A Smoking Gun—But with a Silencer

Townhall.com ^ | July 16, 2009 | Ken Blackwell

[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?

[Enterprise]

Pro choice and final solution are cousins.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

You are carrying them with you.

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

[stevie_d_64]

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!!!

[muir_redwoods]

Maybe she means short ugly women prone to cancer.

Maybe

[Venturer]

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

Are they really that stupid? Apparently so.

[n230099]

"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.

[Elsie]

agreed!

[Peet]

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