Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Bill O’Reilly Says Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supports “Baby Killing?”

Reported by Priscilla - June 5, 2010 -

Now that Dr. George Tiller is dead, Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have him to kick around anymore. But as I have noted, that doesn’t prevent Bill from burnishing his anti-choice creds albeit in a less incendiary way than frequently alluding to somebody as a baby killer. But Bill is still able to provide affirmation for his anti-choice pals be it his belief that a Lila Rose Planned Parenthood “sting” video is for real or, as he did in a discussion in which he attacked SCOTUS Judge Ginsburg, proclaim that fetuses are babies and that so called “partial birth abortion” “kills” “babies.” So while his attack on Ginsburg isn’t as blatant as what he did to Tiller, the intent and the target audience are very clear.

On May 14th, Bill O’Reilly (who had attacked Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg earlier in the week) discussed Ginsburg’s dissent on the so called “partial birth abortion” (a term coined by the anti choice movement) ban. O’Reilly tried to paint Ginsburg as a wild eyed pro-choice radical whose personal views on abortion colored her legal opinion. I must admit that Megyn Kelly, who is an attorney, handled Bill’s pompous, condescending, and patronizing histrionics quite well. Ginsburg stated, in her dissent, that the decision “tolerates, indeed applauds federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists…” This view is anathema to anti choicers, like Bill, who claim that the procedure is never necessary and that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of woman carrying it. Bill frequently claimed that women, who had this procedure, were doing it for casual reasons. Naturally, Bill didn’t cite any specifics in Ginsburg’s legal opinion which was based, as Kelly tried to tell Bill, on earlier court decisions. Bill, not a lawyer, would have none of it. In discussing her dissent, Bill said “she doesn’t want to describe a fetus as an unborn baby.” (Actually Bill, science defines what is in the womb as a fetus) Bill, his voice getting louder, asked Kelly if, when she was pregnant, she was carrying a fetus. When she said that she believed that she was carrying an unborn baby, Bill yelled that he “was glad to hear that.” Kelly said that the legal term for unborn baby is fetus. She cited “Roe” in which the term “baby” was considered to be a theological question. Bill, not a scientist, then made a bizarre statement – ready for it – “They didn’t have DNA then. Not when Roe was made, they didn’t have DNA component in conception.” (Uh, DNA has been around since the 50’s)

Bill laughed hysterically when Kelly said that Ginsburg’s point was that if you call it an “unborn baby” you’ve already announced your decision. Bill said, “that’s ridiculous the decision is based on whether you drill a hole in the head of an unborn baby.” (The drill thing is part of the propaganda that the anti-choice movement uses to describe intact dilation and extraction) Despite Kelly’s assertion that Ginsburg based her opinion on past legal decisions, Bill said “that was impossible.” He then made another prize winning bizarre statement:”It’s impossible for any reasonable person to think that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would want partial birth abortion.” (Right Bill and they didn’t foresee NASA and the national highway system either. They also approved of slavery and didn’t see any reason for women, blacks, native Americans, and non property owners to have suffrage.) Bill brayed that Ginsburg is “the extreme.” When Kelly referenced how Ginsburg felt that Justice Kennedy was being paternalistic in his view, America’s Daddy Bill O’Reilly said “so what.” When Kelly said that, at the time, she was the only woman on the Court, O’Reilly yelled “I’m sorry she was offended by Justice Kennedy when 40 million bab..um..fetuses have been killed.”

Comment: The core of Ginsburg’s dissent was that the decision reflected the ridiculous belief, held by Bill and his anti-choice pals, that all women are harmed by abortion. I wish Kelly had read the relevent portion: “Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution ideas that have long since been discredited.” The idea that women should be able to make their own reproductive decisions is anathema to “traditionalist” Bill. Women who are able to make their own reproductive decisions are autonomous and are thus very threatening to the male power structure which Bill worships. But in emphasizing the terminology used by Judge Ginsburg, it would appear that he feels that if she’s not a “baby killer,” she supports it. Way to go Bill. Your anti-choice pals must be very happy with you.

Correction: I was informed, by the premier Fox loving blog, that what I referred to as a transcript was actually a talking points memo. I stand corrected, mea culpa. O'Reilly showed part of his video "shoot out" with Megyn Kelly. He then used that to reinforce his opinion (the official anti-choice position) that fetuses are babies. He also proferred the anti-choice argument that those who support choice deny rights to the fetus (which in anti-choiceland takes precendence over the mother). As with the actual debate, he didn't site the actual core of Ginsburg's dissent which was about the lack of concern for the health of the mother and how that reflected a disdain for womens' reproductive autonomy. O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo," another attack on Ginsburg, was yet another shout out to his anti-choice pals. Thanks for the correction, "Johnny," cuz it underscores my talking points.