Reproductive Rights of the Developmentally Disabled

In 1883, the term "Eugenics" was coined by Sir Francis Galton in his book Essays in Eugenics. Eugenics being defined as the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.

Americans embraced the Eugenics movement by passing laws to prevent people with disabilities from moving to the U.S., marrying or having children. Eugenics laws led to the institutionalization and forced sterilization of disabled adults and children.

In 1927, the case of Buck v. Bell arrived at the United States Supreme Court. The following excerpt was taken from the Supreme Court ruling submitted on May 2, 1927:

"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."

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Supreme Court Justice
274 U.S. 200;
47 S. Ct. 584;
71 L. Ed. 1000;
1927 U.S. LEXIS 20

This Supreme Court decision ruled that forced sterilization of people with disabilities was not a violation of their constitutional rights, and removed all restraints for eugenicists.

During the 30's and 40's, the eugenics movement found unprecedented support from the National Socialist party (also known as the Nazi party) in Europe. Genocidal policies were put in place in order to create a master race of human beings.

By the 1970s, over 60,000 disabled people within the United States were sterilized without their consent.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was broad in scope and covered those receiving federal funds, employers, places of public accommodation such as bus stations restrooms and lunch counters. It prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not protect people with disabilities.

Discrimination against people with disabilities would not be addressed until 1973 when Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 became law and later still in 1990 when the ADA was passed.

Ostensibly, it appears as though we are moving in the right direction in terms of human rights and the disabled. The battle for human and civil rights, however, rages onward. In New York State alone, over one thousand advocacy groups exist. These organizations were developed out sheer necessity to combat discriminatory actions and civil rights infringements both from the private and public sectors.

The truth is that all agencies and organizations are closely monitored and are answerable to State governments. The State government being a member of the larger leviathan that, 79 years ago, indoctrinated a policy of sterilization of the "imbecile" class.

Another truth is that these same issues still permeate throughout this population, yet guidelines and policies never allow such issues to reach the realm of the judicial system.

The governing body of this population and those services provided therein practice legislative genocide. They create policies and dissuade developmentally disabled adults from attaining a "normal" life. Yet, one would never know of this.

Systems have been developed and maintained under the guise of protections. Developmentally disabled people are censured at individual meetings by service providers as they suggest life goals of the individual's choosing are unattainable and insist that prefabricated generic life goals should be chosen.

In spite of governing methodologies espousing "choice", it is the service providers and/or care givers who ultimately make choices for the developmentally disabled. That which is written is not necessarily that which is put into practice.

Thus, we entered the new millennium not with greater awareness or increased rights and dignity for the developmentally disabled, but with a governing body that is well practiced in the art of illusion.