The judicial branch is out of control. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that set health standards for doctors performing abortions. While Texas law had wanted doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at area medical facilities, the unelected and lifetime lawyers of the Supreme Court felt that ending the life of an unborn child is more important than having a standard of health.
The Supreme Court also stated there is a constitutional right to have an abortion.
Repeat, the Supreme Court states there is a constitutional right to kill your child, so long as it has not yet been born.
Until today, North Dakota and Indiana both had laws on the books banning abortions because of genetic abnormalities or because of the child’s race, sex or ancestry. A federal judge has now struck down Indiana’s law.
As Planned Parenthood joins Democrats to celebrate, the ruling itself has a number of stunning implications.
First and foremost, whatever happened to opposing discrimination and protecting minorities? Are Democrats fine with choosing to kill an unborn child because of down syndrome? Because they’re going to be a certain skin color? Their ancestry? The child essentially will have it’s life chosen for it based purely on how prejudice the parents are.
Even pro-abortion Democrats should be appalled by this.
If someone supports termination based on something like Down Syndrome, what does that say about their thoughts regarding Down Syndrome? What about termination based on race or ancestry? What if someone wants to terminate the pregnancy because the child has male genitalia?
This creates an alarming precedent with disturbing implications.
Whereas the Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued against discrimination, the federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama sided with the misnamed American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood. This isn’t entirely surprising, given U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt shot down a law in 2011 that would’ve prevented entities performing abortions from getting state funding.
The argument of the American Civil Liberties Union was that previous Supreme Court cases justified it, as if the Supreme Court itself has never been wrong. How does the American Civil Liberties Union feel about Africans like Dred Scott or Japanese-Americans like Fred Korematsu, who were mistreated purely based on their heritage?
If they were still in the womb, it would be ok to kill them in the State of Indiana now.
Judge Pratt’s legal world is a strange one.
It’s not surprising that a federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama would continue the trend of abortions or targeting the innocent. The Democratic Party has recently also begun pushing legislation that would deprive Americans of due process rights based on mere suspicion of a crime, without any legal verdict. The targeting of the innocent in America is becoming increasingly more prominent as time goes on.
Now in Indiana, an attempt to end discrimination against innocent children has been overturned by a federal judge, paving the way for targeting unborn children based on things out of their control. Is this the kind of America that our founders created for us? Is this the America that we want to leave for our children?