The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has elicited reams of commentary on her life and her legacy. Recognizing the deep affection she had for fellow Justice Antonin Scalia (who died in 2016), I could respect how two esteemed colleagues from divergent philosophical backgrounds remained close friends.
The day after Ginsburg’s death, Harper’s Bazaar reposted a piece (originally published in January 2019) describing the Justice as “our feminist hero,” “a towering force to be reckoned with,” and “a pop-culture sensation.” NPR (online) described her as a “Champion of Gender Equality” and a “demure firebrand.” The Brennan Center for Justice was equally effusive: “small, mighty, relentless and unforgiving.”
As an historic figure, Ginsburg deserves due credit. She exhibited courage to seek education and employment (in the late 50s and early 60s) when she was challenged for “taking the place of a man.” By all accounts, she was an excellent, diligent student, an individual who earned the privilege of places previously held by men.
Though lionized by mainstream outlets, Ginsburg also had her share of detractors. (I’ve cited one such detractor here. There are others.) It was Ginsburg’s obligatory constancy to “women’s rights” that also summoned justifiable criticism.
Choose whatever euphemism enables you to sleep at night, but the veiled notion of women’s rights is simply the sophisticated but subtle mechanism people use to defend unrestricted abortion. Are women (in general) so confoundedly delicate that we have tacitly agreed to continue playing this game in 2020?! Stop it!
The truth: when Justice Ginsburg dissented in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carthart decision, she aligned her judicial focus on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. The Justice didn’t champion women’s rights … no, she promoted a woman’s right to kill. That much is supported by the facts.
Now, don’t go all squeamish on me here. If you’re in favor of abortion, say so, but don’t cloak it with dressed-up, sanitized words! A 2019 study reveals 23 million (million!) females are “missing” due to sex-selective abortion. Would Ginsburg shrug and dismiss this reality … an acceptable slaughter to offset the sacrament of abortion?
What about these missing females? Weren’t they entitled to women’s rights?!
Sorry, the old adage “you have to break some eggs to make an omelet” won’t work here. Defending the “right” to abort one’s offspring in order to advance the “cause of women” is delusional and contemptible! A woman is uniquely able to bear and nurture children. How exactly is the cause of women advanced by destroying life sheltered in her womb?
The proposed nominee to fill Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court is a devout Catholic named Amy Coney Barrett. I find it curious how news outlets and political operatives critique Judge Barrett’s deeply held religious faith. Back in 2017 at a Court of Appeals confirmation hearing, Sen. Feinstein shamelessly observed to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” This was no compliment. It was religious bigotry.
Why? Because Barrett’s view of faith doesn’t comport with the specific sacramental obligations demanded by Ginsburg, Feinstein and their multitude of zealous religious associates. Abortion is enshrined – the highest sacrament – not just in law (the misguided Roe v. Wade) but also within the twisted hearts of its adherents. Yes, the dogma lives loudly in them as well, but it is a perverse ideology that requires a woman to deny who she is for the damnable “good” of women’s rights. Such an insane betrayal of actual feminism.
