There are some things that people need to realize about abortion and that they need to realize quick. It’s murder, plain and simple.
If someone doesn’t want to have a child for whatever reason there are a million things that a person can do before they go that ghoulish route of abortion. For example, there are a million families out there that cannot have children for one reason or another. They would be more than willing to take the child and raise it.
We’re at a crucial point in our country when it comes to abortion.
Warning that abortion may already be serving the ends of the early 20th century eugenics movement, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that although the court has rightly turned aside a case presented to it regarding an Indiana law, it cannot evade the issue of abortion forever.
The court decided it would not review an appeal from Indiana that sought to keep in place part of an Indiana law that bans abortion on the basis of race, sex or disability. The anti-abortion provision was signed into law by then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence in 2016, but later rejected by an appeals court, CNN reported.
Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that the court was right not to hear this case, but said it cannot duck abortion cases much longer.
“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is duty bound to address its scope,” Thomas wrote, referring to the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in America.
Much of Thomas’s opinion discussed the eugenics movement, and efforts by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and others to limit the growth of non-white races.
“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th Century eugenics movement,” Thomas wrote. “In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
In fact, he said, there was a valid question of whether laws such as the one drafted by Indiana “promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”
“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. But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now,” he wrote.
In his opinion, after discussing the history of the eugenics movement in America, Thomas wrote, that there exists “a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.”
“And with today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child.
“As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas said that what eugenicists wanted in the 20th century has become reality in the 21st century.