E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In a post below, David Stras asks whether Justice Ginsburg has associated public funding for abortion with efforts to limit population growth among “undesirable” groups. Stras acknowledges that Ginsburg is describing an argument rather than endorsing it, but he nonetheless seems to hold her responsible for that argument: he finds Ginsburg’s comments “odd and even offensive.” Yes, David, I think you are missing something.
Throughout the latter part of her interview in Sunday’s New York Times magazine, Ginsburg emphasizes, and complains, that the law of reproduction has never fully recognized women as autonomous decisionmakers. For example, she mentions her representation of Susan Struck, who was told by the Air Force that she had to have an abortion or be discharged. She agrees with her interviewer that Justice Kennedy’s reference to regret in Gonzales v. Carhart suggested a failure to see women as fully autonomous. And she says that “[u]nfortunately, there is something of that in Roe. …[T]he view you get is the tall doctor and the woman who needs him.” In that context, it makes sense that Ginsburg would mention the historical fact that some support for abortion has been based not on recognition for women’s autonomy, but on “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” As Ginsburg notes, such a rationale could be understood as coercing women rather than enabling their autonomous decisions.
Of course, there are multiple values at stake in these debates. Many disagree that women’s autonomy should play the role, or be given the priority, that Ginsburg gives it. But it is no surprise for her to frame reproductive freedom in these terms. Posted
6:58 AM
by Alice Ristroph [link]