Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Change Basis for Allowing Abortions to Slavery Amdt

LifeNews.com ^ | September 3, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Change Basis for Allowing Abortions to Slavery Amdt

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

[GOP Poet]

unbelievable

[Libertina]

I just had a bad, non-Christian thought... All I will say now is that I hope this horrible human being retires soon.

[pabianice]

Alzheimer’s is sad, no matter who it happens to.

[MississippiMan]

Who remembers her nomination ceremony, in which Clinton ridiculed and lambasted Brit Hume for daring to ask a serious question about her and then the rest of the press corp applauded?

MM

[Mrs.Z]

Now I understand Obama’s reference to the “burden” of a child.

He thinks it’s slavery (does Michelle know this?)

[trisham]

Ginsburg: an example of one of the most important reasons to keep Obama out of the White House.

Vote McCain-Palin!

[Juan Medén]

Now child-bearing is slavery — geez. This is a practice in search of a constitutional base. How about the anti-second ammendment — the right not to bear arms, or legs, or heads . . . ?

[thulldud]

Apparently, any familial responsibility for another person is “slavery” (unless you’re the dad, of course!)

[CharlesWayneCT]

She is an idiot.

The draft was constitutional. But it is a requirement that people give up years of their life to to a task they didn’t choose on their own. The draft is a lot like slavery.

On the other hand, a woman chooses to engage in the act which makes her pregnant, and in this day and age also chooses whether that act WILL make her pregnant.

Having chosen, she can hardly call it “slavery” to be required to take responsibility for the human being she has volunteered to be responsible for by her actions.

If the mother doesn’t want to be responsible for the child, the mother should make sure her body doesn’t pick up the child and attach it to her womb.

Once the mother has taken that responsibility for the child, it’s no different than if you stop on the side of the road and pick up someone who is injured.

You may have a right to drive on and not help an injured person. You may have a right to ignore a person in need knocking at your door.

But if you stop and pick them up, if you open the door and let them in, you have accepted responsibility, and do not have the right to then kill them because you find them inconvenient.

[El Cid]

Geeze, for a moment there a thought Ms. Ginsburg might have had a cognizant thought, and she was going to state that unborn children should be recognized as human beings - and not property/cattle - and thus the analogy to anti-slavery laws....
But to twist it that the mother is a 'slave' because she is carrying a child - and thus to provide her freedom she must be 'free' to kill the child ... that is one depraved judge we have sitting on our highest court...

[polymuser]

I wonder what her children Jane and James think of this. Will they wear a ball and chain at Thanksgiving dinner?

[A_Former_Democrat]

“Affirmative action” appointee at her judicial finest.

Some scholar. More of the same mindset in a NObomba Administration.

[JimC214]

She’s right about one thing. There is no right to privacy written in the Constitution. She’s afraid that a Supreme Court that actually reads and follows the Constitution will over turn Roe.

[mrmargaritaville]

yeah this is odd-she must not have been able to figure out how to “protect” abortion using some twisted logic based on the Interstate Commerce Clause-the left’s standard “catch all”

[twigs]

I think she’s responding to more and more criticisms about the basis of the Roe vs. Wade decision. She doesn’t want it overturned in the future and is trying to wed it to the constitution. And with the anti-life hatred sweeping so much of the country, she could be successful.

[CondorFlight]

For radical feminists, having children turns women into ‘slaves’.

Therefore, they should eschew motherhood and being wives (another form of slavery), and live unattached.

Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple and other works,
has refused to speak to her own daughter since she had a child of her own. (Because, of course, her daughter
embraces the idea of motherhood.)

[Joe Boucher]

And do those republicans who voted for this pos understand how bad that vote was?
NOOO they don’t, RINO turds

And we’re not supposed to question or assault these justices?
This baby murderer should be stoned in the public square.

[NativeNewYorker]

“Our government has a policy that there is no Medicaid reimbursement for abortion, that there is for childbirth. I think that the concentration really should be at the legislative level, in the states, and in Congress, assuming the composition of Congress will continue to change, as it has recently,” she said.

“It has to be much more than the bare right of a woman of means to obtain an abortion,” she concluded.

Legislating FISCAL policy, not just abortion policy, from the bench. Subtle.

[Arkinsaw]

That would be ironic, the amendments that provided personhood and individual rights for the oppressed turned around and used to eliminate personhood. They would be 0/10ths of a person.