Posted on 07/08/2009 6:57:10 PM PDT by pissant
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
(snip)
Question: 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: 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In conversations with both Democrats and "progressive" Republicans, because I'm white, they've felt comfortable telling me that even though they consider abortion a sin, it's necessary because "those people" reproduce so much.
It's something a lot of us knew, but Ginsburg just put it out on the table, assuming this article is accurate.
I thought I was beyond being able to be shocked.
Social Darwinism rears its ugly head.
perhaps i am odd but i got the impression she meant parasites. the ones who live on govt aid, welfare, medicaid. the ones who wind up in prison being supported by tax payers. i did not think it was about a particular race.
Jews for Genocide. It’s a small club but now we know she’s the president.
By all means comment while she is still alive, maybe she'll be shamed into repenting before she dies.
[(Hey! I was a blond blue-eyed kid once!)
Once upon a time, and I was a blond, green-eyed kid. Wonder if the green eyes would have done me in? Naa, it worked fine.
I didn’t know where your Ginsberg gif was or would have posted it. She is sick, perhaps all her inner feelings are coming out now!
I can’t believe she would say that; but she is a product of affirmative action; so I believe she would say it.
Not misleading at all. The excerpts above clearly state this.
The point is she had this perception and still supported abortion prior to the 1980 Harris ruling.
BTTT
life
Your interpretation is technically correct.
At the same time, from her quote, it is evident that she didn't have a problem the Roe decision being eugenically driven. But she did have a problem with McRae, which countered that perception.
She wasn't troubled, in the least, by her initial interpretation.
.
ZZZZZZZ.gif or Ginsberg.gif ???
Old stuff
I don’t know where they are either!
OMG piss. Thanks for posting this. Unbelievable.
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.
Not growth in populations that, say, segments of society don't want too many of, she said "populations WE don't want to have too many of.
I think she’s saying something quite different than what this article makes out. If you read the NYT interview, it is more clear that she thought that abortion would be covered under Medicaid because the prevailing thinking at the time was that our culture wanted fewer of certain people.
She was basically pleasantly surprised that the court didn’t cater to that supposed cultural sentiment.
But can you imagine if a Republican said it??
What is it with the nasty language? I just saw another post deleted for 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.