Connect with us

News

Supreme Court Issues a Ruling with Mixed Results for Pro-Life Activists

Published

on

Clarence Thomas Takes Advantage of this Case to Drop Major Truth Bombs about Abortion’s Racist Origins

LifeSiteNews.com reports that a U.S. Supreme ruling on Tuesday will not hold a ban on abortions that are based on child’s race, sex, or disability.

This ruling dealt with pro-life law signed in 2016, which had provisions that required the humane disposal of fetal remains and banned racist, sex-based abortions. The ruling kept the former provision intact, while the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down the latter provision.

Before becoming President Donald Trump’s running mate, then Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337 which banned abortions that were pursued on the grounds of a preborn child’s race, sex, ethnicity, or potential disabilities. Further, it required abortionists to bury or cremate fetal remains instead of treating them like medical waste.

Pro-abortion interests sued, using the argument of  the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Ken Falk that every woman has an “absolute right as part of her privacy interests” to abort a child she deems undesirable. A district judged agreed with Planned Parenthood, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals would later uphold these injunctions.

Trending: HILARIOUS: Trump Campaign Trolls Leftists, Sells Plastic Straws on Campaign Website

Last October, Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Curt Hill requested that the Supreme Court hear HEA 1337, contending that “right to abortion declared by our Supreme Court protects only the decision not to bear a child at all, not a right to decide which child to bear,” and remind the high court that “our nation knows only too well the bitter fruits of such discrimination.”

On Tuesday morning, the Court issued an unsigned order which reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decision that scrapped the fetal burial provision. However, the Court rejected the state’s request to reverse the previous lower court’s judgement on the portion of law which banned discriminatory abortions.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took advantage of this decision to drop some inconvenient truths about abortion’s racist history.

The justice argued, “This law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

Thomas expanded on abortion’s ties to eugenics:

The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth control movement.

The birth control movement largely grew along with the American eugenics movement.

Thomas also exposed some unsavory truths about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “who recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.” The Supreme Court justice detailed some of Sanger’s views on race, which have generally been kept away from the public eye, and how these views shaped the history of the abortion movement.

Thomas concluded:

This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. 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 dutybound to address its scope.

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

You Might Like

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



You Might Like