Skip to comments.JUSTICE GINSBURG NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HERSELF ( Abortion & Eugenics )
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 dont 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 dont 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.
Why don’t you get it?
Abort, RATION and KILL it’s the plan all long.
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.
I agree. She should explain herself honestly. For pete’s sake, she is a Judge; not God.
Hillary has expressed her admiration for Margaret Sanger.
I’ll explain abortion for Ginsberg. Pro choice means aborting black and hispanics. You’re welcome Frau Ginsberg.
You mean curbing the black population by murdering their babies?
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.
bttt to read later
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?
Scary comments.What an agenda that we thought ended with Hitler.What was WW2 over?The fairy princess?
We know exactly what she meant.
She meant what she said.
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.
Hasn’t that been the goal of Baby Killers, Inc. from the very beginning?
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.
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.
No story here. Move along.
Unless this came out of a conservative’s mouth. Then it would be breaking news for a month.
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.
Democrats never have to explain themselves or apologize.
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.
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 dont 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.
Do you have a link to the times article?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont 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...
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.
Your reading is also plausible. Her remarks are hardly a model of clarity.
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.
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.
Excuse my language but what the hell is there to explain?
She couldn't have been more clear.
She has explained it.
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!
Lawyers don’t necessarily agree with their own winning arguments. You should know that by now.
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.
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.
My only point was this interview doesn’t demonstrate that she is ‘pro-eugenics’—whether she is or is not.
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).
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.