Federal Judge Tonya Pratt issued a ruling against the State of Indiana late last week. She declared that the state’s law protecting babies with Down Syndrome from being targeted for destruction is “unconstitutional” . The Indiana law also made it illegal to abort babies solely because of disability, gender or race.
Judge Pratt struck down the law at the behest of Planned Parenthood. (And, yes, she is an Obama appointee).
This is not the first pro-abortion ruling from Pratt, but it is perhaps her most contemptible. In essence, Pratt has ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the practice of eugenics. Most readers will be familiar with Planned Parenthood’s history of eugenics, as it was founded by Margaret Sanger, an early proponent of culling the human race on the basis of race and socio-economic background.
What may be less well known is that Pratt’s ruling has some roots in the dark judicial history of this country. There was a time when progressive jurists like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes boldly defended the practice of forced sterilization of persons deemed “socially unfit”. See Buck v. Bell (1927). Some sources suggest that as many as 70,000 citizens were forcibly deprived of the right to reproduce.
But this ruling by Pratt actually goes further: It sanctifies the killing of an existing baby simply because of a disability or because of the baby’s gender.
One wonders when the Congress might be persuaded to intervene in the outrageous malpractice being foisted upon American society by radical judges like Ms. Pratt.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill announced on Tuesday that he will appeal the ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago. In a written press release printed by LifeNews.Com, Hill says:
“By declaring unconstitutional a state law that would bar abortions solely on the basis race, sex or disability such as Down Syndrome, a federal has cleared the path for
genetic discrimination that once seemed like science fiction.”