The following comes from a May 14 story on the Catholic News Agency website.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion rights advocate, says that the court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 was overreaching and became too big a “target” for pro-life supporters.
“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,” Ginsburg said in a talk May 11 at the University of Chicago Law School.
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to stop momentum on the side of change.”
Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993, has long been an outspoken supporter of legal abortion, and the comments made at the University of Chicago are the latest in a series of criticisms of Roe in recent years.
The event was a roughly 90-minute conversation, according to the Chicago Tribune, between Ginsburg and Edward H. Levi, a professor at the Law School, marking the 40th anniversary of the decision.
Ginsburg noted that in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, pro-life advocates have successfully introduced restrictions on abortion access in many states, and that cases related to abortion now focus on “restrictions to access, not expanding the rights of women.”
The decision in Roe v. Wade concerned the constitutionality of a Texas law that prohibited abortion except if it was considered necessary to save the mother’s life. The court’s decision attempted to balance women’s and doctors’ right to privacy with state interests in protecting women’s health and pre-born life.
Ginsburg said the decision “covered the waterfront” and finally rested more on physician’s rights to privacy than on “women’s rights.”
“It’s about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best. It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered,” she said.
Ginsburg would have preferred a narrower decision which struck down only the Texas law, rather than giving guidelines for abortion regulation by trimester, broadly legalizing the procedure. She considers that such “judicial restraint” would have allowed for a wider expansion of abortion access through legislative means.
“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process,” Ginsburg stated.
She indicated that she would prefer that the landmark ruling on abortion have been Struck v. Secretary of Defense. That case was decided was decided by an appellate court in 1972. It concerned an Air Force captain who became pregnant while serving in Vietnam.
The woman was faced with either leaving the military or having an abortion, but the case did not reach the Supreme Court because the Air Force changed its policy regarding pregnancy.
In that case, “the idea was: ‘Government … stay out of this,’” Ginsburg said. “I wish that would have been the first case. The court would have better understood this is a question of a woman’s choice.
Even were Roe overturned, in Ginsburg’s view, its effect is secure. “It’s not going to matter that much. Take the worst-case scenario … suppose the decision were overruled; you would have a number of states that would never go back to the way it was.”
The Supreme Court Justice’s comments come amid a legacy of anti-abortion legislation that Roe has encouraged in the last 40 years. In 2013 alone, two state legislatures have passed expansive anti-abortion laws.
Last March, North Dakota passed three pro-life bills. The new laws include bans on abortions performed after a fetal heartbeat is detectable – currently around 12 weeks – and bans on abortions that target the unborn child on the basis of sex or genetic abnormalities.
The same month, Arkansas legislators overrode a veto by the state governor, ensuring that in the state abortions will be banned after 12 weeks, also based on the detection of fetal heartbeat by ultrasound. A separate law in the state banned abortion after 20 weeks, the point at which the unborn can feel pain.
To read original story, click here.
For a non-religious, scientific web site on the net go to:
“ENDOWMENT for HUMAN DEVELOPMENT”.
Unborn babies start feeling pain at 8 weeks and 3 days, and start determining right or left hand dominance.
The fetus can also grasp an object, move the head forward and back, open and close the jaw, move the tongue, sigh, and stretch.
Nerve receptors in the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet can sense light touch.
In response to a light touch on the sole of the foot, the fetus will bend the hip and knee and may curl the toes.
Abp Gomez needs to change his personal public position when he recently stated that ILLEGAL Immigration is the biggest civil rights issue of today in the USA.
In case he has not noticed, the murder of approx. 1 MILLION babies each year still takes place in the USA. US tax dollars are paying for most of these abortions, and under Obama’s Administration US tax dollars are being used to support abortion in other Countries.
The MURDER of Innocent, Helpless babies is the #1 Civil Rights issue in the USA today.
Almost 54 MILLION US babies have been murdered since 1973. Most of these babies feel extreme pain when their limbs are torn off, or when burned with chemicals.
For accuracy – its 9 weeks and 3 day when –
“The fetus can also grasp an object, move the head forward and back, open and close the jaw, move the tongue, sigh, and stretch.
Nerve receptors in the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet can sense light touch.
In response to a light touch on the sole of the foot, the fetus will bend the hip and knee and may curl the toes. “
Ginsberg is cooking something up, and it will be more stench from Hell.
She supports a Woman’s Right to Choose.
Especially women “in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”.
(Quoted in quoted in Emily Bazelon, “The Place of Women on the Court”, The New York Times Magazine, July 7, 2009)
Pure EUGENICS – Let there not be too many of the unfit allowed to live. And I will decide who is fit and unfit.
This was the position of the founder of Planned Parenthood – Margaret Sanger.
This was the position of Adolph Hilter.
Rod, you have taken Justice Ginsburg’s quote out of context.
In the New York Times article which you quote, Ginsburg clearly supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. She goes on to say that she feared the original Roe vs. Wade ruling would set up a system in which poor and marginalized women (i.e: the “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”) would have a government coercing them into having abortions – which would defeat the whole purpose of choice, and, in her words: “would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them” IE: there was a danger that the government could sponsor a eugenics program.
Ginsburg clearly finds this upsetting. She explains in the next line that she the court upheld the Hyde Amendment forbidding the use of Medicaid funds for paying for abortion (Harris v. McRae) meaning the government has no legal or financial means of forcing the poor into abortion clinics. Therefore her original fears were no longer possible: “I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong”.
The whole discourse from which you quote is about how she is glad the government CAN’T force abortions on women “in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”.
The entire article can be found here:
Obama and his administration prove over and over that they do not care about the LAW, or the Hyde Amendment – which they ignore under Obamacare.
US tax dollars are used in the USA and other Countries for ABORTION, CONTRACEPTIVES, etc. Obama’s people tie Aid to poor Countries to a requirement that they offer these.
Obama’s ‘Fast and Furious’ – by his administration providing guns to Mexican Drug Lords has killed thousands.
The latest is Obama’s IRS illegal activities.
He fires no one because he approves or has ordered the activity, he just moves them around inside the government.
A Federal Law exists against partial birth abortions – and Obama’s Justice Dept has not prosecuted one case.
Obama allows his people to break laws or ignore laws with ZERO consequences of any significance when they get caught. (He never mentions putting guilty parties in JAIL.)
It’s not about the woman’s “right to choose,” nor about the doctor’s “right to practice medicine” — it about the child’s RIGHT TO LIVE.
This is why people like Scott Peterson get convicted for murdering two people: his wife, AND their unborn child.
If an unborn child gets Peterson convicted for murder, that says — or should say — the every unborn child had rights, especially the right to life.
Just looking at the face of that horrible woman give me goosebumps. She is pure evil.
America butchers a million babies a year. What more does she want?
More shame on Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg for saying, “It’s about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best. It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered,” she said.”
That is an outrageously evil lie. Abortion is centered on stopping the beating heart of a living human being. It is the murdering of the defenseless. Kermit Gosnell practiced his evil profession in the cruelest inhumane manner that he thought best.
“Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant – seven and a half months – when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could ‘walk me to the bus stop.’”
How long is God going to tolerate this mass murder?
Ginsberg is a minion of Satan. As are all who support the Democratic Party sacrament of abortion.
I find it rather curious that a pregnant woman( with licence to murder her unborn baby) may decide she will have an abortion because she feels she can’t support or provide for a child. By aborting, she is a exercising her right not to provide for the innocent one. However, she is not at liberty, through taxation, to deny food,clothing,shelter, medical care and education for illegal aliens and their progeny. Has this nation lost its right to exist?
Ginsburg, I would submit, resembles a Vatican gargoyle.
I would rather possess a similar level of physical appeal as the unfortunately unattractive Justice Ginsberg than spew hatred like Skai and Canisius.