FAIRFAX COUNTY (LifeSiteNews) — A judge presiding over a custody dispute involving frozen embryos drew a chilling parallel to the days of slavery in his deliberations, inadvertently highlighting the dark history of legally devaluing human life.
Newsmax reports that the case concerns Honeyhline Heidemann, who wants to implant frozen embryos created with her ex-husband, Jason Heidemann, who objects on the grounds that it “would force [him] to procreate against his wishes and therefore violate his constitutional right to procreational autonomy.”
Mrs. Heidemann contends that implantation is her only means of having children because cancer treatments left her infertile, her ex-husband would not be obligated to parent the children, and that the couple had agreed in writing that the embryos were “property” to be dispensed through the separation process.
This week, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Richard Gardiner issued a preliminary opinion on one of the arguments. Though initially siding with the ex-husband, Gardiner was persuaded by the ex-wife’s argument that a Civil War-era law governing the division of “goods and chattels” had once applied to human slaves. “As there is no prohibition on the sale of human embryos, they may be valued and sold, and thus may be considered ‘goods or chattels,’” he said.
UPDATE (03/07/23): Walgreens won’t dispense abortion pills in 20 states
The pressure is paying off. Walgreens’ plan to dispense abortion pills nationwide is now in tatters, with the pharmaceutical giant announcing that it won’t mail the pills to, or sell them within, 20 states.
The news comes after 20 Republican attorneys general warned CVS and Walgreens that doing so would be in violation of federal law and that they were opening themselves to penalties.
But we can’t rest on our laurels with this boycott: Walgreens and CVS will only listen to us when their profits are threatened — we need a HUGE boycott so that blood money they get from selling abortion pills is dwarfed by the profits they lose when pro-life America shops elsewhere.
Even Politico admitted in its reporting that “pressure” from pro-life voters like you helped change Walgreens’ plans, so now we’re asking you to take the next step: simply share this petition with your friends and ask them to join the boycott.
Thank you!
———————————————
Walgreens and CVS will begin selling mifepristone — a powerful chemical that kills unborn children in the womb — if pro-life America does not ACT NOW.
Pro-life Americans MUST STOP the widespread sale and distribution of mifepristone by sending a message that only big-box stores will understand: A NATIONAL BOYCOTT OF WALGREENS AND CVS.
Walgreens and CVS are the newest back-door channels for the pro-abortion movement, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade.
Will you act now to STOP abortion drugs from reaching your pharmacy?
Our work in the pro-life movement is FAR from over, especially now that Walgreens and CVS have chosen to push deadly drugs in their stores and in our communities!
SIGN and SEND a message to Walgreens and CVS! This is completely unacceptable!
We must stop abortion from reaching our pharmacies and stop the abortion industry from poisoning our communities — before it’s too late.
These big-box stores respond only to profit. The pro-life movement must enact a national boycott if the abortion industry dares flood our neighborhoods!
SIGN and SEND a strong message to Walgreens and CVS: unless they immediately reverse course, the entire pro-life movement will BOYCOTT their stores!
SIGN NOW and send a clear message!
MORE INFORMATION:
CVS & Walgreens announce plans to dispense abortion pills after Biden FDA loosens restrictions
The judge’s opinion was “repulsive” and “morally repugnant” according to Susan Crockin of Georgetown University’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics, and troubling and baffling according to Old Dominion Bar Association president Solomon Ashby.
Still, the opinion highlights a historical connection between legal abortion and legal slavery, the parallels between which extend well beyond the obvious.
Both practices denied the equality and humanity of an entire class of people in order to violate their fundamental rights (slaves on the basis of race; the preborn on the basis of developmental stage); both were sustained by intensely controversial Supreme Court rulings (Roe v. Wade; Dred Scott v. Sandford); and both even rested on similar arguments about personal freedom, America’s founding principles, and human progress.
The case also highlights the ethical perils of embryo-freezing and in-vitro fertilization, through which scores of “excess” embryonic humans are conceived only to be killed and human lives are treated like commodities to be bartered over.