Ginsburg was about CHOICE and gender equality, not about abortion (1 Viewer)

[independentusa]

This Woman's Little-Known 1972 Case Could Have Reframed Abortion History

A year before Roe v. Wade, Susan Struck and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appealed to the Supreme Court for body autonomy.

www.elle.com

This story points out the truth about Ginsburg, she was about choice, not abortion. In this case the choice was for a woman to have her baby. Not many people know that in the 60's if you were a woman in the military and got pregnant, you had two choices, leave the military and keep you child or two, have an abortion and remain in the military. If you choose number two you had to go down to the base hospital and have an abortion as it was illegal anywhere else in the country. Ginsberg got all of that changed. She felt a woman should have the third choice which was to have her child and stay in the military. Because of Ginsburg, woman today have the right to have their children and stay in the military because that should be the woman's CHOICE.
And when it comes to gender equality, there she also fought for men, not just women. In the past if you were a stay at home dad and your wife worked and she died, neither you or your children could collect on her Social Security. The administration's reasoning was that the man was the bread winner and thus neither he nor his children needed his wife's Social Security. Ginsburg pointed this and several other ways men were discriminated against by society to the "boys" on the court, and the rules were changed.
So the idea by conservatives that Ginsburg was an uppity woman who only thought about abortion rights and women is wrong, but of course Trumpsters will not believe.

 

[2distracted]

Choice?

WHAT is being chosen?

Is that not a reasonable and logical question to ask?

Roe v Wade gives women a choice...

to do what?

murder their children

That's some choice

What if someone, some criminal person decided that he should have the legal choice whether or not to kill Independentusa?

or anyone else...

might does not make right.

Legal does not make right

(the Nazis thought otherwise. Are we Nazis now?)

 

[independentusa]

Choice?

WHAT is being chosen?

Is that not a reasonable and logical question to ask?

Roe v Wade gives women a choice...

to do what?

murder their children

That's some choice

What if someone, some criminal person decided that he should have the legal choice whether or not to kill Independentusa?

or anyone else...

might does not make right.

Legal does not make right

(the Nazis thought otherwise. Are we Nazis now?)

Roe actually made it legal for a woman to stop a pregnancy by abortion. Abortions that had already hat has already been going on since whenever. It just made it legal to do so so that women did not have to die because they went to back street butchers. Of course the wealthy just told you that their daughter decided to take a semester off to go to Switzerland for ski. I m a Catholic and I am against abortion personally, but do my morals decide everyone's. I am against gun violence, but does that mean I have the right to change the constitution to outlaw guns, no, and I would not because to own a gun is a choice people make.

 

[2distracted]

more bs

women still die from legal abortion. the lib news so called won't report on those cases... We are SHOCKED, aren't we?

not called fake news for nothing

Then there is Post Abortion Syndrome...

Most women regret their abortions... many suffer deleterious effects for the rest of their lives

but you liberals "care" about women...

what a sick joke