Posted on 05/29/2019 7:55:54 AM PDT by Heartlander
Justice Clarence Thomas made history this week. He used a routine Supreme Court decision not to review an abortion law to force us to face the truth. An ugly truth, which our elites don’t want to face. A stark truth, attested by documents and facts. An inconvenient truth, which belongs in the Memory Hole.
Margaret Sanger was a violent, passionate racist. Her whole crusade for birth control was fueled by racist contempt. That’s how it succeeded. That same sick passion drove her successors at Planned Parenthood in their fight for legal abortion.
Oh yes, and one of the reasons a white majority on the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion was eugenic panic. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that, in a lucid moment:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
Abortion now kills black Americans at a much higher rate than white. More black kids get aborted than born in New York City, which proudly named a Square after Margaret Sanger, on the site of her old headquarters. Sanger called non-whites, and whites who weren’t from northern Europe, and others she considered inferior, “human weeds.” And what do we do with weeds, boys and girls?
We kill them.
In a passionate, detailed legal opinion studded with shocking quotes and appalling facts, Justice Thomas burned these facts forever into America’s public record. No longer do you have to look on lurid or angry pro-life websites to find this documentation. It’s now on Westlaw, and part of America’s public legal history.
We should all be glad of that. It’s not surprising that Thomas’s opinion outraged Justice Ginsburg. It ought to shame her. If she had a fully operational conscience.
Thomas’s opinion should wake up non-white Americans to the crass hypocrisy of their so-called “allies.” Of people who agonize about “cultural appropriation” on Cinco de Mayo, but smile when another abortion clinic opens its doors in the barrio. Of elites that claim to hate “white privilege,” but venerate Margaret Sanger, an old friend to Nazis and other vicious race cranks. A speaker at Ku Klux Klan rallies, who never repented her scorn for the poor, the weak, the defenseless.
Thomas also ventured a bold legal strategy. It’s risky one, too. It would surprise me, in fact, if he even means it sincerely. Instead, I think we see him here being strategic, mischievous, even a bit Machiavellian in the most worthy of causes. Justice Thomas asked in his opinion whether legal abortion can really be constitutional, since it has racist origins and exerts a disparate impact on non-white Americans.
Roe pretends that science doesn’t know and can never find out whether unborn children are human. Planned Parenthood v. Casey claims that morality itself is a murky, insoluble muddle, which American “liberty” deals with by shrugging, and asking each citizen to make it up as he goes along.
In asking that, Justice Thomas pulled what we might call a Gomez Addams. Remember how that half-mad, lovable aristocrat used to rev up his model trains to full steam, then crash them into each other?
Addams Family Video
Well, that’s what the brilliant and principled Justice Thomas just set up with this opinion. (Go read it.) He has taken two leftist perversions of our Constitution, and set them up on a collision course.
The first is the blind obscurantism of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe pretends that science doesn’t know and can never find out whether unborn children are human. Planned Parenthood claims that morality itself is a murky, insoluble muddle, which American “liberty” deals with by shrugging, and asking each citizen to make it up as he goes along.
The second perversion is the Supreme Court’s decades-long embrace of “disparate impact” as proof of discrimination. As the law stands, if a employer, or landlord, or other owner of a “public accommodation” imposes a standard that’s objectively neutral, courts can order him to give it up if its outcome turns out to disadvantage members of “protected classes.” So if an accountancy firm had an IQ test where white people scored better … it’s racist and illegal. Likewise physical tests for firefighters or soldiers that disadvantage women. This legal principle, too, is bankrupt. It makes nonsense of freedom of contract and association, penalizing people for actions where no discriminatory intent was even present. This is identity politics, masquerading as constitutional law.
Thanks to “disparate impact,” an opponent of Roe wouldn’t even need to prove that the justices who decided it intended to disproportionately cull the crop of black kids. Just the fact that the decision had that impact would render it … what’s the au courant word? Ah yes, “problematic.”
Both the obscurantism of Roe and the collectivism of “disparate impact” violate the natural law, which Thomas has always held as the foundation of American liberty. Both deserve to explode. Justice Thomas has connected the tracks and set them up to smash together at top speed. I like to think of him smiling, like Gomez, holding the detonator.
John Zmirak is a Senior Editor at The Stream, and author of numerous books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration.
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
When was that first established? Any citationsyou can offer? I am genuinely interested to learn about it.
“When was that first established? Any citations you can offer?”
You want me to cite natural law? I cited the 5th and 14th amendments, but natural law is a philosophical presupposition which the founders subscribed to, as we can observe in The Declaration of Independence, which describes the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” as the basis for the United States to rightful independence.
While Aristotle is often attributed to being the first person to formalize the idea of natural law, he did not actually think that human life began at conception. He supported abortion during early phases of pregnancy only, but this was because the scientific knowledge of conception and fetal development was extremely limited. It must be understood, however, that natural law is not based on science, but scientific observation is useful in this discussion. For example, an ultrasound can allow us to gather a great deal of information about babies in their mothers’ wombs.
So, it is a scientific fact that babies are unique, living human beings with their own unique DNA and blood, from the moment of conception. And defining personhood, under natural law, must take into consideration what is known scientifically.
So I still think as I thought originally: you’re generally right on the issue, but you are stretching it with your definition of natural law going to “personhood” at conception. Natural law is a concept that obviously has come to the fore at different times in history, but it is also generally predicated on a set of ideas that have been presumed to comprise such over time.
“you are stretching it with your definition of natural law going to ‘personhood’ at conception. Natural law is a concept that obviously has come to the fore at different times in history”
I think you are overthinking it. Natural law exists, just like gravity exists. We do not make it up. We attempt to recognize it and cooperate with it.
“What is a human being?” That’s a simple question.
Perhaps unethical researchers will create chimeras, and we will have to debate what rights they have. But a baby is a human being.
“When does life begin?” That’s another simple question.
And the answer is equally simple: At conception. An egg and a sperm are cells from a woman and a man, respectively. When they join together at conception, they form a brand new, unique, individual. That is not conjecture (like it was during the times of Aristotle). It is a scientific fact.
Either we treat the lives of all human beings as sacred, and not to be discarded and thrown away carelessly or lightly; or, we live by the subjective whims of opinion and fleeting emotions.
This is not the danger of a slippery slope. We’ve already gone down the slippery slope and crashed. Once we, as a society, begin to treat some lives as unimportant or the responsibility to protect some lives as inconvenient, the stage is set for genocide. ANY life can become worthless based on mere inconvenience.
Abortion is part of a hellish nightmare that most of society simply blocks out, even when our conscience and the empathetic part of our souls are screaming at us. So, we distract ourselves from it with music, video games, TV and movies, sports, drugs, alcohol, sex, or anything to drown out the painful feelings we must experience if we face up to the reality of the world we live in.
All human persons have an inalienable right to life. This is self-evident and can be discovered through observing nature. It is natural law. And unborn babies are human persons and, therefore, also have a right to life.
Of course, from a pragmatic standpoint, whether someone is pro-life is more important than a philosophical agreement about what constitutes natural law. So, I do not mean to be argumentative. We agree about what matters most on the issue of abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.