Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t hold back his opinions and thoughts on abortion’s role in our culture and history. Delivering a concurrence in Indiana Department of Health vs Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Thomas gave a history of not only abortion but Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, detailing how all three have played a role in eugenics, and how abortion will continue to harm our culture. Thomas’ concurrence begins on page 13, but here are some juicy bits:
Americans became familiar with the eugenics of the Nazis and scientific literature undermined the assumptions on which the eugenics movement was built. But even today, the Court continues to attribute legal significance to the same types of racial-disparity evidence that were used to justify race-based eugenics. And support for the goal of reducing undesirable populations through selective reproduction has by no means vanished.
That’s right, abortion is a favorite tool of people with Nazi-ish ambitions, like culling the human population of undesirables. That’s the long way of me saying if you support abortion for “black people” or any other group of people (like those with disabilities) you’re probably a terrible person. Also, a racist. Just always remember Hitler loved abortion like he loved gun control. So next time you want to employ the “Trump and conservatives are Literally Hitler” schtick, don’t.
This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was particularly open about the fact that birth control could be used for eugenic purposes. These arguments about the eugenic potential for birth control apply with even greater force to abortion, which can be used to target specific children with unwanted characteristics. Even after World War II, future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher and other abortion advocates endorsed abortion for eugenic reasons and promoted it as a means of controlling the population and improving its quality. As explained below, a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.
Justice Thomas is one hundred percent right here. Read What you need to know about Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood. Sangar wanted to eliminate certain segments of the population and, unfortunately, she’s largely been successful. Even Thomas notes in his full concurrence that abortion rates among black women is 3.5 times that of white women. Today’s abortion advocates may believe they’re doing the black community a little bit of justice, but encouraging certain people to kill their children is hardly a little bit of justice. But maybe the word “justice” is secretly identifying as murder. Who can say?
And with today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child. As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.
Yes, like as previously stated, killing black babies at much higher rates than whites. Killing people with disabilities, like how Iceland (and Thomas also notes it) has virtually eliminated people with Down syndrome. Even in the United States, abortion advocates want abortion legal for babies who aren’t perfect. Which is just as sick now as it was 100 or so years ago when the eugenics movement picked up its first forceps.
Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion. According to one economist, “Roe v. Wade help[ed] trigger, a generation later, the greatest crime drop in recorded history.” On this view, “it turns out that not all children are born equal” in terms of criminal propensity. Id., at 6. And legalized abortion meant that the children of “poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers” who were “much more likely than average to become criminals” “weren’t being born.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Whether accurate or not, these observations echo the views articulated by the eugenicists and by Sanger decades earlier: “Birth Control of itself . . . will make a better race” and tend “toward the elimination of the unfit.” Racial Betterment 11–12
Sounds like every single pro-abort out there. “ABORTION MAKES US ALL BETTER BECAUSE KILLING PEOPLE BEFORE THEY MIGHT COMMIT CRIMES AND STUFF!”
Yes, with the all caps.
Thomas ends with a chilling warning:
Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope. In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.
Shorter Thomas: we made a mess, and somehow we need to fix it before we can never turn back.
Planned Parenthood wants you to have the right to kill your child for any reason you want. Indiana said “How about no?” and that’s when Planned Parenthood sued. Think about that for a second. Becuase abortion-advocates think the exact same way: it should be fine to kill your unborn child for any reason at any time. Even if that reason is because the child isn’t the gender you want, there’s something not perfect about it, it’s just not the right time, etc. etc., sick, sick, sick.