Is this what we used to do to our children in the United States of America? Really? Shame on you and your pathetic laws of the past.

     Custodial programs that segregate and warehouse retarded persons are no longer endorsed by professionals.  Today, programs for mentally retarded persons pursue the goal of "normalization' the development of skills that enable the individual to live as independently and self-sufficiently as possible.  Issues of sexual autonomy are an important aspect of the normalization trend; freedom and privacy in social and sexual relationships may be as important to mentally disabled persons as to others.  Furthermore, marriage and parenthood are realistic options for some mildly disabled persons who, with appropriate training, may be capable of fulfilling those roles.  
     Sterilization is viewed as rarely desirable because many mentally retarded persons are presumed to have at least a potential interest in having children.  
     The preceding factors have stimulated the reform of sterilization law in recent years. A few jurisdictions have banned sterilization of incompetent persons altogether.  Under most reform laws, however, the state may authorize sterilization under its parens patriae authority if certain conditions are met. First, the court must determine whether the individual is competent to make an informed medical decision about sterilization.  
     This inquiry seeks to protect the autonomy interest of the court determines that the person is incompetent, it must then consider specific factors and decide whether sterilization is in the competent person's best interest and who has no need for a surrogate decision maker best interest.      Most laws following the Hayes decision embody strict procedural and substantive requirements that create a strong presumption against sterilization. These laws presume that there is a conflict of interest between the child and the parent in this context and consequently exclude parents from any role in the decision in a formal "semi-adversarial" proceeding.  
     A court makes the sterilization.  The retarded individual is represented by an attorney, usually a guardian or a legitimate parent who most of the reform laws allow a court to order sterilization only upon findings may be directed to oppose the parents' petition for sterilization based on clear and convincing evidence.  In addition to procedural restrictions, these laws employ rigorous substantive criteria to guide the court's deliberations. 
     Some require inquiries into whether the individual is able to reproduce and whether she is "imminently" likely to engage in sexual activity.  The petitioner will be asked to demonstrate that less drastic forms of contraception have been tried and are not of feasible capacity to care for a child.  The court must also assess the individual and some states require a determination that sterilization is medically essential to preserve the life or the physical or mental health of the individual.  In some states, the court must also inquire into the disabled person's understanding of reproductive functions and the relationship between sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and childbirth.  
     Some laws direct the court to consider the psychological trauma associated with sterilization and alternatively with pregnancy and childbirth.  Additionally, an inquiry into the individual's preferences about sterilization may be required, although her objection is not determinable.  The Hayes decision and some later laws require findings that medical science is not on the verge of breakthroughs that will correct the individual's disability or make reversible sterilization available.  These various criteria create formidable substantive barriers to the sterilization of mentally retarded persons.  
     Current law explicitly or implicitly excludes some variables from the court's consideration, such as the state's interest in protecting society from the genetic and financial burden of children produced by retarded persons.  The parents' interest in protecting their child from unwanted pregnancy or in avoiding the inconvenience associated with menstrual hygiene is also excluded from consideration.  
     Finally, the disabled individual's interest in promoting family stability by reducing the stress associated with her care may not be considered.