Posted on 08/04/2009 6:44:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As Sonia Sotomayor was readying for her confirmation hearings, The New York Times Magazine cast a loving gaze toward the lone female Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In so doing, the Times inadvertently shed light on some remarkable thinking by Justice Ginsburg. Those thoughts are so bracing that they ought to upstage the abortion questions surrounding the Sotomayor nomination.
Ginsburg long ago declared her support for Roe v. Wade. Now, however, she has declared something more.
When the subject in her interview with the Times’ Emily Bazelon turned to abortion, Ginsburg said, “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore…. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”
Bazelon then asked, “Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?”
Ginsburg replied, “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 don’t 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 didn’t 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.”
Ginsburg is correct in noting that concerns about population growth animated many of those who backed Roe v. Wade. For instance, Sarah Weddington, co-counsel in Roe, along with her then-husband, Ron, wrote in her book A Question of Choice that team Weddington submitted as evidence the controversial 1972 Rockefeller Commission Report on Population Growth and the American Future, which included a call for public funding of abortion.
As for Ron Weddington, his views are even more direct, as was evident in a January 1993 letter to President-elect Bill Clinton. Weddington advised Clinton to strive “immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country.”
How did Weddington propose to implement this draconian suggestion? In his letter to Clinton, he candidly wrote, “[G]overnment is going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions ... RU486 and conventional abortions.”
Weddington ended his letter with more words of sympathy for the poor: “We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.”
A year later it was Clinton who appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. For Ginsburg, that path was paved with help from one of the Weddingtons. As Sarah Weddington said in a 2007 interview, “I’ve also known Ruth Bader Ginsburg for years, and helped her get her appointment.”
Thanks to The New York Times Magazine, it looks like the Weddingtons and Ginsburg may be kindred spirits more than we had realized.
In fact, the Times piece prompts us to reconsider previous Ginsburg statements relating to “populations” that the justice doesn’t “want to have too many of.”
For instance, in an April 6, 1984, address to the University of North Carolina School of Law, published in the North Carolina Law Review, Justice Ginsburg described a 1971 speech where she faced tough questions on abortion policy:
“The questions were pressed by black men. The suggestion, not thinly veiled, was that legislative reform and litigation regarding abortion might have less to do with individual autonomy or discrimination against women than with restricting population growth among oppressed minorities. The strong word ‘genocide’ was uttered more than once. It is a notable irony that as constitutional law in this domain has unfolded, women who are not poor have achieved access to abortion with relative ease; for poor women, however, a group in which minorities are disproportionately represented, access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.”
Ironic indeed. Instead of reducing “cannon fodder and cheap labor” via abortion, as the Weddingtons of the world had hoped, the Supreme Court upheld congressional bans on federal funding of abortion. According to her recent interview, Ginsburg was surprised the court upheld such bans. She continues to lament the fact that government does not fund abortions. Why?
Ginsburg’s comments to The New York Times Magazine open a floodgate of disturbing questions regarding a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps even more amazing than her comments was the lack of clarification or follow up from the Times. Maybe another newspaper can do the job. These questions are too serious to be left to speculation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Warren Throckmorton is an associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He can be contacted through his blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
There’s a reason why Hitler admired Margaret Sanger.
You can really know how a government official will decide on things by the remarks they make.
I had heard of this before. To say the very least, these comments are disturbing, especially coming from a SC Justice. Would someone explain how her views differ from the Nazi’s views? I don’t think there is any, and any way you spin it - it still strikes me as extremely evil. Evil under the guise of “progress” and “the greater good” is still Evil.-—JM
Makes sense: if Obama’s dream of a nation where everyone is dependent on the government becomes reality. In that dream world population control is essential: without it what you’ll get is a flood of poor, useless, uneducated people sucking up government controlled resources.
Ah, yes. The culture of death reveals itself yet again. Judge Ginsburg lives in a world where she cannot imagine why anyone would see anything wrong with her statement. She joins a long line of eugenics promoters including Sanger, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many others. This philosophy denies the sanctity of life and sets up an elite class of people who take the place of God in deciding who lives and who dies.
Let’s not forget Obama’s Science Czar : John Holdren, who authored a book that considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions.
This, together with the fact that Obama as Illinois State Senator VOTED AGAINST the protection of Babies who survived botched abortions, tells us where the sympathy of the current occupant of the White House lies.
The pattern is all too clear to those who will but open their eyes.
Yep, and this healthcare reform is an essential piece for population control: kill unproductive granny, and use tax dollars to abort poor babies.
POPULATION CONTROL
Are you next on their list?
Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu
Fast-tracked Swine Flu Vaccine under Fire:Toxic adjuvants in flu vaccines
Seems to me that if she just kicked the bucket, we might be better off...
Why should I respect and revere someone who doesn’t have a respect for life to begin with???
Go to any lefty site that deals with AGW and the “human die-off” ghouls are never very far away. Once and awhile they slip from die-off to “kill-off”, but the other kids pretend not to hear.
Ginsburg is Jewish, but evidently doesn’t have a problem with mass killing. There’s a place in hell reserved for her.
Let’s not forget Obama’s Science Czar : John Holdren, who authored a book that considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions.
This, together with the fact that Obama as Illinois State Senator VOTED AGAINST the protection of Babies who survived botched abortions, tells us where the sympathy of the current occupant of the White House lies.
The pattern is all too clear to those who will but open their eyes.”
NObama also openly stated that he didn’t want his “little girls” PUNISHED with a pregnancy.
Too bad that Mrs Dunham didn’t exercise that feeling about Jan 1961.
Heck, if Herr Olbermann had the power he would gladly send all conservatives to the gas chambers.
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.