- Note: We have a high capacity magazine in operation most days
- Constitutional “roots” no longer being necessary a socially conservative court can grow the constitution without regard to history as history no longer matters, only the here and now.
Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday issued a very powerful indictment of what is behind the abortion mentality – the movers and shakers – it is that it is steeped in eugenics. His analysis is readily supported by the history of the rhetoric and the statistical results of abortion on demand. Abortion promoters are not necessarily liberals but they have a Nazi gene and this writer has no doubt they would force abortion, like China, directly or indirectly, given the power to do so. It is power which they pursue relentlessly, including the takeover of health care and constant agitation to make as many people as possible complicit, all while inculcating the ethics of abortion into our schools and media. Actually eugenics of a sort is the underside of most support for abortion, even quasi indifference to it.
Clarence Thomas Exposes Abortion as Part of Eugenics
“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,” Thomas wrote. “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.”
As Terry Jeffrey explains the recent decision to essentially sustain a lower court ruling disallowing regulation of sex selection and eugenic abortion is not necessarily the end of the matter as supposedly SCOTUS waits for differences in appellate rulings before they take a case. So if another appellate court issues a conflicting opinion – a possibility – then it becomes ripe for SCOTUS to decide. Frankly, as I believe Thomas would agree if he has not said it, the issue is ripe for reconsideration for a host of reasons. But then perhaps we need another vacancy to be filled by a real conservative with guts like Thomas.
Related reading here.
The title of this article, Will the Left’s ‘Living’ Constitution Again be Used to ‘Kill’ the Unborn? reminded us that the left’s convenient belief that the Constitution is a “living document” in their minds means five SCOTUS justices can alter it anytime they want (of course they assume they will follow leftist traits but if not they then will become devotees of “precedent” or stare decisis). That is their view, rather than referring to”living” as in timeless because of principles it contains.
What they forget is that their “living” means any SCOTUS can interpret the peoples’ will or the mores of the times or science and alter (interpret ) the Constitution as a matter of “current” justice or something. SCOTUS can issue a rolling interpretation of the right to abortion, reliance on Roe and Doe and much of their early progeny is not necessary. Thus a new socially conservative court can can have its way with the document as what defense do “living document” proponents have when it can be claimed a more recent court is merely responding to what is best, in a living changing world. Someone else gets to do the amending thank you very much.
R Mall
