All based on sound scholarhship.
Another entry in the "imagine if a Conservative had said that." file.
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.
“If she didn’t agree with it, she never would have repeated it.”
After reading the actual interview I take back my initial comment that it wasnt what SHE believed. What she said was as follows: “I went back and read the actual 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. “
It says populations that “WE” dont want. WE means she didnt want them either. Unfortunately, whats the best that can happen? We force her to resign? She is on her way out anyway. Smart politicians could use this as a wedge between minorities and RATS. Unfortunately we dont have any smart politicians, only Republicans.
If a conservative said this, would the accusations and outrage about racism ever subside? Ever??
“Considering that the majority of abortions occur in the poor and black or brown population groups, this is an amazingly hypocritical statement from a far lefty.”
Actually, the left is consistently racist.
All based on sound scholarhship.
Another entry in the "imagine if a Conservative had said that." file.
The striking thing about this is that the MSM has virtually ignored it, and it’s only being picked up by conserative media. Actually, I’m even surprised that the NYT left that comment in the story because it is so potentially embarrassing to Ginsburg and the pro-abortion movement. On the other hand, is it just possible that the person who wrote the story thought that the comment was so self-evident that it wouldn’t even be controversial?
Interesting ... esp when you consider that the black community has been the population most devastated by abortion.
exactly what crossed my mind. next comes the parsing. didn’t mean it that way,would say it differently if could say over...yadda yadda.
And sometimes we really do need to be careful.
You should be careful as you decide whether this ia a time to be careful or whether you just want to lambaste me as an apologist for untenable leftist positions.
Since I don’t hold any Leftist positions at all and I have no use for Justice Ginsburg in general, it’s just possible that I was genuinely concerned for truth in the matter.
It’s just as wrong to accuse falsely someone you don’t like as it is to accuse falsely someone you do agree with. Granted that Justice Ginsburg is wrong about a whole series of things, still, to accuse her of being eugenicist needs to be backed up. She may indeed be a eugenicist.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW’S LANGUAGE IS VERY OBSCURE. It’s impossible to know, simply from the NYT’s quotation of her, whether she is speaking in her own voice when she says “we” or whether she is speaking in the voice of those black leaders at the time of Roe v. Wade.
I offered you some concrete evidence that she might have been speaking in their voice, not her voice. You don’t even argue for or against, but label me an apologist for untenable leftist positions.
Even if she was, in the NYT interview, speaking in someone else’s voice at this point, she might share those other people’s views or she might not. But the interview itself doesn’t clarify this. The words are ambiguous.
But you prefer just to label me. Whatever.
Kiss my grits. I can’t even believe she said it.
She wouldn’t be referring to blacks, would she? Abortion hasn’t certainly taken a bite there, to be sure.
Stunning.
Yes, I expect that Wiggen. Good call.
Thanks for the agreement.
sure thing. Parsing is the new taking of responsibility. Zero is the biggest practitioner.
Why be saddled with an opinion when you can talk out of both sides of your mouth? Its caused by an excessive use of teh “present” button.
Yes, I agree. I like that ‘present’ analogy too.
Excellent observation. The left is NEVER careful when it comes to outrageous claims against conservatives.
Repeating what she said requires her to clarify her statement herself, without apologists getting in the way. I am not interested in what someone thinks she meant. I want her to be required to explain her use of this horrendous language.
Our esteemed opposition has had a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease lately. Here’s hoping their condition continues to worsen...
You fell directly onto the trap I laid for you, personalizing my comments, and failing to see the exact truth of what I said.
This is how the left “works the language”, and why the right always falls flat on its face unable to see the forest through the trees.
"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.
I disagree -- if she did not include herself in the generalization, she ought to have used the pronoun they and not we. If she wanted to impress the point that it was how folks back then thought, she ought to have used didn't not don't before want.
I don't read this nearly as obscurely as you do, it seems.
Post #54 gets what I said exactly, and should be of some interest to you.
Or the folks she thinks we have "too many of"! I wonder who that might be. Blacks? Latins? Asians? Certainly not Jews. She should be forced to elaborate!
Would you clarify which brown group you are referring to?
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.