Ginsberg: Roe V Wade was to reduce undesirable population types. Repost

New York Times via Barry's Obamanation Blog ^ | 7-9-09 | EMILY BAZELON

[51773photo]

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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.

[51773photo]

In Ephesians 2;2 Satan is called “the prince of the power of the air”.
Could be a ref to TV and Radio?

[Mr. Mojo]

"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."

Translation: "But now that I realize that Roe has effectively killed off tens of millions of Democrat voters, I'm having second thoughts about it."

[dadgum]

No, since electromagnetic radiation propagates in a vacuum.

[51773photo]

But has been known, on occasion, to travel through gases as well.

[Oldpuppymax]

Blacks are about 12% of the population but account for almost 40% of all abortions...

And 50% of the crime. And they owe a great deal of this rousing success to the democrat party!

[xzins]

She never said if she agreed with her assessment or not.

She used the pronoun, WE.

[xzins]

Never heard that before, but it is worthy of reflection.

[nikos1121]

“Ask yourself why someone like Angelina Jolie goes to Ethiopia to adopt instead of LA or Chicago.”

I wonder what would happen if we allowed young mothers to basically adopt out their babies to couples for a fee. The negotiated with the higher bidder winning.

I know this sounds terrible in the one sense, but I know of women who do NOT wish to have children, and would abort in a heart beat. Others, many in fact, would have the baby and raise the child in the unwed single parent household or with the grandparents raising them.

Why not compensate the young mother who wishes to not abort the child to adopt the child to a loving family?

Again, I point out that Americans spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a baby from Russia, Indonesia etc...

[silverleaf]

Unfortunately being a baby mama is a way of life for many in the American underclass. A lifetime ticket to benefits, even citizenship. A tangible sign some man thought they were attractive enough to mate with. Aa hopeful continuing link to that man... A cuddly object to love and be loved by. Until the child grows into an angry adolescent.

Having adopted in Russia and researched elsewhere, I did NOT note this “needy” or self serving attitude in the birth mothers of Russia Kazakhtstan etc who gave up (or lost by govt action) their children. Hopeless poverty (affecting the entire extended family), alcoholism, and drugs generally accounted for many of the children abandoned there. Also many children up for adoptiuon there are deemed damaged goods, or “imperfect” in any way (racially, physically, mentally, social/ethnic class) and not wanted by a society that has no respect, tolerance or facilties for them.

Americans faced with unwanted pregnancies have so many more options, for better or worse. Compensating them for giving up their children to adoption won’t appeal, imho.

[Rutles4Ever]

Not a peep about this at DU. I can only assume silence=consent.

[Rutles4Ever]

You would end up with people getting pregnant just to make 5-10k. i.e., it wouldn’t resolve the attitude that the child is simply a means of profit or loss, a mere inhuman object.

[nikos1121]

I think you’d see a precipitous drop in abortions and overseas adoptions...

These children who are now raised in dysfunctional homes would be raised by loving parents...or at least two parents...

And to be frank I think it is fair and just that if someone carries a baby esp is she is young and uneducated without other means...why not make money or if not money be given a chance to go to school or receive training for a job...

[wagglebee]

If you keep reading the article you will see that Ginsburg laments the fact that poor people have to travel to other states sometimes to get abortions because the Government isn't providing them to the poor through Medicaide. She notes that people with money are now the only people who can freely abort their posterity. She wants the Government to provide free abortions at as many locations as possible so that these "undesirables" can thin their population through abortion.

And make no mistake about it, abortion is rooted in eugenics and it has ALWAYS been targeted toward the "undesirables". They believe that abortion should be used by the white upper-middle and upper classes as a matter of convenience so that a woman's education or career doesn't get sidetracked and she can have children later, but for lower-income groups and minorities they believe that abortion should be automatic.