Ad
related to: why is forced sterilization still legal
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, refers to any government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done by surgical or chemical means.
Sterilization law is the area of law, that concerns a person's purported right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and when a given government may limit it. In the United States, it is typically understood to touch on federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law.
Reproductive sterilisation of men (vasectomy) is legal in Poland, while other sterilization methods have been defined as a criminal act since 1997 [9]: 19 and remains so as of 5 September 2019, under Article 156 §1, which also covers making someone blind, deaf or mute, of the 1997 law.
While California sterilized more than 20,000 people before its law was repealed in 1979, only a few hundred are still alive. California to pay victims of forced, coerced sterilizations Skip to ...
(It must be said, however, that some groups — including people of color and those with disabilities — have also been subjected to forced sterilization; the practice is still legal to do ...
But technically, some sterilization procedures are reversible — though the success of reversals isn’t guaranteed, and most doctors will still advise you to think of the procedures as permanent.
While sterilization laws have been repealed and new ones have been put in place to protect the bodily autonomy of people, there is still a major problem when it comes to the forced sterilization of women in the U.S. prison system. In California, it was found that over 100 women were unlawfully sterilized between the years of 2006 and 2010. [13]
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the ...