More on the NY Times Magazine Interview With Justice Ginsberg

The Main Stream Media has basicly ignored the fact that her interview in last Sunday' edition of the magazine However, the blog-o-sphere has done an excellent job of how this interview has let slip the fact that the real face behind the abortion movement is that of a racist eugenicist that sees abortion as a tool to acheive the goals proposed by people like Margaret Sanger.

I am not going to go back & add anything new to my previous post. Instead I want to comment on another part of the interview.

Q: You have written, “To turn in a new direction, the court first had to gain an understanding that legislation apparently designed to benefit or protect women could have the opposite effect.” The pedestal versus the cage. Has the court made that turn completely, or is there still more work to be done?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Not completely, as you can see in the case involving whether a child acquires citizenship from an unwed father. [Nguyen v. INS, in which the court in 2001 upheld, by 5 to 4, a law that set different requirements for a child to become a citizen, depending on whether his citizenship rights came from his unmarried mother or his unmarried father.] The majority thought there was something about the link between a mother and a child that doesn’t exist between the father and a child. But in fact the child in the case had been brought up by his father.
They were held back by a way of looking at the world in which a man who wasn’t married simply was not responsible. There must have been so many repetitions of Madame Butterfly in World War II. And for Justice Stevens [who voted with the majority], that was part of his experience. I think that’s going to be over in the next generation, these kinds of rulings.

I saw something interesting that also shows the hypocricy of the "Pro-choice", as they call themslves, side. (Pro-abortion to call it what it really is.

She said that the father did have a link & that the child's rights came just as much from the father as the mother. What she failed to say is that before the child is birth the father is denied the right to any link with the child. The father has no say about whether or not that child will live should the mother want an abortion.

If the father has rights & responsibilities after the child is born, why do they deny him the right to protect his child for the 1st 9 months of its life in the womb.? After all, he is just as responsible for that child even existing for that period of time.

Sadly in all her talking about rights the even more important right of the unborn child to life is totally ignored by her.

She also let slip something else that proved those who opposed the original Equal Rights Amendment on the basis that it would be used to justify a woman's right to abortion knew what they were talking about.

"Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be. "

Did you catch that? Besides admiting that there really is no current right to abortion found in the Constitution, it makes it clear that they see sexual equality as the basis for the right. There has been a recent effort to revive the ERA. & I highly suspect this is why? They know that without it, there is no basis for the so-called right to abortion.

IMHO, saying that an ERA gives a woman the right to an abortion is just as faulty a basis as the current privacy right basis. Why? They both ignore the fact that that child is a totally unique person with the inate right to life. & that trumps any other right. This hilites the fact that we need a Personhood amendment to the Constitution. Without it, there will always be a way for pro-aborts to justify it.