Joe Biden’s solicitor general dismissed adoption as a viable alternative to abortion last week in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The solicitor general made the case that the so-called right to abortion keeps a woman from having “a child out in the world.”
Life News reports:
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.
The National Review’s report notes:
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.
Life News adds:
[Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney] 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.”