San Diego Man Diagnosed with Severe Autism As Tot Defies Prognosis, Passes Bar Exam
Telesummit Thriving with a Tic Disorder Features Mark Blaxill

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Used Forced Vaccination Laws to Justify Forced Sterilization Laws

by Ginger Taylor, MS

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

- Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Buck v. Bell, 1927

In the horrifying 1927 case, Buck V. Bell, the Supreme Court ruled, in an 8 to 1 decision, that it was constitutional for Virginia to perform forced sterilization on its citizens.

"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."

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.  

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.

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 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."

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 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:

"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:

“The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential?  It may be objected that this question implies a Nazi philosophy, but I do not think that it is difficult to distinguish non-functioning persons from members of ethnic, racial, economic, or other groups.”

- Dr. Stanley Plotkin, world renowned vaccinologist and co-inventor of the rubella vaccine, in a letter to the editor of "Ethics on Human Experimentation."





Jeanetta and Ginger:

My scheduled returned back to normal after the holidays, and I am back staying all night with my parents. That is where I am keeping Handley's book to read, before I turn in at night.

I was two pages away from chapter four, and I read 2/3rds of chapter four last night.

I am glad it went down this way. Thanks Ginger for sharing these and writing this article and thankyou Jeanetta for the links. I am glad that I first got to watch the actually videos of Siri and Plotkin for myself, that I had time to look up Plotkin's bibliography on the web, and then after all of that I got to enjoy reading Handley's take on the whole thing.

Life is good, God will eventually answer your prayers if you wait long enough. I always wanted to know what was behind the curtain of medical vaccines injuries. I got to peek at last. A darn atheist, who experiments on the weakest in our society.


I finished all of the Plotkin tapes.

The human race, well I am so lucky there are people in the world like New York Attorney Aaron Siri.

The staggering paper work, and the knowledge he put into this! The careful questioning, along with his ability to remain always pleasant in order to keep Plotkin under control. This very long day to keep it up until he was able to wear Plotkin out.

On the other hand the lawyer that was on the phone, that was representing the other side and with Plotkin. LOL. She thought she had a the sent from God expert. I don't think she had a clue all day long what was really going on, even leaving him for a brief time to do something else.

Jeanetta; Thanks for the link to the summary of chapter four. I am having to read this book just a couple of pages at a time. I should not have taken time from the family to watch these videos, but Ohhhh some times we just need such pleasures.


“The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential? It may be objected that this question implies a Nazi philosophy, but I do not think that it is difficult to distinguish non-functioning persons from members of ethnic, racial, economic, or other groups.”


Dr. Stanley Plotkin.... a living example of how it is also not difficult, to distinguish a psychopath from the rest of us.


That is very interesting Thomas.

Nazis Germany's ideas were really a lot of western ideas that came from Great Britain and the United States.

And apparently - as I watch Plotkin there is some form of it around.

He is such a dedicated scientist, doing pure scientific work that he just did not have time to pay attention to how much money he was making. We would have to ask his wife, whom was his accountant. Geesh!

Thomas McLeod

When Jacobson v Mass was decided in 1905, women could not vote, nor could married women own real property, nor could they practice in the professions. The author of Jacobson, John Marshall Harlan, believed that "the negro" was an inferior race that had been better off as slaves. Harlan had been a slave owner. He was not only a slave owner, but he was an owner who refused to release his "property" after the Emancipation Proclamation and waited until he was forced to do so by the ratification of the 13th Amendment. According to Malvina French Harlan's memoirs, when she married Harlan in 1856, each member of the Harlan family had his or her personal slave (called a "house boy" or "house girl") that followed him or her everywhere, stood behind him or her as they ate dinner, and could not eat dinner themselves until every member of the Harlan family had gone to bed. Nevertheless, Harlan considered himself a beneficent master, and while he firmly believed that negros were better off as slaves, he eventually told the position that "our constitution is color-blind," as he famously stated in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. But in the same dissent he also stated that the "white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty." This was the moral background of the man who authored the decision that is still controlling precedent regarding vaccine mandates.

As this article shows, Jacobson became the basis of notorious 1927 Buck v Bell eugenics decision. The Virginia statute that Buck upheld was the brainchild of arch eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin. In 1933, the National Socialists in Germany (Aka NAZIs) used Laughlin's statute as the basis for a law that launched the Holocaust. Indeed, the Hilter's people loved Laughlin so much that in 1936 they gave him an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University. After the World War II, at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg in 1947, the defendants explicitly cited Jacobson and Buck as a justifications for their crimes. This defense was initially so successful that the trial dragged on for months longer than expected and at one point it appeared that the defendants would all be acquitted (8 of 23 were ultimately acquitted). In response to this situation, after all evidence was heard presiding judge Walter Beals and two prosecution medical experts, one sent by the AMA, devised the Nuremberg Code so that they could have a standard by which to pronounce judgment on the conduct of the defendants. The point is that the ten point Code, which states at Point One “Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity,” was a direct response to perpetrators of the holocaust leaning on Jacobson. Hence the result of World War II and the subsequent Nuremberg trails is a direct repudiation of Jacobson.


I have a bit of time tonight to watch the links that Jeanetta provided.

Ohhhhh Thank YOU my God, thank you Jesus!

I only finished number 2 of 9

If any of you guys have not watched it; Do so four your soul.

Ohhhhh at last, I get sooo much satisfaction from watching.

After 30 years I get to see one of the faces I have only just imagined that was responsible for this mess. I get some satisfaction watching him realize he was not going to come in like the Great Nobleman, learned man facing down ignorance. Instead he can't recall getting 6 million dollars-- Oh, it might be over a million he says. He is not stupid, but it seems that he just has never realized that his very comfy life and still saving saved humanity just might be a fairy tale he has told himself.

Jeannette Bishop

@Benedetta, it's in Ch. 4.

Some of it is discussed in Levi Quackenboss's review:


Thanks Jeannetta; for some back ground.

I am slowly reading J.B. Handley's book. I am about the middle. I might have missed it?


John Stone,
Brilliant point as always! Piss off! (no, i’m kidding)! I was just wanted to say that one is not human unless one prevents herself from hurting others! And Plotkin is a psychopath!!!! Sorry, ok, that last bit is probably not Pee See.

Jeannette Bishop


J.B. Handley introduces the background in his recent book. Something like...Stanley Plotkin was put forward to be an expert witness in a custody case for the father in which vaccination was an issue of disagreement (the father wanted to vaccinate his daughter, the mother did not), so the mother's lawyer, very skillfully IMO, deposed Dr. Plotkin (you can see 9 hours here: ) after which Dr. Plotkin withdrew as an expert witness from the case, but we now have the above on record.


I am behind on knowledge about Stanley Plotkin.
Who is interviewing him, and under what circumstances?
If this was last year and he was born in 1932; this man is 86. Geesh he does not look a day over 70. I would love to know how many vaccines he has received over his life time?

Too busy reading Arrowsmith like stuff about slutty, many timing (not two timing men), I guess?


Bottom line: It is easy for me to picture Dr. Stanley Plotkin in a NAZI uniform. He and all those he has mentored are guilty of crimes against humanity.

John Stone


Unfortunately, another aspect of humanity is how easily very bad ideas take hold reducing the humanity of this or that group and how these ideas recur in slightly different mutations. The early eugenicists sought to rationalise and clinicise ancient barbarism (how do we create sciency language to define the superiority and dominion of one group over another): Plotkin, born in 1932 sounds more like someone of an even earlier generation, and remarkably he is still a big player in politically correct 2019 when usually a veil is drawn. We have just peeped behind it. The language of “protecting the vulnerable” is seemingly only used by vaccine proponents when it suits them.

Bob Moffit

- Dr. Stanley Plotkin, world renowned vaccinologist and co-inventor of the rubella vaccine, in a letter to the editor of "Ethics on Human Experimentation.":

No Dr Plotkin .. the question whether to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or perform initial studies on children who are "human in form" but not in social potential .. does not IMPLY A NAZI PHILOSOPHY .. IT REPRESENTS EXACTLY WHAT WAS THE NAZI PHILOSOPHY THAT CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST!!!!

Unfortunately .. historically .. the Supreme Court justices .. appointed to serve for the remainder of their LIVES .. have made many decisions that have proven to be in violation of the guaranteed protections the Constitution had granted the people .. LIFE-LIBERTY-AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS .. this being just one but just as harmful as a majority of the Supreme Court ruling vaccines "unavoidably unsafe" while denying the people their Constitutionally GUARANTEED RIGHT to seek justice in CIVIL OR CRIMINAL COURTS .. relegating their claims for justice to the VACCINE COURT .. where the "discovery process" .. crucial to the pursuit of truth and justice is prohibited.

When in comes to protecting the public from the tyranny of doctors and public health bureaucrats .. the Supreme Court has proven itself unreliable in far too many instances.


Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

Rational response:

Genetic research over the last couple of decades shows that genes only play a limited role in illness so eugenics is not feasible as well as not desirable.

Emotional response:

This is the legislation that we need in order to prevent the feeble minds and imbeciles in the health authorities and House of Representatives who have watched stupified as half a generation of children has become disabled from reproducing themselves.


Humanity is defined by compassion, not by intellect or ability. Without a desire to respect, and care for, all living things we cease to be “human in function”. We cease to be humane. By rights, it is the most evolved quality. Considering his own sentiment, Plotkin should seriously consider how he ranks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)