I don’t normally do political commentaries, however, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments to the New York Times were too appalling and outrageous for me to ignore. (For the original interview, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all). Consider some of her more shocking statements as reported in the New York Times interview:
Q: The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
(Emphasis mine)
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE 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.
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?
JUSTICE 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.
(Emphasis mine) 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.
______________
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
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.
(Emphasis mine)
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.” (Emphasis mine) I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE 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.
I was offended and alarmed by Justice Ginsburg’s comments. They echo the policies of Hitler in World War II. What’s next, blanket mandatory, and involuntary euthanasia—the duty to die for the good of the state? Ethnic cleansing?
As a person with a disability, I probably fall into category of “populations that we don’t want too many of.” Exactly who are these “populations”? Are they people? Or are they just blobs of unwanted tissue that take away from resources needed by the “healthy and productive” population? How many of these people are too many? Who decides, and on what criteria?
When ethnic cleaning and the termination of the old, feeble or disabled occurs in other countries, we are infuriated at such injustice and send a coalition of international troops to stop such atrocities. However, when it happens in our own backyard, we remain strangely silent and passive.
Ironically, the US ignored the New York Times story. Only when newspapers in other countries such as the UK broadcast the story did anyone begin to take notice. Yet, even now in the US, many remain ignorant of Justice Ginsburg’s egregious comments. Justice Ginsburg has the right to her opinion, as odious as it may be to me. However, Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret the law according to the constitution, not re-interpret it according to their own agendas, or use it to make new law.
Woefully, the Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:1-2 seems to be happening:
“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. 2 These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. (Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004)
Contrary to the mindset of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there is no one who is expendable to God. Psalm 139:13-17 proclaims the truth of the matter:
“For you fashioned my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I thank you because I am awesomely made, wonderfully; your works are wonders —I know this very well. 15 My bones were not hidden from you when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes could see me as an embryo, but in your book all my days were already written; my days had been shaped before any of them existed. 17 God, how I prize your thoughts! How many of them there are! (Complete Jewish Bible, copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern)
Dear God, I pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well as the other present and future members of the Supreme Court. Open their eyes and ears so that they will understand and embrace Your truth. I pray this also for the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. May they make decisions that will protect and preserve human life, in spite of the political consequences. Draw them to You, and set them free with Your truth.
Treasures in Darkness--Riches in Secret Places 
3 comments
July 12, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Peter
Ginsburg’s perceives that Roe v Wade was given at the time “particularly [out of concern for the] growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” The eugenics heritage of Margaret Sanger and her Planned Parenthood organization would certainly seem to confirm Ginsburg’s perception. But does Ginsburg criticize eugenics where she finds it in Roe? Certainly not in the quotes you have given above; indeed her support of abortion would seem contrary to criticism of eugenics. That eugenics in the abortion industry has NOT long been a vocal concern of the media and various power centers is, I think, telling.
In the quotes you provide, Ginsburg also criticizes the paternalistic (may I call it that?) “shield[ing of women] from knowing the specifics of what they’d done” (referring to Gonzales v. Carhart) lest they regret “the choice to have an abortion.” Ginsburg favors full disclosure because women are “fully autonomous.”
Here we have two cases, eugenics and abortion, where disclosure of the facts is at issue. The eugenics side of abortion has long been known, but largely ignored or down-played. The guilt-inducing side of abortion has also been known, but attempts are made to hide facts that might lead to guilt (… and possibly to a reduction in abortion numbers).
There are those in the pro-life movement who have argued, ironically with Ginsburg, in favor of greater disclosure of the facts, and indeed the goal sounds worthy to me as well.
But as one who finds eugenics and abortion so transparently repulsive morally, I find both in non-disclosure a tacit confession of wrong doing and in disclosure without proper action a hardness of heart that the facts themselves are powerless to change.
Our leaders may lead us into sin, but once so led, we are complicit. Seemingly only God can grant us a profound grasp of the obvious. And may God help us indeed.
July 14, 2009 at 1:29 AM
dancingonmyknees
Thank you for your very perceptive comments. They are on target.
August 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Suzanne Tucker
I finally discovered how to leave a comment…I am a little slow sometimes with learning new things on the computer. However, I really have enjoyed your writings. As you talk about God’s majesty, my heart was touched. I have to believe that more and more, as we see things like the last article arise…and the new health care bill being considered…and the way things in our nation have turned…that more and more we will need the comfort of God and to see Him even in the midst of circumstances.
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your heart and your life. You have much to share with us. I am always grateful when you do.
I love you, Suzanne