I’m glad I work in an environment where I know people like Justice Ginsburg aren’t the voice of reason.  I’m glad I surround myself with role models, friends, and resources to know that this does not have to be the direction women are headed.  Thank God we have women like Mary Ann Glendon to look up to these days.  Mary Ann Glendon for Supreme Court Justice ’13.

Emily Bazelon, New York Post: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.

Just reading that makes me feel dirty.  The lengths the feminists (who discredit the word feminine) go to protect their holy sacrament of abortion, they drag even their own gender into the mud.  With this comment, Justice Ginsburg– in a pathetic attempt to show how strong women are and how we don’t need men– has hurt and offended every woman out there who is suffering tremendously from her choice to abort her child.  Has Justice Ginsburg looked into the eyes of a woman who has contemplated suicide, who wakes up in the middle of the night after dreaming about her child, who finds herself infertile because of her abortion, who struggles daily with depression?  Is she willing to help those women?  Because they’re out there.  And comments like this show how out-of-touch modern “feminism” is with the world.

I don’t even want to touch her other comment, and it’s lighting up blogs like mad this afternoon, so I almost don’t have to… but here it is:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.  So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

First off, her perception was not wrong.  There’s plenty of proof out there that Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood pushed contraception and then abortion to rid the world of “populations that [they] don’t want to have too many of.”  And there’s plenty of proof that it’s still happening today.  Black genocide within the doors of your local Planned Parenthood.  [For more information, head over here.]

There are discussions being held throughout the blogosphere as to her opinion of the “populations that we don’t want to have to many of” … was she in favor of abortion being used this way?  Or was she worried it would be used that way? [and should we be worried that she voted for Roe v. Wade even with the perception that it was paving the way to eugenics?]

Regardless, it’s being used that way.  And always was.  Again, if you haven’t heard of maafa 21, head over here for an eye-opening look at black genocide.

And if you can bear the whole interview with Justice Ginsburg, head over here to the New York Post.

One last nugget from the interview– Ginsburg affirms that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality. [did I miss that phrase in the bill of rights?  ah, the penumbra keeps growing, doesn’t it?]

I suppose because the gift of life is unique ours as “woman,” so we must rid ourselves of that gift.   Woman is a dirty word to feminists.

Take your pick, ladies.