Share This Article with a Friend!


How Is Stopping A Beating Human Heart A Civil Liberty?

Supreme Court Abortion Law
There was a time when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stood for the oppressed and the marginalized, but no more. The organization has now joined the oppressors of unborn humans and wants a federal court to permanently block a new Ohio law that protects unborn babies with beating hearts from abortion.

The Ohio law prohibits abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks of pregnancy. Because many women do not even know they are pregnant at this early stage, the legislation could protect almost all unborn babies in Ohio. Gov. Mike DeWine signed the law in April.

If upheld, the law could save tens of thousands of unborn babies’ lives. The Ohio Department of Health reported 20,893 abortions in 2017 in the state.

According to reporting by Micaiah Bilger of LifeNews.com, the pro-abortion legal group asked Judge Michael Barrett to extend his temporary injunction on the heartbeat law, which protects unborn babies from abortion once their heartbeats are detectable.

Gov. DeWine promised to defend the rights of unborn babies in court, however, Ms. Bilger reported this week, the ACLU argued that because the state did not appeal the preliminary injunction, the court should permanently block the law.

Earlier this year, DeWine told the Dayton Daily News that he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will uphold the law. But he cautioned Ohioans to be prepared for lower courts to rule against it because of the current precedent of Roe v. Wade.

“It’s important for everyone to have the right expectations and for those of us who hope that this law is upheld to fully to understand that we are not going to see that in the lower courts,” the governor said. “It ultimately is for the Supreme Court to decide.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost previously promised to defend the law as well reports Ms. Bilger.

“Sometimes, the evolution of the law requires bold steps,” he told Fox 45. “In the last 46 years, the practice of medicine has changed. Science has changed. Even the point of viability has changed. Only the law has lagged behind. This law provides a stable, objective standard to guide the courts.”

Though the court battle may be long, DeWine said it is worth it to protect unborn babies.

“It is our duty I believe and it’s the essential function of government to protect those who can’t protect themselves, to protect those who are voiceless,” he said according to Micaiah Bilger’s reporting.

On the opposite side, or more correctly, the side of murdering babies, is the ACLU, and its Ohio state legal director Freda Levenson.

Ms. Levenson argued that the federal court blocked the ban from going into effect in July. And she says the state hasn’t fought that injunction.

“The state had an opportunity to appeal that ruling but it let the date to file an appeal come and go without doing anything,” Levenson said according to Ms. Bilger’s reporting.

So, Levenson says her group is asking the court to permanently block the law, as has happened in some other states.

“This legislation is blatantly unconstitutional and we will fight to the bitter end to ensure that this bill is permanently blocked,” said Ms. Levenson.

Is it possible to construct a lasting and healthy society upon a legal foundation that not only protects, but encourages infanticide, a deep and profoundly immoral act?

We do not believe it is, and the door opened by Roe v. Wade has led American society into a darkness that can only end in the eugenic and racist nightmare of the Nazi Third Reich and other cultures that have allowed humans to be culled like livestock or killed when they become inconvenient.

Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this issue in the recent case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Justice Thomas in an opinion of towering moral clarity, went straight to the foundational principle raised by Box and by the Indiana law, writing that the Supreme Court will not be able to duck the issue of abortion forever, saying, “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

He had also included discussion of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s recognition of “the eugenic potential of her cause,” and her statement that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.” Thomas wrote that “further percolation may assist” the court’s review of the abortion restrictions Thomas wrote in his 20-page concurring opinion, “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”

“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,” Thomas wrote.

As the Washington Examiner’s Melissa Quinn reported, Thomas highlighted comments from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and its former President Alan Guttmacher and cited a “growing body of evidence” that suggests “eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.”

Thomas warned the court’s past cases reaffirming the right to an abortion, namely the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “did not decide whether the Constitution requires states to allow eugenic abortions.”

Justice Thomas correctly defined the great moral choice the Supreme Court forced upon America in Roe v. Wade to be a choice between a society that respects, values and protects Life as an unalienable right, as the writers of the Declaration of Independence framed it, or a society that “would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement” and treat humans as livestock to be discarded or terminated if they are deemed to be defective or no longer useful.

The efficacy of the strategy being pursued by Governor Dewine and Attorney General Yost escapes us, since it would seem to be elementary to appeal every adverse ruling of the lower court – particularly a preliminary injunction. We eagerly await their arrival on the legal battlefield to preserve Ohio’s heartbeat law.

Share this