The left’s worst nightmare is about to come true. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just argued that the court will need to confront the issue of abortion “soon,” citing eugenics as his primary concern. As Planned Parenthood centers have increasingly moved toward selective abortions, conservatives have been screaming “eugenics,” but have been drowned out by the radical left who’s been focusing on terminating the life of the fetus in the 3rd trimester, or giving doctors immunity who walk away from a botched abortion, allowing the baby to suffer until they die.
“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.” – Clarence Thomas
The Hill – Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday said that while he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision to not take up a challenge to an Indiana abortion law at this moment, he believes the court will have to take up the issue in the near future.
The Supreme Court ruled to uphold an Indiana law on the disposal of fetal remains but declined to review a lower court’s ruling blocking an Indiana law banning abortions on the basis of the fetus’s sex, disability or ethnicity.
Early supporters of eugenics believed people inherited mental illness, criminal tendencies and even poverty, and that these conditions could be bred out of the gene pool.
Historically, eugenics encouraged people of so-called healthy, superior stock to reproduce and discouraged reproduction of the mentally challenged or anyone who fell outside the social norm. Eugenics was popular in America during much of the first half of the twentieth century, yet it earned its negative association mainly from Adolf Hitler’s obsessive attempts to create a superior Aryan race.
Thomas wrote in a lengthy concurring opinion that he agreed that the court should not address the issue now “because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression.”
He added, however, that “[g]iven the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”
Thomas, the only African-American member of the court, noted the racial discrimination involved in the history of eugenics.
And he claimed that “[f]rom the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.”
Thomas pointed to comments from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in the 1920s that promoted eugenics as fueling his concerns surrounding abortion.
In 1992 Black Genocide warned about the Planned Parenthood founders goals to reduce the black population in America through eugenics:
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spoke of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. –Margaret Sanger
Ginsburg fired back at Thomas in her own footnote.
Ginsburg reminded Thomas the court reviews judgments, not statements in opinions, and picked apart her colleague’s arguments.
“A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother,’” Ginsburg wrote. “The cost of, and trauma potentially induced by, a post-procedure requirement may well constitute an undue burden … under the rational-basis standard applied
below, (and) Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky had no need to marshal evidence that Indiana’s law posed an undue burden.”
“Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child,” the justice wrote.
Who will win this battle—Americans who defend life…or those fighting to take away the lives of those who can’t defend themselves?