There is a battle in the United States between the forces of good and evil, and nowhere does that fight play out more than in the Supreme Court.
You have what is known as the conservative wing, consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel A. Alito and Brett Kavanaugh fighting to protect Constitutional rights and the lives of unborn babies.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have what is called the liberal wing of the Court consisting of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor fighting for more government control and the ability for women to decide whether their unborn baby lives or dies.
There could not be two more diametrically opposed factions and that leads to some heated debates in the nation’s highest court.
That is what happened in a recent case that came before the Court, Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.
The case involved the disposal of fetal tissue after a baby is aborted and the rules by which an abortion would be prohibited in Indiana.
The Indiana law makes it illegal to provide an abortion when doctors know “that the mother is seeking the abortion solely because of the child’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.”
Justice Thomas sided with the law in a 20 page written opinion in which he likened abortion for those reasons to eugenics.
“This law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics,” the 71-year-old Justice said.
“Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as particular sex or disability,” he said.
“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now,” he said.
Justice Ginsburg, a proponent of the so-called women’s right to choose, disagreed with Justice Thomas’ assessment.
The 86-year-old Supreme Court Justice took umbrage with the use of the word “mother” as used by the law, signed by Vice President Mike Pence when he was governor of the state, to describe a woman who has aborted her baby.
“A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother,’ “she said.
Sorry Justice Ginsburg but, yes, when a woman is pregnant, no matter how long, she is a mother. It is not complex.
She also took a stab at Justice Thomas when she said “Justice Thomas’ footnote … displays more heat than light.”
She said that it would be a waste of the Court’s resources “to take up a case simply to say we are bound by a party’s ‘strategic litigation choice’ to invoke rational-basis review alone.”
Justice Thomas fired back in his opinion saying, “It is not a ‘waste’ of our resources to summarily reverse an incorrect decision that created a Circuit split.”
Liberals do not like it when they have to justify their proclivity for allowing women to murder their unborn children. Because when the facts are presented they literally have to argue in favor of murder.
That is why they want to use words like “fetus” rather than a baby and want to eliminate words like “mother.” They want to treat the baby as less than human so that, in their minds, it is somehow more palatable to end the life of a baby when you do not acknowledge its humanity.
That is how many murderers justify their actions and pro-choice liberals do the same.