| (Read brief at link below)
It’s not every day that the U.S. Supreme Court references an amicus brief you filed. Tuesday was such a day for us. This was the case involving a challenge to an Indiana pro-life law. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas cited our amicus brief discussing the connection between abortion and Eugenics. Indeed, that was the main theme of our brief, and the main theme of his opinion. The Indiana law (i) required proper disposition of “fetal remains,” and (ii) prohibited sex-, race-, and disability-related abortion. The Seventh Circuit had struck down both of those provisions, relying on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Even without waiting for merits briefs and oral argument, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the first issue and reversed, ruling that Indiana’s law regarding the disposition of “fetal remains” was constitutional. However, because the Seventh Circuit was the only circuit court to have ruled on the second issue, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and put off into the future a ruling on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting abortions designed to prevent certain types of babies being born. The Court’s decision not to decide the second issue prompted Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion which explains the connection between abortion and Eugenics, and recounts how aspects of the corrupt Eugenics movement had been previously endorsed by the Supreme Court. He discussed how Eugenics has led to abortion, forced sterilization of women, the creation of Planned Parenthood, and the policies of Nazi Germany. Although we would have hoped that the Supreme Court would have decided the second issue as well, one can take a guess at the reasons for deferring the issue. Obviously, those justices who support abortion do not want the Court to reconsider Roe/Casey. And, the five other justices (assuming they all are really pro-life) apparently did not want to rule on an abortion selection statute on the assumption that Roe/Casey are binding precedents, but just not applicable to the Indiana eugenics-abortion law. In other words, they may believe that this case would not be the best case to reconsider Roe/Casey. As the Court’s Senior Justice, Justice Thomas took the liberty and responsibility to let the court-watchers know that the Court’s decision denying review of the Indiana eugenics abortion statute should not be interpreted as a step toward “[e]nshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.” We filed our amicus brief in support of Indiana’s petition for certiorari on November 15, 2018.
 William J. Olson, P.C., 370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4, Vienna, VA 22180-5615 _________________________________________ Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE |
