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 ...
“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.
Such happy looking women. [ sarcasm ]
Hmmm, Natual Law? I'm curious as to what you mean.
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.
ping
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.
One of her medications must have a bit of truth serum in them.
Sangar was quite clear about that, as were many of the early pro death promoters.
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.
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.
“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.
If not, I hope some FReeper will make one.
United States Supreme Court Jester Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg
Good one!!
“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.
Nothing is going to happen. Some people can say whatever they want.
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.
*
* Supreme Court Jester Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg Sanger
*
*
*
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.
OMG!
Disgraceful. But at least she’s honest in her misanthropy.
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.