Skip to comments.Abortion, eugenics and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted on 12/28/2012 8:29:57 AM PST by Perseverando
Exclusive: Jack Cashill rejects writer's attempt to soften justice's 'too many' remark
In a recent article in Slate, Emily Bazelon attempts to purge from the record comments Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made to Bazelon about abortion a few years prior.
In a 2009 interview for the New York Times Magazine, Ginsburg said the following: 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.
In the course of the Slate article, Bazelon goes to great and unconvincing lengths to explain why Ginsburg did not mean too many of quite the way it sounds like she meant it.
Her efforts here should not surprise. The feminist establishment has a century of experience cleaning up the rhetorical messes made by its spokespeople in their more honest moments.
No one made more of a mess than the woman who introduced the very phrase birth control, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger. In describing the tradition Sanger pioneered, Bazelon shows her willingness to turn a blind eye to the Sanger legacy as well.
The history lesson is this, writes Bazelon. There was a feminist womens rights argument for legal abortion in the 1970s, which the Supreme Court accepted in Roe v. Wade. And there was a separate and distinct argument about preventing population growth by being pro-abortion.
No, Emily, womens rights and population control were
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Is this like “rape rape?”
According to the pro-abortion lobby, there is “death” and then their is “death, death”.
Ref: Monty Python
Yeah...she’s a socialist hack...but we better hope she hangs on for four years, because Obama will appoint another socialist hack...about 40 years younger.
I don’t really think we have anything to worry about with these old farts they like the lime light especially the democrats..They will stay until they are taken out on a stretcher..
You are right she does look like a Buzzard..I was trying to figure out what she looked like and you got it..
"JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didnt really want them. 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." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
No explanation is necessary here... she is clearly stating that many people were afraid that MEDICAID funded abortion was being set up to coerce certain population groups of women into terminating their pregnancies.
Ruth is a angry little woman with too much power. She cannot make good law and our country will suffer long after she is at room temperature.
Well if The New York Times says that's what Ginsburg said then it must be true. </sarc>
FWIW - New York Times? WND? I'll take the WND's version any day.
They are quoting from the NY Times interview? lol
They’re also not the first conservative paper to have grabbed this tidbit.
This isn’t new news lolol
But go ahead... you sound like the lefties when they pull this on us
This WND article has the full quote you posted, but they do not come to the conclusion you did.
So the Republicans can make everything better with another Blackmun, Souter, or Kennedy.
Our medical school instructors pushing it on us always "hinted" that as the real reason, and anyone who checks left wing human rights websites know that the National Security study memo 200 paper was written for the state department for Nixon and has been pushing population control since Carter okayed it. link
And the Philippines has just passed a law for free birth control at government clinics, and fining medical personnel if they talk against it. This was passed to please our American masters, not to help women.
I mean, why fund birth control when 40 percent of women give birth without a trained birth attendant? To please Obama...
and three days later, the US announced they changed their mind and will help us defend China from grabbing land off our coasts. Coincidence?
What makes you think we will ever have another Republican president?
My conclusion? you mean because I am able to read the full quote and comprehend what is being said?
Seriously... google this story, they are not the first to try and turn the quote into something it’s not.
I think given Ginsburgs jewish heritage, she might be a bit concerned and sensitive about government programs that could potentially target specific population groups for eradication.
I get that we want to “catch” the left saying and doing things that are abhorrent....
rehashing this 2009 story by pulling one sentence out of context, is not the way to do it.
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.