Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?But if you think that's despicable, look at this:
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. 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.
You can by the DVD here.
8 comments:
Stunning.
Sanger would be smiling from Hell right now if she could.
On Hotair.com, Ed Morrissey wrote: "In that seven-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?"
The Left, the great defender of freedom, the great defender of the common man, the great defender of women and minorities, doesn't reserve its lack of value of human life for the unborn. They don't appear to value human life at all...except maybe their own. That was awkwardly worded, but I think you'll get my point.
Actually, I can't help but think that if Ginsburg's wishes or expectations HAD come to pass (many or most abortions being paid for by Medicaid), in the long run, it might have driven a lot more abortion providers OUT of business. How many abortionists do you think would be willing to wait 3-6 months or more to get paid for their "services" as many nursing homes, pharmacies, hospitals, private physicians, etc. do for Medicaid patients?
Paul, actually Justice Ginsburg seems to be summing up the talking points of the mostly Republican SCOTUS that ruled on Roe v Wade. The AMA successfully lobbied the GOP's support for decriminalization all through the 60's.
I'm not quite ready to give conservative racists a pass on this.
Nice try, Todd, but if they're supporting abortion, they're not conservative. Don't conflate the GOP in the 60s and 70s with conservatives.
I wasn't aware abortion is the litmus test for ideology. I've always been a liberal, and I've always opposed abortion. From my viewpoint, I'm not surprised conservatives broke up the US's moral position on abortion in the 60's. That's some legacy to live down, especially considering they've done so much in the past thirty years to put an end to it.
In my book, there's no such thing as a pro-choice conservative.
Conservatives are pro-life.
Post a Comment