Posted on 12/21/2019 7:51:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No contest.
Thomas is intellectually so far above Ginsburg we need scientific notation to come even close to getting that into an actual measure.
Silly little idiotess.
“a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics”
Sorry, have to disagree with the brilliant Thomas on this.
Why?
If abortion is legal, why can’t a woman abort for any reason whatsoever?
This is not a timing issue of viability. Not a partial-birth de-facto murder. It’s a choice, a preference of type if you will.
Abortion is murder, and evil and horrific in every way.
But, choosing why one has the abortion, at this time in legal history, doesn’t matter.
Thomas’s opinion on Eugenics is irrelevant.
Roe v Wade did not establish abortion as an absolute right. Even that opinion recognized the state has a compelling interest in the fetus as it ages in the womb. That’s why the limits tighten from one trimester to the next. The “choice” crowd have clouded your understanding.
There’s no question eugenics is alive and well in the Democrat party. Otherwise how can they object to protecting a baby from a death sentence because mommy doesn’t want a mixed race child? They open the door with their one-sided hate crime enhancements.
There the old, demented, amoral buzzard goes again, with her attempts at muddying the issue, with her wishful thinking and subterfuge.
Baby murder is not "constitutionally protected". It is an immoral act foisted upon the country by the rhetoric and sophisms of the black-robed minions of the devil.
Wonderful essay of yours. Thank you.
Ginsburg is infectious waste.
Everyone should visit the Holocaust Museum in DC.
It gives a visual representation of how the Nazis kept such precise records of “undesirables” including young ones with less than perfect bodies.
Recently, the Notorious RBG admitted she believed the Constitution was a “living document” - i.e. it can mean anything to anyone at any time.
Time for RBG to meet her maker.
Past time.
Cage match? Please?
It recognizes that unborn children are humans, rather than some nebulous conglomeration of cells. Any narrowing of Roe v. Wade is a victory for life.
If we wait for an all or nothing decision from the Supreme Court, we'll get nothing, but if Thomas's position is adopted by the Court, lives will be saved.
A mother AND a murderer
when one has to parlance the definition of “mother” in defending abortion, not much of an argument...
go thomas.
“Sorry, have to disagree with the brilliant Thomas on this.”
Me too. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn’t matter the reason for choosing an abortion.
It’s like all the hate laws. Murder is hate. Don’t need special hate laws.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument"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.’”"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
First, and with all due respect to the family and supporters and the late Terri Schivo, the Supremes decided not to hear Terri’s case because it was a state power issue.
That being said, and with all due respect to Justice Ginsburg, in stark contrast to the Court’s stance with Terri’s case, by promoting politically correct, Democratic vote-winning abortion by arguing the word “mother," Ginsburg is interfering with state sovereignty imo.
Also consider the common term “expectant mother.”
Ginsberg will never accept the redemption of Christ. Unfortunately for her, she will be in Hell very soon.
“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution…” Justice Ginsberg said. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
Oh.
Never mind the fact that South Africa is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the South African government is currently seizing land from white farmers without compensation. Petty concerns like that do not concern elite liberals.
https://newspunch.com/justice-ginsberg-constitution-outdated/
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.