To start, I noticed that during the peak of the American eugenics movement (1920-1929) that anti-evolutionary bills and eugenical bills were being passed in the same 37 states (well, just about), particularly in the midwest and southern states. I suspect that this also correlates to the treatment of A Civic Biology during the Scopes trial, and it's reprint in 1926, A New Civic Biology, both by George W. Hunter. Wherein, the word evolution was removed and the chapters dealing with heredity were moved to the back sections of the book, as I noticed when I got a hold of these texts. The chapter on Eugenics was left where it was, but during the 4th printing, according to Adam Shapiro, American Book Company's publishers pushed Hunter to remove the language dealing with STD's, and sex itself.
What I think is happening is was a defense of this weird contradiction, like "It's for the family/kids/future." I was told to find No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, I got it in [yesterday now] and have read as much of it as I could in one sitting. This book doesn't seem to be enough though, it introduces me to some interesting concepts of family and children, but it's not solid enough to use as support for my argument.
Are there times in the United States when legislators, the law, and the "Establishment" are particularly protective of children?