ACLU Celebrates Ginsburg’s Legacy by Editing Out Her Actual Words as Offensive

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 If one accepts this view that the reference to “woman” is offensive, you can still accept that historical documents should be read in their original form.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For my part, I am a strong advocate for leaving historical documents unchanged and quoting them in their original forms.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.”

41 thoughts on “ACLU Celebrates Ginsburg’s Legacy by Editing Out Her Actual Words as Offensive”

  1. The ACLU is no longer American, Civil, about Libertie or Union …. We need a new organization to protect our history, our liberty, our country from them..

  2. It’s troubling that Americans, collectively, are standing by while our Orwellian Democrat Party so blatantly and defiantly usher in their Marxist “Newspeak” and historical revisionism. We’re WATCHING it happen with little more than a head shake and a wave of the hand. It’s astounding.

  3. If it’s “my body, my choice”, then “people” should be able to abort right up to and while they are in labor, but before they give birth. Right?

    1. No. They shouldn’t. If they want “choice” they can choose not to take the penis into their vagina, rather than killing their unborn child for convenience’s sake.

      That being said, I understand you’re being facetious to illustrate the hideousness and absurdity of the left.

    2. No. They shouldn’t. If they want “choice” they can choose not to take the male doohickey into the female receptacle (this site apparently censors the clinical names), rather than shredding their unborn child for convenience’s sake.

      That being said, I understand you’re being facetious to illustrate the hideousness and absurdity of the left.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply