As Twitchy told you earlier, Justice Clarence Thomas said what very few on the pro-abort side are willing to admit: that abortion has been and will continue to be “a tool of

eugenic manipulation.” Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist eugenicist and operates to this day to make Margaret Sanger’s disgusting, despicable vision a reality.

Note that Justice Kagan (and Breyer) apparently join the Court in upholding the IN fetal remains law. 7-2 (Ginsburg and Sotomayor). https://t.co/1RPR8TNHgS — Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) May 28, 2019

Also note that despite about 12 pages of Justice Thomas on Margaret Sanger and the racist/eugenicist roots of abortion, Justice Ginsburg does not respond to these points at all in her separate opinion. — Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) May 28, 2019

No surprise that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would choose to ignore Thomas’ points. She appears to be working to keep Sanger’s vision alive, herself. And she’ll play any semantic games she needs to in order to get the job done:

Good for Justice Ginsburg to succinctly call out Justice Thomas's misuse of nomenclature: "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'” — Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman) May 28, 2019

First of all, calling abortion a “constitutionally protected right” seems pretty disingenuous, particularly if you’re a Supreme Court justice. But setting that aside, what’s all this about a woman who aborts her unborn child not being a mother?

Yeah, but technically she is, so….not sure I agree with the venerable RBG on this one. — Tommy Buck (@tommybuck) May 28, 2019

Sorry for the pile-on, but… c'mon, man… of course, the woman is (was) a mother. It's understandable for her to want to deny it, and to deny that she was pregnant with a child, otherwise the natural post-abortion sadness would be crushing. — Mary Luigi (@MaryLuigi1919) May 28, 2019

Well, she was a mother. Before, you know, she killed her baby. https://t.co/JXQKcUjBiM — RBe (@RBPundit) May 28, 2019

She created a life. She reproduced. Of course she's a mother. Destroying your child doesn't change that fact. — The Green Pilot (@ZippedGreene17) May 28, 2019

Ridiculous. Of course she’s a mother. A woman who conceives a child is still a mother even if she has it murdered before it can be born. — Margarethe Bracey (@MargaretheBrac2) May 28, 2019

A woman who nurtures a child in her womb is already a mother, Marty. Abortion just makes her the mother of a dead child. https://t.co/uSaXlTvOsv — Marcus Atilius Regulus (@AtiliusMarcus) May 28, 2019

Oh please. Of course she is. A mother of a dead child, yes, but a mother nonetheless. That this makes people who support radical abortion laws uncomfortable and embarrassed is not an argument for denying reality. https://t.co/3sp1RWWEgQ — Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 28, 2019

Uh… yes she is. She is the mother of a dead child. Does reality make you uncomfortable? Perhaps you should reconsider your position. ? — Mississippi Dude (@ms39211) May 28, 2019

Perhaps you should.

I agree with you and Thomas, but from a position standpoint, can you be a mother if a fetus is just a clump of cells? Seems like Ginsburg is tacitly acknowledging that it's a human being, which undermines the abortion argument. — Justin Walton (@JustinRWalton) May 28, 2019

That’s interesting, isn’t it?

So case law requiring exceptions to protect the “life of the mother” are linguistic nonsense? — Jack Bristow (@JackBristow9802) May 28, 2019

So when @PPact says "dozens of countries protect the life and health of the mother," is that a "misuse of nomenclature"?https://t.co/BNzva63T0d — Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 28, 2019

Which is it, pro-aborts? You can’t have it both ways.