Posted on 05/29/2019 7:55:54 AM PDT by Heartlander
bkmk
A noteworthy anecdote that I heard years ago when Mother Theresa was visiting California, when an angry bystander hollered at her, “if your God is so kind why doesn’t he send a cure for AIDS?!” To which, without hesitation, she responded “oh, God did send a cure for AIDS, this very morning. But only moments ago he was aborted. “. One wonders how many other Clarence Thomases, Martin Luther King’s, Michael Jordans, have been denied existence because of racist Democrats, who in the most tragic of ironies have been put into office by blacks.
FB=Fascist Bureaucrats?
Brilliant!
“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.”
Thomas is our best Supreme Court Justice. Thank God for him, and long may he live, and in excellent health.
Wouldn’t it be great if, rather than return the matter of abortion to the states, a modern Supreme Court ruled that babies have a Constitutional right to life?
This Concurring Opinion by Justice Thomas should be required reading. I read through it yesterday and it is absolutely devastating to the entire concept of abortion.
Devastating article, Machiavellian strategy by Thomas.He is hampered by the liberal justices and what they allow the Court to face.
But the time will come. I foresee it.
Speaking of reprobate minds, the dead souls in Hollywood and Disney world are trying to use boycott to support the slaughter of alive sensing, able to learn, human beings in the womb. THAT is what a reprobate mind looks like ...
That’s BS on RBG’s (and the writer’s) part re: eugenic panic at the time of RvW. That was completely driven by women’s lib feminists, with white women in the lead looking for their own freedom particularly once the pill was available.
Thomas is advocating disparate impact? Has he lost it completely?
I’m good with making abortion illegal, but not for trumped up reasons.
He does not agree with either law – but has pitted them against each other…
I’m sorry but his position is just bogus—including that some improvable (and IMO decades out of currency) idea that a law had racist motive behind it the courts can legislate by knocking it down.
Because there might be documentation of racism on the issue in the 1920s is no reason for striking down a law from the 1970s.
*unprovable*
“Thomas is advocating disparate impact? Has he lost it completely?I’m good with making abortion illegal, but not for trumped up reasons.”
Read his actual opinion rather than the interpretation of it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf
He cites Thomas Sowell:
“Both eugenics and disparate-impact liability rely on the simplistic and often faulty assumption that ‘some one particular factor is the key or dominant factor behind differences in outcomes’ and that one should expect ‘an even or random distribution of outcomes . . . in the absence of such complicating causes as genes or discrimination’.”
However, I may disagree with him on this statement:
“The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”
While it does not specifically mention abortion, it does recognize our inalienable right to life:
“No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process of law.”—Article 5, rights of persons
While citizenship is conferred at birth, natural personhood exists from conception, and the natural rights associated with natural personhood do not require being enumerated. So, even without Article 5 or 14, no government, regardless of their laws and constitutional, has the right to murder. The only truthful question is the extent to which a representative government chooses to punish those who do commit murder. Under equal protection, all natural persons must be equally protected:
“No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”—14.1
My take is that Justice Thomas is merely pointing out that abortion became legalized as the result of intentional racism with an intentionally “disparate impact.”
Regardless, unborn human persons have a Constitutional right to equal protection. If we are going to make murdering anyone a crime with punitive consequences, then abortion must also be a crime with punitive consequences.
I’m for limiting at least the vast majority of abortions, but I’m not sure this claim is soundly based:
“...natural personhood exists from conception”
“...natural personhood exists from conception”
Not soundly based? What random point in time do you believe natural personhood begins? Or is it merely the concept of natural personhood that you believe is unsupportable?
I don’t think there is a historical concept of “natural personhood”. Happy to be proven wrong, but it just sounds like a recent contortion.
“I’m for limiting at least the vast majority of abortions, but I’m not sure this claim is soundly based”
The idea that natural personhood exists from the moment of conception is an argument from natural law rather than an appeal to our particular legal system. In other words, abortion is murder whether it is done in China or America, and without regard to our Constitution, legislation, or case law.
I further argue that, because natural personhood exists, the 14th must provide equal protection to unborn babies. That is not an argument from natural law, but I am applying the precise wording of the 14th to the specific case of unborn babies. The 14th was primarily directed at blacks and American Indians, but it applies to ALL “persons”. Obviously, this refers to natural persons rather than an artificial legal person like a corporation.
When was that first established? Any citationsyou can offer? I am genuinely interested to learn about it.
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.