Truth-Checking Clarence Thomas’ Truth-Checkers on Vaccines and Abortion

The mainstream media has tried to fact-check Justice Clarence Thomas, alleging that in a current Supreme Courtroom opinion he falsely claimed that COVID-19 vaccines partially had been developed utilizing aborted fetal cells.

Instantly, many of those fact-checkers themselves had been fact-checked as a result of they had been incorrect to say that Thomas himself made the declare.

In his June 30 opinion dissenting from the Supreme Courtroom’s refusal to listen to a non secular problem to vaccine mandates, nevertheless, Thomas merely was citing a declare made by one of many events to the case.

However that’s solely the beginning of what the fact-checkers acquired incorrect. Right here’s what occurred.

A gaggle of well being care employees in New York challenged Gov. Kathy Hochul’s mandate that they get COVID-19 vaccines. They objected on the grounds that the vaccines violate their non secular beliefs as a result of, as Thomas summarized in his opinion, the vaccines “had been developed utilizing cell traces derived from aborted youngsters.”

Two of the fact-checkers merely mischaracterized what Thomas wrote. Politico wrote that “[n]one of many vaccines in america comprise the cells of aborted fetus.” NBC Information mentioned that Thomas wrote that “all” COVID-19 vaccines “are made with cells from aborted youngsters.”

Neither the well being care employees nor Thomas mentioned any such factor.

Insider as an alternative quibbled with Thomas’ use of the phrase “developed,” saying that “[w]hile it’s true that fetal cell traces had been essential for creating and testing the efficacy of among the vaccines, not all of them required the usage of these cells all through improvement.”

That is hairsplitting.

It’s true that one of many three vaccines accepted within the U.S.—the Johnson & Johnson one—used “abortion-derived cell traces” through the design and manufacturing part. The opposite two vaccines—Moderna and Pfizer—used abortion-derived cells through the testing phrase. 

However that is all inappropriate.

Whether or not “improvement” encompasses design, manufacturing, and testing or simply the primary two components of that course of just isn’t what issues. What issues, and what Thomas wished the Supreme Courtroom to think about, was whether or not the well being care employees must be compelled to take these vaccines given their non secular objections to the use—at any stage—of abortion-derived cell traces.

To this, the fact-checkers responded by suggesting that the well being care employees mustn’t have ethical objections.

Politico famous that the apply of utilizing a cell line from abortion is “widespread in vaccine analysis.” Insider highlighted that researchers obtained the cell line from an elective abortion a few years in the past. It additionally reported that some pro-life organizations, together with the U.S. Convention of Catholic Bishops, have taken the place that the vaccines aren’t morally objectionable.

None of those arguments, nevertheless, refutes these well being care employees’ ethical objection to the vaccines. It isn’t for Politico, or Insider, or anybody else to resolve whether or not somebody has an ethical objection to a vaccine.

For the well being care employees on this case, the usage of abortion-derived cell traces in any a part of the event course of creates ethical issues. They can not, in good conscience, use merchandise which can be even tangentially associated to abortion. It is a private, ethical determination of the identical nature as, for instance, the choice to boycott merchandise from China’s Xinjiang area over the genocide of Uyghur Muslims.

The actual fact-checkers could quibble all they like with the definition of “improvement,” however whether or not somebody has an ethical objection to the usage of abortion-derived cell traces is a private query—and on this case, one that’s based mostly on the well being care employees’ sincerely held non secular beliefs.

Though it’s sadly true that aborted fetal tissue generally is utilized in analysis, as Politico claims, that doesn’t make it morally unobjectionable. This widespread use as an alternative speaks to how desensitized we now have grow to be to the horrors of abortion. Even when the abortion that produced the cell traces occurred years in the past, these cells are nonetheless the byproduct of an unborn baby’s violent demise.

As to how pro-life sources have characterised the obtainable COVID-19 vaccines, it’s not correct to say that they’re free from ethical controversy.

Sure, the U.S. Convention of Catholic Bishops says that in these extraordinary circumstances, it’s morally acceptable for Catholics to take some COVID-19 vaccines. However the bishops go on to say that “we must be on guard in order that the brand new COVID-19 vaccines don’t desensitize us or weaken our willpower to oppose the evil of abortion itself and the next use of fetal cells in analysis.”

The U.S. Convention of Catholic Bishops, furthermore, doesn’t converse for everybody who could have an ethical objection to utilizing abortion-derived cell traces in medical analysis. Neither does another group.

So, what precisely was incorrect with Thomas’ opinion?

Nothing, besides that the justice dedicated what our left-wing media considers a mortal sin: He compelled media retailers to keep in mind that some People don’t share their view of morality.

Have an opinion about this text? To hold forth, please e mail [email protected] and we’ll think about publishing your edited remarks in our common “We Hear You” characteristic. Keep in mind to incorporate the url or headline of the article plus your identify and city and/or state.