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)