Printer Friendly

Indiana AG Hill files brief in support of Ohio's Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act.

Curtis Hill, Jr., is Indiana's attorney general, well known to readers of NRL News Today for his vigorous and thoughtful defense of his state's prolife laws and for leading the investigation into the bizarre hoarding by the late abortionist Ulrich Klopfer of the remains of over 2,400 aborted babies in Klopfer's garage in Crete, Illinois, and in the trunk of a car in the Chicago suburb of Dolton.

Since AG Hill had defended his own state's law banning abortion for the sole reasons of the child's race, sex, national origin or a potential disability such as Down syndrome, it comes as no surprise that Hill filed a brief on behalf of Indiana, Kentucky, and 14 other states in defense of Ohio's law which prohibits doctors from performing an abortion with "knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of' a Down syndrome diagnosis.

Ironically, I learned of this brief when I read a hostile story written for the Times of Northwest Indiana by Dan Carden. Carden seemed oblivious to Hill's defense of Indiana's historic "Dignity for the Unborn Act," also known as HEA 1337.

But Carden's story did provide a link to Hill's "friend of the court" [amicus] brief.

Hill et al. are asking the entire 6th U.S. Court of Appeals ["en blanc"] to review and rehear a decision by a split three-judge panel that blocked Ohio's Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act from taking effect. As he did in his brief defending Indiana's law, Hill covered the major issues at stake in what is blatant discrimination against babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Here are just some of the highlights of the 17-page amicus brief.

* "For the amici States, authority to prevent the spread of abortion as a tool for eugenics is a compelling state interest--an interest that Indiana, Kentucky and other States (along with Ohio) have attempted to protect by enacting anti-discriminatory laws similar to the Ohio law at issue here."

* To the argument that the 1992 Casey decision makes this law unenforceable, Hill responds, "To be sure, this is not the first U.S. Court of Appeals called upon to evaluate one of these anti-eugenics laws. In Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm 'r of the Ind. State Dep't of Health, the Seventh Circuit invalidated Indiana's statute. Upon review of a petition for rehearing, however, Judge Easterbrook commented that he was 'skeptical' about the panel's holding because 'Casey did not consider the validity of an anti-eugenics law,' which is 'morally and prudentially' distinguishable from the laws considered by Casey."

* "Ohio's Down syndrome abortion ban serves the State's compelling interests in preventing prenatal discrimination and safeguarding the integrity of the medical profession, and the en banc Court should consider this case in light of those interests.... In related fashion, States have a compelling government interest in ensuring that medical providers do not become 'witting accomplices' to eugenic ideals targeting the eradication of Down syndrome."

* "Under this 'current paradigm of prenatal testing' [pressure for all women to be screened for fetal anomalies], physicians who have 'professed to do no harm' are the ones pressuring parents to choose abortion following a Down syndrome diagnosis."

* "The Supreme Court recognized a State's compelling interest in protecting the medical profession's integrity and ethics when it upheld the constitutionality of banning partial-birth abortions. [Gonzales v. Carhart]." Finally, the powerful conclusion.

* "Justice Thomas, concurring in Box [the decision rendered earlier this year that upheld portions of Indiana's HEA 1337], acknowledged that the Supreme Court will soon need to address the constitutionality of anti-discriminatory abortion prohibitions '[g]iven the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation.' He agreed, however, with the Court's decision to not take up the issue in that case 'because further percolation may assist [the Court's] review of this issue of first impression.' En banc review by this court would provide such percolation by inviting more judges to engage in discussion on this issue of exceptional importance. Accordingly, the Court should grant the petition."

Caption: Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
COPYRIGHT 2019 National Right to Life Committee, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Andrusko, Dave
Publication:National Right to Life News
Geographic Code:1U3OH
Date:Nov 1, 2019
Words:690
Previous Article:Micro-preemie born at 25 weeks goes home after 150 days in hospital.
Next Article:"I know we did the right thing"--Mom and dad reverse chemical abortion, rescue their unborn baby.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters