As a woman and a human, I don't think we need two sets of rights. Or is she saying women are not human?
"...who would not advance human rights or women's rights
As a woman and a human, I don't think we need two sets of rights. Or is she saying women are not human?"
No, I think she's saying men are not.
Obviously, when it comes to abortion, she's of the position that men are utterly unimportant, worthless and powerless bystanders to women's "rights."
Seemingly, it's not enough for her that GWB nominate a woman (which, as I've argued before, I consider sexist on the face of it) - to please her, he must nominate a liberal, and preferably hideously UGLY woman. Then Ruthie wouldn't feel so lonely at nights, as she scours the arcane laws of outer Mongolia, looking for some justification for further subverting the U.S. constitution.
"As a woman and a human, I don't think we need two sets of rights.",
I've always wondered about this: I'm a woman, too, and why do I need a separate set of rights? I have human rights, and I have all of the freedoms bestowed by God - so why does my womanhood give me more rights? Oh, I get it: I was a "victim" so now I have, what's Spectre's phrase, "super-duper" rights? Ginsberg is another old 60s leftist hippie loon. Fade away, Ruth; go back to the ACLU (All Criminals Love Us).