Posted on 06/30/2019 7:58:41 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke out against dismemberment abortions Friday, saying that justices must confront the realities of what the Supreme Court “has wrought” through abortion rulings.
In a concurring opinion, Thomas spoke on an Alabama law against dismemberment abortion after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on Friday. The justice said that it is “implausible” that the Constitution would protect the dismemberment of a living child. The case was Harris v. West Alabama Women’s Center.
Thomas described the dismemberment abortion process, saying that the more developed a child is, “the more likely an abortion will involve dismembering it.”
“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” the Supreme Court Justice said.
But Thomas noted that under the “undue burden” standard, restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if their purpose is to put an obstacle in the path of a woman who is seeking an abortion.
Thomas referenced Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey in which abortion providers persuaded lower courts that abortion options other than dismemberment abortions were too risky.
The Supreme Cou rt justice said that lower courts ruled that Alabama abortion laws “had the effect of burdening abortions even though it did not preventthem.”
Thomas said that this case serves “as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control.”
“Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this Court has wrought,” Thomas said.
The Left is horrified with a child being ripped from its Mother’s arms but fine with ripping the arms off a child.
God bless Justice Thomas.
Good thing he’s not a role model for black youths and politicians /s
Any black man that is GOOD and DECENT and in a position of power to make a difference as a role model and an example to follow is crucified.
Even MLK, with ALL his many flaws, would be CRUSHED today if he said we shouldn’t measure men by their color.
Praying he serves another 15 years, at least.
+infinity
Thomas should have been made Chief Justice. Another f-up by W. I do not want any of the Red state abortion laws going to this SC.
We have a once in a generation chance to roll back some of R v W
but Trump needs another pick because Roberts has dropped all pretense of being a conservative.
They also fight tooth & nail to protect a death row scumbag, but celebrate killing babies
While he's specifically addressing abortion, the same thing is true for a number of the USSCs decisions since the 1940s. Even further back than that if you consider the fact that Maubury vs. Madison back in 1803 is essentially unlimited rather than narrowly targeted at specific categories of laws that are subject to judicial review.
It's a logical inversion. Conservatives believe in protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Leftists believe in punishing the innocent and protecting the guilty.
We must stop these immoral ghouls from murdering babies and chopping them apart for sale to the highest bidder.
If the Founders wanted the USSC to have “judicial review” they would have so stated. Rather, they clearly determined that there should be three co-equal separate branches of govt. Section three of the Constitution does not grant any power of JR to any court- only “to hear matter of equity” etc. Plain language.
HOORAY Clarence Thomas! Thank you, sir.
Wow he is the heart of the nation that needs a moral reawakening
We need him very badly.
Yes, we do. Great man.
This is why I throw up nearly every morning. Soulless ghouls, is what they are. Disgusting is an understatement.
Hate to say it, but I recommend doxxing abortionists.
I don’t know any. Do you? Turn about is fair play.
You must speak out to save your soul.
Who can deny the simple logic of Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at election season. One, however, is basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. This voter will examine each candidate's previous voting record carefully on all issues, because past actions are the best predictors of future decisions.
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.