Posted on 07/09/2009 11:11:12 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."
The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.
"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," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.
Ooops! That’s NOT what she meant to say. She meant to say, “I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Republicans”
The truth be told
Some guy in the 30s had his final solution,
and now Ginsberg reveals her own. Just dang!
Does she know anything at all about her heritage?
I doubt it.
Someone must have slipped truth serum into her pancreatic CA chemotherapy. You have to watch those Hematologist-Oncologists. They are sneaky-sneaky!
That comment of mine was rather pointed, but it’s been my take for some time that the blacks in our nation are under-represented today, because so many of them have been killed off through abortion. This is really going to come into play as our nation continues to be occupied by Mexico. The Mexican component here is going to push Blacks down into a third tier here. And you now what, it’s left and people like Ginsberg who have happy to advocate and facilitate to this end.
It’s genocide. There’s just no getting around it. It’s shocking to see a person like Ginsberg make a statement like this. She is supposed to be a reasoned thinker.
So conservatives are racist just because we want a color blind society (no racial preferences and no race based discrimination - really the same thing, just different races targeted), whereas libs are NOT racist just because they want to have undersirable (code for minority) populations kill off their own unborn babies.
That makes sense. NOT. But apparently it does to the 90+% of the black population who voted for a radically pro-abortion lib president...
Evil old Leftist Bat!!
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...
We need to be careful here. There’s a discussion of this at WDTPRS and one commentator has found a law review article by Ginsburg that suggests that the fear of abortion as eugenics was coming from black leaders she heard in 1971 and that her personal view was not necessarily eugenicist. She does appear to side-step the de facto functioning of abortion as eugenicist as far as blacks are concerned, but on the other hand, the disparate number of black abortions results in large part from the dramatic shift in sexual mores since Roe v. Wade made abortion as birth control possible. How many of the aborted out-of-wedlock black babies would have been conceived had Roe v. Wade not taken place?
It is true that abortion disproportionately kills black babies but it’s effect on “minority” society goes beyond that.
But to attribute eugencist thinking to Ginsburg on the basis of this interview may be premature.
See the comments by James the Less at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/7143/#comments, with the following quotation from the law review article that she wrote, posted at http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/63_N_C_L_Rev_375.doc
“In 1971, just before the Supreme Court’s turning-point gender-classification decision in Reed v. Reed, n4 and over a year before Roe v. Wade, I visited a neighboring institution to participate in a conference on women and the law. I spoke then of the utility of litigation attacking official line-drawing by sex. My comments focused on the chance in the 1970s that courts, through constitutional adjudication, would aid in evening out the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women and men. n5 I did not mention the abortion cases then on the dockets of several lower courts—I was not at that time or any other time thereafter personally engaged in reproductive-autonomy litigation. Nonetheless, the most heated questions I received concerned abortion.
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 re-stricting population growth among oppressed minorities. n6 The [*377] 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 disproportion-ately represented, access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.”
James the Less then commnted at WDTPRS:
“This may be what she is repeating. Everyone can reach their own conclusions, but I would be cautious. In my view, it doesn’t make her a eugenicist.”
You don’t recognize leftist ‘code-speak’ when you read it?
If she didn’t agree with it, she never would have repeated it.
It's a good thing that it is only being reported by Fox News, FR and a few conservative sites otherwise it might have done some damage.
.
I think this is a SPECTACULAR story to have a Jewish sitting judge on the Supreme court advocating genocide. Coming out of ANY of the conservative judges this would be the lead story on every MSM outlet for the next month.
I just csn’t believe anyone thinking themselves human would utter such a statement.
And which “unwanted populations” could the lily white Buzzy be talking about?
This is not simply callous. It is racial cleansing, grounds for removal from the court. The woman has been a source of vicious immorality since her appointment. This latest admission makes clear her agenda to purge society of misfits.
So she agrees with Planned Parenthood. Big deal.
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.