A Decision Already Made

December 19, 2022

Buck+was+a+case+littered+with+both+ethical+conflicts+of+interest+and+a+lack+of+due+process%2C+leading+to+its+final%2C+erroneous+conclusion.+

"US Constitution" by kjd is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Buck was a case littered with both ethical conflicts of interest and a lack of due process, leading to its final, erroneous conclusion.

The Buck v. Bell decision was just over 1100 words, and it referenced exactly one piece of legal precedent—that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case that sustained compulsory vaccination. The case document for Buck specifically stated, “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

The case document, though considered small for a decision with this much of an impact, is a fascinating read, both in law and in rhetoric. 

Noah Feldman, a Bemis Professor of Law, spoke at Harvard University regarding this case. “The challenge was brought as a matter of law, not of fact,” Feldman stated. 

The “facts” of the case—especially considering Carrie Buck, her mother, and her daughter’s diagnosis of feeblemindedness—were considered already confirmed by lower courts, and thus, the Supreme Court was not to hold it in question. 

It is important to assert that even if Carrie Buck had been disabled, or even if the Buck family did have three generations of disability, the Buck decision still would have been wrong. In more modern arguments over bodily autonomy, such as the false claims that vaccines cause autism, much of the pushback fails to take into consideration the beliefs the argument itself implies. Vaccines, scientifically, do not cause autism, but acting as if a child having autism is that heinous of a situation implies a certain level of ableism. Similarly, focusing only on Carrie Buck’s lack of disability can often imply that due process was the only incorrect proceeding of this case. 

It is also of note that the corruption of this case did not end with either Priddy or Strode. Irving Whitehead, Carrie Buck’s lawyer, was both assigned by the Virginia Colony and was a lifelong friend of Aubrey Strode. Whitehead, too, was an open sterilization advocate, and throughout the case, he failed to call any witnesses and his cross-examination was so weak that it was often unclear which side he was representing. The opposing lawyer’s allegations were often left unchallenged, even though that lawyer had not even met Buck. Whitehead further failed to make any point of contradictions in Buck’s foster parents’ testimony, nor did he reveal the circumstances for Buck’s institutionalization. 

In a sentence, Carrie Buck never had a chance. Despite the fact that truth, that justice, should have been on Buck’s side, the decision was almost unanimous. 

Buck v. Bell was an 8-1 decision. The only dissent was that of Justice Pierce Butler, who offered no dissenting opinion. He was, however, a devout Catholic, and many, including Holmes, thought Butler’s faith was the basis of his opposition. 

Holmes stated, “Butler knows this is good law. I wonder if he will have the courage to vote with us in spite of his religion.”

Carrie Buck herself was unaware the sterilization procedure would be performed on her, and it was only years later that she learned what had been done to her. When she was asked about her sterilization, Buck said, “They done me wrong. They done us all wrong.”

Leave a Comment

The Uproar • Copyright 2024 • FLEX WordPress Theme by SNOLog in

Comments (0)

All The Uproar Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *