What did Ginsburg think Roe would do?

posted at 8:52 am on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The New York Times has a lengthy interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for its Sunday magazine, but they have already published it to their website to generate a little buzz.  They may get more than they think from this passage, in which Ginsburg explains what she thought the Supreme Court intended when it found a right to abortion in Roe (emphasis mine):

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.

So Ginsburg thought the court wanted a method of eugenics that the government could use to reduce growth in certain …. populations … that we didn’t want expanding?  No wonder she has occasionally admitted that Roe was a bad decision.

Bear in mind, too, that this explanation strongly implies that she held that view not just until she could get clarification by reading the decision or talking with the justices.  Don’t forget that at the time Ginsburg had already made herself prominent in feminist circles, establishing in 1970 the first law journal exclusively devoted to feminist issues and holding a tenured position at Columbia from 1972-80.  In fact, she argued cases before the Supreme Court during that period.  And it wasn’t until 1980, which is when the Supreme Court decided McRae, that Ginsburg realized it didn’t have anything to do with allowing the government a mechanism to practice eugenics.

In that seven-year period, did Ginsburg use her considerable clout to argue against Roe, if that’s what she believed, or for that matter, against government funding of abortions?  If not, shouldn’t we surmise from that silence that either (a) Ginsburg had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program, or (b) that she was willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe for the access to abortion? (h/t: WND)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I have a question. Are there countries that do not allow abortion? If so, who are they?

Anyone?
bazil9 on July 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM

South America:

Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Sub-Saharan Africa:

Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C�te d’Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:

Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:

Ireland, Malta

mike_NC9 on July 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Oh, the coathanger in the back alley isn’t a myth.

but, where is the conseervative site that admits the Gallup poll about Sarah Palin…..which is 70%.

I frankly do think she’s about moderation on this issue.

If I’m wrong. so be it. I will not vote for her.

AnninCA on July 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM

I guess I’m saying the obvious.

She can”t be a supporter of back-alley coat-hanger abortions.

That is simply beyond my beief.

AnninCA on July 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Thanks for giving us Hitler’s POV.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Yes, well, thanks. But I worry about you supporting depriving people who don’t vote the way you like of the right to vote altogether…Luckily, I see that as left-wing authoritarianism rather than “classical liberal”, which is the type of conservative I would say i am.

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM

You miscomprehend his position and mine. My objection is to the WAY people vote, not because they vote the way I don’t like.

When some Hollyweird bimbo says she voted for Bill Clinton because he’s “cute”, I have a problem with that. When my grandmother says she voted for someone because she liked his face, I have a problem with that.

Try to see the difference.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM

AnninCA on July 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM

You are aware of her speech in Indiana at the Right to Life dinner?

cs89 on July 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM

So, the above is provides no evidence of racism on Sanger’s behalf. There do exist some quotes in which Sanger shows racist sentiments–sentiments shared by well in excess of 99% of the population at the time. If you want to condemn her on the basis of a few quotes, you’d be better served by picking quotes that are actually racist.

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 11:49 AM

And…

I’m saying we live in a world which was dark in many ways, and almost everyone before 1940 or so had some racist sentiments. For instance, our Founding Fathers were racist and said vile things about the Negro. Does that mean America is what Obama and other leftists think America is? Certainly not!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM

On what do you base this nightmarish vision of universal racism prior to 1940? A few quotes from a few of the Founding Fathers and watching “Roots”?

When I was a child they changed the acceptable word to describe people of African descent from “Negro” to “Black”, and all of the older people who were slow, or resistant, to change words – for no apparent reason – were instantly seen as “racist” the moment they used the word that had been acceptable, and preferred, all of their lives. The older ones that still used the term “Colored” were considered beyond redemption.

I finally realized, when the new term “African American” was rolled out, what the point of it all was, and how my historical view had been manipulated. My generation was smug about our post-racism, having overcome the unconscious racism of our parents, revealed every time they used the – now racist – words. Now I see that younger people will view me the same way, every time I use the term “Black”, and reveal my true racist self.

That’s what racist codewords really are, and the left believes we use them because they’ve been actively using them to distort reality for a very long time.

Thuja, try googling Dr. Ossie Sweet. Add the word Darrow to narrow your results.

Then behold the unthinkable. A reality that could never have been. If the story of Dr. Sweet isn’t enough to change your view of history, at least allow it to open a crack of skepticism. When one lie is revealed, many others are usually behind.

Understand, I’m not suggesting that racism never existed, or that it wasn’t much more acceptable in the past, but many people have stood against the mistreatment of other human beings based on their skin color throughout history. Had it only been 1% that objected to racism, they would never have had enough influence to change anything.

ral514 on July 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Why does a woman’s right to choose have to be limited only to in-uterine children? Why can’t they chose to terminate ex-uterine children? This seems grossly unfair to me. If l’Il Duce adopted this policy, people would be a lot nicer to their mothers.

lonesomecharlie on July 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM

It is unfair, but you see, the silver lining is that those poppets can be molded by the educational system into good soldiers for the progressive cause. It takes a village, right? A village entirely populated by child development experts and union teachers.

So, even if their mothers were so irresponsible as to actually let them come to term, the children will rise up against their Christianist oppressor parents and all will be well in the end.

evergreen on July 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM

“Ooops..I forgot, Sanger was an anti-Semite too”

George Grants book; Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, is still the best work on Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. It’s out of print but can still be purchased on Amazon. Worth the money.

oldleprechaun on July 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM

we are absolutely not going back to coathanger abortions.

Ain’t happening.

I hope you are right and agree that the way to make sure they never happen again is to convince women that their “rights” end when they choose to engage in conduct that can result in conception.

When it is simply “unthinkable” for a pregnant woman to even conceive of ending another life (with possibly an exception to perserve their own lives, and ONLY their own lives), then both horrors can end.

Your horror of the “back-alley coat hangar abortion” (which happened how often?) Deaths to women from abortion, at their highest (before suddenly discovering the constitutional “right) numbered less than 500 per year.

My horror, of the massacre of more than 1,000,000 lives every year in the U.S. alone.

Here are the statistice since 1965:

http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Fatal on July 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM

The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950’s to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. see http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2688&pst=64853
Don’t want to sound cruel but better this munber than one million babies

Bullhead on July 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Well, it looks as if the concept of unintended consequences raises it’s ugly head again. Johnson’s Great Society was passed in the middle 60’s throwing money at that Black Community breaking up Black families and literally throwing money at single mothers for every baby they had. No need for a traditional family anymore. Fathers were off the hook.

BetseyRoss on July 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

(Emphasis mine)

As much as we would wish this were unintentional – that is not how the system was set up. And moreover, how it is and has been maintained for decades proves it’s original intent. It is designed not only to drive off Fathers but to encourage a mother to have children with multiple partners causing further chaos and government dependency for any stability.

Social workers are required to report if there is an adult male in the home – if there is one, the benefit$ can be in jeopardy. Adult Males become transient figures. Children know they are partially related to one another, the family is in fracture. The State and the Culture step in to fill the gaps…. as it was designed.

If it were not meant to destroy families it would be/would have been revised to encourage fidelity, marriage, education and the chance to emerge better off than when you started. If they were the compassionate liberals they say, the program would recognise people have bad times and may need a bit of help, but not at the expense of a nuclear family.
—————————–

…particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of…

wow. indefensible

batterup on July 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Bullhead on July 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM

AnninCA, please read this.

[cost-hanger abortions are bad, but frankly there’s less need for this type of desperation in our society today: there is way less stigma to being unwed and a mother (hell some cultures revel in it…), and there is a much larger financial safety net than than there used to be – with many more, and more robust, serves afforded to single moms and poor families – than there used to be]

bluelightbrigade on July 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I live in an middle class area. We don’t have any Planned Parenthood locations anywhere near here. There are, however, plenty of PPs located in the lower class areas of the city.

If Medicare is not paying for the abortions and the “patients” don’t have the money then how are they affording these abortions?

watson007 on July 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM

So … the whole point, really, (aside from the eugenics stuff) is that a sitting SCOTUS justice didn’t understand the reasoning used by one of the worst courts in history to arrive at the fabrication of a woman’s “right to abortion”. Is that not grounds for impeachment?

progressoverpeace on July 9, 2009 at 5:44 PM

All of their talk about “a woman’s choice” overlooks the fact that more often than not, aborting her baby is NOT the mother’s choice. It’s the choice of someone close to her — the baby’s father or her parents, in most cases. Killing her baby is not her choice, but rather a terrible decision that she is pressured into making, against her will.

According to “Forced Abortion in America,” a 2004 report issued by The Eliot Institute, as many as 60 percent of abortions may be the result of coercion (some studies say around 64 percent). The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and new mothers. The paper quoted Pat Brown, a criminal profiler from Minnesota, who said than when a woman won’t abort her baby, the man in her life may think that “if she goes away, the problem goes away.”

Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, put it this way: “Pro-choice men are the Number One perpetrators of violence against pregnant, pro-life mothers.”

The “right to choose”? Many women are, through intimidation or violence, denied the right to choose to give their babies life. The right to abort very quickly became the obligation to abort.

KyMouse on July 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM

I frankly do think she’s about moderation on this issue.

If I’m wrong. so be it. I will not vote for her.

AnninCA on July 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM

My wife is due next month. We watch her belly move as the baby fetus kicks. We saw her it stick her its tongue out during the ultrasound.

I simply cannot fathom how abortion is anything but morally reprehensible. But somehow it’s okay as long as the baby fetus doesn’t exit the womb before it’s destroyed. (Well, find the right Chicago hospital and it’s okay afterward, too).

When it comes to practices like slavery and the Holocaust, I have no interest in moderation. The same goes for abortion.

jazz_piano on July 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM

I’ll believe that the Constitution allows Ginsburg’s friends to fund abortions with tax payer money the day it allows for the unborn baby to decline.

Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM

When it comes to practices like slavery and the Holocaust, I have no interest in moderation. The same goes for abortion.

jazz_piano on July 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Actually abortion and slavery are the same thing. In both cases,What are obviously human beings people and the law doesn’t look at them as full human beings with the same rights are regular people. Both can be killed, both can be tortured, both are treated as chattel.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM

PS to fellow pro-lifers (all four of you) . . .

I believe we’ve got to get serious about making adoption cheaper and and more widely available. If others don’t want these tiny humans, let’s raise them ourselves.

jazz_piano on July 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Actually abortion and slavery are the same thing. In both cases,What are obviously human beings people and the law doesn’t look at them as full human beings with the same rights are regular people. Both can be killed, both can be tortured, both are treated as chattel.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Yes. De-humanizing a group (Jews, for another example) is the first step toward treating them inhumanely.

Next we’ll be killing disabled newborns (already happening in Europe), the elderly, etc.

jazz_piano on July 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Ginsburg is one whacked out woman! She must be planning on retiring in the very near future, like immediatly after the current opening is filled.

Look at the idiocy of the last 2 questions on page 4 of that story.

Ginsburgh thinks that the LEGISLATURE can DICTATE how people live in their homes! She is a complete power mongering intrusive idiot! And she is a supreme court justice?

Freddy on July 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM

If morality is people living horrible lives, then give me immorality!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Horrible to whom? You? It’s their lives to lead, not yours to take.

Limbaugh really nailed the feminism/eugenics connection with the term “Feminazi”.

theCork on July 9, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Yay eugenics.

GW_SS-Delta on July 9, 2009 at 7:23 PM

I’d love to hear the wacky ideas Ginsburg has about other cases. I bet she thought that Heller was about the rights of astronauts to carry guns and she probably figured that Kelo had something to do with local governments forcing the metric system on people.

These people have no shame, at all.

progressoverpeace on July 9, 2009 at 7:31 PM

The attrition rate is slow on this court.

My goodness.

Kralizec on July 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Ruth Bader Ginsburg equals Margaret Sanger.

wraithby on July 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Wow. not “wow, she believes that”, but “wow, she’s being honest about that”. If more pro-abortionists were honest like this, we’d have a much bigger majority of pro-lifers in this country.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 PM

I survived Roe v. Wade.

In 1980 when I was born, a child had nearly a 1 in 4 chance of being murdered by their mother because they were inconvenient.

scotash on July 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Aslans Girl on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Honesty is not really the left’s strong suit.

CWforFreedom on July 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM

She’s got all the kinder feelings of Ebeneezer Scrooge circa December 24. Justice Ginsburg wants the poor, the folks she feels are unwanted to die and decrease the surplus population.

Justice Ginsburg: “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.”

Shorter Justice Ginsburg: Abortion Macht Frei!

Ugh. I need to wash out my brain after reading Justice Ginsburg’s comments.

Orson Buggeigh on July 9, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Understand, I’m not suggesting that racism never existed, or that it wasn’t much more acceptable in the past, but many people have stood against the mistreatment of other human beings based on their skin color throughout history. Had it only been 1% that objected to racism, they would never have had enough influence to change anything.

ral514 on July 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Thanks for the rational reply! It’s rather late on this thread. If you’d like to discuss this further, I’ll check this thread tomorrow and if you desire, I’ll respond to your points.

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 11:15 PM

particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Hope one of those populations doesn’t include “wise Latina women”.

Herb on July 10, 2009 at 12:13 AM

Why is “population control” (in whatever context she means) a matter for Supreme Court concern? One more idiot lawyer in a black robe.

Skipper50 on July 10, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I’m saying we live in a world which was dark in many ways, and almost everyone before 1940 or so had some racist sentiments…

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM


Quite early G.K. Chesterton spoke very eloquently, passionately and with foresight against eugenics, while Margaret Sanger pushed that philosophy. Chesterton was a moral and intellectual giant compared to Sanger and other eugenecists of the time. He spoke against evil, while they taught evil.

Lecture 36: Eugenics and Other Evils

theCork on July 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM

I’m saying we live in a world which was dark in many ways, and almost everyone before 1940 or so had some racist sentiments…

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Quite early G.K. Chesterton spoke very eloquently, passionately and with foresight against eugenics, while Margaret Sanger pushed that philosophy. Chesterton was a moral and intellectual giant compared to Sanger and other eugenecists of the time. He spoke against evil, while they taught evil.

Lecture 36: Eugenics and Other Evils

theCork on July 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Thanks for playing theCork. But Chesterton like almost everyone else at the time had considerable racist sentiment:

http://gadetection.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/the-sins-of-the-saint-racism-in-gk-chesterton/

Anyway, I can think of only one possibility for a prominent person who may meet modern standards of not being racist, Emma Goldman. But more research will probably reveal her sins on this topic. Anyway, she was an anarchist supporter of terrorism. So, even if she is racism pure, she’s still horrible.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Thuja the article you site merely show that he was plain spoken and not politically correct, not that he was racist:

‘far from being a racist, he ridiculed racism, had Jewish friends, admired individual Jews, valued the Jewish faith, wanted the Jews to have the dignity of a Jewish nation-state, and, with the rise of Nazi Germany, denounced the persecution of the Jews.’ ‘I am quite ready to believe now,’ he said, ‘that Belloc and I will die defending the last Jew in Europe’.

Chesterton’s alleged ‘anti-Semitism’

Contrast him with Margaret Sanger. She was the real deal, as true racist and the willing architect of the Nazi sterilization plan. She didn’t repudiate them until late in the war:

“To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization”, advocated the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 (“A Plan For Peace”, Birth Control Review…

Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika

She was a monster. It’s sad that people try to defend her, her racism and her eugenic ideas.

theCork on July 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM

The article on Margaret was just a compendium of tacky lies and misdirection–the utter lack of respect for the truth that is the mark of the pro-life movement.

Here’s just one example of dishonest misdirection, simply because it was when I got tried of reading the drivel:

Margaret Sanger corresponded with Ernst Rudin and never once renounced his eugenic views.

I communicate with lots of people I disagree with, and don’t spend time renouncing their views. I don’t think it makes me responsible for their views. In fact, for a while I exchanged email with a prominent Holocaust denier in Canada, because I supported her right to freedom of speech. We echoed her website when Canada tried to censor it. I don’t think I’ve ever publicly stated her views are nonsense, and I’m deliberately not going to do it now. I suppose one could infer my beliefs about her from me being a gay Jew.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM

What a psycho moron racist she is.

Or, as another Ginsberg [Allen] put it:

What sphinx… smashed open their skulls and ate up their brains?”

profitsbeard on July 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM

… shouldn’t we surmise from that silence that either (a) Ginsburg had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program, or (b) that she was willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe for the access to abortion?

It’s completely reasonable to surmise this. After all, the whole thing started with Margaret Sanger whose motives, by her own admission, were eugenic in nature.

PoodleSkirt on July 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Ruth Bader Ginsburg equals Margaret Sanger.

wraithby on July 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM

x2

SCOOPTHIScarlos on July 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM

According to Bernard Nathanson in his anti-abortion book on page 32, Sanger opposed abortion. Nathanson is pro-life, so I suspect his ability to tell the truth. But if Nathanson is telling the truth, it throws a real monkey wrench into the pro-life demonetization of Sanger. At the very least, the pro-lifers should mention that Sanger shares their opposition to abortion. If Nathanson is lying, it would do much to verify my ideas of pro-life honesty.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Contrast him with Margaret Sanger. She was the real deal, as true racist and the willing architect of the Nazi sterilization plan. She didn’t repudiate them until late in the war:

Are you trying to win a contest with the 9/11 truthers for the most ridiculous theory? The idea that Hitler was outsourcing his domestic policies to foreign women is not remotely credible. My entry in this contest is that Margaret Sanger was the head of NASA when we put men on the moon.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Who ‘Inspired’ the architects of the German Sterilization law?

“The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to understake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere.” (2) Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article ‘Eugenic Sterilization’ in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. “The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Who ‘Inspired’ the architects of the German Sterilization law?

“The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to understake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere.” (2) Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article ‘Eugenic Sterilization’ in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. “The situation [in the U.S.A] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Even assuming that the first two sentences are true (given pro-life honesty I seriously doubt it), to vilify Margaret Sanger because her magazine published one article written by Popenoe is simply absurd. What’s your next line of attack on Margaret Sanger? That she once used a toilet that Adolf Hitler also used?

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Even assuming that the first two sentences are true (given pro-life honesty I seriously doubt it), to vilify Margaret Sanger because her magazine published one article written by Popenoe is simply absurd. What’s your next line of attack on Margaret Sanger? That she once used a toilet that Adolf Hitler also used?

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!…Pro-Life honesty in question?? This coming from a pro-abortionist who can pretend an obvious baby that ANY ultra sound can show is some kind of clump of cells, a TUMOR that moves and kicks back at the mother.
Is there a single liberal pro-aqbortion woman in America that ever through or attended a “non-viable tissue mass showers” Talk about NOT being honest!! ROFL!

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM

Sanger’s account of her talk to the Ku Klux Klan

Given Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race (see previous article), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sanger would accept an invitation to give a speech to an organization that also has a preoccupation with race – the Ku Klux Klan. Not only did Sanger accept the invitation, but the excerpt below from her own 1938 autobiography indicates the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually getting a “dozen invitations to speak to similar groups.”

Perhaps this is because the KKK’s ideas and Margaret Sanger’s ideas concerning race are so similar. No doubt the KKK must have been happy with Sanger’s “Negro Project” which was designed to cut down on the number of black babies being born. In a December 10, 1939 letter, Margaret Sanger wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble about her “Negro Project,” saying, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (See Blessed Are The Barren The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood by Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Ignatius Press, 1991, pages 17-18.)

Here is Sanger’s account of her trip to talk to the Ku Klux Klan from pages 366-367 of Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company).

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Given Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race (see previous article), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sanger would accept an invitation to give a speech to an organization that also has a preoccupation with race – the Ku Klux Klan. Not only did Sanger accept the invitation, but the excerpt below from her own 1938 autobiography indicates the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually getting a “dozen invitations to speak to similar groups.”

Is there no lie which the pro-life movement won’t stoop to? Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race? No honest view of Margaret Sanger’s life would suggest such a thing. As a product of her time, she was influenced by the racism of her time. No doubt that is true. But she was also influenced by anti-racism of her time, and much more by the anti-racism. Here’s an excerpt from a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr praising Margaret Sanger.

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

What’s next in “pro-life” history? Claiming Martin Luther King, Jr. was responsible for Nazi concentration camps? Margaret Sanger was saint for what she did. It’s just disgusting the lies the pro-life movement tells about her.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM

As I stated before, in excellent detail, no “pro abortion”
person could ever be confused with someone telling the truth.

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Here is Sanger’s account of her trip to talk to the Ku Klux Klan from pages 366-367 of Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company).

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 10:33 PM

She met with the KKK.YOu don’t meet/speak with the KKK for a picnic and this is noted on pages 366-367 of her AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Do you know what AUTOBIOGRAPHY means?
It means she wrote it!

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Thuja, Sanger was a eugenecist and advocated forced sterilization. Forced sterilization is a crime against humanity according to UN treaties which most nations have signed. Ergo Sanger was a criminal against all humanity. No matter how you defend her, she did embrace racism much of her life and much better folk did not.

I’m guessing that Ginsburg sanely believes that it’s not a great idea for unmarried women living in poverty to have lots of kids. It’s certainly a population that I’d like to prefer abortion to childbirth.
It’s hard for me to even imagine the twisted, sick minds that want to make something sinister out of people not wanting children born into households that are bad places for kids to live. And it’s certainly not eugenics. But even in terms of “eugenics”. By what sane measure, do we wish people who have lots of terrible medical problems related to genetics to have lots of kids? Is it really true the idea of the good life involves living in agony on hospital beds? If morality is people living horrible lives, then give me immorality!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM


Thuja? If you ever are able to force sterilization on others… then you too will be an enemy against all humanity by the laws of most nation on this earth. You prefer immorality? You’ve got it! You and Sanger both.

theCork on July 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM

What’s next in “pro-life” history? Claiming Martin Luther King, Jr. was responsible for Nazi concentration camps? Margaret Sanger was saint for what she did. It’s just disgusting the lies the pro-life movement tells about her.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM


It’s disgusting what she says about herself. I doubt the Reverend King read her earlier writings, I doubt that he would have been quite so laudatory. In the post war years eugenecists have launched a full propaganda campaign to clean up Sanger’s image.

Ya know, Der Fuhrer preferred immorality too. He was a big-government, socialist, anti-Zionist, vegetarian, a self-confessed pagan who valued animal rights, socialized medicine, gun-control, abortion, and was VERY big in euthanasia. I’m amazed that progressives haven’t launched a full hagiographical campaign to make him a saint!

Hitler was a Leftist

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:22 AM

to vilify Margaret Sanger because her magazine published one article written by Popenoe is simply absurd…

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

She was responsible for whatever was published in her magazine. This is such an obvious point it bears no further discussion.

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM

I’m guessing that Ginsburg sanely believes that it’s not a great idea for unmarried women living in poverty to have lots of kids. It’s certainly a population that I’d like to prefer abortion to childbirth.
It’s hard for me to even imagine the twisted, sick minds that want to make something sinister out of people not wanting children born into households that are bad places for kids to live. And it’s certainly not eugenics. But even in terms of “eugenics”. By what sane measure, do we wish people who have lots of terrible medical problems related to genetics to have lots of kids? Is it really true the idea of the good life involves living in agony on hospital beds? If morality is people living horrible lives, then give me immorality!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

I forgot to include your original email when I cited “also preferring immorality” above. I’m quoting the whole thing to get that crunchy neo-eugenecist context just right.

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:43 AM

According to Bernard Nathanson in his anti-abortion book on page 32, Sanger opposed abortion. Nathanson is pro-life, so I suspect his ability to tell the truth. But if Nathanson is telling the truth, it throws a real monkey wrench into the pro-life demonetization of Sanger. At the very least, the pro-lifers should mention that Sanger shares their opposition to abortion. If Nathanson is lying, it would do much to verify my ideas of pro-life honesty.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM

In reading your several strange posts with comments about ‘honesty’ (more specifically, what kind of person is seemingly incapable of the concept), I have to wonder: according to you, was Dr. Nathanson honest while co-founding NARAL and then became dishonest when he became pro life?

Admittedly, my somewhat limited knowledge on what Sanger thought would give me substantially less confidence to claim what was said in her autobiography and/or direct quotes as lies, but I hope you’ll pardon me if I find that nothing short of amazing.

I disagree with you on the issue of abortion as I do with millions. I understand that this issue is difficult to argue/discuss rationally between many who are opposing in beliefs. I think much of that is due because it is based on the premise side of argument and not during the point/conclusion time. I also think it would counter any advance in said discussion to state that any side (coincidentally the one I oppose) has a problem with honesty. Take it for whatever.

anuts on July 11, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Ya know, Der Fuhrer preferred immorality too. He was a big-government, socialist, anti-Zionist, vegetarian, a self-confessed pagan who valued animal rights, socialized medicine, gun-control, abortion, and was VERY big in euthanasia. I’m amazed that progressives haven’t launched a full hagiographical campaign to make him a saint!

Hitler was a Leftist

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:22 AM

It’s coming, in a hundred years Hitler will be a misunderstood visionary and the left will tell us Buchenwald never happened.

Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 8:29 AM

I disagree with you on the issue of abortion as I do with millions. I understand that this issue is difficult to argue/discuss rationally between many who are opposing in beliefs. I think much of that is due because it is based on the premise side of argument and not during the point/conclusion time. I also think it would counter any advance in said discussion to state that any side (coincidentally the one I oppose) has a problem with honesty. Take it for whatever.

anuts on July 11, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Of course, most people who respond to polls as being pro-life have a vague idea abortion is yucky and aren’t extreme people. I certainly wouldn’t claim that the “pro-life” ideology is twisting their honesty. Most such “pro-lifers” have no idea who Margaret Sanger is. I would be shocked to learn to learn that even 10% of those polled as “pro-life” know who Margaret Sanger is. What I’m talking about is the more extreme pro-lifers who just lie about Margaret Sanger and then lie some more about this great woman, by taking a few quotes out of context. No doubt, Margaret Sanger was a product of her times, when race was a category that people used. These people included Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coleridge.

Let’s consider Warren Harding. He praised Stoddard’s book horrible racist book “The Rising Tide of Color” in a speech in Birmingham in 1921. If I had the ambition, I could find a copy of “The Rising Tide of Color” and find some truly atrocious quote, since F. Scott FitzGerald used a reference to the book to establish Tom Buchanan as a brutal character in “The Great Gatsby”. I could then talk about Warren Harding was an important antecedent to Adolf Hitler. Of course, it would be a totally ridiculous argument, but it’s exactly the argument that pro-life activists make about Margaret Sanger. And I have yet to finish to showing why it’s ridiculous. In fact, Warren Harding undid some of the racist policies of Wilson administration. Harding truly wanted to take steps in the right direction. The dishonesty about Margaret Sanger also involves ignoring the evidence that suggests she opposed racism. Here’s a Sanger quote:

What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic in this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in the museum.

What I’m still trying to get my hand around is Nathanson’s claim that Sanger was opposed to abortion. This would mean that the pro-life extremists are vilifying Sanger for advocating birth control and that opposing birth control is still part of their agenda. I wonder how well that would go over with the American people. Sadly, they’ll never know the active pro-lifers still target birth control for the same reason that most people who poll “pro-life” don’t know who Margaret Sanger is. Most people simply aren’t interested.

I wish more people cared and bothered to think about these issues. I suppose in that sense you are right that shouldn’t call the “pro-lifers” liars with such intensity as it does drive people away from the argument. It’s just that the extremity of their lies about Sanger make it hard to say anything else. Still, I did overplay the lying meme, and I thank you for pointing it out. I will strive not use it gratuitously in the future.

thuja on July 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Sanger speaking at a KKK meeting, mentioned in her own autobiography, pretty much sums her up.

Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Sanger invention,Planned Parenthood,today taking donations to kill “black babies”, pretty much sums that groups ideals too.

Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Sanger speaking at a KKK meeting, mentioned in her own autobiography, pretty much sums her up.

Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Wow, what a sophisticated argument! Like most people, Sanger was complex and hard to sum up. Ok, so she spook once to a KKK meeting. I went to a Scientology meeting once. Does this mean I agree to all of Scientology’s evil? Maybe it was her experience at the KKK meeting that prompted her to say:

The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.

She was a socialist as a youth and a Republican when old, but continued to promote family planning the entire time. It makes no sense to identify her family planning crusade with any particular political grouping.

thuja on July 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM

“In a 1916 edition of Family Limitation, Sanger advised women douche with boric acid and to take quinine to prevent implantation. She wrote further, “No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”[citation needed]”

From her Wikipedia entry. She felt abortions were justified, though she preferred sterilization to avoid them.

Thuja, pro-life opposition to Sanger stems from her support for eugenics. Most people regard eugenecists as near-absolute evil, real scum. In Germany you could be investigated for advocating Nazi ideas. I’m sorry to hear that immorality and eugenics is OK with you, I undestand your veneration of Maggie Sanger. Have these life decisions led to a life of joy?

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM

So if liberals don’t want the darkies to breed, why do then so desperately try to import as many as possible from Mexico, Somolia and other places?

Pretty sick for a Jewess to advocate eugenics. Oh wait, I am not allowed to mention that ironic fact.

Spartacus on July 11, 2009 at 4:16 PM

“In a 1916 edition of Family Limitation, Sanger advised women douche with boric acid and to take quinine to prevent implantation. She wrote further, “No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”[citation needed]”

It’s so hard for me to know what to make out this quote, since I’ve decided not to investigate the nuances of her abortion position for now. As I said earlier, if Bernard Nathanson lied about this issue, it says loads about the honesty of the pro-life movement.

Thuja, pro-life opposition to Sanger stems from her support for eugenics. Most people regard eugenecists as near-absolute evil, real scum. In Germany you could be investigated for advocating Nazi ideas. I’m sorry to hear that immorality and eugenics is OK with you, I undestand your veneration of Maggie Sanger. Have these life decisions led to a life of joy?

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I have never seen any evidence that people’s political positions impact their happiness in a democratic society. I suspect that some political positions may reflect a person’s level of happiness. In particular, I think people who quick to condemn others and quick to support the various witch hunts allowed in modern politics are probably unhappy.

And the next time you read a poll that indicates that most people don’t think a person with horrible genetic defects should have kids, please keep thinking most people oppose Margaret Sanger and my ideas on the topic. Dishonesty so often starts with someone lying to themselves. And I’m anxious that the pro-life movement keeps its high standard on honesty issues.

thuja on July 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Thuja,

You suffer from the typical dilemma of a liberal:
You are so convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you think your feelings and thoughts supercede due diligence and actual intelligence.

surveys show conservatives are happier, and liberals more likely to be in therapy. Idiot.

Spartacus on July 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM