Joe Biden’s Attorney Told Supreme Court: Better to Kill Babies in Abortions Than Place Them for Adoption

National   |   Micaiah Bilger   |   Dec 7, 2021   |   11:08AM   |   Washington, DC

Joe Biden’s solicitor general dismissed adoption as a loving alternative to abortion last week in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the so-called right to abortion keeps a woman from having “a child out in the world.”

Basically, a “freedom from adoption,” according to the National Review editorial board.

Adoption came up several times Dec. 1 during oral arguments in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Mississippi wants the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade or at least allow states to protect unborn babies from abortion after 15 weeks.

But lawyers for the abortion industry and the Biden administration both discounted adoption as a better option than abortion.

In an exchange with Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar implied that ending an unborn child’s life forever would be less of a burden on women than living knowing that their child is growing up with another family.

Follow on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

According to National Review:

Responding to a question from Justice Clarence Thomas, she explained that pregnant women have a threefold “liberty interest” in abortion. The right to abortion keeps women from having to go through pregnancy, to go through childbirth, and “to have a child out in the world.” Notice how that third interest is framed. The “freedom” that Roe v. Wade promises — that it insists the Constitution protects — includes not only the freedom from having to raise an unwanted child but the freedom from knowing that someone else is raising her.

It includes, that is, freedom from adoption.

Abortion activists also lambasted Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has two adopted children, for mentioning safe haven laws, which allow mothers to relinquish newborn babies to authorities without fear of repercussions.

Barrett asked lawyers for the pro-abortion side to explain why safe haven laws and adoption do not relieve the “burden of parenting” – a reason mentioned in Roe v. Wade for legalized abortion.

“And insofar as you … focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?” Barrett asked, according to Business Insider. “It doesn’t seem to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden.”

Julie Rikelman, an attorney for the Mississippi abortion facility, answered by arguing that parenting is just one burden. The “physical demands and risks” of pregnancy as well as the “impact on all of their lives, on their ability to care for other children, other family members, on their ability to work” also are reasons why abortion is needed, she said.

Within these claims are a total disregard for the rights and value of unborn babies. Adoption is not an easy choice for mothers and fathers and it is traumatic for all involved, but it also is so much better than killing a child. Adoption gives a child opportunities that his/her birth parents cannot provide. It is loving and self-sacrificial.

However, Prelogar basically argued that “abortion is valuable — it has constitutional status — because it lets mothers and fathers come as close as scalpel and poison can bring them to pretending they were never parents at all,” National Review editors responded. It is a “sinister, beguiling fantasy” that disguises the violent killing of unborn babies as an easy, pain-free solution and adoption as an anguishing, unnecessary sacrifice.

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, about 63 million unborn babies have been killed in abortions. If the Supreme Court overturns its infamous abortion ruling, hundreds of thousands of unborn babies could be spared from abortion every year across America.