Speculation swirled around Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s retirement after doctors removed cancerous tumors from her lungs last year.
Ginsberg ended up returning to the court.
But Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote something that has everyone questioning her future.
The Supreme Court recently overturned a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision blocking an Indiana law which mandated that the remains of aborted babies be given a proper burial or cremation.
Abortion mills dispose of dead babies bodies by treating them as medical waste.
Pro-child killing abortionists value saving the cost of a funeral more than the dignity of human life.
Indiana sought to rectify this travesty and a majority of the Supreme Court agreed.
But not pro-abortion fanatic Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Ginsberg argued that a woman who aborts her child was never a mother to begin with since the baby in her womb was not a living human being.
“A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a “mother”; the cost of, and trauma potentially induced by, post-procedure requirement may well constitute an undue burden,” Ginsberg argued.
This ghoulish logic had many Americans wondering if Ginsberg still possessed the mental faculties necessary to serve on the Supreme Court.
Ginsberg previously stated that she would serve on the court as long as it was “full-steam ahead.”
But putting forth an argument that a pregnant woman was not a mother strained any belief that Ginsberg owns a sound mind.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas savaged Ginsberg’s tortured legal and moral reasoning.
“JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissent from this holding makes little sense. It is not a ‘waste’ of our resources to summarily reverse an incorrect decision that created a Circuit split. Post, at 2. And JUSTICE GINSBURG does not even attempt to argue that the decision below was correct. Instead, she adopts Chief Judge Wood’s alternative suggestion that regulating the disposition of an aborted child’s body might impose an “undue burden” on the mother’s right to abort that (already aborted) child. See post, at 1. This argument is difficult to understand, to say the least—which may explain why even respondent Planned Parenthood did not make it. The argument also lacks evidentiary support,” Justice Thomas wrote.
The abortion issue is clearly coming to a head at the Supreme Court.
Pro-life activists believe that with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, now is the time to challenge Roe v. Wade.
And if the conservative majority on the court substantially guts or overturns that tragic decision, some pundits speculate Ginsberg could step down.
Liberals like Ginsberg see abortion as the Holy Grail of the left’s 60-year project to impose its social agenda on America through the courts.
But if the crown jewel of their agenda is overturned, Ginsberg might decide now is the time to step down rather than serve her final days on the court as part of a futile minority.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.