Washington, D.C. — In keeping with our mission of protecting the rights of all Americans, from conception to natural death, the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation has filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, et al.

The brief addresses the following argument:

“Whether a State may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus – and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.”

“Whether a State may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus – and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.”

Nine prominent individuals and organizations joined FGF in filing the brief on November 15, 2018 in support of “petition for Writ of Certiorari.” We are asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which ruled against the State of Indiana’s efforts to protect the most vulnerable human beings in society. It is our hope that the High Court will rule in favor of the State of Indiana by overturning the lower court decision.

Attorneys William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, and Robert J. Olson prepared the 21-page brief.

At issue is the Indiana law, “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban” which was written to prevent:

— “sex selection abortions” (in which the parents opt to abort because the unborn baby is of the gender that they do not want);

— abortions based solely on the race, color, national origin, or ancestry of the unborn child; and

— abortions for non-lethal physical and mental disabilities such as scoliosis, Down Syndrome and other conditions that are not life-threatening.

The law requires abortionists to inform patients of these prohibitions.

Indiana’s law, “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban” was written to prevent: “sex selection abortions”; abortions based solely on the race, color, national origin, or ancestry of the unborn child; and abortions for non-lethal physical and mental disabilities such as scoliosis, Down Syndrome and other conditions that are not life-threatening.

The brief explains why Indiana passed this law. Many years ago, Indiana and other states engaged in the horrific sterilization of women who were thought to have “undesirable” genes, or were mentally ill. In 1907, Indiana enacted the first eugenics sterilization legislation in the world. This law sought to implement the eugenic theories of Charles Darwin, which aimed to eliminate the “un-fittest.” The aim of eugenics is to improve the qualities of a race, but the primary means of doing so is to reduce the numbers of those considered “undesirable.”

In 2007, a century later, the Indiana House and Senate sought to eradicate this stain on the state by issuing a Concurrent Resolution to express regret for the state’s compulsory sterilization of 2,500 helpless souls. Similar laws in other states brought about forced sterilization of more than 65,000 persons.

In 2007, the Indiana House and Senate issued a Concurrent Resolution to express regret for the state’s compulsory sterilization of 2,500 helpless souls in the early 1900s.

Indiana’s 2007 Resolution states that the “eugenics legislation devalued the sanctity of human life, placed claims of scientific benefit over human dignity, and denied the inalienable rights recognized by our Founding Fathers.” It also says that “eugenics legislation targeted the most vulnerable among us, including the poor and racial minorities, wrongly dehumanizing them under the authority of law and for the claimed purpose of public health and for the good of the people…”

This apology the citizens of Indiana also asks them to become familiar with the history of the eugenics movement “in the belief that a more educated and enlightened population will repudiate the many laws passed in the name of eugenics and reject any such laws in the future.”

“Abortion is the only true ‘super-right’ protected by the federal courts today.... abortion is now a more untouchable right than even the freedom of speech.” — Circuit Court Judge Daniel Manion.

As you might well imagine, Planned Parenthood is incensed with “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban,” as it cuts into their main income stream, which is, of course, abortions. They challenged the law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which granted an injunction to Planned Parenthood on September 22, 2017. The case was appealed to the Seventh Circuit and argued on April 15, 2018, and decided in favor of Planned Parenthood on April 19, 2018.

Unfortunately the Seventh Circuit agreed with Planned Parenthood’s arguments, which were taken from both Roe v. Wade (1972), and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), namely that no law may impede a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Judge Daniel Manion, who dissented from the circuit court decision, said the right to an abortion is a “super-precedent” which has “spawned[ed] a body of jurisprudence that has made abortion the only true ‘super-right’ protected by the federal courts today....we see that abortion is now a more untouchable right than even the freedom of speech.”

In his dissent to the circuit court ruling, Judge Manion discussed two major flaws of the Supreme Court’s Casey decision that thwarted Indiana’s lower court case:

1. “Casey treats abortion as a super-right, more sacrosanct even that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.”

2. “While Casey jettisoned Roe’s strict-scrutiny test for all first-trimester abortion regulation, it replaced strict scrutiny with an effects-based test that is actually more difficult to satisfy in many cases.”

The landmark Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), “treats abortion as a super-right, more sacrosanct even that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.” – Judge Daniel Manion.

Judge Manion explained that “the abortion rights those cases created should at least be on a level playing field with the rest of the Constitution. The Casey abortion-specific test should be replaced with traditional means-end scrutiny. This would go a long way towards normalizing the federal courts’ abortion jurisprudence.”

The amicus brief FGF presented to the Supreme Court gives the High Court an opportunity to reject its deeply flawed defense of policies grounded in eugenics. It also discusses that fact that in the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, science has advanced to establish the personhood of an embryo. In the Roe ruling, Justice Blackmum made observations based on the state of medical knowledge in 1973. He inferred that as medical knowledge advances, the Supreme Court’s decision would need to be re-examined. The amicus brief reports on just three recent scientific developments:

2) Contact Embryoscopy: a scientific breakthrough which allows physicians to visualize a fetus through the cervix beginning at the gestational age of 8 to 12 weeks. Parents can now get apps to track the growth of their baby in utero on the cell phones or tablets – seeing pictures and videos of their baby’s beating hearts, developing eyes, emerging fingers, changing facial expressions, and much more.

3) A 2011 remarkably detailed scientific study titled Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, found that the embryo is a) distinct from its parents; b) genetically human; and c) a complete and whole organism, though immature.

“Contact Embryoscopy” is a scientific breakthrough which allows parents to track the growth of their baby in utero on the cell phones – seeing pictures and videos of their baby’s beating hearts, developing eyes, emerging fingers, changing facial expressions, and much more.

“The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use the information to develop herself to the mature stage of a human being…None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long as she survives, generates a new direction of growth.”

4) As science is revealing that an embryo is just another stage in the continuum of human development, pre-natal DNA genetics is placing a new “decision point” to the parents that previously did not exist. Non-invasive genetic testing of unborn children detects much genetic information. Thus a mother can decide to abort as she does not want that “kind” of child. But that brings us back to the eugenics issue. There is a difference between saying: “I don’t want a baby” and “I want only a male baby.” Or “I want a baby, but only a perfect baby.”

While advances in science are generally good, here they are leading to the commission of eugenics-motivated abortions.

You can follow this and other cases aimed at securing Constitutional rights for all citizens at LawandFreedom.com.

Please help with the legal expenses and publicity for this historic and significant case by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Thanks very much for your support!

###

Fran Griffin is founder and president of the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation.

Or send a check to:

Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
344 Maple Avenue West, #281
Vienna, VA 22180

Or call toll-free at 1-877-726-0058 to donate by phone. For more information, write to Fran Griffin at fgf@fgfBooks.com