Clarence Thomas Dissents!

As we noted earlier, the SCOTUS ruled on Mike Pence’s trolling abortion law from when he was the governor of Indiana. The Supremes declined to rule on the part that would have banned abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the fetus, which had been blocked by a lower court, but they kept the weird part about having a funeral for a zygote, which is both creeping theocracy AND sticking a foot in the door to declare that a clump of cells is a person, and all that that entails.

Our old pal Justice Clarence ‘Have a Coke and a Smile’ Thomas had a nutty and delivered a dissent that will stand the test of ages to be one of the nuttier things to come out of the Roberts Court. It’s also a foreshadow of fuckery to come.

Thomas declares that abortion AND birth control are the same, equally bad thing,  a eugenics plot to keep those with inferior traits from being born:

I write separately to address the other aspect of Indiana law at issue here—the “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban.” This statute makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion in Indiana when the provider knows that the mother is seeking the abortion solely because of the child’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics. The law requires that the mother be advised of this restriction and given information about financial assistance and adoption alternatives, but it imposes liability only on the provider. Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die. Put differently, 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 use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.

And you know what, Clar? That despicable eugenics plot never actually happened; Sangers alleged evil plan never made it off the drawing board. So it is the very definition of hypothetical.

But I interrupted. Do continue.

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. 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.” 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.

Two quick things to note: A) “Some believe” is as much a strawman as Some say, and 2) “Whether accurate or not” is the tell that this is completely base speculation, but it is a YUGE reveal of what’s coming next. So get your birth control now, ladies, he’s coming for it next.

But much more than that, if Republicans would invest the same amount of effort in supporting women as they do in forcing women to give birth, giving women equal opportunity so that when they choose to start a family they have better outcomes, you won’t need to have fantasy WW2 Alternate Universe  plot lines with master races. But that would involve acknowledging that women are humans, so that ain’t gonna happen.

This entry was posted in Clarence Thomas, supreme court. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Clarence Thomas Dissents!

  1. laura says:

    Becky Bell was an Illiniosian when she died from a botched abortion at 17. 10,000 Becky Bells will bloom from this and future decisions -all made by men. Men who hate/fear women.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. He also name dropped Margaret Sanger with the base lie promulgated by the right-wing that she wanted to cause more black children to be aborted.

    So now we have a written dissent from a Supreme Court Justice that is based on demonstrable falsehoods lies and propaganda.

    He’s such the originalist, so why don’t we count his vote as 3/5ths of the other Justices?

    And Frothy himself gave away years ago that the aim wasn’t Roe, it was Griswold.

    (although by this point I wouldn’t put it past the Reactionaries Roberts Court to start questioning Marbury v. Madison…)

    Liked by 2 people

    • tengrain says:

      BDR –

      It is one of the weirder fever dreams of the conspiracy swamp.

      Agreed. It’s all about getting rid of privacy.

      Rgds,

      TG

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Lofgren says:

    I don’t understand how you can say that the eugenics plot “never happened” when Black and Native women or disabled people were being sterilized without their consent up until the ’70s in some states. Thomas is right about one thing: this is not a hypothetical.

    I think he’s learned the wrong lesson from that history though. Eugenics plots are exactly why the right to decide to follow through with a pregnancy or use birth control to prevent one ought to rest solely with the mother or couple as the case may be, and the government should not be interfering with that process in any way.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Infidel753 says:

      Black and Native women or disabled people were being sterilized without their consent up until the ’70s in some states.

      The operative point here is “without their consent”. That is, it was not their own decision but a decision imposed on them by arrogant political authorities. The true heirs of the latter are the arrogant political authorities of today who are trying to stop women who want abortions from getting them, again imposing their own decisions to override what those women want. Keep the focus on individual women’s freedom of choice and who is trying to take that freedom away, and the situation becomes clear.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lofgren says:

        Well some of them had it done agains their consent. Others were tricked into giving their consent, or were told that consent was required of them. There are other ways to manufacture a eugenicide than by force.

        But yes, as I said above, the solution is to protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE, not force her to do something under the guise of trying to save her from being forced to do another thing.

        Like

  4. Astamari says:

    A couple of things: 1) Almost no woman decides to terminate her fetus for racial or gender reasons. It’s almost always because the fetus has a severe abnormality that means it is highly unlikely to survive more than a ew hours or days after birth. Pence and his henchmen threw in race and gender strictly as strawmen. 2. As shown through scientific studies, the biggest drop in teenage crime, especially in poor communities came when lead gas was banned. Lead has a terrible impact on the young brain leading to violent behavior. Nothing to do with “eugenics”. Thomas is such a legal troll.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Dennis Cole says:

    One need only to go shopping in their local WalMart to obtain proof that whoever’s eugenics plan was being used, it’s failed miserably…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. roket says:

    Clarence Thomas has been waiting since October 23, 1991, to make his mark with the Supremes. Now that his purpose has been served, ole Clarence there must be the Supreme Mitch will replace in 2020. (laughs)

    Like

Comments are closed.