Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Staggering Comments from Current Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg


Several sources alerted me to a relatively recent Time interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her position in favor of abortion is well known, what may not be so known is what she reveals below. I view this as absolutely staggering and atrocious.

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.

See the rest of the article for yourself. It's typical pro-abortion garbage with no reference to the voiceless human being that will be dismembered but this statement about population growth in "populations that we don't want to have too many of" is surreal and sick.

5 comments:

Rick Calohan said...

Elections do matter and for those who voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992 and 1996 you got your justice in Ginsberg, just as those who voted for Barry O last year will get your justice in Sotomayor.

I also may add all those who sat out and did not vote or did not like McCain or Palin and therefore sat out or protested and voted third party or even worse for Barry O, the blood of 50 million babies are on your hands.

“I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”
~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

"All those who hate me love death.” Mishlei (Proverbs) 8:36

I’m Rick Calohan and I approve this message.

Jim said...

While it's a tangled paragraph, and while I do not endorse her position even when her statement is read correctly, she does not endorse abortion in order to control "undesireable populations":

As I said, it’s a tangled paragraph, but her position can be rendered something like this:

“At the time of Roe, some of us were concerned that support for Medicaid funding for abortions came from racist/classist beliefs. We opposed Medicaid funding at that time because we thought it would be coercive of racial minorities and the poor.

“But when McRae came out, which permitted the national government to stop Medicaid funding for abortions, I realized that my original belief — that Medicaid funding for abortions was coercive, racist, and classist — was wrong.

“I.e., it was actually a policy that helped the poor and minority groups rather than one that was coerceive, racist, and classist.”

I want to underscore that I’m endorsing none of Ginsberg’s argument, but she’s NOT saying that she believes, or ever believed, that government-funded abortions are/were a good thing because it would decrease the number of “undesireable” people.

Frontier Forest said...

“God save the court!” What does that even mean anymore?

Reepicheep said...

Jim, I hope your interpretation is right. I'm struggling to see how, but I appreciate the angle you give.

Roger Mann said...

What’s even more ghoulish than Ginsburg’s comments are those of President Obama’s new science “czar”:

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” (entire article can be read at CNS News)

In reference to Ginsburg’s comments, consider that “Planned Parenthood has located nearly 80 percent of its clinics nationwide in minority neighborhoods.” (entire article can be read at WorldNetDaily) Could that be the “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of?” That would be my guess.