Tea at Trianon: Justice Thomas Documents the Eugenicist Origins of Abortion

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Justice Thomas Documents the Eugenicist Origins of Abortion

From The Catholic Herald:

Justice Clarence Thomas has written the first Supreme Court opinion in history which documents at length the eugenicist origins of abortion in America. What does this matter, and what does it mean for the future? There are simpler and more complex answers to those questions.

The simple reason is that while the Court upheld a part of the Indiana law that requires respectful burial or cremation of human remains, it turned down an appeal to reinstate another part of the law that would ban abortions sought for reasons of sex-selection or disability.

Thomas was rightly dismissive of Planned Parenthood’s disregard for fetal remains, writing in his Concurring Opinion: “I would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.” But Justice Thomas was determined to interpret the Court’s decision to turn down the appeal which would have banned sex-selective abortions. (Read more.)