Posted on 07/09/2009 11:11:12 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."
The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.
"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," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.
Scary statement.
Good to see she’s on the same page as Margaret Sanger.
Well, someone else in the 1930s and 40s made a case pretty close to that. Did she agree with him too?
The true colors of the liberals.......racist eugenicists..
Oh snap! Someone finally admitted the real purpose of federal abortion funding.
God help us! Did she really say this?
This is a very callous thing to say - especially about kids in their mothers’ wombs.
Unbelievable, or at least it would have been a few years ago, now nothing surprises me.
Does anybody have a link to the actual NYTimes article where she said this?
Considering that the majority of abortions occur in the poor and black or brown population groups, this is an amazingly hypocritical statement from a far lefty.
OOOOOOH SISTAH GINSBURG, does that mean you’re really not down with black folks?
“God help us! Did she really say this?”
Unfortunately, NO. Once again I got my hopes raised by a misleading headline. She didnt say SHE thought that way, only that some did at the time Roe was decided.
Notice that her biggest beef was with the fact that only the wealthy had “access”, ie, that the wealthy have more choices than the poor.
It’s simply reality.
But, lefties define “freedom” as everyone having the same amount of choice, which they usually do by taking choices away from people.
That’s NOT what she meant to say. She meant to say,”I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations”.
Where’s the “That’s racist” kid?
Liberal whites who preach tolerance and diversity are among the most bigoted people in the U.S.
Ooops! That’s NOT what she meant to say. She meant to say, “I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Republicans”
The truth be told
Some guy in the 30s had his final solution,
and now Ginsberg reveals her own. Just dang!
Does she know anything at all about her heritage?
I doubt it.
Someone must have slipped truth serum into her pancreatic CA chemotherapy. You have to watch those Hematologist-Oncologists. They are sneaky-sneaky!
That comment of mine was rather pointed, but it’s been my take for some time that the blacks in our nation are under-represented today, because so many of them have been killed off through abortion. This is really going to come into play as our nation continues to be occupied by Mexico. The Mexican component here is going to push Blacks down into a third tier here. And you now what, it’s left and people like Ginsberg who have happy to advocate and facilitate to this end.
It’s genocide. There’s just no getting around it. It’s shocking to see a person like Ginsberg make a statement like this. She is supposed to be a reasoned thinker.
So conservatives are racist just because we want a color blind society (no racial preferences and no race based discrimination - really the same thing, just different races targeted), whereas libs are NOT racist just because they want to have undersirable (code for minority) populations kill off their own unborn babies.
That makes sense. NOT. But apparently it does to the 90+% of the black population who voted for a radically pro-abortion lib president...
Evil old Leftist Bat!!
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...
We need to be careful here. There’s a discussion of this at WDTPRS and one commentator has found a law review article by Ginsburg that suggests that the fear of abortion as eugenics was coming from black leaders she heard in 1971 and that her personal view was not necessarily eugenicist. She does appear to side-step the de facto functioning of abortion as eugenicist as far as blacks are concerned, but on the other hand, the disparate number of black abortions results in large part from the dramatic shift in sexual mores since Roe v. Wade made abortion as birth control possible. How many of the aborted out-of-wedlock black babies would have been conceived had Roe v. Wade not taken place?
It is true that abortion disproportionately kills black babies but it’s effect on “minority” society goes beyond that.
But to attribute eugencist thinking to Ginsburg on the basis of this interview may be premature.
See the comments by James the Less at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/7143/#comments, with the following quotation from the law review article that she wrote, posted at http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/63_N_C_L_Rev_375.doc
“In 1971, just before the Supreme Court’s turning-point gender-classification decision in Reed v. Reed, n4 and over a year before Roe v. Wade, I visited a neighboring institution to participate in a conference on women and the law. I spoke then of the utility of litigation attacking official line-drawing by sex. My comments focused on the chance in the 1970s that courts, through constitutional adjudication, would aid in evening out the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women and men. n5 I did not mention the abortion cases then on the dockets of several lower courts—I was not at that time or any other time thereafter personally engaged in reproductive-autonomy litigation. Nonetheless, the most heated questions I received concerned abortion.
The questions were pressed by black men. The suggestion, not thinly veiled, was that legislative reform and litigation regarding abortion might have less to do with individual autonomy or discrimination against women than with re-stricting population growth among oppressed minorities. n6 The [*377] strong word “genocide” was uttered more than once. It is a notable irony that, as constitutional law in this domain has unfolded, women who are not poor have achieved access to abortion with relative ease; for poor women, however, a group in which minorities are disproportion-ately represented, access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.”
James the Less then commnted at WDTPRS:
“This may be what she is repeating. Everyone can reach their own conclusions, but I would be cautious. In my view, it doesn’t make her a eugenicist.”
You don’t recognize leftist ‘code-speak’ when you read it?
If she didn’t agree with it, she never would have repeated it.
It's a good thing that it is only being reported by Fox News, FR and a few conservative sites otherwise it might have done some damage.
.
I think this is a SPECTACULAR story to have a Jewish sitting judge on the Supreme court advocating genocide. Coming out of ANY of the conservative judges this would be the lead story on every MSM outlet for the next month.
I just csn’t believe anyone thinking themselves human would utter such a statement.
And which “unwanted populations” could the lily white Buzzy be talking about?
This is not simply callous. It is racial cleansing, grounds for removal from the court. The woman has been a source of vicious immorality since her appointment. This latest admission makes clear her agenda to purge society of misfits.
So she agrees with Planned Parenthood. Big deal.
“If she didn’t agree with it, she never would have repeated it.”
After reading the actual interview I take back my initial comment that it wasnt what SHE believed. What she said was as follows: “I went back and read the actual 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. “
It says populations that “WE” dont want. WE means she didnt want them either. Unfortunately, whats the best that can happen? We force her to resign? She is on her way out anyway. Smart politicians could use this as a wedge between minorities and RATS. Unfortunately we dont have any smart politicians, only Republicans.
If a conservative said this, would the accusations and outrage about racism ever subside? Ever??
“Considering that the majority of abortions occur in the poor and black or brown population groups, this is an amazingly hypocritical statement from a far lefty.”
Actually, the left is consistently racist.
All based on sound scholarhship.
Another entry in the "imagine if a Conservative had said that." file.
The striking thing about this is that the MSM has virtually ignored it, and it’s only being picked up by conserative media. Actually, I’m even surprised that the NYT left that comment in the story because it is so potentially embarrassing to Ginsburg and the pro-abortion movement. On the other hand, is it just possible that the person who wrote the story thought that the comment was so self-evident that it wouldn’t even be controversial?
Interesting ... esp when you consider that the black community has been the population most devastated by abortion.
exactly what crossed my mind. next comes the parsing. didn’t mean it that way,would say it differently if could say over...yadda yadda.
And sometimes we really do need to be careful.
You should be careful as you decide whether this ia a time to be careful or whether you just want to lambaste me as an apologist for untenable leftist positions.
Since I don’t hold any Leftist positions at all and I have no use for Justice Ginsburg in general, it’s just possible that I was genuinely concerned for truth in the matter.
It’s just as wrong to accuse falsely someone you don’t like as it is to accuse falsely someone you do agree with. Granted that Justice Ginsburg is wrong about a whole series of things, still, to accuse her of being eugenicist needs to be backed up. She may indeed be a eugenicist.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW’S LANGUAGE IS VERY OBSCURE. It’s impossible to know, simply from the NYT’s quotation of her, whether she is speaking in her own voice when she says “we” or whether she is speaking in the voice of those black leaders at the time of Roe v. Wade.
I offered you some concrete evidence that she might have been speaking in their voice, not her voice. You don’t even argue for or against, but label me an apologist for untenable leftist positions.
Even if she was, in the NYT interview, speaking in someone else’s voice at this point, she might share those other people’s views or she might not. But the interview itself doesn’t clarify this. The words are ambiguous.
But you prefer just to label me. Whatever.
Kiss my grits. I can’t even believe she said it.
She wouldn’t be referring to blacks, would she? Abortion hasn’t certainly taken a bite there, to be sure.
Stunning.
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.