A Catholic friend send me this, from the forthcoming Times Magazine:
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.
Populations that we don't want to have too many of? Egad.
Why'm I blogging this? My source is against abortion rights, I'm for 'em. Yet I recognize a component of my support as flowing from my Jewish feminist-secular culture, which while I adore it, still I see a shadow of the sense of Jewish superiority I grew up with, unreconstructed in RBG's case. Interesting that the reporter, Emily Bazelon, who I believe is from my culture too, didn't call Ginsburg on it.
