Editing Compulsory sterilization (section)

==== Effect on disabled persons ====
As stated previously, eugenics in the United States spread to target mentally disabled persons. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low, with the sole exception of California, until the 1927 [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] decision in ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'', which upheld under the [[U.S. Constitution]] the forced sterilization of patients at a [[Virginia]] home for intellectually disabled people.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Buck v. Bell |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170623010556/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 |archive-date=2017-06-23 |access-date=2017-06-27}}</ref> In the wake of that decision, over 62,000 people in the United States, most of them women, were sterilized.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kluchin |first=Rebecca M |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fbXeTqBPiP8C&pg=PA17 |title=Fit to be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950–1980 |year=2011 |publisher=Rutgers University Press |isbn=9780813549996 |access-date=2015-08-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160610143115/https://books.google.com/books?id=fbXeTqBPiP8C&pg=PA17& |archive-date=2016-06-10 |url-status=live}}</ref> The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, ''[[Skinner v. Oklahoma]]'', 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt [[White-collar crime|white-collar criminals]].<ref>On the legal history of eugenic sterilization in the U.S., see {{Cite web |last=Lombardo |first=Paul |title=Eugenic Sterilization Laws |url=http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170701030240/http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html |archive-date=2017-07-01 |website=Eugenics Archive}}</ref> This case, however, does not directly overturn the decision made in ''Buck v. Bell''.<ref name=":04">{{Cite web |title=The Right to Self-Determination: Freedom from Involuntary Sterilization |url=https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-self-determination-freedom-from-involuntary-sterilization/ |access-date=2021-03-12 |website=Disability Justice |date=11 March 2014 |language=en-US}}</ref> Instead, it invalidates the central argument of the decision, and has been used in several cases to deny guardians the right to sterilize the disabled person under their care.<ref name=":04" />

The [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists|Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) believes that mental disability is not a reason to deny sterilization. The opinion of ACOG is that "the physician must consult with the patient's family, agents, and other caregivers" if sterilization is desired for a mentally limited patient.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Committee on Ethics |year=2007 |title=ACOG Committee Opinion No. 371: Sterilization of Women, Including Those with Mental Disabilities |journal=Obstetrics & Gynecology |volume=110 |issue=1 |pages=217–220 |doi=10.1097/01.AOG.0000263915.70071.29 |pmid=17601925}}</ref> In 2003, Douglas Diekema wrote in Volume 9 of the journal Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews that "involuntary sterilization ought not be performed on mentally retarded persons who retain the capacity for reproductive decision-making, the ability to raise a child, or the capacity to provide valid consent to marriage."<ref>Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: An ethical analysis, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, Volume 9, Issue 1, pages 21–26, 2003. {{Cite journal |last=Diekema |first=Douglas S. |year=2003 |title=Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: An ethical analysis |journal=Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=21–26 |doi=10.1002/mrdd.10053 |pmid=12587134}}</ref> The ''[[Journal of Medical Ethics]]'' claimed, in a 1999 article, that doctors are regularly confronted with requests to sterilize mentally limited people who cannot give consent for themselves. The article recommend that sterilization should only occur when there is a "situation of necessity" and the "benefits of sterilization outweigh the drawbacks."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Denekens |first1=JP |last2=Nys |first2=H |last3=Stuer |first3=H |year=1999 |title=Sterilization of incompetent mentally handicapped persons: a model for decision making |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=237–241 |doi=10.1136/jme.25.3.237 |pmc=479215 |pmid=10390678}}</ref>

The ''[[American Journal of Bioethics]]'' published an article, in 2010, that concluded the interventions used in the [[Ashley treatment]] may benefit future patients.<ref>Ashley Revisited: A Response to the Critics, American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2010. {{Cite web |title=Ashley Revisited: A Response to the Critics &#124; Bioethics.net |url=http://www.bioethics.net/articles/ashley-revisited-a-response-to-the-critics/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120807210745/http://www.bioethics.net/articles/ashley-revisited-a-response-to-the-critics/ |archive-date=2012-08-07 |access-date=2013-03-27}}</ref> These interventions, at the request of the parents and guidance from the physicians, included a [[hysterectomy]] and surgical removal of the [[Thelarche|breast buds]] of the mentally and physically disabled child.<ref>The Ashley Treatment, March 2007. {{Cite web |title=The "Ashley Treatment", Towards a Better Quality of Life for "Pillow Angels" |url=http://pillowangel.org/Ashley%20Treatment.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216162353/http://pillowangel.org/Ashley%20Treatment.pdf |archive-date=2015-02-16 |access-date=2014-10-16}}</ref> Proponents of the treatments argue that it protects disabled persons from sexual assault, unwanted pregnancy, and difficulties of menstruation.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web |last=Reiter |first=Jesse |title=Involuntary Sterilization of Disabled Americans: An Historical Overview |url=https://www.abclawcenters.com/blog/2018/11/06/involuntary-sterilization-of-disabled-americans-an-historical-overview/ |access-date=2021-03-12 |website=www.abclawcenters.com |date=6 November 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref> The interventions are still legal in many states, despite the argument that it violates a person's constitutional right to avoid unwanted intrusions.<ref name=":18" /> Discussion on the involuntary sterilization of disabled persons is now largely focused on the right of a guardian to request sterilization.