The venerated Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision upholding the Virginia law that ended a woman's right to be a mother, by saying it was no different than vaccination:

But even those who know about poor Carrie Buck may not know that the mandatory vaccine laws were the justification for this decision. They used our old friend Jacobson, the Massachusetts minister who refused to pay a five dollar fee imposed by the state on those rejecting the smallpox vaccine during a deadly outbreak in 1905, and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

"The concept of eugenics had been put forward in 1883 by Francis Galton, who also coined the name. The trend first became popular in the United States, and found proponents in Europe by the start of the 20th century; 42 of the 58 research papers presented at the First International Congress of Eugenics held in London in 1912, were from American scientists. Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization statute (1907), but it was legally flawed. To remedy this situation, Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, designed a model eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the intellectually disabled for the purpose of eugenics. This 1924 statute was closely based on Laughlin's model. Looking to determine if the new law would pass a legal challenge, on September 10, 1924 Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution who he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society ."

Again with the Wikipedia (yes I know I being lazy by quoting the Wiki but I have to get back to my kids homework):

The case of Buck v. Bell was the atrocious matter in which Dr. Albert Sidney Pridd (and his successor, Dr. John Hendren Bell) Superintendent of The Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded , decided that one of his patients, an 18 year old rape-victim with a sixth grade education, should not be able to give birth again. Her mother was also "feebleminded" you see, and the good doctors believed society should be rid of their kind.

This, many of us have heard of, as it is our children that the states would be targeting if this policy of Nazi eugenics was being carried out today as it was in the 20th century, both in Nazy Germany and the US during the "Progressive Era," which was embracing the idea of creating a superior society.

Wikipedia : "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927),is a 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 United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell ."

"The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. 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. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

[emphasis mine]

Thus we can see that Jacobson v. Massachusetts is used to justify all manner of horrors in the name of "societal good." Poor Carrie Buck was not even given the option of paying a five dollar fine to prevent her forced sterilization, as Jacobson was to get out of taking the smallpox vaccine.

And we see in both cases, as we are living through now, these unwanted procedures that cause permanent and detrimental changes to the human body, are simply declared "safe," and "for our own good," just as this human rights atrocity inflicted on an innocent young woman was when it was declared to be, "without detriment to her general health" and that, "her welfare... will be promoted by her sterilization."

Almost a hundred years later and some evil arguments never die.

NYU legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar, Professor Mary Holland, in her article "Compulsory Vaccination, the Constitution, and the Hepatitis B Mandate for Infants and Young Children," in Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, follows up on Buck in her discussion of the history of vaccine mandates:

"Although Buck v. Bell has never been formally overruled, the Colorado Supreme Court summarized the contemporary view that "since Skinner, commentators generally have concluded that compulsory sterilization laws, no matter what their rationale, are unconstitutional in the absence of evidence that compulsory sterilization is the only remedy available to further a compelling governmental interest."

(As a side bar, doesn't that preclude NY from mandating the flu shot in the absence of evidence that it is the only remedy available to getting the flu? We have not even compared vitamin D to flu shot in prevention of the infection.)

(As another sidebar, the Skinner ruling is interesting to me, because we have to fight again in Maine to keep our liability-free vaccine exemption rights, in a state that can't even claim a "compelling government interest" in removing them, because we don't have a problem that will be addressed by removing exemptions. Maine does not have a disease problem. We have not even had a case of measles in Maine in more than 20 years. We even had someone from Mass in 2015 and someone from Canada in 2017, come into Maine with the measles, and still no Mainer caught measles. Is the "compelling government interest" perhaps achieving less than zero measles cases? Negative measles? But I digress. Again.)



Since Buck v. Bell is still established law in the US, and as Holmes has tied forced vaccination to forced sterilization, using the legitimacy of the first to justify the second, can we not now in our new understanding of the human rights atrocity of the second, reject the first?



Kevin Barry, Esq., the author of "Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC," has observed that, "Informed consent to vaccination vs. coerced/mandated vaccination is analogous to choosing to use birth control vs. forced sterilization." A forced medical procedure is a forced medical procedure.



No sane person today would argue that forced sterility on the developmentally disabled is anything more than a vile human rights abuse. Forced sterilization is now a WAR CRIME under Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court established in 1998. Yet the Buck v. Bell SCOTUS ruling is still on the books, and this war crime did not become outlawed in every state in the US until the 1980s. (Except for California, which didn't end the coerced sterilization of female prisoners until 2014.)

So if SCOTUS views forced vaccination and forced sterilization as the same, then either Holmes right, and BOTH are justified by a "compelling state interest," or NEITHER is justified by a "compelling state interest."



Buck v. Bell is both a Constitutional violation, and morally evil. So is Jacobson.



All medical procedures require free, prior and informed consent.

So we can be clear that there are still some at the top of the medical profession that hold, and act on, this "Nazi Philosophy", I will leave you with Stanley Plotkin's testimony from just a year ago today, admitting to his own human rights abuses by experimenting on developmentally disabled children in creating the (now liability-free) rubella vaccine that we are being mandated into taking today: