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

Skip to comments.

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want Too Many Of'
Newsbusters ^ | 7/9/2009 | Tom Blumer

Posted on 07/09/2009 8:05:13 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court"; HT to an e-mailer) apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition (based on its URL), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon 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."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

Alleged reporter Bazelon did not follow up on this astounding admission.

Here, in full context of the Q&A discussion about women's reproductive rights, is Justice Ginsburg's statement:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: 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?

JUSTICE 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.

Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.

I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.

It's pretty hard not to see Ginsburg's early perception of Roe as legalizing a convenient means for minimizing the number of poor, who "just happen" to be disproportionately non-white. Also recall that at the time, Medicaid was a program predominantly benefitting only the poor, and not the near middle-class entitlement into which more recent Congresses have morphed it.

Given Ginsburg's stated "at the time" position, there's little doubt that she would have declared the Hyde Amendment, which "barred the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest," unconstitutional. In the related case, Harris v. McRae, the Court upheld the Hyde Amendment by a 5-4 vote.

In its November 30, 2007 Henry Hyde obituary, the Washington Post quoted Dr. Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee, who asserted that, "By conservative estimate, well over one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment -- more likely two million."

So 1-2 million babies have been born into financially poor circumstances in the three-plus decades years since the Hyde Amendment became law. This apparently doesn't please Justice Ginsburg, or perhaps didn't please her at the time.

Ginsburg gets the wiggle room, in my opinion, because she told Bazelon that she "realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." The problem is that we can't tell what "it" is. Is it Roe v. Wade, the Hyde Amendment, or the facts and circumstances of the specific case?

Thanks to the remarkably incurious Bazelon, we don't know. What we do know is that at least for some time during her legal career, in her early 40s, Ginsburg, as a member of the unidentified "we" referred to earlier, thought that abortion as a means of controlling the population of relative undesirables was okey-dokey.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; cultureofdeath; eugenics; ginsburg; lifehate; supremecourt
SEE ORIGINAL NY TIMES MAGAZINE ARTICLE HERE
1 posted on 07/09/2009 8:05:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who is we, and who is we don’t want too many of? She is one twisted human/nazi.


2 posted on 07/09/2009 8:09:25 PM PDT by davetex (If it's in stock, we've got it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bttt


3 posted on 07/09/2009 8:09:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("A new Dark Ages made all the more terrible and prolonged by the sinister powers of science.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Shhhhhhh, this is not important! There is a pool club thats being mean!!!! Now THAT is news!!!

/s


4 posted on 07/09/2009 8:10:37 PM PDT by icwhatudo (For every clinic bombed or burned, 17 to 18 churches are burned down. MSM? MSM?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I thought liberals hated the rich and wanted less of them. Can they make up their minds?


5 posted on 07/09/2009 8:10:42 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Think of the D Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Related....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=ginsburg


6 posted on 07/09/2009 8:11:36 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR....Monthly Donors Wanted. I Upped My Monthly....Now, Up Yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The biggest racists on earth are liberals like the completely despicable Ginsburg.

What an arrogant, evil excuse for a human.


7 posted on 07/09/2009 8:12:25 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davetex

I’ve read things in recent years that claim abortion advocates originally thought abortion would be used to control negro reproduction rates...that planned parenthood was originally created to eliminate black babies.

I guess their plan didn’t work out quite like they expected. Now I suppose they want to overturn roe vs wade. What a messed up world.


8 posted on 07/09/2009 8:14:34 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I didn’t know this, because the majority of abortions are obtained by white women, so it seems they got the opposite of the desired goal. Either way, abortion is sick, black or white, and should be outlawed.


9 posted on 07/09/2009 8:20:21 PM PDT by RebelYell1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RebelYell1990

No need to outlaw it, just publish it the same way other vital statistics are published, like birth announcements, marriage rituals and obituaries — give it its own column on the same page of every local newspaper.


10 posted on 07/09/2009 8:28:11 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RebelYell1990

The *rate* of abortion is much higher for black than white.


11 posted on 07/09/2009 8:31:10 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And the Jews say, “Never Again!”


12 posted on 07/09/2009 8:32:00 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Yea probably, I am just saying there are more dead white babies then black babies from Roe V Wade, thus backfiring on Sanger’s plan with Planned Parenthood.


13 posted on 07/09/2009 8:34:36 PM PDT by RebelYell1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: davetex
Who is we, and who is we don’t want too many of? She is one twisted human/nazi.

Ginsburg a member of highest court in the land. Scary

14 posted on 07/09/2009 8:47:56 PM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
just publish it the same way other vital statistics are published,

I like this idea.

15 posted on 07/09/2009 8:50:51 PM PDT by BipolarBob (It takes a Kenyan village to raise a US president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Eugenics? I would argue otherwise, but hey....
At any rate, I believe it was more about getting rid of undesirables and population control.


16 posted on 07/09/2009 8:52:16 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelYell1990

Per capita, it’s far more prevalent among black women.


17 posted on 07/09/2009 8:53:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Think of the D Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: davetex
Whiff of eugenics

Whiff? How about stench?

19 posted on 07/09/2009 8:56:00 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (Only dead fish go with the flow. -- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

ok, but more white babies have been aborted.


20 posted on 07/09/2009 9:01:49 PM PDT by RebelYell1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A blatant Statist. See Mark Leivn’s latest book for a detailed description.


21 posted on 07/09/2009 9:04:16 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rule 198.908.30.621
People that survive to the age of three will
be aloud to survive to the age of 64.5 for
injected termination or 69 for bullet termination.


22 posted on 07/09/2009 9:10:19 PM PDT by Cyber Ninja (His legacy is a stain OnTheDress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I’ve read things in recent years that claim abortion advocates originally thought abortion would be used to control negro reproduction rates...that planned parenthood was originally created to eliminate black babies.

I guess their plan didn’t work out quite like they expected. Now I suppose they want to overturn roe vs wade. What a messed up world.


Download the pdf book "Killer Angel" here and read all about it.
23 posted on 07/09/2009 9:17:56 PM PDT by tang-soo (Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OnTheDress

I choose “99 for termination via evisceration then drawn and quartered”.


24 posted on 07/09/2009 10:42:49 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: davetex
Who is we, and who is we don’t want too many of?

Ginsburg is just echoing Margaret Sanger's (founder of Planned Parenthood) racism and desire for genocide of black Americans. And remember, this is a core platform issue for the democrat party.

25 posted on 07/09/2009 11:27:45 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama's moral cowardice endangers the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
“I’ve read things in recent years that claim abortion advocates originally thought abortion would be used to control negro reproduction rates...that planned parenthood was originally created to eliminate black babies.”

Read up on Margaret Sanger, one of the leading advocates of abortion for poor women earlier this past century.

26 posted on 07/10/2009 5:01:58 AM PDT by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whoops! She let a nugget of truth slip out.

http://blackgenocide.org


27 posted on 07/10/2009 7:01:45 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Senile...


28 posted on 07/11/2009 2:40:10 AM PDT by Fred (Obama Throws the Iranian Citizens Under the Bus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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