Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is, once again, under attack.

And, once again, the attacks are from liberals who cannot tolerate Thomas’ consistent, unyielding, and faithful commitment to America’s founding principles.

The latest concerns Thomas’ 20-page opinion offered up in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, recently considered by the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood challenged Indiana law prohibiting abortion for reasons of sex, race or non-life threatening deformity.

The challenge was upheld in district court and the law overturned.

However, the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the matter for procedural reasons, turning it back to be heard on appeal at the district level.

But Justice Thomas used the occasion to write an extended opinion on this important abortion case because the principles involved are too important to ignore for America’s present and for our future.

According to the Indiana law as enacted, doctors must inform women that “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”

What liberal would ever tolerate American law protecting this type of discrimination?

Yet these same liberals are adamant that abortion for these same reasons is just fine.

Thomas seized on what is obvious, writing, “Enshrining 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.”

The eugenics movement advocated public policies to manipulate the population to produce what is deemed to be a public that is genetically superior.

In other words, bureaucrats decide the value of human beings — who’s worthwhile to have around and who’s not.

You would think that such ideas would produce outcries from liberals.

But what is producing outcries from them is that Clarence Thomas suggests that abortion based on these criteria makes abortion a tool for eugenics.

Thomas documents the sympathies of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for the eugenics movement.

And although Thomas notes that Sanger’s sympathies for abortion were less clear, he points out that the sympathies of later Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher for abortion as a eugenics policy tool were clear.

And he gets to the heart of the matter at the conclusion of his opinion: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.

Having created the constitutional right to abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope. ... The constitution itself is silent on abortion.”

The nation’s founders explained in the preamble to the Constitution that we “do ordain and establish this Constitution” to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Our Constitution was conceived to protect our liberty, not invent it.

In his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Thomas wrote: “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. ... the majority ... rejects the idea — captured in the Declaration of Independence — that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government.”

Liberals cried “foul” when Thomas rightly observed that abortion based on race, sex or disability amounts to giving constitutional protection to the eugenics movement because he struck the highly sensitive note that liberals want to stand in God’s place.

Liberals defining life inevitably leads to them deciding who lives and who dies.

America’s founders were more humble. They saw the source of our right to life, liberty and property as God.

This strikes at the core of what divides our nation today.

Are we a nation under God, as Clarence Thomas believes, or a nation defined and run by liberals and bureaucrats?

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her column is distributed nationally by the Creators Syndicate.

(7) comments


Imagine the framers of our Constitution alive today, able to hear and see the Godless, heartless group rabidly pushing for near-unchecked rights to violently extinguish the life of near-born and even newly born infants. Mouths agape, utterly horrified they would be. As are many of us.

Spock Here

"Imagine the framers of our Constitution alive today, able to hear and see the Godless, heartless group rabidly pushing for near-unchecked rights for weapons that can kill a lot of living breathing human beings in a short amount of time, which "violently extinguishes their lives." "Mouths agape, utterly horrified they would be. As are many of us" Isn't it silly to imagine what they would think now? And you continue to push the near born and newly born lie. Why?


It was the guns owned by the framers that stood up to the oppression of the British government, allowing the colonists to remain free. It was the guns owned by Americans that kept the Japanese from invading our mainland during WWII, and likely will continue to reduce that threat as we merrily march further into our new century. We do have our work cut out to aide other aspects of a not just ailing, but sick society. In that regard, guns are the least of our problem.

Spock Here

Ummmm goobers with guns thwarted the Japanese? Doubtful at best And while I agree that we have our work cut out, I think the least of our problems are freaks like you who decide what women can do legally. MYOB and good luck taking your stance against an "oppressive government". You'll likely be flattened by a tank or blasted by a missile but continue marching merrily and don't forget your musket and fife

Spock Here

Meant to say the least of our problems are women legally having something done to their own personal body. It doesn't bother you in the least that abortions are being banned and attacked while nothing...absolutely being done about possibly limiting certain weapons???? That is why I finally condluded it is not about the sanctity of life, it's about control. Control by males, who somehow think it's their business.


He's right, Spock. The reason the Japanese did not attack the US mainland was because they knew we had guns and were not afraid to use them. It's precisely why the US mainland has not been attacked for over 200 years by a foreign nation.

Spock Here

Japan may have been worried about our defense of the west coast, but that they "knew" we had guns and that kept them from attacking...Seriously? I guess you don't think Saudi Arabia, who harbored and trained 911 terrorists, is a nation? 1993 and 2001 attacks? Where were the heros with guns.? If my logic is bad, yours tops me

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.