(Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a staunch defender of women’s rights including reproductive freedom. And her seat on the Court being filled by Amy Coney Barrett, who will seemingly inevitably write the decision that ends that hard won freedom, is already a twist of the knife. But anti-choice advocates still have more salt left to pour in the wounds.
As reported by the Washington Post, a recent amicus brief filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in the Mississippi case threatening the reproductive freedoms established under Roe v. Wade cited none other than Ginsburg in their filing asking the Supreme Court to overturn the case:
The Hidden Threat: How Fake Identities used by Remote Employees Put Your Business at Risk—and How to Defend Against This
Based on our experience in recent client matters, we have seen an escalating threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) information technology (IT) workers engaging in sophisticated schemes to evade US and UN sanctions, steal intellectual property from US companies, and/or inject ransomware into company IT environments, in support of enhancing North Korea’s illicit weapons program.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said in its amicus brief on Mississippi’s behalf that “Roe and Casey function as a mechanism for generating conflicts across many areas of religious life” and “thus proves the truth of Justice Ginsburg’s observation that ‘[h]eavy-handed judicial intervention [in Roe] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.’ ”
This is — at best — disingenuous. Yes, RBG has misgivings about the legal framework set up in Roe (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey). Which, you know, IS CURRENTLY UNDER ATTACK, so probs right on that front. She would have preferred the decision rest on equal protection grounds or be left to the legislature. Which, yeah. But make zero mistake — she was an absolute champion for abortion rights, calling overturning the case a “worst-case scenario”:
“Roe v. Wade, I should be very clear — I think the result was absolutely right,” Ginsburg said in a 2018 interview with law professor Jeffrey Rosen, recounted in his book “Conversations with RBG.”
“My idea of how choice should have developed was not a privacy notion, not a doctor’s right notion, but a woman’s right to control her own destiny, to be able to make choices without a Big Brother state telling her what she can and cannot do,” she said.
The citation is a bald faced attempt to twist RBG’s words — and legacy — to paint overturning Roe as bipartisan, despite, you know, everything she actually said about abortion access.
Gen AI: Your Legal Research Assistant, Not Your Replacement
Here's how you can spend more time practicing law, and less time sorting, sifting, and summarizing.
[Jeffrey] Rosen, president and chief executive of the National Constitution Center, said in an interview that Ginsburg was particularly worried that a system in which some states protect abortion and others ban it would disadvantage poor women, who could not afford to travel.
“She felt women of means would remain able to obtain abortions, but it would have disturbing effects on poor women,” Rosen said.
In one of their conversations, she confronted the idea that abortion rights should be left to the states. “How could you trust legislatures in view of the restrictions states are imposing?” she asked. “Think of the Texas legislation that would put most clinics out of business.”
Conservatives are about the turn the clock back on women’s rights. Let’s not pretend RBG would be okay with that.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).