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

Skip to comments.

A Smoking GunóBut with a Silencer
Townhall.com ^ | July 16, 2009 | Ken Blackwell

Posted on 07/16/2009 3:29:50 AM PDT by Kaslin

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently unburdened herself to the New York Times:

“Yes, the ruling [in Harris v. McRae that the federal government does not have to pay for elective abortions] surprised me. 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.”

Here, if ever there was one, is a smoking gun. Here is confirmation of what pro-lifers have long maintained—that liberal abortion is, in Jesse Jackson’s words, “black genocide.”

Or did Justice Ginsburg simply mean the poor, in general? Are they the population we don’t want too many of?

Could she have been describing children of prisoners? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once approved the forcible sterilization of an innocent person in Virginia saying--infamously-- “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

Might Ginsburg be referring to with disabilities? Let her explain if that’s who she means.

Exactly who does Justice Ginsburg think is a “population we don’t want too many of?” Shouldn’t she be required to give a full explanation of this despicable phrase?

Thirty-three years ago, Republican Ag Secretary Earl Butz told a dirty joke that ridiculed black Americans. He was forced to resign -- and perhaps should have been. Twenty-five years ago Republican Interior Secretary James Watt described his advisory board as “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt was forced to resign -- and purpose should have been.

Then, Republicans joined the chorus of denunciations.

Will liberals now demand Ginsburg’s resignation? Justice Ginsburg, so far, has gotten away with a far more offensive statement. What she means is that these “populations we don’t want too many of” should be killed before they are born. That’s what she said abortion is for.

She says she was surprised by the Supreme Court’s 1980 opinion in Harris v. McRae that Medicaid funds did not have to go for abortions because she seems to have thought getting rid of these undesirable populations was the whole point of Roe v. Wade.

This is not letting the cat out of the bag. Ginsburg has let a man-eating tiger out of the bag. Justcie Ginsburg’s statement is not just an offensive, racist joke. This is not just a callous reference to disabled people, this is life and death. Ginsburg lines up on the side of death.

Why has there been no uproar in the liberal press? Why no demands for Ginsburg to step down?

This smoking gun has a silencer attached. Oh, she was talking about abortion. That makes it all OK.

Her office will probably clean up all the rhetorical blood on the ground and issue a clarification. They’ll probably say the Justice misspoke, that she was really expressing her concern that these “populations” would be underserved by the cutoff in Medicaid funding.

When you read the entire quote, don’t forget: There are whole segments of America that Justice Ginsburg thinks we’d be better off without. Not just criminals. They’re not the ones accessing Medicaid. Her deadly sweep includes the poor, minorities, many people in Appalachia, some people with disabilities. It’s a large and growing list that Justice Ginsburg thinks “we don’t want too many of.”

This smoking gun will only be silenced if you remain silent. Let’s speak up against the lethal logic of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and liberal abortion. When we call our highest judges “Justice,” shouldn’t we cry out when they become instead advocates for injustice?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bob152; eugenics; sanger

1 posted on 07/16/2009 3:29:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Pro choice and final solution are cousins.


2 posted on 07/16/2009 3:37:10 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: Kaslin

We all know that extreme liberals believe in population control as an extension of their environmental concerns.

Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, wrote a book about forced abortions, forced sterilizations and the forced removal of children from teen and single mothers so they could be given to ‘better’ families.

Note the use of the word ‘forced’.

Liberals know that the general population would never accept such actions from government, so they include the word ‘forced’ to demonstrate the absolute need for these actions.

PS: Population control will stem directly from socialized medicine which we are on the brink of enacting.


3 posted on 07/16/2009 3:41:11 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You are carrying them with you.

A person with birth defects costs 50,000 Reich Marks on average over his 60 year life time.


4 posted on 07/16/2009 3:43:38 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (AGWT is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% confidence level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin

Hitler and his buddies thought the same thing!

Wow what a coincidence!!!

The faster we can ge the goverenment itself to go on ObamaCare FIRST, the faster we can deal with two problems with one stone...

Seems to me all they want is to do is kill babies and anyone over 65 with that plan...

I say you guys first...Come back to us in 5 years if any of you goobers are left...Then put ObamaCare to a National Referendum vote...

Let that be our revolution!!!


6 posted on 07/16/2009 4:15:30 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe she means short ugly women prone to cancer.

Maybe

7 posted on 07/16/2009 4:37:45 AM PDT by muir_redwoods ( How come when I press "1 for English" I still can't understand what's being said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Blacks dont appear to have a problem with their Genocide, they help elect those doing the job.

Are they really that stupid? Apparently so.


8 posted on 07/16/2009 4:39:52 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"Exactly who does Justice Ginsburg think is a “population we don’t want too many of?” Shouldn’t she be required to give a full explanation of this despicable phrase?"

No...because she's not saying that that is what she believed...only that that is what she believed, at the time, that Roe was about. How about a "full representation" of her quote? Now don't get me wrong here, I think her a horrible presence on the court but fair is fair.

The second half of her quote reveals that she doesn't think and did not think, that there was a part of the population that there were "too many of". It was simply her opinion or concern, at the time, that that was what Roe was about.

The last sentence of the partially quoted section of the interview is, "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."

There are lots of examples of liberals associated with eugenics orientated beliefs from Holmes to Sanger et al. And for all I know, Ginsburg could be included...but the kerfuffle over this widely circulated partial quote, does not, in and of itself expose it.

9 posted on 07/16/2009 4:55:07 AM PDT by n230099 ("Lettin folks in DC watch your money's like lettin a dog watch yer food". (Unknown))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: n230099

agreed!


10 posted on 07/16/2009 6:17:08 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Or did Justice Ginsburg simply mean the poor, in general?
Wasn't there some Irish guy who proposed a solution to the overpopulation of the poor?

{don't make me put a sarcasm tag here 'cause it's NOT sarcasm; it's irony}

Peet
11 posted on 07/16/2009 6:27:38 AM PDT by Peet (<- A.K.A. the Foundling)
[ 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