Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of' CNSNews | July 10, 2009
By Christopher Neefus
(CNSNews.com) – In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York
Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she
thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated
on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we
don’t want to have too many of.”
In the 90-minute interview in Ginsburg’s temporary chambers, Ginsburg
gave the Times her perspective on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President
Obama’s first high court nomination. She also discussed her views on abortion.
Her comment about her belief that the court had wanted to limit certain
populations through abortion came after the interviewer asked Ginsburg:
“If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future
feminist agenda?”
“Reproductive choice has to be straightened out,” Ginsburg said. “There
will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems
to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe
(to make abortion legal) are not going to change back. So we have a policy
that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t
know why this hasn’t been said more often.”
Ginsburg discussed her surprise at the outcome of Harris v. McRae,
a 1980 decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use
of Medicaid and other federal funds for abortions.
Here’s a transcript of that portion of the Times' interview:
Q. Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because
in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there
are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack
of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Justice Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. 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 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.”
The comment suggested Ginsburg eventually changed her mind and concluded
that Roe was not decided with the idea that abortion could be used to limit
"growth in populations we don't want to have too many of." But she
did not qualify her position that the policy enacted under the case put
an unacceptable burden on poor women.
During the interview, the justice also affirmed a position she took
on abortion during her Clinton-era confirmation hearing, suggesting the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
was a better grounds for justifying abortion on demand than the "right
to privacy."
“The basic thing is that the government has no business making that
choice for a woman,” Ginsburg told the Times.
In 1993, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation
hearing:
“(Y)ou asked me about my thinking on equal protection versus individual
autonomy. My answer is that both are implicated. The decision whether or
not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and
dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When the government
controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full
adult human responsible for her own choices.”
The Court legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade based on a “right
to privacy” that it found in the 14th Amendment---and not the Equal Protection
Clause. In doing so, it said the state had an interest in protecting
the unborn child that increased as pregnancy progresses. Gindburg's
position that women have an equal right to abortion as a result of their
gender would appear to allow for no state restrictions on abortion. |