In an interview published in the NY Times (which Father Z calls “Hell’s Bible”), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the legal issues surrounding Roe v. Wade and says candidly that Roe was presumed to be a solution to reducing unwanted populations:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
This admitted presumption flies in the face of insistence by pro-“choice” activists and speakers (including posters in web fora) that eugenics has never been part of a Planned Parenthood or pro-choice agenda. Ladies and gentlemen: Here it is: in the Justice’s own words: Roe was anticipated to be a means of resolving the problem of grown in undesirable populations.
The interview continues:
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.
What Ginsburg doesn’t seem to realize, for all her feminist liberal cant opposing restrictions on abortion, is that her highly-educated opinion is still condescending toward poorer women. She seems oblivious to the fact that abortion services providers have a product to sell, and the sales job can put the “medical” staff in a conflict of interest with or against their patient’s earnest desires and best interests. She seems to suggest that it’s okay for a woman to be manipulated by a clinic doctor, but it’s not okay for her to be limited in her choices by the state.
Apparently it’s okay, also, for the same woman to be manipulated and exploited by a feminist agenda.