Justice Ginsburg: Rich Women Can Get Abortions Even if Roe Reversed

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Oct 22, 2007   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Justice Ginsburg: Rich Women Can Get Abortions Even if Roe Reversed

Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 22,
2007

Atlanta, GA (LifeNews.com) — In a weekend speech, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that rich women will still be able to get abortions even if Roe v. Wade is reversed. She also said some women will be able to travel to others states where abortion would likely remain legal.

Ginsburg spoke to an audience at Atlanta’s Ahavath Achim synagogue and said that Roe v. Wade has been around long enough that there will always be some access to legalized abortion in the United States.

She likened the landmark abortion decision to divorce laws around the country and, if Roes goes, the high court justice said some states will still allow abortions while others limit or prohibit it.

"I do not believe the court’s overruling Roe v. Wade — which I don’t think will happen — will prevent women of means from accessing an abortion," she said, according to an Associated Press report.

But should the Supreme Court ever reverse the decision, "It will have a devastating impact on poor women," she claimed.

Ginsburg promised to continue to fight against overturning the case, even though it has been attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.

"I will continue to dissent if in my judgment the court veers in the wrong direction when important issues are at stake,” she said.

Ginsburg’s comments come just a week after Supreme Court Justice Atonin Scalia reaffirmed his view that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion.

Speaking at Villanova Law School‘s Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture, Scalia outlined his perspective.

"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn’t say it doesn’t say."

"I don’t agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.

"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.