Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas recently sparred over Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, a case involving the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers. The case addresses two provisions of an Indiana law. The first provision prohibits abortion providers from treating the bodies of aborted children as “infectious waste” and incinerating them alongside used needles and other potentially dangerous items. The second provision made 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.”
Ginsburg disagreed with Indiana’s law while Thomas supported it and said, “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 correctly noted that, “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. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control ‘opens the way to the eugenicist.’”
In a footnote to her opinion, Ginsburg chided Thomas for using the term “mother” to describe women who choose to have an abortion, saying, "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.’” Sorry, RBG, but a woman who has carried a child in her womb is a mother whether she wanted to be or not. Mothers who have chosen to put their unborn child to death for their own convenience are still mothers. And monsters.
A woman who has had a miscarriage is still a mother. You are not not a mother because you say so. You cannot simply identify as a non-mother for your own personal benefit.
To be fair, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. A father is still a father even if he exercises his constitutionally protected right to bear arms……and then shoots his kid. Or should I say, “terminates a childhood?” Right?
“Do you have any children, sir?”
“No. I killed all three of them earlier this morning. So, you can see I’m not a dad.”
Nice reasoning for a SCOTUS justice.
If it is illegal to hire someone on the basis of race, sex, or disability, how can it possibly be okay to exterminate them based on the same criteria?
There are those among us who still believe people were—and are-- created in God’s image and have been endowed with inalienable rights to life and liberty. Treating the bodies of aborted children as if they were of no more worth than “infectious waste” is a dire and inexcusable capitulation to evil.