What must pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg be thinking? She’s done everything humanly possible, going back years before she came on to the High Court in 1993, to promote abortion now, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever.
If that weren’t enough, she keeps alive the eugenic legacy of so many abortion defenders–that “those people” shouldn’t be having “too many” children. She has gone the extra ten miles.
Her reward?
An incessant clamor (which she continues to ignore) among the Abortion Lobby and its academic defenders that she step down in time for President Obama to appoint a replacement for the 81-year-old Ginsburg.
We’ve written about this the last two days [nrlc.cc/1pgzzjQ and nrlc.cc/1pgzEnr]. I thought her many pro-abortion admirers in the zanier precincts of the Abortion Blogosphere would continue to back her up.
And they largely did, until she made (to them) the unforgiveable faux pas captured in the headline of piece written for RhRealtyCheck by Jessica Mason Pieklo: “Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg Falls Into the Trap of Abortion Stigma.”
This sounds pretty ominous.
If there is a common denominator to so much of what comes out of the Pro-Abortion Commentariat is that nary a discouraging word can ever be said about abortion.
Their posture on this has long since passed by the notion of abortion as “safe, legal and rare.” Indeed, they consider that an insult, a playing-into-the-hands of pro-lifers. Why, exactly? It’s that notion that abortion should be “rare.”
Rare suggests (they correctly conclude) that abortion is something to be avoided, not celebrated; to be kept to a minimum, not promoted worldwide; to be subject to moral evaluation, rather than be free of any ”taint” of “judgmentalism.”
That’s why it’s essential that abortion be “integrated” into real medicine. That’s why killing your unborn child must be videotaped and broadcasted on YouTube. That’s why abortion, the ultimate abandonment of parental responsibility, must be made into a joke and re-interpreted as a stop along the way to adulthood.
So what caused Justice Ginsburg’s fall from grace? Here’s the quote from the excerpt of the interview that she gave Elle magazine. Ginsburg said
“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.”
Okay, even a fairly hard-core pro-abortionist might be scratching their head on this one. What so annoyed Jessica Mason Pieklo?
Ginsburg was, she wrote, “reinforcing abortion stigma” with a “disclaimer that neither her daughter nor her granddaughter have had abortions. How does she know? And so what if they have?”
She goes on
“By being quick to explain that despite having the privilege to access an abortion neither her daughter nor her granddaughter have done so, Justice Ginsburg reinforces the false notion that ‘other people’ have abortions. It’s exactly this kind of thinking that allows abortion specifically, and reproductive health care generally, to be seen as something ‘other’ to health care.”
What do you say to people who think like this, who demand allegiance so absolute it makes your jaw drop?
How about, for starters, that Ginsburg thought it was not her role to tell the world if her daughters had experienced an abortion? That they had a “right to privacy,” too.
To which Pieklo would, no doubt ,this is exactly the problem. Ginsburg should have told Elle magazine (and therefore the world) if her children had an abortion—and if they hadn’t, she shouldn’t have brought it up lest anyone think abortion is not a good thing, not something every mother should want for her daughters.
Privacy has its limits to the crowd at places like RhRealtyCheck. Better that every woman “tell her story.” If that story is one of pain and hurt and disillusionment and longing for that lost child, well those can best be deposited in the circular file.
I honestly wonder—and I am not saying this for effect—how long before the Jessica Mason Pieklos of this world not so subtly suggest that in the interests of pro-abortion feminist solidarity, women ought to have at least one abortion?
How can they know (the reasoning would go) what women have gone through—especially the “stigma”—unless they have voluntarily taken one for the team, so to speak? After all, in an abortion, there is nothing “there.” But even if there was, female “empowerment” requires that they strike at the heart of the patriarchy, which in the bizarre world they live in means offing their own children.
Five years ago when Ginsburg stepped on her tongue (i.e., told the truth), the reporter who had written the story where Ginsburg’s eugenic views shone through clearly gave her a chance to revise and extend her remarks.
I am completely confident Elle (or some other equally in-the-tank-for-Ginsburg publication) will give her a chance to “clarify” her remarks.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
