Sexual Sterilization--Constitutional Validity of Involuntary Sterilization and Consent Determinative of Voluntariness

Missouri Law Review, Dec 1975

By Joseph D. Baker, Published on 06/01/75

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3999&context=mlr

Sexual Sterilization--Constitutional Validity of Involuntary Sterilization and Consent Determinative of Voluntariness

Sexual Sterilization--Constitutional Validity of Involuntar y Sterilization and Consent Determinative of Voluntariness Joseph D. Baker 0 0 Thi s Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository , USA Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph D. Baker, Sexual Sterilization--Constitutional Validity of Involuntary Sterilization and Consent Determinative of Voluntariness, 40 Mo. L. Rev. (1975) Available at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol40/iss3/5 - Article 5 INTRODUCTION In 1973 Minnie and Mary Alice Relf, ages fourteen and twelve, were sterilized under the auspices of a federally funded family planning program,' allegedly without the consent of their parents.2 Public disclosure of the incident touched off a controversy of national impact. A $1,000,000 damage suit was filed; the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) announced that no more federal funds could be spent on sterilizing minors and mentally incompetent adults; and the Health Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee held hearings on the sterilizations.3 Subsequently, HEW published guidelines governing sterilizations under federally funded programs.' These guidelines were later invalidated on the ground that the family planning sections of the Social Security Act5 and the Public Health Service Act6 did not provide statutory authority to fund the sterilization of any person incompetent under state law to consent to such an operation, because of minority or mental disability.7 The publicity surrounding the sterilization of the Relf sisters focused public attention on what has become a relatively common practice. In the last few years, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 lowincome persons have been sterilized annually under federally funded programs.' The sterilization of individuals is not, however, a practice confined to federally funded programs; many states have involuntary sterilization9 laws applicable to mentally handicapped 1. The sterilization operations were arranged by the Montgomery County Community Action Agency which was funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Community Action Agency is the largest provider of family planning services in Montgomery County, and the sterilizations were carried out as part of its family planning services. 2 FAMmY PLANNING /PoPULATION REP. 77 (1973). 2. The Agency contended that the operations were carried out with the written consent of the girls' illiterate mother. The mother, on the other hand, contended that she only gave permission for shots to be administered to her daughters. The father of the girls was never contacted by the Agency. 2 FAMILY PLANNING/POPULATION REP. 77 (1973). 3. 2 FAMILY PLANNING/POPULATION REP. 77 (1973). 4. 39 Fed. Reg. 4730-34 ( 1974 ). 5. 42 U.S.C. § 703(a) ( 1970 ); 42 U.S.C. §§ 602(a)(15), 1396d(a)(vi)(4) (Supp. I1, 1973). 6. 42 U.S.C. § 300a-5 ( 1970 ). 7. Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1974). 8. Id. at 1199. 9. Involuntary sterilization is the sterilization of an individual without the individual's individuals and criminals.' 0 These laws are an outgrowth of the eugenics movement" that swept the United States in the late 1800's and early 1900's and which culminated in the passage of the first involuntary sterilization law in Indiana in 1907.12 Although the eugenics movement is no longer popular, 3 the involuntary sterilization laws which it produced are still in effect.'4 Furthermore, several courts have been confronted with the issue of the legality of involuntary sterilization in states not having statutes expressly authorizing such sterilizations.' 5 The proponents of eugenics contend that sterilization pursuant to a comprehensive eugenics program counteracts the alleged deterioration in the quality of man.' 6 Sterilization is also advocated as a method to stem the population crisis and its adverse economic effects. " However, complex legal issues must be resolved before sterilization programs should be undertaken. The legal issues concerning sterilization include: (1) the validity of state legislation compelling the involuntary sterilization of specified classes of individuals; (2) a determination of what constitutes consent to voluntary sterilization; (3) the effectiveness of consent by parents or guardians to the sterilization of minors and mental incompetents; and (4) the effect of coercion in obtaining the consent of the individual to be sterilized. These issues will be the subject of this comment. At the outset it should be acknowledged that many issues in the sterilization area have not been finally, resolved; analogy to comparable legal areas, howev (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3999&context=mlr

Joseph D. Baker. Sexual Sterilization--Constitutional Validity of Involuntary Sterilization and Consent Determinative of Voluntariness, Missouri Law Review, 1975, Volume 40, Issue 3,