Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Change Basis for Allowing Abortions to Slavery Amdt

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

Full story at:
LifeNews.com/nat4252.html
 
juliee said:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

Full story at:
LifeNews.com/nat4252.html
Click to expand...
Depending on the outcome of this election, we might be seeing more like her.
 
juliee said:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

Full story at:
LifeNews.com/nat4252.html
Click to expand...
That’s because she knows that the right to privacy is not enshrined in the constitution, but rather the court found it in the so-called emanating penumbra. If the constitution has an emanating penumbra, then we do not have a constitution at all. When any wacko in a black robe can find whatever they want in the penumbra, anything is possible, and she knows it. I think she wants to enshrine her sacrament on more solid legal grounds. I think the justices are becoming more and more fearful of the penumbra and are looking elsewhere for legal basis for enshrining their personal whims - like European law or popular sentiment.
 
Well, you know that this is the final argument from the pro-abortion side: that it doesn’t matter when human life begins, or if the baby has individual rights or protections; if the baby is in the woman’s tummy then she may dispose of it as she wished, and anything else amounts to ‘forced pregnancy’ and ‘slavery.’
I really think that this assertion needs to be addressed by the Catholic community right away, seeing as it is the one most argued for these days.
 
May God have Mercy on us.

Didja ever have the thought - what would happen if for just ONE DAY, abortion wouldn’t ‘take’? If God stepped in and said,

ENOUGH! YOU ARE PREGNANT AND THAT’S THAT - DEAL WITH IT!!

I wonder what would happen to all the legal mumbo-jumbo twists and turns after that?

BTW - I read this in Readers Digest awhile back…Ever notice that there are hundreds and thousands of laws - but still only 10 Commandments? 👍

Peace

John
 
How ironic. The amendment that abolished slavery is to be used to declare unborn human beings as chattel property.

Wait, is that irony or tragedy? :mad:
 
I always thought the connection between abortion and slavery was that both the Dred Scot decision and Roe v Wade were decided on the basis that neither a fetus or a slave are legal persons. There can be no serious argument over wether or not they are human beings, only if they have the status of persons entitled to the protection of law.

Our legal tradition going back to English Common Law is that you are not a person until you have been born. A slave is not a person, but a corporation is a person.

The injustice of slavery was settled after 500,000 battlefield deaths. The injustice of abortion has cost many more lives and is not likely to be settled soon.

Justice Ginsberg’s argument seems to stretch the constitution into an unrecognizeable peice of parchment.
 
Justice Ginsburg, in the linked article, said: “What has to be preserved is the right of a woman to have access to the means to control her own reproductive capacity.”

All women have access to the means to control reproductive capacity.

It’s a little word: “no.”

Sheesh. Don’t want to get pregnant or catch an std? Practice celibacy!

Seems pretty simple to me.

Ruthie
 
juliee said:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a feminist group that the basis for legalized abortion should be changed from the so-called right to privacy to the anti-slavery provisions found in the Constitution.

Full story at:
LifeNews.com/nat4252.html
Click to expand...
Maybe we will just have to fight a civil war to end abortion.

Or maybe some states will leave the union to not have abortion in their states anymore.

Honestly, how can we stay in a country that kills 5000 children a day.
 
Ruthie said:
Justice Ginsburg, in the linked article, said: “What has to be preserved is the right of a woman to have access to the means to control her own reproductive capacity.”

All women have access to the means to control reproductive capacity.

It’s a little word: “no.”

Sheesh. Don’t want to get pregnant or catch an std? Practice celibacy!

Seems pretty simple to me.

Ruthie
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth!
 
This is exactly the reason the presidential elections are so important. This woman was appointed about three presidents ago, and here she still is. One of the very few things a president can determine by himself is the composition of the supreme court. Pick the right man, get the right judges. Pick the wrong man, get the wrong judges. For a long, long, time. This “woman” should have never become a member of our highest court.
 
the article cited doesn’t actually quote ginsberg connecting abortion to slavery (it is a summary by the author), and a google search revealed only a daisy chain of blogs citing each other, again and again, without any ginsberg quote.

does anyone have a cite to the actual text of the speech?
 
roanoker said:
This is exactly the reason the presidential elections are so important. This woman was appointed about three presidents ago, and here she still is. One of the very few things a president can determine by himself is the composition of the supreme court. Pick the right man, get the right judges. Pick the wrong man, get the wrong judges. For a long, long, time. This “woman” should have never become a member of our highest court.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Yes, the president is the person who makes SC appointments, but the Senate has to confirm them. As such, the president is not solely able to determine the composition of the Supreme Court.

That said, I don’t think the outcome of this election is much likely to matter in the area of the Supreme Court, despite the insistence every four years that this is “THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVER!!!”

Yes, Ginsburg was appointed three presidents ago, & at the time only one of the two candidates was in a position to support or oppose her.

At the time, he not only voted to confirm Ginsburg, (see congressional record here - loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/vote.pdf) but he also voted to confirm pro-abortion SC member Stephen Breyer, ( see congressional record for this vote here - loc.gov/law/find/nominations/breyer/vote.pdf).

On top of those two acts of “bipartisan equanimity”, :rolleyes: he also actively worked to stop other appointments of pro-life judges in the “Gang of 14.”

Sure, one candidate will definitely push for more like Ginsburg, but is there any realistic reason to believe that the other one won’t as well, especially given his track record?

Just asking.🤷

Chris
 
I’d hate to think that LifeNews isn’t making up life news. does anyone have a link to the actual speech by ginsberg?
 
With lifelong appointments, how does anyone know if they are mentally incapacitated? Dementia?
I heard those arguments when JPII was getting older- that he was suffering dementia. Why doesnt anyone question this lady’s capacity?
 
notsmart said:
With lifelong appointments, how does anyone know if they are mentally incapacitated? Dementia?
I heard those arguments when JPII was getting older- that he was suffering dementia. Why doesnt anyone question this lady’s capacity?
Click to expand...
Check the average age of a US Senator.

A federal judge can retire voluntarily, die in office, or get impeached and tried by the Senate.

They are not going to open that can of worms.😛
 
Trader said:
Check the average age of a US Senator.

A federal judge can retire voluntarily, die in office, or get impeached and tried by the Senate.

They are not going to open that can of worms.😛
Click to expand...
🙂 true…
 
did anyone find the text of the speech? because the article cited doesn’t contain a quote of ginsburg saying anything connecting slavery to abortion.

this seems like, at best, a very, very sloppy and unprofessional way to make a point.
 
The vote of a particular Senator to approve the nominee of a President does NOT provide any clue as to his actual leanings.

Strict Constructionists, by principle, believe that it is the President’s right to nominate judges and the Senate’s role is to examine their credentials and qualifications for the job. It is a VERY recent phenomenon that certain political factions have established themselves as judicial “gatekeepers” against judge nominees with certain beliefs, regardless of their superb credentials and prestigious record.

For both sides to adopt the “gatekeeper” mentality will result in total gridlock and a complete inability for any new judges to be approved. Such an approach is partisanship in the worst form and I applaud anyone who stands up against it consistantly - even when it means an opposition judge is approved.
 
having reviewed as many of the available sources for Ginsburg’ actual words (the address was informal, with questions and answers), it is clear that she didn’t say what the the LifeNews article attributed to her.

the slavery-abortion connection is part of a question by someone attending. this is clear from the* LifeNews* article and a little more clear from another source:

“To a second questioner who asked whether lawyers should work to recast the legal basis of reproductive freedom from the right to privacy set out in Roe to one based on the thirteenth amendment against slavery or the fourteenth amendment, Justice Ginsburg said:”

see the* LifeNews* article for her answer, which has nothing to do with any anti-slavery law and doesn’t even mention slavery. she is talking about autonomy, not slavery laws. if she wanted to make a connection to the 13th amendment, she’d have made it clear.

the LifeNews article was picked up by other articles and bloggers, none of whom did any fact checking.

this is bad reporting. if we are going to defeat abortion, then we cannot do it by creating and then mocking strawmen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top