Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized his fellow justices this week for failing to apply the same legal standard to guns that they do abortions.
On Monday, Thomas disagreed with the high court about taking a Second Amendment case out of New Jersey, Rogers v. Grewal. According to Breitbart, the state requires people to show a “justifiable need” to own a handgun before the state will issue them a permit.
A majority of the Supreme Court justices refused to hear the case, but Thomas disagreed, writing: “One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review. This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights.”
In his dissent, he also brought up the issue of abortion, a so-called “right” which is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
“And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion,” Thomas continued. “But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”
In other words, women in New Jersey may abort their unborn babies for any reason without restriction, but, if they want to buy a handgun to defend themselves and their children, they need to give the government a “justifiable” reason and obtain a permit. Pro-life advocates have different opinions about the Second Amendment, but they agree that there is no “justifiable” reason to kill an unborn child. And yet, the nation’s highest court continues to allow unborn babies to be killed for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Thomas has been a strong supporter of human rights for unborn babies on the court. In 2019, he wrote an opinion in favor of protecting unborn babies from eugenics after the high court refused to hear an Indiana case involving a ban on discriminatory abortions on babies with Down syndrome.
“… this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics,” Thomas wrote. “Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope.”