Supreme Court upholds abortion for eugenics



The U.S. Supreme Court today let stand a ruling that allows mothers in Indiana to terminate the life of a baby due to a genetic disability such as Down Syndrome, gender, or race preference.

The nondiscrimination law had been signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, who is now the vice president.

Indiana had requested that the high court review the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled against the state’s anti-discrimination abortion laws.

The Supreme Court declined to review the 7th Circuit’s decision on that portion of law, writing briefly:

“Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability- selective abortions by abortion providers. Only the Seventh Circuit has thus far addressed this kind of law. We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

In other words, another appeals court must take up the question of eugenics — whether a mother can abort a child if it is not her desired gender or race, or if it has a genetic disability.

In the same decision, the court ruled that Indiana could enforce its law that requires aborted fetuses to be treated with dignity, and not as merely medical waste.

The Indiana law was passed after it became known that a medical waste firm was disposing of fetuses the same way it handled medical waste, via an incinerator mixed in with other medical waste. The Indiana law requires either burial or cremation of the fetus.

The case is Kristina Box, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Public Health vs. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.


  1. ??? I understand if the baby is going to have critical health issues, but to abort due to race or gender? That’s TOTAL bs!

  2. When you watch Frank Stephens’ testimony, lobbying for research dollars he ends with a statement of “let’s make the world Alzheimer’s free, not Down Syndrome free”. Listen to his powerful words. Does this man not deserve to live? Not deserve to be born?

    • As a nation, and as a state, we could send a more supportive message to parents pondering your question by not cutting funding to the social services that support parents raising kids with developmental disabilities. It’s an expensive and consuming endeavor — more so than raising a developmentally average kid. We could tell them: “we’re there for you.” But instead we opt for a completely different fiscal message.

      • I am clearly anti-abortion, but I am also for funding social services where it makes sense. There are many ways families are supported besides bloated, wasteful budgets.
        His message of research dollars is one piece of my point. The other is he is a human being. He is a living, breathing human being that shouldn’t have to explain his existence in front of a panel of other human beings. What’s next? Extinguish redheads? Will we have the carrot tops in front of committees, showing that they too can contribute to society? I have friends (2 families) with Downs children. Yes, they have challenges. But both of those families would not change their situations for anything. Their Downs children have brought them more happiness and joy than they could ever imagine and have made them all better people.

        • “Bloated and wasteful” is used so often it’s lost any real meaning. When is something trim and efficient? When we have a net-zero budget? That’s not going to happen since our primary source of revenue varies year-to-year. What about average net-positive? Then we face opportunity costs I don’t trust politicians to analyze. It takes a village to raise any kid, especially one with additional needs. But here we are crying over pennies-per-person, paying oil subsidies, and enriching the leaches that don’t give a damn about us. We need to share.

Comments are closed.