Justice Clarence Thomas Blasts Abortion As A Tool Of Racist Eugenicists
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld part of an Indiana law requiring aborted infants to be cremated or buried after an abortion. However, they sidestepped a larger ruling on abortion by deciding not to weigh in on whether a child can be aborted for their race, sex, or disability.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion , in which he addressed the pro-abortion movement’s well-known history with eugenics, and how the Court’s decision not to rule on the Indiana statute leaves an open question on whether eugenic abortions are protected by the Constitution.
The Indiana law in question, enacted in 2016 by former Governor Mike Pence, included a provision stating, “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
These characteristics of an infant can be known early on in a pregnancy. Blood tests can now predict a baby’s sex at seven weeks. The law is intended to prevent mothers and abortion providers from using abortion as a tool of “modern-day eugenics,” as Thomas writes.
“So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination,” he said.
Thomas’ argument is two-fold. First, embracing abortion for the sake of eugenics was an endorsed practice and long-held belief of early 20th century progressive leaders. Second, with the development of more accurate prenatal tests, aborting children with unwanted characteristics is a modern threat disguised as “reproductive health services.”
Indeed, 21st century progressives often engage in a revisionist history of their early 20th century counterparts’ embrace of eugenics. But Thomas recounts the lengthy history Planned Parenthood founder Margret Sanger had with the practice of population control. In 1921, she wrote that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization” and that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Sanger was a featured guest of the Ku Klux Klan and a proponent of the forced sterilization program of the Nazi regime in the 1930s. She deemed the population of black Americans “degenerate and defective” and her clinics targeted black and immigrant communities like central Harlem in New York City.
Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood in the 1960s and early 1970s who explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion, is also included in Thomas’ opinion. Guttmacher wrote that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy … in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.”
The racist work of Planned Parenthood today is built on the foundational beliefs of their predecessors, Sanger and Guttmacher. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority communities. Blacks make up 12.1 percent of the U.S. population, but 35 percent of the country’s abortions. In his opinion, Thomas cites New York Department of Health data that states, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”
Other modern uses of eugenics are rising around the world. In Iceland, nearly 100 percent of women who receive positive prenatal tests for Down syndrome abort their children. In the U.S. around 67 percent of women who find out their child will be born with Down syndrome opt to have an abortion, and in the United Kingdom, it’s around 90 percent.
In India and China, millions of female babies are aborted every year just because of their sex. The Invisible Girl Project estimates that 5 to 7 million sex-selective abortions are performed in India every year.
Thomas concludes that the increased use of eugenic abortions is exactly why Indiana passed a law protecting the unborn from discrimination, and exactly why the Supreme Court cannot ignore a ruling on the subject for much longer.
“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” he writes. “In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
"Blacks make up 12.1 percent of the U.S. population, but 35 percent of the country’s abortions. "
As Sanger would have wanted?
Clarence Thomas is a moron.
Have you ever considered the possibility that they are poor and know that they cannot afford to raise another child? Should women be forced to that they cannot afford?
Has Planned Parenthood or another provider every coerced someone into having an abortion?
A Supreme Court Justice? Really?
Have you ever considered the possibility that they are poor and know that they cannot afford to raise another child?
Yes, I have.
Should women be forced to that they cannot afford?
No.
Has Planned Parenthood or another provider every coerced someone into having an abortion?
No.
Now can you answer my question from Post # 1?
Then how would Thomas' comment make any sense?
“So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination,”
What "unjust discrimination" if no one is forcing anyone to get an abortion?
Fix the disparities in the justice system, fix the unjust discrimination in employment and education, address the racial disparities we see in areas with extreme poverty. But using the racial disparity in the numbers of abortions as an excuse to ban abortion for all women is just beyond stupid and doesn't fix the racial disparities at all, it just forcibly takes away all women's rights.
Can we fix the cultural problem in those precincts as well?
WOW, I really agree with Tessylo
He may be intelligent but he is the kind of ignorant and illogical that equally stupid Ben Carson is. He was put on the court because of his skin color and not his intelligence because he was the conservative replacement for liberal Thurgood Marshall by Reagan. He seldom asks questions and he previously voted on a party line with Catholic dominionist Antonin Scalia.
Abortion cannot possibly be racist if they are free to choose to terminate a pregnancy, at their own expense. They understand that it is cheaper to have the abortion than to give birth to a child that they cannot afford and do not want.
no, I agree with you
Wrong. First of all he was nominated by President George H W Bush. While a black candidate might have been a good idea for replacing Marshall, Thomas certainly had the credentials:
"Thomas was young, which guaranteed a long tenure, very conservative, which would please his electoral base in the coming election cycle, and had served as the head of the EEOC under Reagan and had spent the previous year and a half on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where he had done a respectable job. "
Just because he is black doesn't mean that he was a good replacement for Thurgood Marshall. The conservatives needed a black conservative to replace Marshall as a way to move the court to the right and Thomas got the seat because of his skin color, so they didn't look outrageous racist by replacing Marshall with a white conservative.
Ask Judge Thomas about Anita Hill.
Who? The democrat with no evidence???
And what did the rest of that mean to you?
and had served as the head of the EEOC under Reagan and had spent the previous year and a half on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where he had done a respectable job.
Reagan pandered to southern racists/evangelicals to get elected so putting a black conservative judge on the EEOC was a good fit, if you really didn't want the EEOC to be effective, but needed to look reasonable on the surface.
There is seldom physical evidence of sexual harassment, so do you want to claim that it doesn't exist?
That's a fair assessment
You mean getting more religious conservative Americans to stop ridiculing higher education so they can get trained to do the jobs that are actually available in the tech industry? Or are you referring to the cultural problem with employing YEC's in virtually any science field? Otherwise, is there a "precinct" where white Christians are being discriminated against that isn't based on their rejection of facts or science? Is it really wrong to reject an applicant for the job to calculate orbital trajectories if the person believes the earth is flat and the satellites we see are moving back and forth on a giant glass dome?
So while there are actual, calculable racial disparities in the justice system, employment and access to a quality education, the disparity for white Christian males is in their favor, thus no real need to address their imagined "cultural problems". The only supposed problems I regularly hear from that demographic are fantasy claims of "reverse racism!" or the tired complaint of having their imagined "religious right to discriminate" being hindered. When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression.
Well, at least you finally got the placement right.
There is seldom physical evidence of sexual harassment, so do you want to claim that it doesn't exist?
No claims that it dosen't exist, nor can you claim that accusations can't be false. We find out via due process. Hill couldn't prove her claims. I would add that claims against any nominee for anything should be proven before there is a political circus hearing like that was.
You do believe in due process, don't you?
Just because he was black doesn't mean that he did a good job on the EEOC getting employment justice for others. He opposed affirmative action.
How can she have proved it when there was no physical evidence? Now we have cell phones so he would not have gotten away with his actions.
Are you telling them to "learn to code".
Better watch out you don't get banned for hate speech.
Even Biden said she lied during her testimony.
No. I mean can we get SOME men in minority communities to be accountable?
I'm glad you are here now. What did you say about "If it walks like a duck"?
Correct, just allegations and in Kavanaugh's case disputed allegations!
I guess many on the left haven't come along very far, seeing as they tried virtually the same tactics some 27 or so years apart.
Wait until you see what they do if Trump gets to replace one of the liberal 4
With the same results, I might add, which brings into questions the sanity of such tactics.
It is despicable!
She did! Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. She wasn't the only liar. There was her "witness" who claimed that Hill told her about harassment problems with Thomas when both were living in Washington DC, except it was discovered that Hill hadn't even begun working for Thomas when the two women were living in DC. So was this "witness" a clairvoyant? We'll never know, she vanished.
And apparently the only one who had harassment problems with Thomas, as a dozen females who worked with both got on board to give favorable testimony on behalf of Clarence Thomas.
And in 84 Reagan won all but one state.
He simply won big! North & south, East & west
I'd describe then as disputed. Didn't her best friend say Ford wasn't even there? Didn't her x-boy friend say she was an expert in teaching people how to defeat a polygraph test and that she actually taught another woman how to pass it in order to get a job at the FBI? And of course she didn't like air travel, other than to do it frequently.
Here's my prediction: If a liberal slot opens, Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett. She will then be attacked as a religious zealot who takes orders from the Pope or secretly talks directly to God! They'll use the script from "Inherit the Wind". The only problem is that Barrett won't end up babbling like a fool. The nation will finally turn on the progressives.
That she was and the one Avenatti had lined up was even embarrassing to the progressives on the committee! It's all part of the problem with someone coming out of the woodwork when somebody gets nominated to a key post with allegations that are decades old. The big question is always "Why now?"
Your leftist racism is showing. Justice Thomas is a brilliant Justice and even honest leftists agree on that fact
From the leftist Think Progress
“Clarence Thomas is the most important legal thinker in America
The oft-misunderstood Justice has single-handedly reshaped the way conservatives think about the law. God help us.
Justice Clarence Thomas is the most important legal thinker of his generation, and the most significant judicial appointment of the last forty years.
There is a commonly held view that Thomas is an intellectual lightweight. Radical and far-too-quiet on the bench. Idiosyncratic and lacking in influence. A fairly persistent take on Thomas’ career holds that he’s lived in the shadow of Justice Antonin Scalia, and his views were, at most, an exaggerated version of Scalia’s originalism.
This view of Thomas is wrong.
And this praise from leftist Justice Sotomayor
” Sonia Sotomayor, his liberal colleague on the Supreme Court, paints a much different picture of the highest ranking African American government official in the nation. “He knows the name of every single employee in the building,” Sotomayor told students at Vanderbilt University. “I can stand here and say I just love the man as a person. He has the same value toward human beings as I have despite our differences.”
Anita Hill had no more evidence of sexual harrasment than did Justice Kavanaugh's accuser(s)
And if you want to bring color into it, that's the only reason Obama got elected.
Totally unqualified otherwise.
I would if I could. I see the comment was flagged but it's not listed for me to moderate it. If I can get it fixed I will
Why then do you think Ben Carson was chosen to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? Does he have exceptional knowledge about housing? No. Did he have relevant experience? Apparently Not. Is he an expert on Urban Development? Nope! Does Carson even believe in the mission of the vital agencies he is supposed to be leading? No, again. Given these facts, it is hard to imagine why Trump chose Carson other than Carson's race and his apparent willingness to defund, defame demoralize and ultimately destroy the department he swore to faithfully administer in open defiance of legal statutes and even basic human decency...
What does Sanger have to do with what is happening today? Blacks are the least likely to have contraception and healthcare, and the means to raise a child, poverty does that. And if someone TRULY wants no or limited abortions, they would be dealing with the reasons women need to get them in the first place. But the opposite is true, almost all the same anti-choice folks are anti-sex education, anti contraception, oblivious or could care less about maternal healthcare and give zero fucks about the child out of the uterus. Why do so many men feel entitled to weigh in on women's healthcare when they really don't know jack? Why are others entitled to force their beliefs on women?
Right to lifers would like to imagine that Margaret Sanger invented abortion.
I think you should look at my question in order to answer yours.
Blacks are the least likely to have contraception and healthcare, and the means to raise a child, poverty does that.
As well as the possibility that a black woman could find herself pregnant and alone.
And if someone TRULY wants no or limited abortions, they would be dealing with the reasons women need to get them in the first place.
A reasonable idea
But the opposite is true, almost all the same anti-choice folks are anti-sex education, anti contraception, oblivious or could care less about maternal healthcare and give zero fucks about the child out of the uterus.
I think you may be wrong on that. I think most pro-life people have warmed to the idea of contraception as being the bet way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Why do so many men feel entitled to weigh in on women's healthcare when they really don't know jack?
Maybe because men have an equal hand in creating that being which the pregnant woman carries inside her.
Why are others entitled to force their beliefs on women?
Those on the other side would call it a matter of life vs murder. ( we all know the arguments)
Unlike you, my comment refers to the seeded content.
I looked at your question, and I could not care less what Thomas has to say about anything, he is the most unqualified justice on the court I've seen in my lifetime. What do you care what Sanger says? Only to take the focus from the real issues of why abortions happen in the first place to what was going on on someones head last century. Totally irrelevant to me.
I have seen nobody warming to the idea, and slut shaming usually brought up, sex should be for procreation or the woman is irresponsible. You'd have to post some proof of that, just not evident in what is legally going in AT ALL. Including choosing reproductive healthecare in some cases. Nothing but blocks put in front of women's sexuality and fertility.
Interesting how men have a role in every unintended pregnancy, but never have to deal with those consequences. Unless they want to. But somehow they (who have no idea what a body goes through during pregnancy) should have a say in what that woman can and can't do with her own body. Perhaps men should be more careful with their sperm if they want a voice in the decision. Still doesn't answer why politicians, clergy and employers have a say.
So? I have no problem with you or anybody else living your beliefs. Why do anti-choicers feel entitled to force THEIR particular on ALL women? I know its not murder. I'll follow my values. Mother Pence thinks its murder. She should not have one and follow hers. Period.
I hope the pope never has an abortion, he should stick to his values. I am not Catholic and don't care what he says about it.
I'm sure you don't like his ideological views, but I think questioning how much abortion has impacted the black population is a valid concern. You dismissed it and you were honest about it.
I have seen nobody warming to the idea, and slut shaming usually brought up, sex should be for procreation or the woman is irresponsible. You'd have to post some proof of that, just not evident in what is legally going in AT ALL. Including choosing reproductive healthecare in some cases. Nothing but blocks put in front of women's sexuality and fertility.
I don't have any statistical evidence, only anecdotal evidence.
Interesting how men have a role in every unintended pregnancy, but never have to deal with those consequences.
I do believe that a man must deal with any pregnancy he was an equal partner in. He must be accountable financially, but he gets an equal say! Sorry feminists..
I have no problem with you or anybody else living your beliefs.
Neither do I. Let the cases run their way through the Courts and we can all move on.
Until you can prove that black women have been forced to have abortions against their will or beliefs by whites or Planned Parenthood, there is absolutely nothing to your claim of Sanger being a racist. The fact that she fought to have abortion and birth control being available doesn't mean that she is a racist. Did she ever fight for white women not to be able to have an abortion so as to increase the number of white babies?
I was Catholic and I can name a dozen people in my age group that had an abortion. I used birth control, so the fact that the Vatican says it is wrong doesn't mean that people actually believe what they say.
There are no big Catholic families like there were in the 40-60s, so catholic women are using birth control, despite what that gold-plated pedophile ring teaches.
I don't have to do anything. Sanger's own words speak for themselves. Others who disagree with me on just about everything managed to admit that Sanger was a racist. You can not.
She certainly promoted it.
Are you saying she didn't want to abort black babies?
Sanger wanted safe abortions so women wouldn't have to die during botched back alley abortions or during childbirth. But the eugenics argument against abortion fails on 1 point: is anyone being forced to have an abortion?
No.
And what about Sanger's racial views? Would she be happy with the results of those stats? It's not a hard question.
It's their dirty little secret.
See no evil, hear no evil. Yet decent people get called "racist" constantly!
Go figure?
Abhorrent. Next.
Well said!
Sanger wasn't a racist because her views on birth control were based on race alone.
What about her views? Ms. Sanger has been dead for over 50 years. So what relevance does she have regarding abortion now? Equating abortion to eugenics today is an absurd argument. Eugenics is not being advocated and no one is required or forced to have an abortion.
Fair enough. So, why are some trying to defend Sanger's racist statements
One can be pro-choice and condemn Sanger
You'll have to ask them about their views regarding Ms. Sanger. But as I said, it's largely irrelevant. Eugenics in society is a century old concept which is neither advocated or enforced in this day and age. But now I wonder, if the stats were reversed and it was white people having more abortions, would Justice Thomas feel the same way in equating abortion with eugenics?
Turn that around...If you or I was black, wouldn't we be concerned?
I wouldn't be. Why should I? It does not change what I said or the facts. Thinking that eugenics is being performed via abortion is either ignorant or fear mongering nonsense.
on whether a child can be aborted for their race, sex, or disability.
Isn't eugenics simply the next step for the pro-abortion crowd?
Not really your or anyone else's business or concern. That's for the woman to decide for herself. She need not justify her reasoning to you or anyone else.
As you told me on my last article : "Oh please, stop the melodramatics."
While you're at it, stop with the disingenuousness too!
What is the connection between the percentage of Black woman having abortions and eugenics?
There was no connection. My question refers to Sanger's views on race, obviously.
There 'was' or IS no connection?
WTF do Sangers views on race have to do with the percentage of black women having abortions over 150 years after she died?
Here is the question again:
"As Sanger would have wanted?"
If I'm reading that, I know that Sanger didn't plan it out the way it turned out, I'm really asking if she were to see how it turned out would she approve? You don't interpret it that way? You really thought I was saying that she planned it out that way? Interesting!
Well since Sanger activism was for birth control and not abortion, it's impossible to suss out what she wanted on that account.
BTW, correction on my comment. It's 50 years after she died. You know, when were using phones with dials.
I think your'e right.
BTW, correction on my comment. It's 50 years after she died. You know, when were using phones with dials.
Even the old wordsmith makes a few errors from time to time
Hell hath frozen over...
He's not wrong.
Nazis and Margaret Sanger inspired each other.
She was a racist? Was she not?
No? You did read the article?
Here, from the article:
"She deemed the population of black Americans “degenerate and defective” and her clinics targeted black and immigrant communities like central Harlem in New York City."
All that really has nothing to do with women and abortions, which have been going on throughout history. Sanger has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
She makes David Duke look tolerant.
Your source is laughably biased, so you cannot now cite your source as proof of your claims. That is circular logic. (I believe my source is true because I believe my source.)
What about Sanger's own book? Is that biased too?
Woman and the New Race , by Margaret Sanger (1920)
Available online here in its original format at Open Library
That is a LIE. The paper from which that TWO WORD snippet was taken from doesn't even mention blacks, African Americans OR negros. It IS about the MENTAL degeneration and defects.
BTW, eugenics was an accepted policy in the early 1900's and the SCOTUS agreed with it...
Much like slavery in the generations before that.
The author of your seed is full of shit.
That's because that is where the POOR PEOPLE who could not afford MORE children lived. Oh and BTFW, NONE of those clinics performed abortions. PP didn't start performing abortions until 1973 after Roe.
Oh, I see and what about Sanger herself, is she full of shit too? Perhaps you might want to look at Post # 4.1 and tell me if Sanger is lying.
Probably not since eugenics was used in the U.S. long before Hitler came to power in Germany...More then likely that Hitler may have learned it from us...
The Nazis were quite open about being inspired by Sanger and other progressives.
Good company for some.
Since the majority of states were involved in eugenics by law Hitler must have been in good company with those states....Forced sterilization went on in the US into the 1970's....
BTW, Wisconsin was one of the 30. I guess that they were in good company as well.
No surprise. Wisconsin was a cradle of progressivism. Very sad chapter in state history.
I'm sure you've got a link to support that claim Sean. Please post it.
In 1913 it was signed into law by a republican governor, Francis McGovern until the last sterilization took place in 1963 there were 14 governors of which 11 were republican, 2 dems and 1 democratic progressive..
Wasn't aware that republicans were progressive in Wisconsin.
What up with the facts Kavika? Are you trying to cause brain explosions?
Not a one of them was worth a shit.
Back in a few. It's been civil, keep it that way.
Sanger was born in 1879 and died in 1966. The vast majority of those years racism was prevalent in the U.S.
It is a surprise that she may have been racist.
Has anyone seen the KKK marches inn D.C. in the 20's and 30's....Thomas is also a Catholic and I believe that Catholics do not believe in abortion, so there is that.
She started planned parenthood so is the argument that PP is a racist organization promoting eugenics? Or that it was started by a person that may have been racist but it's function today is helping people of all colors.
The argument that Sanger and PP are racist just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny. From where I sit they are trying to rationalize their own racism by claiming that Sanger was even worse than them, despite the facts.
How can the mission of Planned Parenthood be racist if black women or other races have never been coerced in any way into having an abortion? Is the existence of birth control racist because it is available? Would it have been better for them if Sanger prohibited blacks and minorities from having an abortion and burdened them with 15 kids? Conservatives oppose welfare and the safety net so who would pay to raise those unwanted children?
Glad to know it's not rational to think someone who says aborigines are "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development" is a racist.\
I often wonder if Progressives actually think at all about what they write. Honestly, to put even a pseudonym to a statement claiming that it's irrational to argue that a collaborator with Nazi eugenics propagandists is racist is beyond comprehension. I'm embarrassed for you, even if you aren't.
Were they forced to terminate pregnancies?
When exactly did Republicans or conservative Christians become such humanitarians toward racial or ethnic minorities?
.
ere they forced to terminate pregnancies?
What in the world does that have to with Sanger describing aborigines as "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development."
Again, why do you believe it's irrational to claim someone who said that about aborigines is racist?
Her speech is racist but as long as people were not forced to terminate a pregnancy or were forced to take birth control what is the point of making it an issue? We as a society have made strides since then and people don't refer to others that way, outside of the Trump administration and the alt-right.
I don't know. You tell me why it's so controversial to claim an obvious racist is a racist? Instead of just admitting she was a racist, why do so many liberals feel the need to deny reality and waste time making preposterous arguments in favor of an actual promoter of Nazi eugenics.
As I recall, many trying to fake outrage over Sanger's racism 100 years ago are the same ones who are trying to excuse and deny racism within their ranks. From Trump down. Words and actions. Today, not 100 years ago. Not to mention intentional blindness to neo-nazis and their ever increasing hatred out in the open. Also reminiscent of defending their racism by trying to go back last century before the racist dems became todays republicans. Deal with the present.
Sanger was repeating what 'is said' and considering the fact that it was written in 1912, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that is what the British were writing about the Aboriginies in Australia.
After all, Americans were still writing the same kind of CRAP about Native Americans, African Americans and Asians at the time...
Here is the whole paragraph from the essay.
I often wonder if Regressives actually think at all about researching what they write about.
That's funny because your snippet from Sanger was written WAY before there were Nazi's.
Ditto.
A champion of eugenics who started an organization whose primary accomplishment is aborting a grossly disproportional amount of minorities. Planned Parenthood is the KKK's best friend.
More like a champion of women's health.
Did it ocur to you that perhaps it's a "grossly disproportional amount of minorities" that are CHOOSING to have abortions?
That would be according to you Sean.....There seem to be millions of others that don't subscribe to that line of thought.
If you feel the need to be a champion of minorities you should be calling our government Nazi's and supporters and best friends of the KKK for their part in eugenics in the US.....
Oh! You've never read her work.
You should probably educate yourself before commenting on a topic.
Sanger could have been or not been racist...Is PP racist today...I don't see that at all, IMO they offer a service to many women of all colors. Difficult to construct a argument that PP is racist.
I don't see how PP is coercing anyone into having an abortion. The fact is that the U.S. Government and some states have practiced it into the 1960's and 70's when sterilizing a women of color was done without their permission or knowledge.
NC and IHS are two examples.
I keep wondering why we are talking about a woman's views from 100 years ago as if it is of any consequence to what it going on today. Absolutely nothing to do with the topic of abortion, more about an historical biography of a person I don't give a crap about, but I do care this is somehow being brought up to justify an unjustifiable position and the shits being thrown at the wall to see what sticks. But women won't buy it unless they already have. The topic of women being controlled by a bunch of old farts won't be sidetracked by distraction.
“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” he writes. “In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
I think Thomas' whole point it that the pro-abortion crowd seems to be headed toward aborting for just about any reason, up to delivery, and sometimes beyond. It can't be allowed to happen.
Total crap, that is not what this is about. Stop interfering in women's health and putting roadblocks in healthcare and contraception. And stop pretending any of these same people who want to control women give any thought about 'life'. They only care about life before birth. No matter how many oddball articles posted, it doesn't change the fact certain people want to force their beliefs and control on women. No healthcare, high maternal death rates, poverty, the list goes on. Fix them if you care about life and get back to us.
wd seems to be headed toward aborting for just about any reason, up to delivery, and sometimes beyond
The Dem Pres. candidates don't favor any legal restriction on abortion until birth..
Such utter bullshit and its disgusting trying to push that lie. Only 1% of abortions are even done after 21 weeks in 2015. Frankly politics has no place in women's healthcare. Butt the hell out.
ch utter bullshit and its disgusting trying to push that lie.
Cool. Which democrats have supported which restrictions?
Don't push a lie.
Here is a compilation of their views. And fyi, late term abortions are almost always due to a tragic medical problem, and that is no place for politics. Why are politicians entitled to a voice in such personal decisions? I'd like an example of what abortion at or near birth would entail, perhaps a link for an example is necessary. Otherwise its just stirring up nothing. It just doesn't happen like that.
While the Chinese "One-Child" policy was in effect, that may have been possible but IMO is still an exaggeration of numbers, HOWEVER at the present time, and the statement indicates the present time in China, that is a deliberate and outright RACIST XENOPHOBIC LIE.
In 2017, 114 boys were born for every 100 girls in China.
That's not natural.
Sex selective abortion has resulted in 23 million fewer woman being born, primarily in China and India.
23 million women aborted just for being women.. Talk about your war on women.
I believe that the figures for this year will be quite different. Are you saying that Chinese women should not have a personal choice (It is now illegal for any government or other official to FORCE anyone to have an abortion) - isn't THAT a war on women?
Isn't it strange that most of the people I know here have many more daughters than sons? My best Chinese friend has two daughters, and no sons, and the doctor who has become a good friend sends his 7-year old daughter to me for an hour a week for English pronunciation help (his only child), and most of my wife's relatives have more daughters than sons. Isn't THAT strange?
Women have autonomy over their lives and their bodies, thas is not going to change no matter what the argument.
And for the pro-lifers that claim respect for the sanctity of life, their argument goes out the window when they make exceptions for rape and incest. As if the fetuses from rape and incest are not quite as sanctified as the fetuses resulting from irresponsibility or mistakes. How stupid.