February 04, 2017
Right to Life

You don’t have to read the whole book on right-to-life by Supreme Court Justice-in-waiting Neil Gorsuch; Vox has done it for you. And the issue turns out to be not nearly as simple as proponents on either side of the argument would have it. Take a look. The first two paragraphs below are from Gorsuch’s book, and the third is from Vox.

Clarence Darrow of Scopes Monkey fame proclaimed, “Chloroform unfit children. Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live.” Novelist Sherwood Anderson and physician Abraham Wolbarst, two future members of the Euthanasia Society of America, openly argued that society had a duty to kill those with defects because they unnecessarily drained community resources.

Madison Grant, a New York attorney and Yale Law graduate who also served as a trustee of the American Museum of Natural History and cofounded the American Eugenics Society, proclaimed that “[t]he laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and [a] human is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.”… In 1939 Ann Mitchell, an ESA cofounder, welcomed the advent of World War II as a “biological house cleaning.” She counseled “euthanasia as a war measure, including euthanasia for the insane, feeble-minded monstrosities.”

Of course, euthanasia did become a war measure, specifically for Nazi Germany, which launched the T4 program the same month it invaded Poland; about 200,000 disabled people were killed in various Nazi euthanasia efforts. And the effort was substantially inspired by American euthanasia advocates. Gorsuch notes that Adolf Hitler himself wrote to Madison Grant, describing Grant’s pro-eugenics book The Passing of the Great Race as “his Bible,” and stated that he had “studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”



Posted by Jerome Doolittle at February 04, 2017 02:38 PM
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


My, but that makes me regretfully, resentfully wistful. (I need my sarcasm font, here.) Had American practiced some eugenics a bit back -- I can't help but think the last election would have been different.

I mean, they DID advocate putting down mouth breathers, right?

Posted by: Labrys on February 4, 2017 3:36 PM

Gorsuch's first and most important test as a justice will come within the first 18-36 months of his tenure, when the Congressional attempt to remove Trump from office comes before the court. Thus, all of the social justice and abortion stuff are secondary here. The question is, does this guy have the stones to vote against the guy who appointed him? I'm no legal scholar, but my gut says yes, he does. Meaning that this guy is better than the majority of the others on the Federalist Society list.

Posted by: on February 5, 2017 6:16 PM

The Supreme Court has no role in unseating an elected President. The Chief Justice presides in the Senate Trial but his rulings are appealable to the Body. Impeachment and removal for disability are the exclusive province of the Congress.

Posted by: Lless on February 6, 2017 5:08 PM

Sorry, Lless, but in the U.S. in 2017 or 2018, when the impeachment or 25th Amendment-based Congressional attempt to remove Trump from office comes, there is very little chance that the Supreme Court will not take it upon itself to weigh in in some fashion. Remember, this is the same group that threw out the entire concept of state control of election mechanics in 2000, and told us to ignore the case and never cite to or mention it ever again. Also, quite possible that Trump once the attacks begin will be the one who brings the matter to the courts. That's where he always runs.

Posted by: on February 8, 2017 12:11 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?