Scary statement.
Good to see she’s on the same page as Margaret Sanger.
Well, someone else in the 1930s and 40s made a case pretty close to that. Did she agree with him too?
The true colors of the liberals.......racist eugenicists..
Oh snap! Someone finally admitted the real purpose of federal abortion funding.
God help us! Did she really say this?
This is a very callous thing to say - especially about kids in their mothers’ wombs.
Unbelievable, or at least it would have been a few years ago, now nothing surprises me.
Does anybody have a link to the actual NYTimes article where she said this?
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.
OOOOOOH SISTAH GINSBURG, does that mean you’re really not down with black folks?
Notice that her biggest beef was with the fact that only the wealthy had “access”, ie, that the wealthy have more choices than the poor.
It’s simply reality.
But, lefties define “freedom” as everyone having the same amount of choice, which they usually do by taking choices away from people.
Where’s the “That’s racist” kid?
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?
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!!
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.”
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.
.