dead babies so much they do their best to make more of them.
Posted on 09/11/2014 12:01:47 PM PDT by wagglebee
It seems as if every few months pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives a speech and/or interview in which she talks about how if only the Supreme Court had reached the same decision it did in Roe but over time, step by step, “the public would have reacted in a more positive way than it did,” as she told Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan this week.
This is what I have previously described as the “tempo” argument. Justice Ginsburg has not a single pro-life metacarpal in her body, but she often argues that it would have placed the “right” to abortion on surer footing if instead of getting everything in one fell swoop (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), abortion litigants had won more gradually.
She recycled her argument that Roe/Doe crystallized the Pro-Life Movement by establishing a “target.” Ginsburg told Filipovic
“Roe v. Wade, that case name is probably the best-known case of the second half of the 20th century. And a movement focused on ending access to abortion for women grew up, flourished, around that one target. Nine unelected judges decided that one issue for the nation.”
Last year, in a speech, Ginsburg remarked, “And that’s not the way the Court ordinarily operates.”
Likewise her concurrence, expressed many times before, that the Texas law at issue in Roe should have been overturned. It’s not a “what” for her but a “how.” And Ginsburg reiterated that she had problems with the “how.” Filipovic writes
“the court’s decision to issue a sweeping judgment establishing the right to abortion in all 50 states was a strategically poor one and led to modern-day political battles over reproductive rights.
“’There might have been a backlash in any case,’ Ginsburg said. ‘But I think [because of Roe] it took on steam.’”
To be sure it’s Filipovic paraphrasing Justice Ginsburg, but shouldn’t it be unsettling that a Supreme Court decision would be judged on whether it was a ‘strategically’ smart one or not?
We all understand that Justice Blackmun’s turgid opinion was steeped in politics. So, too, with the lawyers that brought the case to the Supreme Court. As we posted the other day, the central claims in a law review article written by Cyril Means that Blackmun relied on so heavily were not true, as David Tundermann, a Yale law student and part of the team challenging the Texas law, warned in 1971.
We quoted scholar Justin Dyer who wrote that Tundermann concluded
”Where the important thing to do is to win the case no matter how, however, I suppose I agree with Means’s technique: begin with a scholarly attempt at historical research; if it doesn’t work out, fudge it as necessary; write a piece so long that others will read only your introduction and conclusion; then keep citing it until the courts begin picking it up. This preserves the guise of impartial scholarship while advancing the proper ideological goals.”
So it is only appropriate to talk about politics and how Roe was a “strategically poor decision.”
In response to a question, Ginsburg reaffirmed what she had said at her 1993 confirmation hearing. “A woman’s control of her own body, her choice whether and when to reproduce, it’s essential to women and it’s most basic for women’s health.” The “health” of the unborn child is not even worth mentioning, even if only to deny its significance.
And like many older pro-abortion feminists, “Ginsburg worries that young women are complacent about their rights.” No, they are abortion “survivors” who have grown up in an era when the visibility of their unborn sisters and brothers is more evident each and every day.
As a final touch Ginsburg caricatures the “Hobby Lobby” decision to the point of absurdity. As NRLC pointed out last July, the ruling provided a modest victory for religious conscience rights but did nothing to truly correct any of the major abortion-expanding problems created by Obamacare.
But in Ginsburg’s hands, the decision could portend the day that companies can claim “they wouldn’t hire a woman without the permission of her husband or father, if that’s what their religion dictates.”
Does anyone believe that, even Ginsburg? Of course not, although this kind of reductio ad absurdum argument was essential to the dissent of four justices.
A much more realistic future scenario would start with the fact that what was at issue in Hobby Lobby was the attempt by Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services to force family-owned for-profit corporations to directly purchase health insurance covering certain drugs and devices that violate the employer’s religious and moral beliefs.
What would prevent HHS from issuing a further expansion of its “preventive services” mandate to require that most employers also provide coverage for surgical abortions, or for doctor-prescribed suicide, that would be just as expansive as the contraceptive mandate?
Ginsburg’s final observation is extremely telling. Filipovic writes
“Roe, she said, could serve as a lesson in how the judiciary is vulnerable to accusations that they lack accountability, and how perhaps more can be accomplished — and accomplished more calmly — incrementally, even in the social justice realm.
“’You give it to them softly,’ Ginsburg said. ‘And you build them up to what you want.’”
So….”accountability” for the ‘nine unelected justices” is when you snooker the public by obtaining the verdict you wanted all along, but doing so “softly.”
Now that, even by pro-abortion standards, is cynical.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.
Seems they learned their lesson.
It is why gay marriage is being crammed down our pieholes on the bologna slice program.
A typical response from a person devoid of scientific knowledge. In physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The same can be said for actions in the social realm.
She reminds me of Margaret Sanger.
God, I hope this unbearable Harpy hangs on to her mortal coil until February 2017 so President Cruz can replace her with a new Justice like Thomas. Even better some staunch Conservatives who have NOT spent their entire lives in the Judiciary.
Reminds me a bit of an old saying..."first they came for the Jews,but I did nothing because I'm not Jewish".
What an utterly amoral piece of excrement this pig is.
I lament that Ginsberg’s mother apparently did not have a choice and spawned this evil wench anyway.
**************************
Then you side with Ginsburg.
How exactly do you “step by step” get people to agree that killing unborn children is acceptable? Is that what the Nazi’s did/should have done when they killed Jews?
Thank God we do not all think like her.
She (and the Democrats) think the Bill of Rights is an amorphous charter of social rights that perversely empowers the state to use force to coerce the citizenry into following lunatic, leftist immorality instead of a political charter that restricts the state’s power.
She believes work means freedom also I bet.
She celebrates it daily, probably tortures baby dolls before bed
I wonder if she feels the same about the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews....If only they’d done it more gradually people would have been more accepting. That darn Himmler...always in such a hurry, right, Ruthie?
To wake the people and fill them with resolve never bodes well for stealthy killers. Look how fast our education system has wiped out the memory of 911 and how they have fought to end any resolve among our youth.
When liberals tell the truth they expose their true nature; their intent to slip in with stealth and deal the fatal wound inch by inch.
Look no farther than our Public(indoctrination) education system to see the slow steady erosion of our love of freedom.
If Ruthee and her bunch would quit making social policy from the bench and leave it to the Legislative Branch where it belongs, we wouldn’t have such an active Pro-Life OR Pro-Death crowd.
She is a Fabian socialist, as are most Democrats. A tortoise is the symbol of Fabian Society, representing its goal of the gradual expansion of socialism.
Why are liberals so loudly FOR murdering innocent babies but so loudly AGAINST murdering the enemies of our country?
Perfect example of an activist judge thinking her job is to make law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.