Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
WND ^ | 7/8/09 | staff

Posted on 07/08/2009 6:57:10 PM PDT by pissant

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

(snip)

Question: 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?

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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: abortion; baderginsburg; bigotry; cullingtheherd; eugenics; ginsburg; lping; moralabsolutes; nazi; overpopulation; prolife; racist; ruthbaderginsburg; undesirables
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
To: pissant
"populations that we don't want to have too many of."

YIKES!!!!!! & who might THAT be, Ms. Ginsburg...could you please explain that in a lil more detail???

151 posted on 07/08/2009 8:40:41 PM PDT by ChrisInAR (The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Offer up a prayer to God for Ginsburg that she may not wish for eternity that she had never been born.


152 posted on 07/08/2009 8:40:59 PM PDT by Theophilus (Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; potlatch

.

Sanger was a NAZI


153 posted on 07/08/2009 8:43:53 PM PDT by devolve (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sarah Palin 2012 - - - - - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; pissant

Of course I accept your apology, potlatch. I often address my fellow FReepers by their nics, or more still, by a shortened version of their nics. In fact, in this instance with pissant, I never think of it in the word that you were thinking. I always call him “piss” or “pissy” because I like him so much and I enjoy talking to him, and have for years. Sometimes when I write OMG I’m in a hurry and don’t properly put in the very important (I guess,) comma before I write the poster’s moniker. Most times I am a stickler for grammar and punctuation. I’ve never (that I can ever remember,) had a post deleted...and try very hard to not name-call. Now you have me worried that I had a post deleted somewhere. Can you tell me where? At any rate, if you read my posts on the board on most given days, I address FReepers by their names or silly or shortened versions. You just had my heart pounding, potlatch, when you said my “nasty” language. Take care and I loves ya and all your posts and such. Please FReepmail me if there is in fact a post of mine that you saw deleted.


154 posted on 07/08/2009 8:47:12 PM PDT by Miss Behave (OMG, my tagline is stalking me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

ROFL


155 posted on 07/08/2009 8:47:48 PM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

In a similar vein, I keep expecting it to decimate the ranks of Democrat voters, but it keeps not happening.

156 posted on 07/08/2009 8:49:00 PM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If i were an up and comming Republican in the confirmation hearings for Sonya Sotomayer, I would ask this question.

In an Interview Ruth Ginsberg has stated the following about abortion and here is direct quote from the interview:

Question: 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?

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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

How does that make you FEEL? How does that make you feel knowing you will serving on the same court as her?

Watching her jaw drop after that question would be quite the sight.


157 posted on 07/08/2009 9:01:50 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Behave
No, it wasn't one of your posts that was deleted. It was someone on another thread.

I'm glad you aren't mad. I feel like a fool now and wish someone had alerted me that I had misunderstood.

Thank you for replying. I'm heading to bed now, lol.

158 posted on 07/08/2009 9:03:55 PM PDT by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Photobucket
159 posted on 07/08/2009 9:16:43 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

Potlatch, you are one of the nicest and neatest FReepers on the board. Everyone admires you—and I’m not mad and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. Nitey-nite. :-)


160 posted on 07/08/2009 9:18:36 PM PDT by Miss Behave (OMG, my tagline is stalking me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: pissant
So then she was vigorously opposed to R v. W and the abortion industry prior to 1980, right???????

No, she was not opposed to abortion. But the WND article is trying to slant it that she supported (or that the SC did) abortion for the sake of population control. I don't think that's what she's saying.

161 posted on 07/08/2009 9:42:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Ugly people shouldn’t breed...


162 posted on 07/08/2009 10:14:02 PM PDT by odin2008 (Everything in the universe is subject to change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Did she state she was against Roe or not. If it was a eugenics construct, as she said she beleived, then she must have been against it, right??


163 posted on 07/08/2009 10:39:29 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Abortion’s the slow way to reduce ‘undesirable’ populations. Didn’t someone in Europe a few decades ago have a faster way, one that affected Bader Ginsberg’s relatives?


164 posted on 07/08/2009 10:52:33 PM PDT by Ready4Freddy ("Everyone knows there's a difference between Muslims and terrorists. No one knows what it is, tho...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

She did not state she was against abortion.
She did not state whether she was for or against abortion used as eugenics.

She stated that she did not anticipate that the SC would vote against a law that might have encouraged abortion used as eugenics. (She didn’t say which way she voted on the case about Medicaid paid abortions, only that she was surprised at the votes of the other jurists).

Which is not what the WND article (and most of the posters here) are trying to make this story out to be.


165 posted on 07/08/2009 10:55:09 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

For 7 years, she thought that R. V. W. was a eugenics based decision. Did she or did she not support R. V. W.?


166 posted on 07/08/2009 10:59:44 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: pissant

You know, the undersirable group can change depending on political advantage.


167 posted on 07/08/2009 11:07:33 PM PDT by TheThinker (America doesn't have a president. It has a usurper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Did you read the NYT article?

She said “some people thought” that Medicaid paid abortions might induce eugenic abortions.

I’m not defending her position on abortion. I’m defending a correct reading of what she actually said in this New York Times article. We need to be accurate and precise.

I don’t think the WND article nor many people commenting on it are being accurate and precise. This hurts the pro-life cause.


168 posted on 07/08/2009 11:12:55 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Can’t you answer a simple question? We ALL know she supported abortion. But she said:

“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.”

SO for 7 years, 1973-80, she believed this. Did she or did she not support R.V.W for those 7 years until 1980, when “I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

The answer is yes, she supported the seemingy eugenics based decision.


169 posted on 07/08/2009 11:21:29 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: pissant
She did NOT say she believed this ... she said "there was concern about ..." (regarding the population issue and the eugenics issue).

She later says "some people felt ..." (regarding the Medicaid issue)

Beware and be aware of the passive voice.

170 posted on 07/08/2009 11:29:50 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

She included herself by using WE


171 posted on 07/08/2009 11:31:14 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

ANd how the hell else would her mind be changed in 1980 if she knew all along it wasn’t a eugenics construct. You are grasping at straws.


172 posted on 07/08/2009 11:32:57 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Ginsburg joined the court 20 years after Roe v. Wade and 13 years after Harris v. McRae.

She obviously supports abortion (but we do not know from this inteview how long she has supported abortion).

She is making commentary on how her assumptions about the societal motivations behind Roe v Wade changed over time (and well before her appointment to the court). She is saying her assumptions were proved wrong by Harris v. McRae. (I think her initial assumptions were correct, but that’s neither here nor there).

She very well could have the same motivations for supporting abortion as those she suspected others of having. But we do not know this to be true from what she said in this interview.


173 posted on 07/08/2009 11:52:53 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: pissant

You’re assumimg she supported abortion in 1980, but there is no evidence of that in this interview.

How do you know when she started supporting abortion?


174 posted on 07/08/2009 11:59:44 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Nowhere does she say “societal motivations”. She does say we though.


175 posted on 07/08/2009 11:59:56 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The same reason I know Ronald Reagan was a conservative before he came to office. I know her history


176 posted on 07/09/2009 12:00:58 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: pissant

know = knew


177 posted on 07/09/2009 12:02:12 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; pissant
Yes, Ruth Bader-Meinhoff the tireless warrior for the Final Solution to the "undesirable" question.

The ugly truth is. . . .the Left is a mass-murdering cult.

100 million per the Black Book of Communism.

And, it was the NSDAP, national socialist German workers party.

It's got "socialism" and "workers"--

--but Janet Nazitano figures it's abortion opponents who must be sent to the ovens.

Oh, those wacky Leftists!

178 posted on 07/09/2009 12:02:32 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Ginsburg lets the cat out of the bag!

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

179 posted on 07/09/2009 12:03:59 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump


180 posted on 07/09/2009 1:28:01 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“An accidental stark moment of clarity.”

She has got to be on some pretty strong meds to control her cancer. More than a few of them are like truth serum. They remove the inhibitions and you think you are in control, but you aren’t. The drugs are.
That is the real danger in taking any kind of antipressant or tranquillizer and some painkillers. No inhibitors.
I hope this becomes a news storm.


181 posted on 07/09/2009 1:42:06 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Zero+Zero=Zero, OR nothing from nothing is still nothing. OR 0+R E =0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Such happy looking women. [ sarcasm ]


182 posted on 07/09/2009 2:38:43 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Moonlight
Seriously, if a SCOTUS actually said this as a basis of natural-law,

Hmmm, Natual Law? I'm curious as to what you mean.

183 posted on 07/09/2009 3:09:44 AM PDT by Jacquerie (On the tablets of the heart a law is written, the same for all men - St. Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
I hope this becomes a news storm.

It won't, because the Justice has simply spoken plainly about what is and has always been the supermassive black hole of truth at the very center of the baby-killing galaxy. Everyone who supports abortion on demand understands and accepts it as an unremarkable and self-evident reality, including everyone in the LeftMedia - just consider what Nancy Pelosi said about "family planning" funding not long ago.

184 posted on 07/09/2009 3:38:30 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

ping


185 posted on 07/09/2009 4:05:37 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

Yes, I agree. We have always understood it thusly. However, to my knowledge, this is the first time a Supreme Court Justice has actually said it with such clarity and in such a completely nonchalant way, it almost takes your breath away.


186 posted on 07/09/2009 4:07:14 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Zero+Zero=Zero, OR nothing from nothing is still nothing. OR 0+R E =0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: pissant

One of her medications must have a bit of truth serum in them.


187 posted on 07/09/2009 4:08:01 AM PDT by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Well, that is what abortion has been about all along.
Reducing the number of black babies.

Sangar was quite clear about that, as were many of the early pro death promoters.

188 posted on 07/09/2009 4:12:31 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

60 000 RM (Reichmarks)

This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime.

Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too.

189 posted on 07/09/2009 5:03:51 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Actually, she may have a point. There are some economists who believe that the reduction in crime we’ve experienced in the last decade or so occurred because of the massive number of abortions.


190 posted on 07/09/2009 5:20:45 AM PDT by Little Ray (Do we have a Plan B?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

“I’d be surprised if somebody doesn’t edit that out. Then again, it is the New York Times. BTT.”

I’d wager that most of their readers agree with her sentiments.


191 posted on 07/09/2009 5:42:22 AM PDT by CSM (Business is too big too fail... Government is too big to succeed... I am too small to matter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
Is there an animation of this image to show here banging her head on the table?

If not, I hope some FReeper will make one.

United States Supreme Court Jester Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg

192 posted on 07/09/2009 6:33:03 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost
"Jews for Genocide. It’s a small club but now we know she’s the president."

Good one!!

193 posted on 07/09/2009 6:38:20 AM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“demonstrate her commitment to the constitutional rights of privacy and choice.”

The thing that I find ironic is that the Roe decision is precisely what makes the public “option” health care invalid. If a public “option” is forced on the citizens of this once great country, then the lieberals are invalidating their favorite court decision. No longer will the “privacy” established in Roe exist and no longer will we be free to make our own choices for medical care.


194 posted on 07/09/2009 6:45:22 AM PDT by CSM (Business is too big too fail... Government is too big to succeed... I am too small to matter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Nothing is going to happen. Some people can say whatever they want.


195 posted on 07/09/2009 6:49:47 AM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Reading that interview gave me a headache. She can’t express herself properly, everything is couched in lib buzzwords and assorted other gobbleygook. Although the questioner made probably the most loathsome comments like “Constitutional sex-equality”. Blech.


196 posted on 07/09/2009 7:05:38 AM PDT by visualops (portraits.artlife.us or visit my freeper page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: pissant
*

*

* Supreme Court Jester Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg Sanger

*

*

*

197 posted on 07/09/2009 7:19:10 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The ugly truth; I’m surprised the NYT is going to publish it. I imagine there will be all manner of “taken out of context” calls by the baby killers.


198 posted on 07/09/2009 7:42:47 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

OMG!


199 posted on 07/09/2009 8:04:48 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Disgraceful. But at least she’s honest in her misanthropy.


200 posted on 07/09/2009 8:12:12 AM PDT by Antoninus (Time to fight back--donate to Free Republic, then donate to www.sarahpac.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson