San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-03-11
EUGENICS LAW WANTED

70 the Editor:
The House of Representatives has
Ist' refused to pass "engenics bill
Introduced by Representative Edith
Williams from Dallas, according to
fridays Light" (page y. This bill
yould require men and women con-
emplatjng marriage TO obtain health
certificates before they can obtain
marriage licenses, and would refuse
harriage licenses to such persons as
lere suffering from social diseases,
.ble- mindedness, epilepsy, insanity,
.eble-mindness, epilepsy, insanity,
lotion.
1t seems to me, better measure
ouh not be passed, but members
eclared that the measure was too
lrastic, and the House refused to
ngross the bill by a vote of 81 to
Is. A substitute for the bill was Of
Erred by Representative Rice OF
Crockett, combining its provisions to
hale applicants for marriage licenses,
Ind that the applicant shall be free
MY of social diseases. The substi-
ne was voted down SO to g."
Mrs. Williams said the bill had
he endorsement of the state board of
ealth and other health agencies OF
be country" and any one who will
live it serious thought cannot help
Tut be in favor of such a bill. Such
"engenic bill'' should have been a
aw in this state las it is in other
tates) these many gears, and why it
Ihould have been defeated is beyond
Comprehension. Because it was too
rastic." In what way, may ask,
las it too drastic: Because it would
efnse marriage licenses to all who are
nfit TO marry? Had it been passed
htp q law, it would prevent the mar
fiage of people who are diseased and.
therefore have no moral right to mar
v. 1t would prevent the birth OF
hildren who must go through life
lind, crippled, or insane, or die in
Infancy. And it would save many a
toman from the operating table. This
Consideration alone should have been
nough to have made the passage of
he "eugenics bill" unanimous. Many
n innocent girl marries man suffer-
hg from social disease" and must
iffer the consequences. This happens
ften and will continue to happen until
is prevented by such law as has
list been defeated. Your daughter,
our sister or mine. so full of health
bday, 30 sweet and pure. many in a
ew years be suffering from an al
host incurable disease, il she marries
man who is afflicted By such a dis
ase. And yet bill to prevent these
cry things was defeated at Austin by
ur representatives, men whom we
lave sent there to work for "the
reatest good for the greatest num-
Rer."
What arguments were offered pro
I'D con, / don't know, but this
much we read in The Light. rep
esentative Jennings of Canadian,
trongly opposed the bill asserting that
while it might do good in certain
ases, 1t would cast reflection on
sa~morals of many young men and
women who are pure and physically
it."
What sillier argument could possibly
pe advanced? What young man or
voman who is physically fit would
untrue SUCH law US casting re-
lection on their morals?" As well
ay that compulsory education law
asts reflection on all parents who
olutarily send their children to school.
"eugenics law" could give offense
o no one. Any "pure and physically
it" person should be only too glad
o undergo a physical examination
prior to marriage and thus prove to>
he world and to themselves that they
rc fit to marry, and marry with a
lear conscience, with the knowledge
that they shall not be the cause of
ome innocent persons suffering. And
hose who are not fit to marry should
be prevented from doing so by just
|uch a law as was defeated.
Tell me, what is there too drastic"