ACLJ Urges Supreme Court To Take Eugenic Abortion Case – Babies With Down Syndrome Do NOT Deserve To Die | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


ACLJ Urges Supreme Court To Take Eugenic Abortion Case

By Walter M. Weber1621519140000

Arkansas has a law that makes it a crime to do an abortion for an invidiously discriminatory reason, namely, because the child in the womb has Down syndrome. At the request of abortion providers, lower federal courts declared the Arkansas law unconstitutional, and the state has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state and urging the Supreme Court to review this abortion case, Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services.

The ACLJ previously supported a request for Supreme Court review in a different eugenic abortion case, that one from Indiana. (The Court declined to review that law.) As in that Indiana case, the ACLJ urges the high Court in the new Arkansas case to consider that bans on eugenic abortions further

the important state interest in protecting expectant parents from the pressure caused by overly gloomy prenatal diagnoses – diagnoses that all too often prove inaccurate (the baby turns out healthy or only mildly disabled) or excessively pessimistic (the parents deeply love the child regardless of any disability).

As the ACLJ brief notes:

Physicians face financial incentives to err on the side of doom and gloom. If they predict the worst, but things turn out well, everyone is relieved and there is no lawsuit. But if physicians don’t foretell adverse consequences, and such consequences materialize, the physicians may face legal liability for failure to warn. This is particularly true in the context of pregnancy, since some jurisdictions recognize “wrongful birth” suits predicated upon the parents’ having missed the chance to abort a child who is then born with disabilities. [Thus,] a physician worried about potential legal liability will be sure to note everything that might be wrong with the baby. . . . As a consequence, prenatal diagnoses will tend to skew toward pessimism and put pressure on parents to go the abortion route.

Moreover, a prenatal diagnosis of a disability, like other diagnoses, is not infallible. As we note:

[T]here are countless instances in which parents were told a child would be born with severe or fatal disabilities, when in fact the child turned out to be either perfectly healthy or had manageable, or even only minor, conditions. This has specifically happened regarding a false diagnosis of Down syndrome or related maladies.

In short, even aside from the compelling reasons for halting the injustice of abortion in general, there are separate, strong reasons for stopping eugenic abortions – those which target children deemed “imperfect.” As we argue:

The Constitution does not compel states to allow abortions done for perniciously discriminatory reasons. In particular, states may prevent physicians from doing abortions that target Down syndrome children with the message, “We’d rather you were dead than born alive.”

We recently told you about another court of appeals, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc (the full court), which held that a similar law in Ohio was in fact constitutional. We also filed an amicus brief in that case, and the court there agreed with our arguments. This has created what is known as a circuit split, where two or more federal circuit courts rule in different ways on the same issue, and this makes it more likely for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Supreme Court currently has several pending petitions requesting review of abortion cases. Should the Court grant any of these, we will be sure to file again in defense of innocent human life.

Defending Babies With Disabilities in Court

Pro Life  Signatures


Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

Make this a monthly Tax-Deductible gift.

It’s our sacred duty to defend unborn babies. Every gift - of any amount - could save a life. Donate today to advance our vital pro-life work.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from the ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.
Latest in
Pro Life

President Biden’s Proposed Budget Guts Pro-Life Hyde Amendment

By Nathanael Bennett1623761940000

While the debate in America over the issue of abortion remains a deeply divisive one, Americans of all political stripes have consistently found strong agreement on at least this one point: American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions. According to a recent poll , 77% of Americans...

read more

ACLJ Files FOIA After Biden Admin Cites COVID-19 To Allow Abortion Pill To Be Sent Through the U.S. Mail

By Olivia Summers1623681013374

Next time you see your local mail carrier, ask them if they know they might be assisting in abortions. It sounds absurd and will likely throw them for a loop, but thanks to President Biden, any given envelope they’re sliding into a mailbox could contain abortion pills. We just took action to expose...

read more

ACLJ Files Legal Comments Against Biden Admin's Abortion Funding

By Laura Hernandez1621452396788

This has been a pivotal week in the battle to defund Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court dismissed three cases challenging the Trump Administration’s “Protect Life regulations” defunding millions from Planned Parenthood. At the same time, we filed a new formal public legal comment urging the...

read more

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case That Could Severely Limit Roe v. Wade

By Jay Sekulow1621288855263

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a MAJOR abortion case. The case – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – is related to a Mississippi law that banned most abortions (with limited exceptions) after 15 weeks, which directly contradicts the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that...

read more