The Irish standard., 1915-02-06


groups have given birth to children
the greater majority of whom were
defective also. and that many Of
these children were the direct result
of immortality prevailing among these
people. The remedy proposed. how
ever. shoots wide of the mark and
will be productive of more harm than
good. 1t should be vigorously op-
posed by Catholics in those states
where it is now proposed. and efforts
should be made to repeal the legis-
lation now on the statute books Of
other states. Nor should Catholic
opposition to such proposals be mere
ly negative in its nature; there
should be some remedy applied in
this case and that remedy is segre-
cation. 1t should be the effort Of
Catholics. therefore, to provide places
or to have the state provide places
wasra these people can be kept. This
may entail great deal of expense,
but 1t IS she only solution at present
possible.
Twelve s,.a.t,s in all have steriliza-
ton laws on :'..eir statute books at
the present f.me-Indiana, Washing
ION. California, Connecticut, Nevada,
Iowa. New Jersey, New York, North
Dakota. Michigan Kansas and Wis
consin. Indiana's law, the first
adopted, has been suspended at the
wish of the present Governor, who
thinks it unconstitutional, though it
has never been tested in the courts.
In New Jersey the law was in 1913
declared unconstitutional and such
fate also awaited the Iowa law. The
Supreme court at Washington has de-
clared the law of that state consti-
tutional. In the majority of the
states no operations have as yet been
performed under the laws, owing to
their doubtful constitutionality.
The operations which are common
ly supposed to be given under these
and salpingectomy
are dangerous in the greatest de-
gree in that they will open the way
to immortality of the worst kind not
only among the defective classes but
among the normal in health and
mind, as was pointed out by the New
Jersey Supreme Court in it's decision
(SS Atlantic Reports, 963). They
are useless also in that the same re-
suits can be obtained by segregation.
In regard to criminals, their use is
manifestly unjust, for it is redicu-
lous to suppose that the greater
amount of such people are diseased.
Moreover. eminent eugenists them
selves admit that this form of pro-
cedure is of doubtful value. Leon
ard Darwin, President of the Eugen-
les Education Society of Great Brit
ain. in a letter to the New York
Times dated Dec. IL, 1922 has
said: Gas to whether surgical steril-
ization should ever be enforced on
such persons. we still have an open
mind but certainly not till further
information on this subject is avail
able" Quoted in the Journal of the
American Institute of Criminal Law
and Criminology, Sept, 1913. Vol. 4,
No. 3, p. 1889 DR.. B. M. Ricketts,
has shown in the Medical Review of
Reviews (Vol. XIV, p. 1850 how ster-
ilization would degrade the one op-
Grated on even to greater degree
than his or her present condition,
making him "a moral libertine,
menace and a most dangerous indi-
vidual even to the most virtuous."
A similar condemnation was ex-
pressed in regard to this matter as
far back as August 1910, by the "In-
stitution Quarterly" official organ of
the Public Charity Service of Illinois.
The dangerous nature of laws provid-
ing for such procedure is clear and
the duty of Catholics in this matter
quite patent.
G. B. of c. V.