 495 P.2d 768, 770 (1972)
  78. ^ Estate of C.W., 433 Pa.Super. 167 (1994) (". The record is replete with the adverse impact of a pregnancy on C.W., and that pregnancy would be completely negative and perhaps even disastrous. Therefore, the trial judge was correct that C.W.’s best interests require that she be protected against that eventuality.").
  79. ^ "Rhode Island Eugenics/Eugenic Sterilizations". www.uvm.edu.
  80. ^ "Tennessee Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  81. ^ Barnhill, Katie (October 11, 2012). "Substituted Judgment and Best Interest Analysis: Protecting the Procreative Medical Rights of the Mentally Incompetent in Texas" (PDF). Houston Law Review: 170. Retrieved February 15, 2017. Little law exists to explain what courts or guardians can do when a nonmedically necessary abortion or sterilization procedure might be in the best interests of a mentally incompetent individual.
  82. ^ "Texas Eugenics". www.uvm.edu.
  83. ^ "The Eugenics Survey in Vermont: Law & Public Policy - Sexual Sterilization in Vermont". www.uvm.edu. Retrieved 2021-07-12.
  84. ^ a b c "Sexual Sterilization, Virginia Code §§ 54.1-2974 - 54.1-2980". General Assembly of Virginia. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  85. ^ a b In re Hayes, 93 Wn.2d 228 (1980).
  86. ^ a b c d Guardianship of K.M., 62 Wn. App. 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
  87. ^ "W. Va. Code § 16-11-1 Male or female sterilization procedures". West Virginia Legislature. Retrieved June 12, 2016. It shall be lawful for any physician duly licensed by the state, when so requested by any person other than a minor, or mentally incompetent person, or any other person suffering from any similar disability which would affect their ability to enter into a valid contractual agreement, to perform upon such person, a male or female sterilization procedure
  88. ^ Wisconsin Statutes § 54.25(2)(c)
  89. ^ State v. Wisconsin, 245 Wis.2d 447 (July 10, 2001) ("Rather, because Oakley can satisfy this condition by not intentionally refusing to support his current nine children and any future children as required by the law, we find that the condition is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest of having parents support their children. It is also narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest in rehabilitating Oakley through probation rather than prison.").
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sterilization_law_in_the_United_States&oldid=1250839624"