'Three generations of imbeciles'
What the sterilization of Carrie Buck tells us about government's inclination to act in the name of "the greater good."
“Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.”
—Ronald Reagan
The other day, I happened upon a video of CNN’s Jake Tapper speaking with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo.
“It’s really about ethics,” Ladapo said. “Is it appropriate for a government or any other entity to dictate to you what you should put in your body? No, it’s absolutely not appropriate. You have sovereignty over your body.”
What Ladapo’s referring to, of course, is Florida’s controversial decision to eliminate vaccine mandates, including those for school-age children. Following the news breaking on September 3, legacy media outlets published a flurry of articles with headlines such as “Florida Is About to Have a Lot More Sick Kids” and “Florida’s anti-vaccine push leads dangerous shift for US public health.”
But there’s another story there, one that, I argue, is more newsworthy.
While Florida’s rollback only applies to the hepatitis B, chickenpox, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines — the elimination of other vaccines would have to be voted on by lawmakers, which Ladapo also advocates for — the move represents a first. In removing the vaccine mandate, which will take effect 90 days following the day of the announcement, Florida will become the first state to adopt such a policy that gives autonomy back to parents, at a time when questions around vaccine safety are increasing.
Government restoring power to the people? Now that’s a story.
Body sovereignty — the idea that a person has autonomy over his or her own body — is not a new concept. It has its roots in ancient philosophy, with stoics like Epictetus teaching about self-mastery and laying the groundwork for the idea that the body and mind belong to the individual. Medieval Christian philosophers, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas, argued that humans are bestowed with dignity from God and have a right to preserve their own life, reinforcing the idea that each person has authority over their body. Then enter John Locke, who believed in the concept of self-ownership, the idea that every man has a property in his own person. The latter ultimately became the basis for contemporary notions of bodily autonomy and personal liberty.
This basic concept — the idea that one has the right to decide what’s best for him or herself and their body — is one that, though simple in theory, has been decidedly complicated in practice, as it’s often twisted and distorted to align with a given ideology. On the left, bodily autonomy means women being able to decide whether or not to abort a fetus, or people — even children — being able to have sex-change operations. It translates to policies like the banning of Big Gulps, the mandating of vaccines and the decriminalization of drugs. In direct contradiction to the left, bodily autonomy on the right translates to people being able to decide if and what medical interventions they and their children receive, including vaccines. It often takes the form of blocking access to birth control, abortion and sex changes for minors, as well as criminalizing recreational drugs.
History's case for skepticism
From sugar's manufactured rise to the woman who sold children, history shows us that awareness coupled with a healthy dose of skepticism can help us make better decisions in the present.
Both sides value bodily autonomy — just in different ways. It’s where they draw the line that differs. For liberals, the line is often where individual choice threatens public welfare. For conservatives, the line is often where individual choice conflicts with moral or religious principles, or with responsibility to unborn or dependent life.
All of these factors are relevant and should be considered and weighed against each other. But, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, many of these oft-used, malleable and contradictory applications of bodily autonomy risk putting everyone’s autonomy, well, at risk. Because, when we allow government to dictate what we can or must do to our bodies in one instance, it becomes a little like boiling a frog.
Many cautionary tales exist throughout history, demonstrating what governments are capable of when given power over citizens’ bodies — and who is often the most harmed. Take the case of Carrie Buck …
In the early 20th century, as the eugenics movement began to take hold
— proponents viewing it as a solution to a host of social problems — some countries and U.S. states began passing laws enabling the forced sterilization of people deemed unfit to be parents. These people often included mentally ill individuals and criminals in state custody. Indiana became the first state to enact such a law in 1907, and by the 1920s, more than 20 states had them.
One such woman, Carrie Buck was committed to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded in 1924. Buck’s parents accused her of “immorality” after she’d been raped and impregnated by her foster father. Virginia was one such state that allowed for the sexual sterilization of institutionalized individuals — a law passed in 1924 designed to promote the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.” Buck, it was decided, would serve as a tool to demonstrate the new law’s constitutionality, with officials issuing an order for her sterilization. But first, she had to be granted a hearing.
Doctors claimed that Buck, her mother Emma and Buck’s baby daughter Vivian all showed signs of “feeblemindedness.” Buck’s guardian, however, argued the order violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The case, known as Buck v. Bell was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld Virginia’s law — noting that sterilization could be justified for the welfare of society. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote:
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The decision not only led to Buck’s own sterilization, but also gave legal cover to forced sterilization programs across the U.S. Approximately 60,000–70,000 Americans were sterilized under these laws, which disproportionately targeted poor women, minorities and those in state care. The Court’s ruling was cited as justification for these policies by other states and, nearly two decades later, by Nazi lawyers at the Nuremberg trials.
The ruling itself has never officially been overturned, but subsequent SCOTUS cases have recognized procreation as a fundamental right and have severely limited sterilization practices. Most states eliminated or drastically reduced their programs by the 1970s, with some issuing apologies. As of 2022, however, 31 states and Washington, D.C., continue to have laws allowing the forced sterilization of disabled people.
Buck’s case is a stark reminder of how fear can be (and is) used to justify the erosion of civil liberties. It speaks to the corruptible nature of power and how “scientific consensus” can be used to strip individuals of their sovereignty, agency and dignity — all in the name of the “public good.”
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
— Frederick Douglass
