Former ACLU attorney and current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at Princeton over a week ago, on October 21, and I’m not surprised pro-abort bloggers have steered clear of discussing it. Read The Daily Princetonian’s account to know why:

When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman’s right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by “how far the court had gone [in this decision].”

ginsburg at princeton.jpg

“It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional” without broadening the decision to the 50 states.
Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a “perfect rallying point” for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman’s choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures….

“I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman’s choice, but the court should not have done it all,” she said.
She added that in the absence of a sweeping decision like Roe, it is possible that abortion rights legislation would have evolved organically in the same way that no-fault divorce laws have.

Princeton’s weekly newspaper, Town Topics, reported (click to enlarge):
ginsburg princeton.jpg
Ginsburg was saying the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The decision was too sudden, too sweeping, too jarring, creating the pro-life movement in backlash, when Ginsburg believes states left alone would have eventually created their own pro-abortion laws sans all the protests and palpable social upheaval.
The same ends would have been achieved without the war.
So here we have the preeminent pro-abortion Supreme saying Roe was wrongly decided. Ouch. What does this mean for Obama, should he be elected president? He has stated he would nominate someone like Ginsburg. What does this mean for the Democrat-controlled Senate? Would it allow the nomination of a liberal like Ginsburg who thinks the Roe decision was wrong?
No wonder the other side stands so strongly now on the principle of stare decisis, i.e., precedent, or leaving settled laws like Roe alone, even if bad, because overturning them would create too much societal chaos.
But Ginsburg was specifically saying that in this case it was the original decision that created the chaos. That’s a major problem for the other side.
[HT:; photo courtesy of The Daily Princetonian]