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.This stunning admission came after Ginsburg explained the need for reproductive choice to be "straightened out." "There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore," she said. Lamenting the lack of government-funded abortions for poor women because of the congressionally-imposed Hyde Amendment, which the Supreme Court upheld in 1980, Ginsburg said, "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." Ginsburg believes the government has decided poor women can't have abortions because it chooses not to fund them. "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman," she said.
Ginsburg is candid in her views on abortion, if not charitable. If Justice Scalia had made a similar bigoted comment from the perspective of the Right, you can bet the media would be all over it. I suspect Ginsburg's comments will scarcely gain a mention in the mainstream media. Ironically, Ginsburg, in defending comments Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor made about a Latina woman being able to make better decisions than white males, offered this reply: "Think of how many times you’ve said something that you didn’t get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could." Is this one of those occasions for Ginsburg?