Clarence Thomas Raises Specter of Eugenics

Clarence Thomas Raises Specter of Eugenics

Clarence Thomas Raises Specter of Eugenics

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court decided to punt on an Indiana law blocking abortions on race, sex, or disability. But Justice Clarence Thomas reminded SCOTUS of what abortion and its handmaidens, Planned Parenthood, could bring. He was speaking, of course, of eugenics.

The Indiana law that SCOTUS partially reviewed had two distinct components. One provision ordered that the remains of unborn babies — whether aborted or miscarried — must be either buried or cremated. Then-Gov. Mike Pence had signed that bill into law, and while a lower court found it unconstitutional, SCOTUS reversed it. That decision came down 7-2, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. RBG wrote that merely requiring the state to dispose of aborted babies with minimal dignity somehow “implicates” a woman’s right to abortion. Of course she did — that’s why she’s a heroine to the feminist left.

But when SCOTUS kicked the abortion can down the road by refusing to hear the meat of the Indiana law — forbidding abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability — Clarence Thomas dropped the hammer. Oh, yes, he concurred with the court majority — for now. But he also warned that the Indiana law would not be the end:

“Given the potential for abortion to soon become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”

And:

“Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child.”

Moreover, in his opinion, Clarence Thomas slammed Planned Parenthood and its nasty history of eugenics:

“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.”

Yes, Clarence Thomas went there. And he was magnificent.

“This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.”

Justice Thomas wrote twelve pages on the history of PP founder and patron saint Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement, which you can read excerpted here. However, the Notorious RBG didn’t respond to his points. Gee, imagine that.

clarence thomas eugenics

Credit: Christopher Dombres @ flickr. Public domain.

With such a strident condemnation of abortion as eugenics, why then did Justice Clarence Thomas concur with the court to not hear the Indiana abortion law? Typically SCOTUS avoids taking a case until more than one appeals court has made a ruling. In this case, only the 7th circuit court of appeals had ruled.

As Thomas wrote: “further percolation may assist our review of this issue. . .” However, he also ominously warned “we cannot avoid them forever.”

Meanwhile, Thomas boldly went to that place which strident feminists don’t want you to see. It’s where abortion and eugenics create a very ugly society which is far from the equitable society they espouse.

 

Featured image: wikimedia commons/cropped/public domain.

 

 

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

3 Comments
  • Theodore Moore says:

    Clarence Thomas is our most valuable Supreme Court Justice.

  • GWB says:

    FTA:
    a high-profile and politically charged topic that the Supreme Court generally seeks to avoid
    Of course they avoid it. The feminists and progressives have made sure that “cities in flames” is what the Constitutionalist judges see every time they contemplate tearing down the abomination that is Roe v. Wade.*

    (* BTW, it’s an abomination, even if you are pro-abortion. The reasoning doesn’t even rise to the level of a winning middle school debate team. The science is full of errors. They had to search high and low for witnesses that would deny basic science. They had to obfuscate to turn “privacy” into “kill the child in your womb”. The whole decision is horrid – and that’s before you get to the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong.)

    The decision they did make actually undercuts one of the pillars of Roe v. Wade, though. An awful lot of the decision is bogus justification for why abortion really isn’t killing a baby. And this decision said “We don’t care. You still have to treat it as if it were one.” Maybe we can get them to shift one more step toward the truth next time. Then one more….

    While the eugenics issue is an important point, though, don’t get too excited that it will sway those who support abortion. Most women justifying an abortion for themselves or for others are not thinking of eugenics – especially race-based. They are usually focused on all the problems that a pregnancy and a child might bring to an unprepared woman (and maybe her SO). Very few of the people that I’ve met who will argue for abortion on the basis of diseased and malformed children argue on the basis of eliminating those diseases and deformities from our midst (eugenics).

    You can argue with some liberals using a “disparate impact” argument, since they seem to think that’s a valid reason to deny someone their rights. You can actually set up cognitive dissonance on that one, and gently turn up the heat.
    (DO suggest, the next time you encounter someone wanting to tear down the statues/buildings of famous people, that we should tear down all the Planned Parenthood clinics and disband the organization because their founder was a racist who hated little brown babies. Because, after all, no matter how good her deeds in promoting birth control and abortion and “empowering” women, she was a racist and the works and remembrances of all racists must be erased from our present.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram