Posted on 07/18/2009 7:31:39 AM PDT by John Semmens
In an interview with New York Times reporter Emily Bazelon, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the controversial Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States, calling it “essential for ensuring that society can lawfully control population growth.”
Ginsburg said she was concerned that since the 1973 Court case was decided some states have taken measures aimed at limiting the scope of abortions. “This is a case, I think, where society must preserve its options,” Ginsburg said. “Requiring under-age girls to get parental permission, for example, is a step in precisely the wrong direction. These girls aren’t ready for motherhood. Terminating their pregnancies is the wise choice. We shouldn’t be impeding it.”
The Justice also castigated the congress’ passage of the so-called Hyde Amendment in 1980 forbidding federal funds from being used to perform abortions. “That affected a segment of the population that needed culling,” Ginsburg asserted. “Forcing the birth of these children breeds all manner of social ills driving up other costs that the government must incur to support these children and to arrest and incarcerate them as they grow up. ‘Nipping them in the bud,’ so to speak would’ve been the more efficient course of action.”
In related news, President Obama reiterated his complaint that he is being unfairly criticized by “anti-abortion extremists.” “They talk as if I have blood on my hands,” Obama said. “The truth is, I’ve never personally harmed a single unborn child. I am just a public servant carrying out the wishes of the voters on this difficult issue. My aim has been to balance competing objectives in the best interests of society as a whole. Right now, that society demands that abortion be legal and freely available even to those who can’t afford it.”
Whether Obama’s claim of that a lack of direct participation in the performing of any abortion absolves him of moral responsibility is dubious. Hitler never personally harmed a single Jew either.
If these people don’t watch out they’ll “control” the number of idiots who vote for them.
Nipping them in the bud? Nipping them? Holy h@ll. These people have something disconnected in their brains...almost like a sociopath. I'm serious.
So the utter contempt of the left for “we the proletarians” is just now getting out?
Going on vacation? Good. For a few weeks Free Republic will be free of satire that looks like news.
The original progressives were not that progressive: they proposed eugenic remedies for the immigrants, women, blacks and mental defectives they blamed for low wages, promoted an illiberal vision of women’s economics interests, endorsed survival of the fittest doctrine (so long as the state chose the fittest), advocated imperial adventures, and embraced the scientifically managed corporation. A more complete portrait of the progressives recognizes this illiberal strain in progressive economic reform and its origins in anti-individualism, statism, social efficiency, and planning by scientific experts.
Thomas C. Leonard
Utterly striking! I think she's erroneously exposed the true feelings of liberals have for the downtrodden massess of their 'voting army'. All the while, they secretly have plans to cull the rolls from the vermin that have assisted them in attaining their rightful power.
I agree! I watched comments on the CBS comment board wanting to send a teenager to jail for 158 years for killing CATS! Saying he wasn’t fit for society...
I feel the same way about women who destroy babies...
It’s amazing to me that liberals can go OH NO, OH NO, these are not babies...they’re fetus!
I note “semi-news/semi-satire” in the heading as well as “satire” as a keyword. Sounds like a lot of readers missed this and got their panties in a wad for no reason.
One for bookmark consideration.
Dangit! [semi satire]. Sorry for pinging everyone. I’ll try to find a more serious Ginsberg quote beccause she DID say something shocking this week.
Same evil, different century.
Ginsburg said. “Requiring under-age girls to get parental permission, for example, is a step in precisely the wrong direction. These girls aren’t ready for motherhood. Terminating their pregnancies is the wise choice. We shouldn’t be impeding it.”
WHAT? Sorry, but I have RIGHTS as a parent to KNOW WTF is going on with MY child!!! F- the state’s “rights” to make that decision FOR me.
Torches and pitchforks! This B&^$% has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to advocate MURDER!!!! How did this piece of filth even get INTO the courtroom let alone on the bench? The woman is no better than a NAZI!
I merely elaborated on her words. The thinking is essentially correct. People should be concerned.
"Pruning the excess population" may be the authors precise wording, but the Judge made essential the same premise in her original statement.
It’s hard to tell the difference between satire and truth anymore. Ginsberg did say this, however, she just used different wording. It was even worse, as I recall, because it was about getting rid of people we want less of.
Enjoy your vacation. You deserve it!
Have a great vacation!
I also vaguely recall hearing that she made it clear that she believes that the S[sandwich]COTUS, you know — the baby killing law has the power to make law and shape culture.
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.