Supreme Court Rejects Indiana Abortion Ban Case

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Good news -- the Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on Indiana's ban on abortions based on sex, race, or disability.

The Indiana law, which was signed into law by then-Governor Mike Pence, has been effectively struck down as the Supreme Court allowed a lower court ruling against the law to stand.

Washington (CNN)-- The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a provision of an Indiana law which said the state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by race, sex or disability should remain blocked. [...]

The law was signed in March 2016 by then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. It was blocked last year from going into effect by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his decision last year, Judge William Bauer wrote that provisions in the law that bar women from seeking abortions in certain cases "clearly violate" what he described as "well-established Supreme Court precedent, and are therefore, unconstitutional."

This may or may not mean that the Supreme Court as its currently constructed is not interested in directly reviewing Roe v. Wade, but allowing this ruling to stand seems positive. The lower courted ruled that this ban on abortion is "unconstitutional" and the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand.

With that said, at least one member of the Supreme Court made it clear that he would rip Roe v. Wade to shreds if given a chance to.

Justice Clarence Thomas used this opportunity to go on a tirade about 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,” Justice Thomas wrote, proceeding to teach a 15-page lesson on the movement, which extended Darwinism to the human species and led to decades of hideous programs of forced sterilization, “social Darwinism” and justifications for racism. [...]

“[I]nsofar as abortion is viewed as a method of ‘family planning,’ black people do indeed ‘tak[e] the brunt of the ‘planning,’” he writes, taking a New York state health report entirely out of context, and continuing, “Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion.”

In other words, Clarence Thomas is just your average lunatic accusing abortion rights activists of being The Real Racists.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court also allowed an Indiana law mandating burial or cremation of fetal remains to remain on the books, meaning someone who even suffers a miscarriage could required to bury or cremate the remains. You know, if there are any. This is a deeply stupid and sickening law.

  • muselet

    Mr Justice Clarence Thomas’s extended tirade about abortion and Darwinism and eugenics and Margaret Sanger and all the other fetus-fetishist talking points was unbecoming a member of the Supreme Court. His potshot at Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the footnotes of his opinion was particularly cheap.

    Charlie Pierce explained this morning:

    But the real action was in the footnotes, where Thomas took a whack at Ginsberg, who wanted the entire Indiana law overturned. Thomas, first:

    Justice Ginsberg does not even attempt to argue that the decision below was correct. Instead, she adopts Chief Judge Wood’s alternative suggestion that regulating the disposition of an aborted child’s body might impose an ‘undue burden’ on the mother’s right to abort that (already aborted) child. This argument is difficult to understand, to say the least, which may explain why even respondent Planned Parenthood did not make it.

    To which Ginsburg replied:

    “A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother.’ The cost of, and trauma potentially induced by, a post-procedure requirement may well constitute an undue burden … under the rational-basis standard applied below, (and) Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky had no need to marshal evidence that Indiana’s law posed an undue burden.”

    In a just universe, Thomas would shut up, resign his seat and take up life as a monk after getting a polite thrashing like that.

    We do not, alas, live in a just universe.


    • Can you imagine if you yourself had to bury or cremate the remnant of some other medical procedure? Get a tumor removed, here you go, have fun burying or cremating it. Never mind that that’s burdensome and costly.

      • muselet

        As I—and others—keep saying, cruelty is the oint when Righties dabble in policy.


      • Badgerite

        How about a requirement that the state of Indiana take up the cost of such burials or cremations. I wonder how the Court would view that requirement then. Of course it is an “undue burden”. In every way. Financially and emotionally. If the state of Indiana would like to handle the costs, that would be one burden removed. Otherwise, the requirement should have been struck down.

  • 1933john

    Thomas like Trump is full of the same runny shit.

  • Aynwrong

    The Real Racists was the best MTV reality show back in the 90s.