What is the value of a human life? A human life is priceless, according to only authority that really matters-the ultimate arbiter of the universe, our Creator. Yes, people have infinite intrinsic worth. Men and women are designed and created in the Imago Dei, the very image of God. If all humans are created equal, and I truly believe that we are, then all persons, no matter how small, are entitled to be viewed and treated with equal dignity, care, respect, and love no matter what race, class, socio-economic status, or other classification.
In Psalm 82:3-4 our Creator instructs us to:
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
So, who are the most weak and oppressed among us? Are they not pre-born children? A life is a life, no matter how small. It has value, whether viable or wanted by its mother. Indeed, babies in the womb are the most weak and are far too often needy, poor and oppressed. We ought to do justice to their lofty status as God’s image-bearers, defend the weak and rescue them from the hands of the hard-hearted wicked who seek to violently reach inside a mother’s womb to tear the weak limb from limb.
But what do eugenics fans like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believe? Simply put, they advocate the “improvement” of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits, and reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits. They are also big fans of abortion, killing human people before they are born. But Sanger was also a horrible racist who, by birth control and abortion, wanted to achieve a “cleaner race.” She revealed her diabolical genocidal plan in a 1939 letter:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” [emphasis added]
This begs the question, why are so many African American’s supportive of the Democratic Party, whose pro-death policies have led to the genocide of African Americans? Unfortunately, Sanger was not an outlier. The elite in the legal profession have unfortunately shared many of Sanger’s values. As Michael Gerson noted in his piece in the Washington Post, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the 1927 decision approving forced sterilization for Carrie Buck, a 17-year-old single mother viewed as feebleminded and morally delinquent. “It is better for all the world,” ruled Holmes, “If instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” [emphasis added] Judging by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s recent comments, many in the elite class have not socially evolved much beyond such dark backwards eugenics-based thinking.
In a recent interview in the New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a long time abortion cheerleader, candidly shared her horrific view of the throwaway value of less desirable human beings. The quote is extensive to show the entire context:
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [emphasis added]
What? “[G]rowth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of?” According to whom? Apparently, someone has metaphysically decreed that Ginsberg and her uber-smart Harvard educated friends somehow channel unique godlike “wisdom” and power to control the rest of us, tell us what the U.S. Constitution “really” means, and decide for us who has social value, and should live, and who lacks sufficient contributive value, and should die.
Three things are clear from Justice Ginsberg’s patently outrageous comments and ethically-skewed worldview. First, she believes abortion empowers and liberates women. Second, she has people groups in mind who are, according to her, undesirable or unfit and who ought to be encouraged to abort their children (i.e. “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”). Third, it’s a great idea to use taxpayer funds to aid in her dystopian dream to “thin the herd.” Her ethically flawed and darkly immoral perspective leaves one seriously questioning the value of lifetime appointments to the court.
First, abortion doesn’t empower women; it kills them. Abortion has killed 60 million people since 1973. We can reasonably assume that approximately 30 million of these casualties are women-who may have grown up to be on food stamps, but also who may have been teachers, doctors, lawyers, and even justices of the United States Supreme Court. The dead have no civil rights, Justice Ginsberg, the Supreme Court took everything away from them by legally sanctioning their execution. These legions of dead woman cannot enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But the dead are not the only victims. Those women who make this deadly choice suffer emotional scars of shame, regret, and depression. Abortion doesn’t empower women; it hurts them and it kills them.
Second, who gets to decide which people are unfit, are undesirable and should therefore be eliminated? Doctors, judges, other “smart people? In other words, who made Justice Ginsberg God and gave her and her brilliant friends the power to decide who lives and who dies? No one! She may also cause us to wonder precisely when, according to elites like Ginsberg, a person is fit enough or desirable enough to spare his or her life?
Third, Ginsberg’s comments leave us wondering, “Who is undesirable?” The poor? The disabled? African Americans? Conservatives? Certainly the poor disabled, and African Americans have disproportionately suffered as victims of the slaughter of 60 million innocents since 1973. Perhaps this is why Planned Parenthood locates its clinics in poor black neighborhoods. The American genocide has been especially deadly for poor and African Americans.
And haven’t we already tried this very bad idea-several times? Were we not all appropriately horrified at the Nazi’s “Final Solution” that killed more than 20 million alleged undesirables? Were Stalin and Mao right, too, as millions perished at the whims of these dictators? As a constitutional attorney who has walked the streets of the Dachau concentration camp and who is the father of a son who has autism, I want to scream “Never again!” when I read purportedly enlightened intellectual garbage like this spewed. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned, “If there is not God, then everything is permitted.” Apparently “everything” includes killing your undesirable children.
It took us more than 200 years, but we have finally allowed the tyranny of King George, to be replaced with the tyranny of out-of-touch elite judges. This doesn’t sound very democratic, does it? Well, it’s not. Perhaps Ginsberg, the diminutive, enlightened black-robed oligarch, has spent far too long breathing the rarified air, high on her perch on the bench, sneering down at us-the stupid plebian simpleton underlings-and it is all going to her head. It is time to retire, Justice Ginsberg. Please, do America a favor; do democracy a favor. Benjamin Franklin said the Constitution gave us “A republic, if you can keep it.” Ginsberg’s radical worldview proves we may have already lost it.
Other comments by Ginsberg in the New York Times Magazine interview give those fighting for the lives of the unborn little hope of justice. Of pro-lifers, she declares, “They’re fighting a losing battle.” Perhaps, but fight on we will; fight on we must. The future of our children and grandchildren depend upon our vigilance. Justice Ginsberg’s supremely arrogant, elitist, narcissistic, existentialist attitude leaves me deeply grieving for our nation. How far we have fallen from the God-given unalienable virtues of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Unlike Ginsberg, our moral compasses are still functioning and our cause is just. Never surrender, the very image of God is at stake.
— by Dean R. Broyles, Esq.
Broyles is a constitutional attorney serving as the President of The National Center For Law & Policy (NCLP), an organization fighting to promote and defend religious freedom. Copyright© The National Center For Law & Policy.