More

HuffPost Social Reading

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Questions Timing Of Roe v. Wade, Gives Hint On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

DAVID CRARY   02/10/12 06:16 PM ET  AP

NEW YORK — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Friday that her predecessors on the high court mistimed the milestone 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.

"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School marking the 40th anniversary of her joining the faculty as its first tenure-track female professor.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas – where the Roe case originated.

Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother's life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

"The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal," Ginsburg said. "We'll never know whether I'm right or wrong ... things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained."

A similar dynamic is now unfolding in regard to same-sex marriage, which is legal in six states, could soon be legal in a few more, but remains outlawed in most states. Legal advocates on both sides of the issue wonder if the Supreme Court will want to have a say on the matter relatively soon, or let the state-by-state process evolve further. Ginsburg did not comment on that issue.

On another topic at the symposium, Ginsburg said countries in the Middle East and elsewhere contemplating the adoption of new constitutions have more up-to-date models to consider, in addition to the U.S. Constitution.

"If you're writing a constitution today, are you going to look back at an 18th century model?" she asked, before citing such newer documents as South Africa's 1996 constitution and Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ginsburg noted that most modern-era constitutions have guarantees of gender equality comparable to the Equal Rights Amendment that has been proposed – but never ratified – for the U.S. Constitution.

"An Equal Rights Amendment is not a cure-all," Ginsburg said. "It takes people who care about implementing the rights to see that it becomes real, and not just on paper."

Much of the symposium was devoted to Ginsburg's decades of work promoting the equality of women in the legal profession and in American society overall.

She recalled entering Harvard Law School in 1954 as one of nine women in a class of several hundred.

"You felt that all eyes were on you and if you gave a wrong answer, you were failing not simply for yourself but for all women," she said.

After transferring to Columbia's law school and graduating in 1959, she taught law at Rutgers University, then joined the Columbia law faculty in 1972 and taught there until 1980, when she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

While at Columbia, she expanded the school's offerings of courses on women's rights and sex discrimination, and also became chief litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project.

She recounted many of the gender-equality cases that arose during her career – among them writing the majority opinion in the Supreme Court's 1996 ruling striking down the male-only admissions policy at Virginia Military Institute.

Asked to offer advice to young women starting law careers, she said the biggest challenge is trying to balance work life and family life in a profession that traditionally hasn't embraced that balance.

"That's changing, but not swiftly," Ginsburg said. "It takes people who care."

She offered one last suggestion, when asked how today's young lawyers should be battling against injustice.

"Don't take no for answer," she said. "But also, don't react in anger ... Regard every encounter as an opportunity to teach someone."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Friday that her predecessors on the high court mistimed the milestone 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. "I...
NEW YORK — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Friday that her predecessors on the high court mistimed the milestone 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. "I...
Filed by Nick Wing  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 411
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Freese
07:24 AM on 03/21/2012
Thank God she is not a liberal/progressive activist judge...LOL
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrCool
02:22 PM on 03/20/2012
I am more than a little concerned about any judgement made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Recently, when she was asked where countries such as Egypt and Libya should turn for the best model for forming their governments she stated, "South Africa" as the best. What does she find wrong with the one the old boys ratified back in 1791, called The Constitution of the United States?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Bickel
Visionary
02:19 PM on 03/20/2012
Looks like the Honorable Justice Ginsburg hasn't understood the difference between matter and spirit and the controller of both. Hard to be objective if the basics are unclear. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and will again with Roe vs. Wade because much more is understood today about what makes a person a person. Moreover, abortion contradicts the right to life confirmed by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and more recently the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles One through Three. By the grace of GOD, everyone has free will and therefore free choice, but due to misguided social laws, not everyone has the right to life in today's world. Hopefully that will change sooner rather than later. Violence begets violence until peace reigns again. You want to stop all these wars and the killing of your sons and daughters? Then put a stop to abortion and all other unjustified forms of violence.

Dr. Hans Bickel, Georgetown University, 1966.
08:59 AM on 02/15/2012
I have a different take of what she had to say from reading other articles about this. . http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/ruth_bader_ginsburgs_alternative_abortion_history/singleton/

She wanted an earlier case to determine womans rights to abortion and woman's right to choice. There are other choices for woman in an unwanted pregnancy such as adoption and life. Which isn't talked about. She is pro-choice.
In our country adoption should be a woman's choice issue. More and more people are going out of country to adopt. States are taking woman's privacy away by opening up birth certificates to adoptees. It starts with the woman's choice and adoption should be promoted and made easier is what I think she is saying. Not anti abortion Just wanted a different case to steer the direction of the talk to include life.
02:28 PM on 02/12/2012
If I thought we were headed backward before, this certainly confirms it. Roe v. Wade allowed me a pro-choice service when I most needed it, and I have no regrets. The judgmental are determined to win no matter the damage to lives of people who are actually as real as they are. Why did she talk when she need not? If the GOP wins the presidency, I feel sorry for all of us. The right wing will pay, though I'm sure they don't see it now.

Anyone wanting to reply and point out the error of my ways and call me a baby killer, save your fingers. As I said, no guilt, no regrets. It was my right, and my reasons will remain my own.
photo
Ashkewoof
Real plumber/parent/guide
10:18 PM on 02/11/2012
I must say, this is one of her most idiotic statements to date.

Lets all sit at the back of the bus and wait for the states to come along in their own time and give us civil rights.
photo
Angel1999
Microbiologist & Historian
12:10 PM on 02/12/2012
Although I see her point, what always leads me to look askance at views like this is totally takes real lives out of the equation. These sorts of decisions effect real people with real relationships and real lives and then demands that they put their lives on hold in the hopes that society will do the right thing on its own.
photo
Ashkewoof
Real plumber/parent/guide
01:59 PM on 02/12/2012
Not to mention that one of the key purposes of our independent judiciary is to protect minorities from the tyranny of simple majority rule. She seems to have forgotten this in her old age.

I respect her, but she is dead wrong on this one. If Mrs. Parks had never refused to go to the back of the bus, if people like Dr. King were not pushing this as a strategy both political, social and judicial, we would probably not be where we are today on the road to equality and justice for all. The courts were an integral part of this process that moved civil rights forward by decades if it would have moved at all.

I hope she sees the error of this kind of thinking. There is never a good time for any minority to pursue it's equality and justice. It is never convenient nor timely. It must therefor move forward regardless of majority whim so that we can realize human parity with the best qualities of our shared humanity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:33 PM on 02/11/2012
well I was going to see what people had to say on this topic, but I see that the inclusion of R v W in the title of the piece has rallied the psychotic, right-wing, "we hate anyone or anything that isn't us" crowd so I think I'll just mosey on to something else.

btw, I respect justice Ginsburg, but I hope she's not implying we should delay justice delayed...you know how that quote ends.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Terri Skau
the moon rises as the sun sets
05:43 PM on 02/11/2012
How strange for her to comment on this. It was part of Overtime with Bill Maher last night... And the exact same thing was said...;-) T.
photo
StevenWells
Objects in the avatar are larger than they appear
07:04 PM on 02/11/2012
Yes, that really frosted me. Reihan Salam's argument was that letting the ballot initiative process play out in the states - especially if we started winning some - would lend the issue legitimacy.

Aside from the spectacular wrongness of subjected the rights of a minority to popular vote, just how long are people meant to wait for legitimacy? After the 1967 Loving v Virginia ruling, it was another 20 years before even a plurality of Americans approved of interracial marriages.

I'm 59, and my partner and I have been together 30 years. It may be a romantic idea to combine honeymoon and golden anniversary, but if we have to wait another 20 years, an "idea" is probably all it'll be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Terri Skau
the moon rises as the sun sets
07:24 PM on 02/11/2012
I was at Bill's show last night and then she comes out and says it... Come on' what was she watching Bill and now going to take credit for it....Just sayin' And very true winning some which would lend the issue of legitimacy..:-) That is also very true of the 67 ruling and the 20 yrs later of approval.

I hope this will not be for you as for friends and family who are as you. This should not be happening what year is this 2012 I figured we would have evolved into better humans than we have become...

Great Post. I would fan you but it's still broken but I am keeping a list. I did fave ya. ;-) T.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhutch457
I am my cat's drug of choice
12:08 AM on 02/12/2012
I couldn't agree with you more Steven. I like Ruthy but I didn't care for her response that we should sit back and let the same sex marriage issue ride out for a while. It took years for five states and DC to legalize ssm and I find it hard to believe that a lot of states are going to suddenly "give in" and legalize it as well. There are a lot of states out there that are hard core conservative that won't budge on the issue anytime soon.

I was in a relationship for 26 years when my partner passed back in May 2009. I offered to take my partner to Mass. to get married but he was against the idea because he felt it wouldn't have made any difference in our home state (the truth of the matter is that it would have made a difference because at the time, our state [NY] recognized ssm that were performed legally in other states). Now that NY is one of the fortunate states for same-sex couples to be legally married in, it's too late for us. I hope you're able to enjoy the pleasure and security of being legally married very soon.
Chromium
Right is right.
04:35 PM on 02/11/2012
Ginsburg is about as anti-American as they come and should be tried for treason. She publicly trashed the Constitution and should be removed from office.
10:28 PM on 02/11/2012
WTF? Ever read the Constitution? And the First Amendment about freedom of expression? You sound much more like an Absolute Monarchist to me (you know 'off with his head' and all that).
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
FlamingLibrul
100% Snark, Guaranteed!
12:14 PM on 02/12/2012
You People Scare Me. I hope you haven't procreated.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
valley boy
02:00 PM on 02/11/2012
Oh Ruth! If you keep talking likre that all the Justices will be wearing those little white lacy collars with their robes.
12:54 PM on 02/11/2012
Women should not be forced to provide biological care for the children they created through sex. Nor should men be forced to provide financial support for them.

Equality demands we eliminate child support laws now!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:18 PM on 02/11/2012
How is that equal?
04:25 PM on 02/11/2012
you need to read his other posts in order to understand his mind..
04:34 PM on 02/11/2012
Men should not have to take care of the children they create, just like women do not have to now.

How can you get any more equal than that?

Repeal child support laws now!
03:24 PM on 02/11/2012
How far behind are you in your child support ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dwayner
04:35 PM on 02/11/2012
hahahaaha. Good one. :)
04:36 PM on 02/11/2012
No. I just find it unequal for a woman to have the choice to raise, kill, or give up for adoption while the only choice a man gets is whether he pays by cash or check. If women are legally entitle to abjure ALL responsibility for the children we create, can't we extend that same privilege to men as well?
photo
Watching rock grow
It's a practice in patience
11:51 AM on 02/11/2012
I believe Justic Ginsburg has been listening too much to the conservative members.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:29 AM on 02/11/2012
Although I completely disagree with Justice Ginsberg about how the court acted in Roe v Wade (I believe both the timing and the breadth of the decision were appropriate), I find her attempted linkage to the same-sex marriage issue pretty weak. The biggest reason we need te Supremem Court to rule favorably is to establish 50 state recognition of who is and who is not married.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blndgenie
10:06 AM on 02/11/2012
Gin sburg in a NY Times Sunday magazine,July 2009: "“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
10:30 AM on 02/11/2012
A disproportionate amount of Black women purchase abortions. This is why Jesse Jackson called abortion "Black genocide." Of course, he changed his mind shortly before announcing his run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Strange.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blndgenie
11:55 AM on 02/11/2012
Isn't it strange that black american aligns itself with liberals like ginsburg who refer to them as 'populations that we don't want to have too many of'? Tragic......
01:14 PM on 02/11/2012
@anthonybrown Of course it wouldn't be genocide if it was done to your own people and not for the purpose of eradication. @blndgenie Ginsburg never said that there were too many black people in the U.S. Ginsburg said the population was growing out of control and it just happened that more black people were getting abortions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
Jest another wizeazz
09:57 AM on 02/11/2012
This state-by-state argument for ssm still doesn't address the 14th Amendment which would not have been a factor in Roe.
04:10 PM on 02/11/2012
Due process is part of the 14th. Blackmun, writing for the majority wrote that if the fetus could be proven to be a person, she would then be protected by the 14th.