The theory of the Great Satan is true

Three factors have stimulated and shaped the reform of sterilization law: the discrediting of the eugenic theory, the development of the constitutional doctrine of reproductive privacy, and the changing conception of mental retardation. The vigilant stance of current law is largely a response to the unsavory history of eugenic sterilization in this country. During the first half of this century, laws in many states authorized sterilization of mentally deficient persons and others believed to be societal burdens." These laws were based largely on eugenic theory, which enjoyed considerable popularity in the progressive era. The theory posited that intelligence and most personality traits are genetically based and are predictably inherited by children from their parents. The objective of the eugenic sterilization laws was to protect and improve society by preventing reproduction by those who might produce defective off-spring. Even at that time, however, the scientific merit of the theory was controversial and it has since been largely discredited. Reports of widespread sterilization in Nazi Germany led to increased criticism of eugenic sterilization laws. By the 1960's, involuntary sterilization was frequently characterized as an unjustified intrusion by the state on individual liberty and privacy. The reform law that has emerged in recent years represents a vehement rejection of the philosophy and policy of the eugenic movement. It is explicitly designed to protect the interests of the retarded person rather than those of society. A second impetus to reform has been the development of the constitutional doctrine of reproductive privacy. A principal reason why courts and legislatures have been concerned about protecting the reproductive rights of retarded persons is that reproductive rights in general have been accorded a special status in recent years. The right of normal adults and mature minors to avoid unwanted pregnancy through abortion, contraception, and (for adults) sterilization is well established. The right to procreate, in contrast, has received little attention, probably because it has seldom been challenged. The development of the doctrine of reproductive privacy casts substantial doubt on the continued validity of involuntary sterilization laws like Bell versus Buck. There is general consensus that mentally disabled persons should, to the extent that their disability allows, enjoy the same right of reproductive privacy as normal people.