Justice Thomas explains the awful historic connection between abortion and eugenics

Cheryl Sanders
May 28, 2019

The US supreme court is upholding an IN law that requires abortion providers to dispose of aborted embryos and foetuses IN the same way as human remains.

The justices voted 7-2 to uphold the fetal remains part of Indiana's law, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court is highly unlikely to take up the Alabama abortion law, according to Kim Wehle, a former assistant U.S. attorney. "Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based exclusively on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement". Second, as described by Rewire News, the IN law banned "someone from obtaining a pre-viability abortion if [the] decision [to abort] is based on the race or sex of the fetus or concerns that the fetus has a diagnosis or "potential diagnosis" of Down syndrome or 'any other disability'". The justices in a short opinion said the law did not violate a woman's right to choose abortion.

The Seventh Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Indiana's interest in the "humane and dignified disposal of human remains" was not legitimate.

The court indicated it would wait for other courts to weigh in before taking up that issue.


Other states have passed laws that would outlaw abortions once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, typically around six weeks of gestation.

The human rights victory was the court's decision to decline to hear a challenge of a Pennsylvania school district policy to allow transgender students to use bathrooms of their choice.

In his concurrence, Thomas said the court would have to at some point "confront" the type of abortion ban passed by IN in 2016 that was struck down by an appellate court previous year.

But on the question of whether or not states can outlaw the practice of aborting children based on sex, race, or disability, the court chose to wait.

Thomas explained, "The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement". And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. "A panel of the Seventh Circuit held that this fetal-remains law was irrational, and thus unconstitutional, under the doctrine of 'substantive due process.' That decision was manifestly inconsistent with our precedent, as the Court holds".


Thomas' concurrence, for all of its anti-abortion fire, acknowledged that he agreed with the court's decision to not, for now, take up a case on an Indiana-style ban, so that "further percolation may assist our review of this issue".

"The individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child", Thomas wrote.

Thomas then claimed that "a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion".

Essentially, the high court is punting here on the issue of abortion to keep it out of the court - for now.

Planned Parenthood of IN and Kentucky, which challenged the measure, said those provisions undercut Indiana's asserted goals.


Other reports by iNewsToday

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER