What did Ginsburg think Roe would do?
posted at 8:52 am on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
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.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASCIST!
Enoxo on July 9, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Of Course she thought it would get rid of undesirables…that’s the point. Unwanted fetuses..then unwanted trimester, then viable fetuses, then kids who have down syndrome. Before long…it’ll be ok to just let kids die who survive botched abortions … oh wait…. Killer Obama has already voted for that 3 different times. Who’s next as far as undesirables… Christians…Jews….Conservaties….GM Dealers…
But I digress
lm10001 on July 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Rut roh!! That could have been said better.
Cindy Munford on July 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM
WTF
BPD on July 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM
That’s just sad.
population control.
bridgetown on July 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Good to see her take a firm stand on this. Has anyone notified Al Sharpton?
a capella on July 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Classical
LiberalProgressive!Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Don’t worry, Ruth. You can always give a cash donation to Planned Parenthood with the stipulation that the funds be used solely for the abortion of black, er, african-american babies. Bear in mind, however, that under the Obama administration and Democratic congress, your contribution may no longer be tax deductible.
olesparkie on July 9, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Access to abortion uber alles of course.
A few dark-skinned babies lost to the cause of “access” is a price that Justice Ginsberg would find easy to pay.
Sinner on July 9, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Reminds me of the book Freakonomics… The author argued (in one of his chapterS) that the significant decline in violent crimes, which began approximately 16 years after Roe v. Wade, was because the women most likely to have abortions are also most likely to have children who become felons.
BPD on July 9, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Hmmm, and this woman sits on SCOTUS??? No wonder we are sooooo phucked up…
doriangrey on July 9, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Not to play too much identity politics, but one would think that this clip alone might be useful for for GOP video clips among the demographics that are growing rapidly.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:02 AM
How amusing!
In that thread on the black kids kicked out of the swimming pool … everyone is super-duper outraged by all the racism they’re certain is behind it …
… and meanwhile, here we have a a crystal clear example of the most dangerous kind of discrimination, real-life eugenics preached by somebody who has had the power to make it happen.
If you’d like to spend a little of that outrage today, kiddies, I’d suggest you do it here.
Professor Blather on July 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM
too bad we didn’t have a wise latina justice on the court at the time – she surely wouldn’t have carried such a prejudiced thought in her mind.
gatorboy on July 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Thanks for your hideously luntic point of view, Her Hitler.
NoDonkey on July 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM
+1
excellent
cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM
…er or who raise children who become felons…
We still haven’t solved Nature v Nurture…
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Quick, quick! Does the Wise Latina agree?
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Yeah, it’s a bit of a box :) But there’s a presupposition here that Ginsburg is some kind of ethical, unbiased, Mother Theresa. For crying out loud, she’s an uber lib former general counsel for the ACLU. Might as well put horns on her.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Suprise, liberals, and feminists want to kill minorities, and the poor. You couldn’t get a better admission of guilt, I wonder how the media is going to spin this.
Rode Werk on July 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Proof again that the LEFT and the National Socialist party have so much in common. One wants to kill African Americans, the other Jews.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM
We all know that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, but I’m pretty damned sure we can all agree that Medicaid paying for abortions is not a Constitutional right…
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Ooops..I forgot, Sanger was an anti-Semite too
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:06 AM
By “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” she means liberals, right?
Daggett on July 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM
If I recall correctly, the author was basing his conclusion on raw statistics…. that women most likely to have abortions and women most likely to have children that grow up to be felons come from the same grouping (single mother, poor socio-economic standing).
BPD on July 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM
It’s literally class warfare.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM
The Progressives entire global agenda is centered on ugenics.
This is no suprise.
katy on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Ed, I’m going with b) on this one. With the liberals, and I’ve even met some not so liberal women who are all about women not being ‘forced’ to have a baby.
4shoes on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Showing that the way the children were raised was more likely the reason they became felons; although, some might argue that because the mother had had an abortion, she may be more violent and thus pass this on to future children.
I’m partial to the first.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM
I’m curious, if Roe is such a bad decision, would she vote to repeal it if it were ever to come up?
Enoxo on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 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 think that this needs to be front page on all documents to African Americans who vote for Democrats.
A vote for a democrat / abortion is a vote to commit genocide on your own race.
It puts ‘racial profiling’ in a different light doesn’t it? Abortion (according to the supreme court justice) was intended to eliminate too many black babies.
Abortion was intended to eliminate black babies.
ThackerAgency on July 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Recently I’ve heard more and more “liberals” talking about limiting the number of children one can have (Octomom, IVF, $c). I think we can agree that most progressives really don’t care about a woman’s alleged right to choice. It’s something far more sinister…
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I agree.
BPD on July 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM
WOW! I can’t wait to see this reported on the news.
PatMac on July 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM
thuja, in NC, we had a program where the government provided sterilization for people like that. Guess what happened? Our state has apologized for the practice, erected a sign in our state capital commemorating the ‘horrible’ event, and paid restitution to the (mostly poor) people who were subjected to the practice.
I’d say abortion to limit the number of babies is at least AS BAD.
ThackerAgency on July 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Sorry, but as much as I’d like to read it that way, she did not make a racist statement. Ruth was referring to poor women, “There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore.”
If she writes her judgements the way she speaks historians will think she was a dunce.
kregg on July 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM
You’re right. It’s not sinister for people to not want children to grow up in bad environments. What’s your point?
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM
That’s just absolutely stunning. We all knew this is what they thought, but here we have one of “them” actually saying it out loud. They’re so arrogant in power that they slip up and say the truth of their intentions when it comes to abortions.
yogi41 on July 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Paging Capt. John Parker
bill30097 on July 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Agreed. She did not make an explicit racists statement. It was more classist. However more and more the two (class and race) are becoming intertwined – mostly because of programs such as affirmative action and such.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Man, isn’t it a little early in the morning for eugenics-talk? I haven’t had nearly enough coffee.
LastRick on July 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM
She got away with applying what is now known as the “Ginsburg Standard” (“I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” ) to her answers during her nomination hearings. George W. Bush’s nominees of course were not afforded the same elusiveness in their answers.
Take a gander at an enlightening article of her views:
The Ginsburg Record and Standard
Sorry for the long post but this is one woman that really riles me up!
Brat on July 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM
No need to have the dark-skinned fetuses changing the complexion of the gene pool.
I.HATE.LIBERALS.
SouthernGent on July 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM
According to the definition of Eugenics, it is those women who choose to have an abortion who are practicing it.
OldEnglish on July 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Our Messiah has pledged that he supports abortion so that no woman will ever be “punished” with a child. I guess I’m glad Ginsburg is finally being honest about what abortion REALLY is all about–a liberal scheme to reduce population size. I remember hearing multiple bright, well-educated people expressing horror at the thought that Sarah P. would “knowingly” have a Downs-syndrome baby because over 90% of women abort those babies. My reaction at first was one of shock. I guess this explains a lot!
Outlander on July 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM
My reading is that Ginsburg does have issues with abortion for eugenics, but abortion on demand trumps those concerns. So, I vote for (b). And that makes her support for abortion even creepier, if that’s possible.
Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 9:22 AM
This is so awesome.
You know what’s happening here? The radicals are getting old and senile, and this disorients them, causing them to forget where they are and who is listening.
They think they’re still at Woodstock or at some radical organizing committee in the basement of their college dorm.
Sadly, their dreams have been realized in many ways. Black babies are disproportionately more likely to be aborted than white babies. Which is exactly what the Left wing had in mind.
It’s a bizarro world.
jeff_from_mpls on July 9, 2009 at 9:22 AM
This is the nice thing about the lefties taking control of the entire federal government. They get comfortable, thinking that all of America thinks like they do. Then they drop their masks a little, stop using codes for what they really mean. When they are comfortable with the power that they have, they will start to tell us what they really think.
myrenovations on July 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM
I am always a little stunned when I encounter Jews who, in light of their shared history of the holocaust, seem to have no problem with the government allowing (even targeting) and encouraging the killing of the most vulnerable among us.
I mean, surely every Jew alive today has relatives who were horrifically murdered by the Nazi’s, no? Family members who were mothers that had their children torn from their arms as they themselves were marched off to the gas chambers?
In light of this history, do you ever wonder how this disconnect can come about?
It boggles the mind.
Puddleglum on July 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM
I don’t understand the uproar. The left got DDT banned. Malaria deaths in countries with people of color soared. The left keeps countries with people of color from industrializing and have electricity and good supplies of fresh water. People die and remain dirt poor. The left passes welfare that pays poor people of color to not work and improve their conditions.
In the mean time, is Michael Jackson still dead? I haven’t seen the news today.
CC
CapedConservative on July 9, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Kinda blows the cover off the real motive for nationalized health care… Can’t have civilians living past their ability to be productive tax paying sheep.
Keemo on July 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Oh snap, was she talking about controlling the minority population?
I thought she was talking about controlling the male population.
Oh those feminists . . .
Ingenue on July 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Sanger was a devout racist and advocated a means to practice eugenics first though birth control and then abortion. The sad fact is that some minority groups have used abortion at a higher ratio than middle class and wealthy whites, voluntarily carrying out Sanger’s objective. She gets feminist sainthood while accomplishing Hitleresque purification.
InTheBellyoftheBeast on July 9, 2009 at 9:28 AM
WorldNetDaily, you magnificent bastard! You read her book.
Great catch, Ed!
Thanks
maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
“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.”
So we should legalize pedophilia because rich people can always travel to another country where it is legal, making laws against pedophilia discrimination against the poor?
JohnJ on July 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
No doubt to many women she is a saint,perhaps a god in their feminist religion, with abortion being the ultimate sacrament.
If you read up on her and the people that were her mentors and heroes, you’ll see I’m closer than you think.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Well, she certainly seems to believe that Roe was a move toward population control.
JohnJ on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM
That’s not your business. You don’t get to decide what makes life worth living to others.
Puddleglum on July 9, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Maybe today is the day to read Pope Benedict’s encyclical Charity in Truth.
He defends the Church’s opposition to birth control in third world countries, pointing out that such intervention is in reality a smuggling-in of dehumanizing social control techniques, such as mandatory sterilization and sterilization without the knowledge of the victim.
I’m begging you, put aside whatever animosity to the Pope or the Church you might have, and put down the kool-aid about birth control being the panacea for world poverty. It’s not a panacea, it’s a placebo, literally in the Latin meaning of the term (”I will placate”). Marx would be proud. Indeed, he was the ultimate instigator of this mess.
Planned Parenthood has been very effective in marketing their solutions as “enlightened” and “liberating”.
It’s time to rethink your loyalty to the Planned Parenthood ideology. They are not here to enlighten or liberate. Quite the opposite. As Justice [sic] Ginsberg unwittingly reveals.
jeff_from_mpls on July 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Doesn’t matter. If Justice Thomas made a statement like that, his “bigotry” would be being flogged all over the news. We have to start doing stuff like that, even if it’s disingenuous.
Farmer_Joe on July 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM
But wasn’t this true before Roe? Always true in fact? There were always doctors who performed abortions for the right amount of cash so it has always been a question of means not a question of access. Advocating for Roe and publicly funding abortions has always been about population control, specifically poor populations. Roe advocates believed that if the poor were not forced into the burdens that their lives would improve. Less babies=more money=better life.
Instead it has had the opposite effect. Poor people don’t have a lot of problem with many kids. Thanks to social programs you can’t only get so poor no matter how many children you have. Instead it is the better off populations (mostly middle class), unwilling to risk their financial future, who have limited their procreation and have the most abortions. Leading to the “poor” becoming a larger percentage of the population despite millions of abortions.
Instead of Less babies=more money=better life you get More money=less babies=no life, eventually.
Rocks on July 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Hey, it’s an anti-poverty program.
Just wait until you see their version of “health” care.
PackerBronco on July 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM
She seems to believe that Roe was a possible move toward population control. But the abortion is such a wonderful thing that we just had to have it, regardless.
ROCnPhilly on July 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Not so fast there Puddle… the right will gain control again someday and we should be able to prevent people from living in the agony of imbecilism…
CC
CapedConservative on July 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Fred Thompson got it right. So far as the Constitution is concerned, states having already determined for themselves, leave abortion to locality. So far as taxation is concerned, absolutely NO TAX FUNDING FOR ABORTION ANYWHERE, domestic or international. Those who promote abortion can finance it themselves; blood on their own hands, not ours! Those who promote adoption fund that themselves, no taxation. Those who promote charity in all its forms can fund that themselves without taxation. Contain government focused entirely upon its Constitutional requirements.
$.02 Cut taxes and eliminate socialism.
maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Awww, don’t be silly, Ruth. You don’t need Medicaid, all you need is a few friends.
hoosiermama on July 9, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Now we have a whole new judicial hearing question:
What did you think was the purpose of Roe?
myrenovations on July 9, 2009 at 9:38 AM
When the veil slips on these lefties every once in a while like this, what we glimpse beneath is usually more evil than even heated conservative hyperbole can articulate. How far is it, I wonder, for these folks to go from “kill the undesirables” in utero to kill the undesirables in the streets. Not far, I imagine.
Rational Thought on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Every argument made here could also be used to justify infanticide. Why don’t we just euthanize seriously ill babies that we can’t cure? Or even healthy babies where the parents can’t afford to provide a good life? What is truly sinister is trying to snuff out lives simply because they are economic or medical burdens on families or societies.
frank63 on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM
And on her computer you will find a set of the complete speeches of Adolf Hitler
bill30097 on July 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
It’s also interesting in what this says Ginsberg thinks about the motives of the seven justices who voted for “Roe” and by inference, questions the intelligence/morals of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who you would assume came from one of those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” that she presumably thought at least some of the judges on the 7-2 side were attempting to control with their vote.
(My guess is if she is forced to pretzel-logic try to explain this statement, it will be that some of the justices — Blackmun? Burger? — Ginsberg assumes voted in favor of Roe because they wanted to get rid of certain populations due to their closet racism, having been appointed by Nixon in the first place, while others who are held in high standing in the liberal pantheon of jurists, like Marshall and Douglas, altruistically voted for it because of their belief in a woman’s right to choose and didn’t take the eugenics argument into account.)
jon1979 on July 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Uh. Wow. Just wow.
watson007 on July 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Don’t forget the Darwin screen saver. Perhaps showing different classes of human evolution that Hitler enjoyed.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Oops I think someone accidently let slip she is a member of the White Power/Stormfront movement.
And here I thought the Dems were for minorities.
LincolntheHun on July 9, 2009 at 9:48 AM
frank63 on July 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM
So far as gov’t is concerned, cut socialism, cut taxes. No tax funds for abortion, period. No law requiring citizens to pay for another. No funds, the bloated gov’t bubble pops.
thuja makes her credible point that unless you personally pay for what you want of others from your own personal funds, who are you to legislate another’s fate?
Just because we all here were born the Forgotten Man does not mean that we are caste that way without our own self determination.
maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:48 AM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
At f**king last!
This is getting forwarded to EVERYONE I know…
bluelightbrigade on July 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Wow. Who’s going to be in charge of determining which “medical problems related to genetics” should pull the abortion trigger? And how poor does one have to be in order to qualify for abortion as the best route? And who will decide that? Can you really not see the moral landmines such “sane” reasoning walks you into? You are suggesting that the weakest, least powerful members of society be encouraged to kill their children for the good of the state. And if gentle encouragement doesn’t work? What comes next — you know, cuz it’s for the good of society and all? It’s amazing to me the kind of utterly corrupt thinking some people can rationalize with that “greater good” philosophy. Mao was good at it. So was Pol Pot. And Stalin, too. Oh, and yeah, I’m gonna say it: Hitler was darn good at getting rid of those genetic undesirables as well. Why just think of all the “terrible medical problems related to genetics” he managed to eradicate.
Rational Thought on July 9, 2009 at 9:53 AM
jeff_from_mpls on July 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM
RELIGION has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal. How about instead of looking at YOUR church with YOUR church colored glasses, you try to figure out why the most strident abortion supporters in government are Catholic.
You can believe abortion is wrong and be an atheist. Even if the pope said abortion was OK, it wouldn’t be. Religion is irrelevant in this debate. It is because people use religion to support banning abortion that abortion is not banned. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is murder.
ThackerAgency on July 9, 2009 at 9:53 AM
If you really believe in universal welfare, healthcare, etc., then this is just a logical cost-control approach. . .
holdfast on July 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Ginsburg – the intellectual grandchild of Margaret Sanger.
Vashta.Nerada on July 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM
In spite of her last name, I never consciously realized Ginsburg was jewish (dumb, I know). But somehow, I don’t think she realizes it either.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Can’t we all just get along. Let’s say, for most Christian religions, and just plain non-religion logical reasons, it’s murder. After all, do liberal women throw each other, “Non-Viable Tissue Mass Showers? I don’t think so. Do liberal pregnant women say, “Come her and feel this honey, the TUMOR is kicking”, heck no. Even the most liberal of women KNOW it’s a kid and it’s murder. They simply don’t care if it is.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM
And who demands abortion be safe, legal and paid for?
Democrats.
Speakup on July 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM
You must read your Nietzsche and your Sartre more carefully.
Modernism is a self-conscious exercise in working out the implications of the postulate that there is no God.
If there is no God, everything is allowed. The radical Left has an acute awareness of this fact, and they’re pushing it.
If you mean that dropping the religious pretense and fighting the Left on its own godless terms is a good idea, that might be true. But in the end, you’d still be arguing that you can’t murder because some dudes in Philadelphia a couple of hundred years ago voted on the idea of following some social contract, it’s all there on that one sheet of paper with that one dude’s huge signature, etc.
Not impressive to truly deep thinkers, I’m afraid.
jeff_from_mpls on July 9, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Women who have abortions are not trying to improve the human species. They are practicing birth control in a very inefficient manner.
mchristian on July 9, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Apparently there is no social problem that a little more death can’t solve.
dkmonroe on July 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Gosh. Between the Quote of the DaAy and this thread, I am totally in awe of the Tolerance of American Liberals. Not.
Chekote to show her tolerant self up to defend this garbage in 5…4…3…
kingsjester on July 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM
She clearly was not referring to populations we don’t want more of, like babies with fatal medical conditions or genetic defects that doom them, and their families, to horrible lives. She said populations “we don’t want to have too many of.”
Notice the use of the word “we”, and not “they”. She’s your typical liberal racist. But liberals never think of themselves as hateful or racist because if they believe something to be true it must be true and therefore there can’t be anything hateful or racist about it. How dare you accuse them of meaning what they say, you right-wing-conservative-you.
Jaynie59 on July 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Come on, you know that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with medical/genetic issues. It’s a convenience factor, and used as late birth control most of the time.
cs89 on July 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I’m a latecomer to the conservative point of view, so perhaps this is nothing new to the rest of you, but I almost feel I’ve had a kind of epiphany at discovering the huge gulf between liberals’ self-image and their actual positions. They mean so well; they really think they are on the side of all that is good and not “oppressive”. But there’s just a kind of monstrous vacuum at the heart of it…I’m not even sure how to describe it, really.
Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
That’s probably the best guess at interpreting the muddled language she’s using — it certainly sounds like a dis on the Roe court of the time (even though Marshall voted in the affirmative). She also apparently didn’t like the decision because its heavy-handedness created a backlash and a hyper-awareness among the pro-life that we see to this day.
Nichevo on July 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Kind of like waking up in an alternate world and an alternate reality?
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM
By the way…Welcome to “our world”.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Beautiful. Say it like it is Ginsburg.
CarolynM on July 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Agreed, so let’s drop the Eugenics crap.
OldEnglish on July 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM
1. She is unelected.
2. She has immense power over you.
3. Her power is essentially unchecked by other branches.
4. She has that power as long as she lives.
Comforting thought isn’t it?
Ted Torgerson on July 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Ginsburg is like the female version of Montgomery Burns.
She is the poster child of how insane the left is.
jencab on July 9, 2009 at 10:19 AM
It’s bizarre, isn’t it?
I prefer to think of liberals, after dealing with them during the last two elections, as just plain stupid.
Jaynie59 on July 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »