Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

=== ''Box v. Planned Parenthood'' ===
In 2016, Indiana passed House Bill 1337, enacting a law which regulated what is done with fetal remains and banning abortion for sexist, racist, or [[Ableism|ableist]] purposes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Berry |first=Thomas |date=2016-08-01 |title=A contractarian approach to the ethics of genetic-selective abortion |url=https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/3/2/395/1751251 |journal=Journal of Law and the Biosciences |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=395–403 |doi=10.1093/jlb/lsw020 |issn=2053-9711|doi-access=free }}</ref> In its unsigned 2019 ruling for ''[[Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.]]'', the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulations about fetal remains, but declined to hear the remainder of the law, which had been blocked by lower courts.<ref>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-483 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.], ''oyez.org'', accessed January 13, 2022</ref> Justice Ginsburg dissented from the part of the ruling about fetal remains on the basis that the regulations violated ''Casey''.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf 18-483 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.], May 28. 2019, Opinion of Ginsburg, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part, pages 1–2 (pages 25–26 of the pdf)</ref> She also criticized Justice Thomas over his use of the word "mother" in his concurrence.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Snead |first=O. Carter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R-_zDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA294 |title=What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics |date=2020-10-13 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-98772-2 |at=footnote 146 on pages 294–295 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Sonia Sotomayor|Justice Sotomayor]] stated that she wished the Court would not have heard the case at all.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf 18-483 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.], May 28. 2019, Sotomayor, per curiam, page 4, (page 4 of the pdf)</ref> Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion which expressed concern that the theory presented in ''[[Freakonomics]]'' echoed the views of the [[eugenics]] movement.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf 18-483 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.], May 28. 2019, Opinion of Thomas, J., concurring, page 18 (page 22)</ref> He warned that "a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement". He predicted, "Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf 18-483 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.], May 28. 2019, Opinion of Thomas, J., concurring, pages 20–21 (pages 24–25)</ref>