I have to argue the Buck V. Bell case, and I need to know if the case were taken to court today what would the outcome be? can someone give me some starters to begin my lengthy response?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/douthat-eugenics-past...

try also:

http://www.rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-vic

http://www.care2.com/causes/forced-sterilization-of-thousands-of-women-in...

To understand how the Buck v. Bell case outcome might be different if it were taken to court today, it's essential to review the background and legal context of the case.

Buck v. Bell was a 1927 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing forced sterilization of individuals deemed "feeble-minded" or "unfit." The ruling set a precedent that allowed for state-enforced sterilization programs across the United States.

Considering the progress of legal and societal perspectives since the Buck v. Bell decision, several factors could potentially influence a different outcome if the case were brought to court today:

1. Evolving Legal Standards: Today, our legal framework emphasizes individual rights, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable populations. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause has been interpreted more broadly, recognizing the dignity and inherent worth of all individuals.

2. Advances in Science and Medicine: Modern scientific understanding discredits the notion of "feeble-mindedness" as a hereditary trait. Courts would likely consider contemporary medical expertise to assess the validity and reliability of any evidence or claims relating to intellectual capacity.

3. Balancing State Interests: While states possess certain interests in safeguarding public health, welfare, and the prevention of harm, courts today tend to take a more nuanced approach to balancing those interests against individual liberty and bodily autonomy.

4. Grounds for Challenging Laws: In contemporary legal discourse, laws and policies can be challenged based on a broad range of constitutional principles, including equal protection, due process, privacy rights, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Such challenges might be raised against the premise of involuntary sterilization.

Considering these factors, if the Buck v. Bell case were taken to court today, it is likely that the outcome would differ significantly. Courts would likely apply a more rigorous scrutiny, evaluating the law's purpose, necessity, and impact on individual rights. The emphasis on personal autonomy and dignity, coupled with scientific advancements, would likely render forced sterilization laws unconstitutional under the modern legal framework.