Right to the end of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarkable life, she held tight to an illogical delusion that there is no “mother” and no “child” in any pregnancy. 

In  Box v Planned Parenthood (May 28, 2019), Justice Ginsburg criticized Justice Clarence Thomas for using the term “mother” in regard to a pregnancy. She wrote: 

a woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a “mother”.

Once the contents of a pregnant woman’s womb are depersonalized as the woman’s “property”, it is easy to argue, erroneously, that her ownership and disposal rights over her “property” are constitutionally protected. 

 Fortuitously then, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a constitutional law authority  who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, is ideally placed and superbly qualified to correct Justice Ginsberg’s monumental mistake. 

In addition to Justice Barrett’s expertise in constitutional law, she has, as a mother of seven, also the common sense to be able to re-establish at the Supreme Court the basic truth that to be pregnant is to carry a human being at the embryonic or foetal stage of life. Science can identify this human being as a daughter or a son — the child of a mother whose relationship to her child  in utero  can be established empirically and whose father can be verified through prenatal testing. 

For the Supreme Court progressives to argue anything else was only ever imaginative nonsense. 

It was by “re-imagining” a human being at the foetal stage of life as a woman’s property and not as her daughter or son that a 1973 all-male Supreme Court majority justified legalizing abortion. A woman commissioning death by abortion for her lively piece of  in utero property (“never… persons in the whole sense) was deemed a “choice” necessary to advance a good cause. 

This remains a violation of the timeless natural law imperative that we may not do evil even that good may come of it. 

Caught in a 1970s time warp 

In the 1970s Justice Ginsberg set out on her admirable mission of equal justice for all.  But almost immediately, her ardent feminism led her to a wrong turn. She advanced the fallacy that while all men and women are equal before the law, no such equal protection applies to their offspring while in the womb. 

She viewed “unwanted pregnancies” negatively as unfair obstacles for women. She taught that “the unwanted” could be aborted because they were “unjust”  constrictions on our equality with men. 

The extreme ideological nature of Justice Ginsburg’s activism was revealed in her dissent in the  Gonzalez v Carhart (2007) decision. She wrote that any restriction on partial-birth abortion was an “alarming” interference with a woman’s “control over her destiny” and her right to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation”. 

 Five years ago, in a candid  interview, she asserted: 

I had great good fortune in my life to be alive and have the skills of a lawyer when the women’s movement was revived in the United States. And I think my attitude, my aspirations have not changed since the ’70s.

Indeed, to the very end, Justice Ginsburg, remained mired in a 1970s time warp, where she could see only a pregnant woman’s  right  to control her life and destiny. 

She blotted out entirely any  duty  to protect a tiny daughter’s natural right to be cared for in her mother’s womb. 

Justice Ginzburg’s denial of the presence of an unborn child 

Justice Ginsburg persevered in her exclusively woman-focused claim that there is no mother and no child in any pregnancy. 

Ironically, in a  speech  (May 11, 2013), she criticized  Roe v Wade  for being “about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best… It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered.” 

The more significant truth escaped Justice Ginzburg: it was also not child-centered. 

On “The Rachel Maddow Show” (February 16, 2015), Justice Ginsburg pontificated ex cathedra on Roe v Wade: 

… the image was the doctor and a little woman standing together. We never saw the woman alone. The  Casey  decision recognized that this is not as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession, but about a woman’s right to control her life destiny. 

In the Supreme Court progressives’ abortion cases since Roe, we were never allowed to see the tiny child victim targeted for “safe” extermination. 

Hopefully, Justice Barrett and her conservative colleagues will soon challenge that embedded falsification by the Court. 

Pro-abortion zeal 

Regrettably, Justice Ginsburg’s erasing of abortion victims violated the Founders’ original constitutional protection for “the infant stirring in the womb”. 

It was the court’s ideological zeal, not judicial impartiality, that  rejected the Constitution’s opening commitment to secure for  our Posterity  the same blessings of liberty as for  ourselves

Progressive justices should never have caved so easily to a vehement ideology that dehumanized children in their mothers’ womb in order to establish their lethal mistreatment by an “abortion provider” as a woman’s “right”. 

Justice Ginsburg’s embrace of abortion as a tool for women’s equality intimates an unfathomable disrespect for her noble Jewish history and heritage. She offered no acknowledgement of the brutal injustice of abortion inflicted on Jewish children by a different set of ideologues back in the 1930s and ’40s. With infamous arrogance, they too believed that their ideologically driven termination of the socially unwanted was  necessary to achieve economic and social justice

Look up the terms “unborn child” and “unborn children” in the  Official Record of the Nuremberg Trials  and follow what Nazi doctors actually did to these smallest human victims. It is part of the Nuremberg record of the trial testimony (RuSHA/Greifelt Case 1947-8) that unborn children are considered to be human beings entitled to protection: 

“…protection of the law was denied to unborn children…”

Nuremberg prosecutor, James McHaney, called abortion an “inhumane act” and an “act of extermination” and established that even if a woman’s request for abortion was “voluntary”, abortion is still “a crime against humanity”. 

Instructions by Nazi authorities issuing  directives to decriminalize abortion  in Poland and the Occupied Territories were furnished as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials for the count of crimes against humanity.  

Retooling  human-rights language to accommodate abortion “rights”  

And so, post-World War II, a universal human rights initiative emerged  reaffirming equal justice for every human being including every child “before as well as after birth”. 

 But the radical feminists of the ’60s, cleverly hijacking the new rights language, retooled their arguments to concoct “abortion rights” for women. 

Foolishly, radical feminist orthodoxy insisted that women, all victims of thousands of years of sexism, could not advance without easy access to abortion. And so we were awarded a phoney “right” to discriminate against our unborn children, to absolve ourselves from Nature’s “unjust” imposition of any duty to provide a mother’s protection and care for them. 

Thus criminal abortion, traditionally litigated as a moral issue, was  reconstructed  “as posing the sex inequality considerations that make it a gender question legally and socially”. 

Abortion rights had emerged as a self-righteous affirmative action to compensate for Nature’s terrible discrimination in  inflicting pregnancy  only  on women

differences between the sexes relating to reproduction justify constitutionalization of abortion rights to give a woman the same control over her body as a man has over his.

Preferencing human rights ultra-liberally towards women over and above human rights protection for our unborn children was proposed and accepted as a part of the restitution that society owed women for our allegedly unremitting historical victimization by Nature since human life began on earth. 

Regrettably, in this false context of ensuring “gender equality”, we women, it was argued, could not progress without unfettered access to abortion. 

Thus the inane insistence that there is no other heartbeat, no other body,  in any of our pregnancies — just our own — that abortion is the death of a nobody. 

Hence Justice Ginsburg’s misguided dogma that pregnant women are not mothers and that their pregnancies are childless will remain an unfortunate aberration in the brilliant career of an extraordinary woman. 

It seems only right that another woman with a brilliant career should set that old 1970s error straight. 

 Good on you, Justice Barrett! 

Rita Joseph is an Australian writer, lecturer and human rights advocate, specialising in the philosophy and language of human rights. She has lectured at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family...