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

Skip to comments.

JUSTICE GINSBURG NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HERSELF ( Abortion & Eugenics )
CATHOLIC LEAGUE ^ | July 10, 2009 | staff

Posted on 07/11/2009 7:13:53 AM PDT by kellynla

Catholic League president Bill Donohue says U.S. Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to explain her recent comment on abortion and eugenics:

Excerpts of a New York Times Magazine interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which will appear on July 12, include the following quote by the Supreme Court Justice about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized 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.”

By contrast, consider what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said about this subject:

· “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need…We must prevent Multiplication of this bad stock.” · “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” · “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” · “We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” · “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

There is another reason why Ginsburg needs to clarify her remark. Before she was seated on the Supreme Court in 1993, she hired 57 law clerks over a period of 13 years. All were white. Now if Antonin Scalia, for example, were associated with her disturbing remark, and if he had never hired a single African American, he already would have been branded a racist. At the very least, Ginsburg should be questioned about her explosive comment.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: ginsburg; roevswade; sotomayor; supremecourt
How ironic is it that Ginsburg is a Jew. Hitler would be proud. Unfortunately, we didn't find out about her beliefs until now...horse, barn door comes to mind...
1 posted on 07/11/2009 7:13:53 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer; narses; A.A. Cunningham

ping


2 posted on 07/11/2009 7:14:20 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Why don’t you get it?

Abort, RATION and KILL it’s the plan all long.


3 posted on 07/11/2009 7:16:40 AM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

What is the context of her quote? I was around in 1973, and the whole Zero Population Growth movement was big. I think she is correct in stating that the concern she described existed.


4 posted on 07/11/2009 7:17:14 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I agree. She should explain herself honestly. For pete’s sake, she is a Judge; not God.


5 posted on 07/11/2009 7:17:42 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Hillary has expressed her admiration for Margaret Sanger.


6 posted on 07/11/2009 7:19:31 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I’ll explain abortion for Ginsberg. Pro choice means aborting black and hispanics. You’re welcome Frau Ginsberg.


7 posted on 07/11/2009 7:20:06 AM PDT by Enterprise (When they come for your guns and ammo, give them the ammo first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
I think she is correct in stating that the concern she described existed.

You mean curbing the black population by murdering their babies?

8 posted on 07/11/2009 7:20:19 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

She needs to fully explain her position on Roe v Wade and explain it to the point that we are satisfied that NO PART of her position is in anyway related to those comments she made.


9 posted on 07/11/2009 7:21:25 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

bttt to read later


10 posted on 07/11/2009 7:21:30 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; P-Marlowe; jude24

I thoroughly disagree about Ginsberg explaining herself. She will only “explain it away.”

It stands on its own. She has explained herself.

It’s not about what Ginsberg needs to do. It’s about what us members of her serf classes need to do.

BTW, what makes Donohue think “HE” isn’t one of the populations she wishes there were fewer of?


11 posted on 07/11/2009 7:21:56 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
She's merely illustrating her deep kindred spirit with her heroine Margaret Sanger.
12 posted on 07/11/2009 7:22:04 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Scary comments.What an agenda that we thought ended with Hitler.What was WW2 over?The fairy princess?


13 posted on 07/11/2009 7:22:14 AM PDT by taxtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"U.S. Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to explain her recent comment on abortion and eugenics: "

Explain herself????

We know exactly what she meant.

She meant what she said.

14 posted on 07/11/2009 7:22:14 AM PDT by evad (Spending money that we don't have on something that won't work for a problem that doesn't exist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

I just have the short quote. I would have guessed she was referring to the severely mentally and physically challenged. But again, I don’t know the larger context, will be interested to see the full article.


15 posted on 07/11/2009 7:22:16 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Hasn’t that been the goal of Baby Killers, Inc. from the very beginning?


16 posted on 07/11/2009 7:22:46 AM PDT by Howie66 (The one redeeming thing about liberals: their tendency to kill their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Do you really think it would have made any difference had her views been known during her confirmation? I don’t have quite that much faith in our pols.


17 posted on 07/11/2009 7:23:44 AM PDT by animal172 (Disgusted in Tennessee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

She sure seems to want to fill Gods shoes like Hitler tried.These people are the ones that should be jailed for crimes against nature.


18 posted on 07/11/2009 7:25:08 AM PDT by taxtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

No story here. Move along.

Unless this came out of a conservative’s mouth. Then it would be breaking news for a month.


19 posted on 07/11/2009 7:27:25 AM PDT by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

I don’t see what there is to explain. This was clear all along...

It will be interesting to see the black leaders reaction to this though.


20 posted on 07/11/2009 7:27:41 AM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Democrats never have to explain themselves or apologize.


21 posted on 07/11/2009 7:38:47 AM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Okay, the NYTimes article is up, and it looks like she is speaking against women being coerced into having abortions (since they’d just discussed the Air Force having required pregnant women to get abortions or be fired).

Then she talks next against the idea of women on Medicaid being coerced into having abortions—in which context she makes the statement in question. Finally, on the other side, against poor women being forced to carry their pregnancies to term because they can’t afford a non-Medicaid funded abortion.

So I think it is safe to say that quote is in reference to her having assumed something she was against—state coerced abortions—was a worry of some of those who opposed Roe. I do believe she was right in her supposition and is quite clear on her position.


22 posted on 07/11/2009 7:40:46 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

The context of her quote was a discussion of the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment - specifically, government paying for abortions for the poor (Medicaid). The “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” apparently are the children of lower income women.

My 10 year old son is both mentally and physically challenged. The world would be a better place if there were more people like him not less.


23 posted on 07/11/2009 7:42:21 AM PDT by Chesterbelloc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Do you have a link to the times article?


24 posted on 07/11/2009 7:46:05 AM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Chesterbelloc

Yes, as I just posted I just read the article. And she comes out firmly against government coerced abortions via Medicaid, which is the motivating concern she is referencing.

I know most Freepers disagree strongly with her position on abortion, but I don’t see how this quote is in any way insensitive, out of line, or in agreement with the sentiment it references.

My guess as to the context of her out-of-context quote was wrong—as was that of everyone who posted on this thread.


25 posted on 07/11/2009 7:46:11 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: babygene

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?ref=magazine


26 posted on 07/11/2009 7:47:33 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
She can "explain" all she wants.

As she is a former ACLU Liar, Feminazi-murderbort...I KNOW she unashamedly believes in abortion on demand, supporting a slut's "right" to serial-kill her unborn...as needed.

Other than that, I have no strong opinion on the subject.

27 posted on 07/11/2009 7:53:04 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

I know you believe that and that you and many others thus think her evil, but this particular quote isn’t in any way pro-eugenics. (Though I also think she believes in abortion on demand.) Doesn’t mean you need to change your opinion, just means this quote doesn’t give you further ammunition.


28 posted on 07/11/2009 7:57:05 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Having the blood on her hands of 40,000,000+ aborted American babies makes her evil.

These were all individual human beings with their own unique DNA signature, not random clumps of cells, part of a woman's body.

The above is true, God or no God.

29 posted on 07/11/2009 8:06:33 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“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.”

When she says “we” don’t want too many of, she is including herself. She has always supported abortion, even though she “assumed” it was to kill black kids. She was obviously OK with that...


30 posted on 07/11/2009 8:16:20 AM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
I've read the whole interview. She had been talking about a post-Roe decision that upheld a law prohibiting use of Medicaid funds for abortions. In context, the population growth comment seemed to say that it was inconsistent, if we were worried about population growth generally and over-population of certain groups in particular, to deny Medicaid funds to poor women seeking abortions. I'm connecting some dots that Ginsburg didn't really connect, but that's the best I can do with her remarks.

If I'm right, then a more succinct version is: If you want to reduce the number of poor undesirables, you need to fund their abortions.

31 posted on 07/11/2009 8:17:13 AM PDT by joe.fralick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Your reading is also plausible. Her remarks are hardly a model of clarity.


32 posted on 07/11/2009 8:24:47 AM PDT by joe.fralick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: joe.fralick

She had already stated that before Roe she had litigated against an Air Force woman being coerced into having an abortion, and I think had plainly made the point that she was against coercion on either side—that she believes women, including poor women (who might be mothers of those some wanted aborted) should have the choice without being coerced on either side. I don’t see how you can read more of differently into it.


33 posted on 07/11/2009 8:24:53 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: joe.fralick
There is no excuse for 99% of all abortions other than for birth control.
Getting laid with no consequences.

Luigi

34 posted on 07/11/2009 8:25:34 AM PDT by LuigiBasco (PALIN POWER: She's Reagan in heels, Teddy Roosevelt in a dress & like Rummy at a press conference!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: joe.fralick

Remember, this is a NYTimes editing of her remarks: the lack of clarity may not be hers at all as she likely went on at greater length in some of her answers.


35 posted on 07/11/2009 8:26:17 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Catholic League president Bill Donohue says U.S. Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to explain her recent comment on abortion and eugenics:

Excuse my language but what the hell is there to explain?

She couldn't have been more clear.

36 posted on 07/11/2009 8:27:29 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Yes, Ruth, do explain why you are killing off the black vote? LOL!


37 posted on 07/11/2009 11:47:54 AM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; kellynla
It stands on its own. She has explained herself.

She has explained it.

38 posted on 07/11/2009 1:56:44 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
The ubercontext is that Ginsburg is speaking of a rationale for abortion that's NOT contained in the decision.

She did not speak out against that rationale at that time but was satisfied that it was just the sort of thing everybody needed.

She says she only later came up with her present total BS rationale that is a bit more consistent with what the USSC said in the Roe v. Wade decision.

That does not mean that she's abandoned the racism implicit in her original set of beliefs.

In short, if Ruthy hands you a cup of coffee, be polite but dispose of it in a sink as soon as possible.

I've been telling you people about this ol'gal for years and years ~ she's a killer!

39 posted on 07/12/2009 6:10:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Lawyers don’t necessarily agree with their own winning arguments. You should know that by now.


40 posted on 07/12/2009 6:12:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I think it is quite credible that she supported ‘choice’ both ways all along and so was against any coercive eugenic factors. Doesn’t mean I agree with just about any of her positions on the court, and yes, she was an uber-hypocrite, as so many liberals are, re: AA and her own hiring.


41 posted on 07/12/2009 6:16:43 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
No doubt you can be against "coercive" eugenics, but in favor of eugenics nonetheless.

Kind of like being a witchdoctor with a copy of Beck's Obstetrics just so she can get the babies through the birthcanal anyway.

Ruthy turns out to be the cannibal many of us always thought her to be.

42 posted on 07/12/2009 6:48:46 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

My only point was this interview doesn’t demonstrate that she is ‘pro-eugenics’—whether she is or is not.


43 posted on 07/12/2009 6:53:29 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Her failure to OBJECT to abortion used for purposes of eugenics, or even to oject to eugenics, paints her with the tar of racism and ignorance.

Some issues are simply too important to be able to take the position that "well, I sure wouldn't do it, but if others want to, well, that's the way it is".

As we recall that's what's so incredibly hilarious about the "I've never killed an abortionist, but I'm certainly not going to impose my morality on others" that was recently quoted by Ann Coulter (much to the distress of the Leftwingtards).

44 posted on 07/12/2009 7:01:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

There’s just nothing particular to hold onto for that in this article, is all I’m saying—and now I’ve probably said it more than enough. Obama is the more-live threat right now than an soon-to-retire SCJ.


45 posted on 07/12/2009 7:03:50 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | 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