Posted on 02/19/2015 7:01:38 AM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called state laws protecting the unborn in the U.S. a “crying shame.”
Ginsburg argued in an MSNBC interview Monday that abortion helps women, specifically poor women, and said that the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade is “the worst case” scenario.
Granting her status as “a champion of reproductive freedom,” the NBC network asked Ginsburg how “it feels” for her to look across the country, seeing “states passing restrictions that make it inaccessible if not technically illegal.”
“Inaccessible to poor women,” Ginsburg responded with a clarification. “It’s not true that it’s inaccessible to women of means. And that’s the crying shame.”
Numerous states have enacted laws in recent years regulating the abortion industry, either requiring that certain health standards be met to protect pregnant mothers, or recognizing fetal pain. The laws are regarded by the pro-abortion movement as an assault on so-called “reproductive rights.”
Ginsburg insisted that the country would not go back to the “old ways” of prohibiting abortion, but still decried the disparity in access to abortion between “women of means” and the poor.
“We will never see a day when women of means are not able to get a safe abortion in this country,” she continued. “There are states – take the worst case. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overruled. There will still be a number of states that will not go back to old ways.”
MSNBC questioned Ginsburg about legislative action closing abortion mills “creating barriers in front of women,” to which she persisted in the theme that inability to access abortion harms poor women.
“Yes, but who does that - who does that hurt? It hurts women who lack the means to go someplace else,” Ginsburg replied, continuing later, “But the situation with abortion right now, by all the restrictions, they operate against the woman who doesn’t have freedom to move, to go where she is able to get safely what she wants.”
Ginsburg said that overturning of Roe v. Wade could happen, but that it is unlikely.
“This court is highly precedent bound,” she said.
The Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade in the past, said Ginsburg, but the justices ruled in the 1992 Casey decision that they would not deviate from the previous precedent.
“They did more than that. They gave a reason, a rationale that was absent in Roe v. Wade itself,” she said.
Ginsburg went on to say that Roe v. Wade was as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession as he sees fit, and that this mistakenly put that on the par with women’s “reproductive rights.”
“The Casey decision recognized that this is not as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession,” she said. “But about a woman’s right to control her life destiny.”
Ginsburg’s statements echo remarks she made February 4 to a crowd of Georgetown law students, where she said they might have to fight to maintain legalized abortion for the poor given the new state laws regulating abortion.
A student asked her what can be done in response to the new laws.
"It will depend on women of your age if you care about this," Ginsburg said, according to National Law Journal. "There will never be a time when women of means won't have a choice," said Ginsburg, before again expounding on "the worst case scenario" of Roe v. Wade being overturned, saying that some states will still allow abortion, asserting again this will hurt poor women.
"A woman who can afford a plane ticket or a bus ticket will have a choice,” Ginsburg told the students. “Women who won't have that choice are poor women."
The “we will never go back” on abortion idea has been a recurring theme for Ginsburg, who has established a decidedly liberal track record in her two decades-plus on the high court.
In 2004, 13 Republican members of Congress wrote urging her to withdraw from rulings involving abortion, saying her involvement with the pro-abortion National Organization of Women Legal Defense and Education Fund disqualified her as an impartial arbiter in these cases.
Ginsburg has also said she won’t attend the annual Catholic Red Mass for lawmakers because she was once offended at a Red Mass by the pro-life homily.
Ginsburg faced some backlash in 2009 for statements echoing the eugenics component of the abortion movement.
“Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg had told the New York Times.
She later appeared to backpedal on the remarks.
Ginsburg officiated a homosexual “marriage” in August 2013, and then again in October of that year, and more recently she famously dissented against the majority of her peers in the 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.
Ginsburg is just another eugenicist like Sanger or Hitler who wants to exterminate whole classes of people.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
To me this is like arguing that laws against stealing are harmful to poor men.
The religious solution, “A Saint Joseph’s Aspirin held tightly between the knees” still works.
These foul folk really love to kill babies. It’s their biggest priority.
What a birdbrain. 60% of poor black babies are aborted in NYC. Not only that, their mothers are subjected to filthy abortion mills that cause death and misery.
Do libs ever read anything contrary to their way of thinking???
Let her keep talking. She’s making it clear that she views herself as a one-woman legislature, not a jurist. In her case, its better that she open her mouth and prove herself a zealot rather than keep it shut and just be thought of as a zealot.
Makes it more important for “POOR WOMEN” to be much more responsible when it comes to getting pregnant. Responsibility is a real bitch for liberal fools.
Stop paying poor women to have babies and an amazing drop in the birth rate among women in poverty will follow.
The form ACLU attorney is a radical leftist to the core.
INSANE!
“Ginsburg argued in an MSNBC interview Monday that abortion helps women, specifically poor women”
That is exactly what Sanger and the “progressives” want. It is their goal to control the growth of inferior peoples. Sanger wanted to use sterilization or birth control, Planned Parenthood through abortion. Modern liberals support large numbers of abortion clinics in the poorer and largely African American communities. They also have trapped them in ghettos through government dependency in a cycle of poverty.
“Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.
I hear if you drink enough, your conscious won’t bother you that much.
BJ Clinton must be so proud appointing this _____, rhymes with witch.
How old is Ginsburg? I suspect she’ll be joining Janet Reno for an “afterlife party” somewhere far to the south in a few years.
If your conscience is telling you that everything you believe is not only a lie, but evil,
you would drink a lot too.
Aren’t laws against infanticide (up to the age of say 18) also harmful to poor women?
The jihad against the unborn continues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.