Connect with us

Sanctity Of Life

Abortion Zealot Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Pregnant Woman with Baby in Womb Is No ‘Mother’

Ginsburg chided fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for suggesting that a pregnant woman with a fetus in her womb is a “mother.”

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been an abortion zealot her entire life, and her extreme position once again showed itself with an attack on fellow SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.

The high court upheld the fetal disposition law of Indiana which mandated that fetal remains from abortions must be buried or cremated. SCOTUS determined that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had “clearly erred” in their decision to overturn the law.

While that may be a victory for life, the ruling simultaneously allowed the overturning of an Indiana law preventing abortions on the basis of race, gender, or the genetic abnormality of the baby.

Trending: SHOCK CLAIM: Rudy Giuliani Says Hunter Biden Laptop Had Pictures of “Underage Girls,” Bizarre Texts

In writing his opinion, Thomas said plainly: “This statute makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion in Indiana when the provider knows that the mother is seeking the abortion solely because of the child’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Although Thomas concluded by saying “the Court declines to wade into these issues today” and joined the majority opinion of the Court, the abortion zealot Ginsburg objected strongly to Thomas’ characterization of a pregnant woman as a “mother.”

Ginsburg wrote: “A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother.'”

She opposed the first half of the decision, arguing on technical grounds to allow the destruction of fetal tissues without any sanctity or respect for the remains.

“I would not summarily reverse a judgment when application of the proper standard would likely yield restoration of the judgment,” she wrote.

“It is ‘a waste of th[e] [C]ourt’s resources’ to take up a case simply to say we are bound by a party’s ‘strategic litigation choice’ to invoke rational-basis review alone, but ‘everything might be different’ under the close review instructed by the Court’s precedent,” Ginsburg wrote in her conclusion.

The far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is in Ginsburg’s corner, as they argued the case on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

“The Court’s decision on the provision of the law pertaining to the disposition of fetal tissue may have been struck down had it been reviewed – as subsequent laws in other states have been – based on whether it poses an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure Hoosiers have safe access to abortion.”

The Students for Life of America (SFLA) are partially happy with the decision, but believe it should have went further.

“The Justices got it right that aborted infants need to be buried and cremated respectfully as they are human beings, not trash, but it’s tragic they didn’t see their humanity when they still have a chance at life,” SFLA President Kristan Hawkins said in public statement.

“Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby are probably furious right now about the time and expense now required of them to treat those infants with dignity, but this is long overdue and should be required nationwide,” she added.

Abortion zealots like Ginsburg will never pushing for abortion-on-demand without any limits. With states like Missouri, Alabama, and Georgia passing strong abortion restrictions, they are only growing more unhinged in their push to facilitate the murder of babies in the womb.

Sanctity Of Life

Texas City Stands Up for Life by Passing Pro-Life Ordinance

Planned Parenthood is not welcome.

Published

on

The town of New Home, located south of Lubbock, became the 15th city in Texas to prohibit abortion on September 29, 2020.

The New Home city council unanimously voted for the resolution following state politicians and local officials discussing the idea of bringing back a Planned Parenthood facility to the city. New Home Baptist pastor L.J. Wright was a champion of this pro-life effort and hopes that the vote will change Lubbock’s city council decision to bring back Planned Parenthood.

“With the City Council in Lubbock seemingly balking at the ordinance while claiming to be Pro-Life, this puts the pressure directly on them,” Wright commented. “Every city in Lynn County should consider following suit with New Home, and get behind Mark Lee Dickson… I am challenging all of West Texas to stand up for life, and make their city a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.”

Mark Lee Dickson, a pro-life activist and director of Right to Life of East Texas, crafted this ordinance.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Texas Senator Charles Perry, who represents Lubbock, has sent a petition around requesting that Planned Parenthood be kept out of Lubbock and signed on a letter calling Lubbock to pass a similar ordinance.

“Passing an ordinance designating Lubbock as a Sanctuary City for the Unborn will help to continue the Texas belief that life begins at conception, while also protecting the safety of mothers,” Perry wrote in the letter, which was also signed by State Representatives Dustin Burrows and John Frullo.

Similar to the other cities who have passed such ordinances, New Home’s ordinance implements the abortion ban by imposing fines on abortion providers. The catch is that this ordinance will go into effect once Roe v. Wade is overturned. Providers will also be held liable for carrying out abortions, and families who have children that were aborted will now be able to sue them.

The Texas reported that “Waskom, Naples, Joaquin, Tenaha, Gilmer, Westbrook, Rusk, Colorado City, Gary, Big Spring, Wells, Whiteface, and East Mountain are the other cities that have adopted the ordinance, modeled by Dickson. The town of Omaha adopted the ordinance but later pulled its teeth, making it a symbolic resolution instead.”

Texans are getting fed up with the inaction of legislators at the state and federal level. So, they’re taking matters into their own hands at the local level. Similar to Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, these pro-life movements represent a growing dissatisfaction with the political status quo and are likely a sign of how politics will be conducted from here on out.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending