ACLU Celebrates Ginsburg's Legacy by Editing Out Her Actual Words as Offensive
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The American Civil Liberties Union had a curious way of honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week by editing out her words — removing offensive references to "woman" and "she." I expect that Ginsburg herself would have had little patience with such woke revisionism.
The ACLU wanted to not just memorialize the one year anniversary of Ginsburg's death but highlight the fight over abortions in states like Texas. The quote, from Ginsburg is taken from her confirmation hearing in 1993:
"The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."
The ACLU however did not want to use the term "women" to refer to those who have abortions or the pronoun "she." So that quote was reproduced in this form with "women" substituted with "person's" and "she" substituted with "they":
"The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person's] life, to [their] well-being and dignity… When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices."
Many (including Ginsburg) could object to the use of the plural "they" for a reference to the singular "her" life as not just changing the words but the meaning.
The ACLU also cut "It is a decision she must make for herself." That was arguably the crux of the quote but it was axed entirely.
The removal of "woman" is in response to objections that biological females who identify as male are "men" and therefore "men" can get pregnant and have abortions.The result is a rewriting of Ginsburg's celebrated writings:
What is particularly curious is that the ACLU can still remove such references to "woman" or "she" in its own writings without editing historical quotations or writings. If one accepts this view that the reference to "woman" is offensive, you can still accept that historical documents should be read in their original form. You can then editorialize or contextualize with any objections or warnings.
For my part, I am a strong advocate for leaving historical documents unchanged and quoting them in their original forms. I also recently criticized the decision of the National Archives to add "trigger warnings" to historical documents as "bubbling wrapping history." I believe that people can understand such documents in their historical text, even a quote that was first spoken as recently as 1993.
It is of course ironic that this iconic liberal jurist is now the subject of corrective editing. The ACLU might be wise to consider this other Ginsburg quote:
"Fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you."
Jonathan Turley
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
She must be rolling over in her grave.
The ACLU has gone woke!
Since this 'News' is from Sept. 2021, I doubt it.
Yes, exactly. They have gone away over the top woke.
Just when you think the left can't get any more ridiculous they go and do something this stupid.
I never make that mistake anymore, thus am not shocked when idiocy like this occurs.
it's a good way to look at it. The whole "lets see how moronic they are being today".
Just in on Twitter:
"Raise your hand if you want me to run for president in 2024."
[deleted]
Time to go take a trump.
Those two cups of coffee just went right through me.
Time to vomit also.
Why spoil my breakfast with that ugly pile of steaming shit?
Coffee run is over?
There is nothing like a happy office.
[Deleted]
Consider my hand raised way high. Trump 2024! Let’s MAGA again!
Did you tweet that?
Where you taking yours to?
Is being a SJW always tiring?
Prefect demonstration of how batshit crazy the left has gone. The most extreme movement in recent American history.
We have Biden projecting. He says it's those who love the country who are "radical."
Which group stormed the Capitol attempting to overturn a legal election again?
The question should be which group last stormed the Supreme Court?
Clue:
Was my question too hard???
How many of yours were arrested for illegal trespass and breaking in? How many people died? How many nooses were hung?
Come on Russia! You can come up with better crap than this to justify it.
If you were referring to 1/6/21............................
823 was the last number I saw.
1 Ashley Babbitt
I seem to remember 1
And who the hell is Russia? Countries talk now? Weird
That desperate to avoid answering? Why would I be talking about 1/6 when I was replying to Vic? Read Vic's comment, then mine, then get back to me.
Well after further examination, you should have labeled it rhetorical since you knew the answer
You're not supposed to remember stuff like that. It makes the left look band and they'll cry.
The "crying game" shall resume come November.
Oh, it's already started. The closer to November we get the louder it will be.
They keep leaking...drip by drip from the Jan 6th Committee. That final report will be submitted 6 weeks before the election. They think everyone is stupid
I've noticed that when it's a Democrat run "investigation", or "Committee" there are always leaks. I wonder why that is.....
That's been bothering me too!
I apologize, I would have spelled out and footnoted it for you, if I knew it was necessary for your understanding.
P.S. That was sarcasm...
Pronouns are the least of Americans worries today!
And yet the ACLU chose to alter RBG's statements.
Go figure.
But I will give you credit for making an actual, true statement.
Americans do have other things to worry about--like a tanking stock market, high inflation, rising interest rates, and a whole slew of things the Biden Administration is woefully inept at handling.
I notice you have stopped touting the Biden economy as great.
John met the group, then they went to the store.
Who went to the store, (in Wokeland)?
It is worth noting who just left. We'll just have to wait until 11:AM.
Seems really unnecessary, but also disrespectful of both RBG and the legal process. If the law needs to be clarified at some future date, that will be the business of the Court or Congress, not the ACLU.
That’s dumb, quote her or don’t but don’t start changing her wording because what you are really doing is changing her meaning.
additionally people really need to start discerning between sex and gender. The two are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
That’s dumb, quote her or don’t but don’t start changing her wording because what you are really doing is changing her meaning.
additionally people really need to start discerning between sex and gender. The two are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.