Conservatives who were hoping that the addition of two Trump-nominated Justices had resulted in a conservative or at least constructionist Court were keenly disappointed on two cases yesterday.
In the first case, the Court rejected an appeal from students opposing the Boyertown, Pennsylvania, school district’s policy of letting transgender students use whichever bathrooms and locker rooms conform to their “gender identity.”
In a statement, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the students, said, “Students struggling with their beliefs about gender need compassionate support, but sound reasons based on common sense have always existed for schools to separate male and female teenagers in showers, restrooms and locker rooms. No student's recognized right to bodily privacy should be made contingent on what other students believe about their own gender. Because the 3rd Circuit's decision made a mess of bodily privacy and Title IX principles, we believe the Supreme Court should have reviewed it.”
The ACLU called the court’s rejection of the case “an enormous victory for transgender students across the country.” But one of the female plaintiffs in the case said, “My voice is the echo of so many girls who want their voices to be heard and to feel protected. I hope no other girl finds herself in a situation like mine, where I felt powerless and vulnerable in my own school. Every student's privacy should be protected.”
I fear that with common sense being trampled by the transgender rights movement, the feeling of safety and privacy girls once felt in bathrooms and locker rooms is only the first of many women’s rights that are heading for the scrap heap of history, along with girls’ sports.
This case proves that Americans cannot rely on the Supreme Court, which is the appeal of last resort, to reinstate common sense in this area, even with an allegedly more conservative majority. They’ve already proven that they are great at inventing new rights that rip the social fabric asunder, but extremely hesitant to deal with the chaos and confusion that their own rulings create. If we want laws that reflect common sense, we have to start at ground zero by electing lawmakers with common sense, and that’s something we definitely do not have right now.
Tuesday's other SCOTUS case involved abortion, and it had to be upsetting to anyone who hoped that recent state laws limiting abortion will lead to the Court reconsidering Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS turned down an appeal involving two Indiana abortion regulations signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence. One that will remain blocked prevented abortions based on the child’s race, sex or disability status. The other, which remains upheld, allows the state to mandate that "fetal remains" be disposed of by abortion clinics as human remains must be, instead of as medical waste. The Court found that that regulation did not infringe on the right to abortion and fell under the state’s legitimate interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains.
But the Court’s dodge of the selective abortion issue did not sit well with Justice Clarence Thomas, who, while he agreed with the decision not to hear the case, issued a lengthy and impassioned opinion that states do have a compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of eugenics, which it is devolving into with scientific advances that reveal more about the child while it’s still in the womb. (Eugenics is the appalling philosophy of thinking humanity can be improved by eliminating “inferior” people. If you’ve studied World War II, it will sound familiar.)
Thomas traced the history of eugenics, from Planned Parenthood icon Margaret Sanger through forced sterilization and Nazism, up to today, when nearly all Down Syndrome children in Europe are aborted, 160 million girls have been aborted in Asia, and the abortion rate of black babies is five times higher in New York than for non-Hispanic white babies. Click the link to read more, and brace yourself for the full horror of it.
Thomas warned, “Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is duty bound to address its scope.”
He’s right that it’s their duty to deal with it. But that doesn’t mean they will do their duty. Not while they can continue to find ridiculous reasons to dodge it, such as liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s bizarre criticism of Thomas’ exhaustive and disturbing essay. She took issue on grounds that he referred to a pregnant woman as “the mother.” She wrote, “A woman who exercises her constitutionally-protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother.’”
You can add that one to the ever-growing pile of ways in which the pro-abortion forces must continually deny reality to keep defending the indefensible.