They don't see a lifestyle on welfare as poverty...in fact they do very well....why do otherwise if you can get it all on welfare?
Posted on 09/24/2014 11:00:31 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
People who aren’t as gung-ho about the snuffing out of young life as your typical mainstream media journalist noted this interview and discussed the deep ties of abortion and birth control to the progressive eugenics movement.
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible. “(Y)ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want.
I thought of all this when I read through another interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know how you have friends who complain about a super-old relative who just starts spouting racist stuff and can’t be quieted down?
Anyway, in an interview with Elle, she says her kid and grandkid don’t get how awful it would be to not have legal approval for snuffing out one’s growing baby in the womb. And then when she’s trying to say that protections for unborn children hurt poor women more than wealthy women since wealthy women can just pay the baby away, she lets that old eugenics thing slip again:
"It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people."
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
There really is no lower limit to the inner ugliness of liberals.
And Ruth Buzzi Ginzburg pretty much defines the IQ lower limit that one can have and still maintain life functions.
Such is the legacy of liberals.
Gads, these people are stupid beyond comprehension.
I’m actually kinda surprised they feel this way, given their voting support, welfare state and Cloward-Piven strategy
I’d think they would want the white middle class done away with.
Unless they’re thinking ahead of the demographics for their own brats and grandbrats.
But, little human babies are persona non grata?
WTF!?
She’s 81 years old — Zeke Emanuel says that’s about 6 years beyond her expiration date.
Still, I want Ruth Busby to hold on until we can elect a Republican president. We wouldn’t want Obama appointing a younger version of Ruth Busby in the meantime.
And they are importing thousands of uneducated poor kids from Central America. How does that make any sense to the liberal?
It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people
I actually agree with her if it is done via the welfare state.
And no, I am not making a pro abortion statement. I am saying if we didn’t promote everyone having babies under the welfare state they might wait til they could afford them and not make me take care of them.
That’s always puzzled me, too. If Socialists are SO pro-abortion and against life in pretty much any form (So long, Grandpa, you useless feeder!) how are they still around? Why haven’t they aborted themselves out of existence?
Is it that pesky, ‘Rights for me, but NOT for thee,’ thang?
They are despicable. I wish I could be a fly on St. Peter’s gate. DENIED!
And we shouldn’t have to pay for their abortions either. Maybe some of them would learn to abstain or at least use a contraceptive.
Well - that explains alot...
Agree. We shouldn’t be forced to pay for either.
In this instance, she actually makes sense.
/S
Have a friend who has private jet money.
Turns 80 in a year.
He employs quite a few people and his businesses are multimillion enterprises that also pay a gazillion in taxes.
I will be uunhapy whe he leaves this rock.
Nicest and kindest man I ever met.
Generous to a fault and thinks nothing if it.
Just who he is.
Margaret Sanger, call your office!
This is pure eugenics on her part, but there is a valid point in saying that people should stop having babies with no fathers, living on the public dole, and then creating more babies. This contributes to the instituionalization of poverty.
Just looking at Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would prevent me from starting babies...
So maybe she’s the solution to her own dilemma?
I’m for abortion if it wipes out “those we don’t want anymore of” - LIBERALS!! Take than Ruth Buzzie
She evidently wasn't paying attention the day the teacher discussed Pavlov.
They don't see a lifestyle on welfare as poverty...in fact they do very well....why do otherwise if you can get it all on welfare?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.