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.
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 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.
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 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...
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.
Luigi
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.
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.