Skip to comments.Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe v. Wade Was to Get Rid of Undesirables....
Posted on 07/09/2009 4:53:27 AM PDT by IronKros
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."
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 ...
From context, that’s exactly what she meant => We need Medicaid to pay for abortions to rid us of “undesirable” segments of the populace...
words truly fail me...
2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Wow. To actually come out and say it...
from the way the court went on the Medicaid decision, she realized her perception was wrong.
i think she needs to clarify a bit. not that it will make any bit of difference.
as an aside, it is a fact that crime began its national slide approximately 16 years after Roe was decided. that is an important fact.
if it said ‘socioeconomic’ group, you’d have a winner.
Is the media reporting this. I dont watch it so I was wondering if they are just passing on this.
Not to be overly offensive,
But to all of you died in the wool black liberals,,,she is talking about you..
I’ve heard liberals say, when arguing about abortion, “Abortion isn’t what’s wrong. It’s that the wrong ones are being aborted.”
Racism and eugenics were at the core of the abortion movement when it began.
Yup. Plus one other point to make. Concervatives do not believe in abortion, therefore they dont use it. The babies being aborted are the future generation of liberals.
Well, I’m glad we have a news outlet that will actually print some of this news from a Christian worldview perspective and not try to *bury* these things, like the other MSM does.
Of course, there are still a lot of Freepers, here, who favor WorldNetDaily with its news perspective even less than they favor the MSM... LOL...
And I suspect it’s precisely because of that Christian Worldview that WorldNetDaily brings to the mix.... :-)
On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Problem is that liberalism is a state of mind that can move from generation to generation.
“Wow. To actually come out and say it.”
If you take the time to read Roe vs Wade, the decision is based on the eco argument predicting over population. Brennan made it clear it was better to abort the unwanted to save the earth.
"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Laurence H. Tribe, "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term--Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law," 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather." Edward Lazarus, (former clerk to Harry Blackmun) "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them," FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002
"Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." William Saletan, "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.
"What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. . . . At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking." John Hart Ely, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade," 82 Yale Law Journal 920, 935-937 (1973).
Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." Benjamin Wittes, "Letting Go of Roe," The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
It’s scary that she honestly thought that! Check out www.parentalrights.org. Abortion rights could easily be expanded if the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is ratified by the Senate. ParentalRights.org is working on a way to stop international law from eroding our law.
My liberal, pro-abortion sisters used the lower-crime argument, citing “Freakonomics” as the proof.
When I began agreeing with them, using the word “undesireables” and “minorities”, they began to back-step and take offense.
As the saying goes..Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
You old shriveled-up shrew. Don’t let the door hit your bony a$$ on the way out of the SC.
Yeah, well that's only for "desirable populations", isn't it?
RBG wrote an article some years back advocating the age of consent for sex between adults and minors be lowered to 11 years old.
She should resign immediately.
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.