Ruth Bader Ginsburg Promotes Abortion: “No Law Should Deny a Woman Her Right to Choose”

National   Micaiah Bilger   Jul 11, 2016   |   10:10AM    Washington, DC

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become a favorite figure among abortion activists because she does not shy away from pro-abortion politics.

Ginsburg gave a rare interview to the New York Times on Sunday and talked about her pro-abortion position and the presidential race. She was one of the five justices who sided with abortion activists in the recent decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations.

At the end of June, the Supreme Court reversed part of the pro-life Texas law that protected women’s health, saved the lives of thousands of unborn children and closed abortion clinics that could not ensure adequate health and safety protections for women. At issue in the ruling were two provisions: that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers and that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital for situations of medical emergencies.

Ginsburg and four other justices ruled that these safety regulations were an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on abortion decisions, sided with the pro-abortion justices in the case.

Ginsburg described Kennedy as “the great hero of this term” because of his vote on the Texas case. She said laws should not deny a woman “her right to choose” abortion.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

She told the New York Times:

Asked if she had been pleased and surprised by Justice Kennedy’s vote in the Texas case, Justice Ginsburg responded: “Of course I was pleased, but not entirely surprised. I know abortion cases are very hard for him, but he was part of the troika in Casey.”

Justice Breyer wrote the methodical majority opinion in the Texas case, and Justice Ginsburg added only a brief, sharp concurrence.

“I wanted to highlight the point that it was perverse to portray this as protecting women’s health,” she said of the challenged requirements. “Desperate women then would be driven to unsafe abortions.”

The decision itself, she said, had a message that transcended the particular restrictions before the court.

“It says: ‘No laws that are meant to deny a woman her right to choose,’” she said.

Ginsburg also appeared to imply that Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was a boon for the high court’s liberal policies.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said.

In a bold, political move for a U.S. Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg also openly criticized presidential candidate Donald Trump, who says he is pro-life. High court justices tend to avoid talking about politics in public because it could lead to the appearance of bias in their decisions.

Ginsburg, however, had no qualms about criticizing Trump and the power he would have as the next president to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

This year’s presidential election comes with high stakes at the U.S. Supreme Court. Up to four of the nine seats on the high court could come open within the next president’s term, meaning that the next president’s appointees could sway the court’s decisions on abortion and other issue for decades.

That’s a power that pro-abortion Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and abortion advocates would like to get their hands on. Clinton’s extreme pro-abortion position is out of touch with most Americans, and she promised to appoint Supreme Court justices with matching pro-abortion views if elected.

Clinton’s campaign website published a piece in February warning supporters of the “terrifying” effects the high court nominee decisions could have in the hands of the wrong president.

Indeed, it would be “terrifying” for unborn babies if Clinton is elected president. Her radical abortion policies passed on through appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court could mean huge setbacks for the rights of unborn babies in America.

Clinton supports complete, unrestricted abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and the abortion industry believes she will work to expand abortion if elected. Clinton’s extreme abortion stance is out of touch with most Americans: She has spoken in favor of partial-birth abortions, and she even wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

Trump, on the other hand, promised to appoint pro-life-friendly judges to the Supreme Court. In May, Trump released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court judges, who pro-life groups described as “strong” and “encouraging.”

In a February interview with evangelical Pat Robertson, Trump said he wants “pro-life conservatives” on the U.S. Supreme Court and said the late Justice Antonin Scalia is his model.