[the Real fifi]

When I first read this, I thought that she was advocating eugenics, but a more careful reading suggests that was unfair. She was ascribing to the authors of the Roe decision such a view but realized by 1980 when they sustained the Hyde amendment blocking use of Medicare funds for abortion that she had been wrong in ascribing such motives to them.

[pissant]

If she thought that was what Roe meant back then, then we can easily go back and see that she vigorously opposed it, right?

After all, I’m sure she was dead set against such a ruling, being the cofounder of the Women’s Rights Law Reporter and being an ACLU stooge, and all.

[okie01]

She was ascribing to the authors of the Roe decision such a view but realized by 1980 when they sustained the Hyde amendment blocking use of Medicare funds for abortion that she had been wrong in ascribing such motives to them.

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.

[fullchroma]

I considered that too but Ginsburg could have said the following, so many different ways:

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.