Right to the end of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarkable life, she held tight to an illogical delusion that there is no “mother” and no “child” in any pregnancy.
In Box v Planned Parenthood (May 28, 2019), Justice Ginsburg criticized Justice Clarence Thomas for using the term “mother” in regard to a pregnancy. She wrote:
“…a woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother.’ ”
Once the contents of a pregnant woman’s womb are depersonalized as the woman’s “property”, it is easy to argue, erroneously, that her ownership and disposal rights over her “property” are constitutionally protected.
Fortuitously then, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a constitutional law authority who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, is ideally placed and superbly qualified to correct Justice Ginsberg’s monumental mistake.
In addition to Justice Barrett’s expertise in constitutional law, she has, as a mother of seven, also the common sense to be able to re-establish at the Supreme Court the basic truth that to be pregnant is to carry a human being at the embryonic or foetal stage of life. Science can identify this human being as a daughter or a son — the child of a mother whose relationship to her child in utero can be established empirically and whose father can be verified through prenatal testing.
….The extreme ideological nature of Justice Ginsburg’s activism was revealed in her dissent in the Gonzalez v Carhart (2007) decision. She wrote that any restriction on partial-birth abortion was an “alarming” interference with a woman’s “control over her destiny” and her right to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation”.
Five years ago, in a candid interview, she asserted:
“I had great good fortune in my life to be alive and have the skills of a lawyer when the women’s movement was revived in the United States. And I think my attitude, my aspirations have not changed since the ’70s.”
…Ironically, in a speech (May 11, 2013), she criticized Roe v Wade for being “about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best… It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered.”
The more significant truth escaped Justice Ginzburg: it was also not child-centered.
On “The Rachel Maddow Show” (February 16, 2015), Justice Ginsburg pontificated ex cathedra on Roe v. Wade:
“… the image was the doctor and a little woman standing together. We never saw the woman alone. The Casey decision recognized that this is not as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession, but about a woman’s right to control her life destiny.”
In the Supreme Court progressives’ abortion cases since Roe, we were never allowed to see the tiny child victim targeted for “safe” extermination….
Hence Justice Ginsburg’s misguided dogma that pregnant women are not mothers and that their pregnancies are childless will remain an unfortunate aberration in the brilliant career of an extraordinary woman.
It seems only right that another woman with a brilliant career should set that old 1970s error straight.
Good on you, Justice Barrett!
The above comes from a Sept. 28 story on Mercator.net (Australia).