Justice Ginsburg advocates aborting the poor


Yesterday I posted on a recent essay by Obamacare architect, Ezekiel Emanuel, who claimed that he only intended to live until he was 75. He made a point of saying that he didn’t wish to inflict his vision on anyone else, but the metrics he laid out for continuing life are sadly widespread in a medical profession that has ceased to see its role as one of healing the sick and injured and rather one of deciding what is best for people and society. The old joke that says the difference between God and a doctor is that God doesn’t think He’s a doctor has truly come to represent the state of affairs.

Unfortunately, that mentality also permeates the legal profession.

Under our system of government Congress makes law and the courts see to the application of those laws. The judiciary is not only not a policy making body but is wildly unsuited by training and temperament to act as one. Take for instance the interview given by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Elle magazine:

Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?

Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.

The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…

When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.

Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Eliminating abortion is hardly a policy that “promote[s] birth only among poor people.” Even if that were the policy, Ginsburg’s views on its wisdom might be of interest to …read more    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *