Posted on 07/11/2009 7:13:53 AM PDT by kellynla
Catholic League president Bill Donohue says U.S. Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to explain her recent comment on abortion and eugenics:
Excerpts of a New York Times Magazine interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which will appear on July 12, include the following quote by the Supreme Court Justice about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized 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.”
By contrast, consider what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said about this subject:
· “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need…We must prevent Multiplication of this bad stock.” · “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” · “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” · “We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” · “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
There is another reason why Ginsburg needs to clarify her remark. Before she was seated on the Supreme Court in 1993, she hired 57 law clerks over a period of 13 years. All were white. Now if Antonin Scalia, for example, were associated with her disturbing remark, and if he had never hired a single African American, he already would have been branded a racist. At the very least, Ginsburg should be questioned about her explosive comment.
I think it is quite credible that she supported ‘choice’ both ways all along and so was against any coercive eugenic factors. Doesn’t mean I agree with just about any of her positions on the court, and yes, she was an uber-hypocrite, as so many liberals are, re: AA and her own hiring.
Kind of like being a witchdoctor with a copy of Beck's Obstetrics just so she can get the babies through the birthcanal anyway.
Ruthy turns out to be the cannibal many of us always thought her to be.
My only point was this interview doesn’t demonstrate that she is ‘pro-eugenics’—whether she is or is not.
Some issues are simply too important to be able to take the position that "well, I sure wouldn't do it, but if others want to, well, that's the way it is".
As we recall that's what's so incredibly hilarious about the "I've never killed an abortionist, but I'm certainly not going to impose my morality on others" that was recently quoted by Ann Coulter (much to the distress of the Leftwingtards).
There’s just nothing particular to hold onto for that in this article, is all I’m saying—and now I’ve probably said it more than enough. Obama is the more-live threat right now than an soon-to-retire SCJ.
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.