Jul
9
What could she possibly mean by that?
July 9, 2009 | 2 Comments
It’s always amusing to see pro-aborts get caught expressing their unfiltered thoughts. Here is Justice Ginsburg, in an interview with the New York Slimes.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
We’ll leave aside for now the constitutional ignorance of a sitting Supreme Court Justice and focus on this particular comment: “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
First of all, let’s put to rest right now the predictable retort – no, there is no “context” in which this comment can be explained away, so don’t even try it.
Second of all, there is no way to charitably interpret this comment away. She is, at a minimum, talking about poor people. Extrapolating from the fact that a substantial percentage of the poor are black, she could be talking about the black population. But we’ll be “charitable” here and infer that Justice Ginsburg is merely stating that the poor are a population that we don’t want to have too many of. But it seems to me that the more humane way to achieve a reduction in the number of people in poverty is to create economic opportunities, not to promote genocide.
I’m starting to think that her middle name is just a typo away from indicating her true personality.
Comments
2 Comments so far
Obviously the part you bolded (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.) was the money line of the interview. You touched on the ugly racial/societal aspect of her comment. I was also struck by her ignorance. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but beyond that none of those justices (agreeing or dissenting with the opinion) raised the idea of population control or eugenics.
Sadly, the votes fueled by her ignorance are of equal value to the decisions reached by Scalia’s brilliance.
If a conservative said that line the press would pounce, screaming “HE HATES BLACKS!” In fact, that would be a good trick to pull on a liberal. Tell them that some conservative or Republican said that line. Then when they become indignant about it say, “Oh, wait, I’m wrong — it was Justice Ginsberg. Sorry.” Of course, Margaret Sanger could have stated that phrase verbatim in a speech.