UPDATE, 7/12, 7:15a: Here’s more insight on Ginsburg’s comments by Wesley Smith at First Things, including the fact some of her comments were views on abortion policy, which as a Supreme Court justice she shouldn’t express.
_______________
I’ve been reading and rereading Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s interview in The New York Times Magazine, upcoming in hard copy this Sunday but published online July 7. This part I understood:
ginsburg nyt.jpg

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
Ginsburg: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Ginsburg was saying that with or without Roe, women “of means” did and will have access to abortion due to the financial ability to get themselves to states where it was and will be legal. (And even if illegal they have had and would have access.) Roe is about making abortion available to “poor women.”
This part I had trouble with…

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.]
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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Bloggers have been jumping on the underlined section to say Ginsburg explicitly supports eugenics. But my read is she was just “frankly” repeating her understanding of the thought behind Roe. Those who have studied the history of eugenics in the U.S. and/or watched the recently released documentary, Maafa 21, know her observation was correct.
I think Ed Morrisey at HotAir.com correctly deciphered Ginsburg’s statement:

So Ginsburg thought the court wanted a method of eugenics that the government could use to reduce growth in certain… populations… that we didn’t want expanding? No wonder she has occasionally admitted that Roe was a bad decision.
Bear in mind, too, that this explanation strongly implies that she held that view not just until she could get clarification by reading the decision or talking with the justices…. [I]t wasn’t until 1980, which is when the Supreme Court decided McRae, that Ginsburg realized it didn’t have anything to do with allowing the government a mechanism to practice eugenics.
In that 7-year period, did Ginsburg use her considerable clout to argue against Roe, if that’s what she believed, or for that matter, against government funding of abortions? If not, shouldn’t we surmise from that silence that either (a) Ginsburg had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program, or (b) that she was willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe for the access to abortion?

I don’t know the politics or players behind the SC decision to uphold the Hyde Amendment. Despite that decision, I know eugenics was behind legalizing abortion.
And it still is. Recall pro-abort passion for Obama’s universal health care plan. This is to subsidize eugenic abortions for the poor who don’t have insurance coverage and can’t afford to pay for abortion out-of-pocket.
The fact that the abortion industry has not been able to raise prices in 35 years, as Mark Crutcher has pointed out, also testifies to its target market – the poor and minorities – and is another reason pro-aborts are pushing so hard for universal abortion coverage: to raise prices.
Returning to Ginsburg’s comments:

Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
Ginsburg: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion – like a waiting period – that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
Ginsburg: I’m not a big fan of these tests…. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.

Ginsburg was stating here that she opposes state laws restricting abortions, which the Supremes have upheld. She was “too optimistic in the early days” that legalizing abortion nationwide via Roe would settle the matter. It hasn’t. But she thinks the MAP will moot the need for abortion, which will then moot the need to overturn Roe. Interesting. But she’s buying into the ruse that making contraceptives more widely available will decrease abortions. Rather, this has the opposite effect.
One last point, and a very interesting one. Ginsburg in fact considers Roe sexist!

Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
Ginsburg: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...