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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
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
What really frustrates me is that we, as conservatives, are always branded as uncaring, racist, etc…..yet these kinds of comments are frequently right out of mouths of liberals.
We may be bitter and cling to our bibles and guns, but I don’t recall many asking to get rid of people. We may not agree on policy philosophy, but in the end we’re all Americans….aren’t we?
search4truth on July 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM
The very root of no brain, no headache.
Speakup on July 9, 2009 at 10:32 AM
When a rapist or serial killer breaks into a liberal’s bedroom at night, the gulf between reality and theory is spanned. But short of that, there’s not much else that can do that for a liberal. (I was one once, although didn’t know it, just was all I was taught.) That’s why they happily lead us off cliffs. Think of it as a “reality deficiency syndrome.” Sure things can be changed/ameliorated over time, but the beatified mindset of the committed liberal has lost touch with the here and now.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Or maybe she was just pro-smaller-populations…
Vatican Watcher on July 9, 2009 at 10:32 AM
OK, so based on this reasoning what right do we have to legistlate against infanticide then? Do you agree with Peter Singer the Ethics Professor from Princeton who advocates a 30 day window where parents should be free to legally euthanize newborns with serious medical problems? As offensive as that may sound to many people, it’s simply the logical extension of the pro-choice argument being made here.
frank63 on July 9, 2009 at 10:33 AM
As usual, the far left reluctantly (accidentally?) reveals that they are crazier than anyone would believe. Thanks for that, Justice Ginsburg.
Jaibones on July 9, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Me too, only it was worse for me, since I considered myself a liberal all my life.
Since I wallowed in liberal thought for most of my life I can say definitively that liberals have nothing but contempt for human beings. They do not value life. That’s why they are crazed environmentalists-a tree, a wolf, a polar bear is worth way more than some black womans fetus. They have no higher calling other than their own self interest and gratification. They look upon the military with contempt and disgust-thinking soldiers are a bunch of violent dumb rednecks who can’t earn a living any other way.
To be a liberal is to be constantly conflicted, always hypocritical, and ultimately, utterly miserable.
CarolynM on July 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM
WOW. The cats out of the bag.
bazil9 on July 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I’m sure Al Franken will ask it.
Western_Civ on July 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I do have to admit, I’m sure I look like a terrible person because I do, favor restricting voting, though not simply because one must agree with me.
I’d prefer restricting voting to first:
Those adults actually living
American Citizens
Those adults that could pass a 5th grade U.S. history test.
Those adults that could pass an easy current events test.
Those adults actually paying taxes.
Those adults that swear they won’t vote for a person because:
Of his long kiss of his wife on a stage.
Because he’s “dreamy”.
Because of a catch phrase like: “Hope & Change”.
Because his last name is Kennedy.
Because their family grew up voting that party.
Because you believe his lies of paying your mortgage, gas, etc.
Because you just weren’t thinking and now have buyer remorse.
There’s probably a few more reasons but this is a good start.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM
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
I think abortion is illegal in much of C. and S. America–devoutly relig. pops.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Whoa! Ginsburg admitting that one of the elite intelligentsia got it all wrong from the beginning? That the ruling elite are not infallible?
GarandFan on July 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Kinda sounds like the mullahs.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Scroll down for English…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Trauma to the minds of the American misinformed once again.
.
The Roe versus Wade case should have never made it to the USSC for their ruling. The USSC should have rejected to its submission, review and ruling on the simple basic premise of the individual states constitutional rights. Whereby, the states own sovereignty functions are of a nation-state, it is to be answerable to no higher government body whether in theory or practice in accordance to their respective state constitutions.
.
The American people have been dumbed down to the point where if a poll was taken today about this issue of Roe versus Wade, most of them would get it wrong.
.
I proprose that either Rasmussen, Gallop or whatever present institution that does these kind of things to put out this question to the public “If the USSC reverses the decision of Roe versus Wage, then does that mean that getting an abortion legally now is against the law?”
.
How do you think our dumbed down misinformed population who were taught thru the dept of education of which is ran by socialist administrations will do? These public schools have educated our people. How will this misinformed population answer? How many affirmative answers out of 1000 people polled would there be? Answer: well over 600 minimum out of 1000. My statistical guess is that the numbers in the affimative will be in high sixties to mid-seventy or maybe higher percentile range.
Americannodash on July 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Liberals are starting to have a hell of a time keeping their agenda hidden with all these fossils getting older.
Ha, and to think, at her age Sotomayor already has difficulty. She ought to be a hoot in 10 years.
There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood and eugenics goes hand in hand. What is in doubt is whether all these freaky women’s right to choose believers understand that there is social engineering involved.
ORconservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Ha, well those are all reasons I could support…because they’re fixable.
Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
*propose not proprose
Americannodash on July 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM
So you’ve fallen for my evil trap….(Monty Burns voice)…Excellent..LOL
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Thanks upstate
That was interesting to see.
bazil9 on July 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
*Wade not Wage
.
Proof reading and spell check is a wonder isn’t it?
Americannodash on July 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM
What does the pro-life movement feel such a compulsion to lie about Maraget Sanger? By no fair and reasoanble standard was Sanger’s racism out of step with her time. Look up Teddy Roosevelt’s and Woodrow Wilson’s racism and explain how she was worse. Oh, and keep in mind that Sanger’s most racist statements were political statements intended to win over the support of racist Congressmen. When people make political statements, they often appeal to the biases of their audiences.
I realize that there is zero chance of rational discussion here as the dishonesty of the pro-life forbids it. But sometimes a good and decent woman like Sanger needs to be defended from their disgusting lies.
Let me end with another fun Sanger fact: Sanger’s political odyssey ended with her in the Republican party!
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
+100
At f****** last, indeed.
inviolet on July 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Ah yes, Eugenics. Another “too dire not to act quickly” pseudoscientific cause which stated the science was settled and pushed on the world by “caring” intellectuals, celebrities and world leaders. Thought these idiots crept back under their rocks after the world discovered what the Nazis were doing in Europe. Good to know we have a Justice that appreciates the murder of innocents for population quality control.
smfoushee on July 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM
And your point would be?
Yeah, we know how Wilson and Roosevelt were. We (cons) don’t really care for them. In fact, we find their ideas/beliefs deplorable.
You could start by trying to be rational. Why don’t you start making an actual argument and why don’t you tell us how Sanger’s views are good.
The same Republican Party that TR was part of?
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Then lets start with her. Why is she so special?
SouthernGent on July 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM
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.
Then a few years later, you can kill your kid if it is “inconvenient”. Apparently all those babies were causing a drain on the government coffers. This country is so f—–d up.
BetseyRoss on July 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM
FIFY
MarkTheGreat on July 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I’d like to think that most of this was unintended, but I struggle to believe that there weren’t individuals with these exact intentions…
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Yes, I would do a Monty Burns voice but my tongue’s firmly stuck in my cheek.
Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM
In her confirmation hearing,,, I remember that Orin Hatch did had a “gotcha” moment with her,, one he refused to take full advantage of. He asked Ginsburg if she would consider a law firm racist if over (whatever amount of time he stated,, I forget the number of years) … If she would consider a law firm racist if they had never once hired a black person. She stated, “yes, I would consider that firm racist.” Well,, Hatch then went on to say,, “That was your firm, Ginsburg”
But then he moronically said next “But I don’t consider you a racist”
What Hatch should have said next was,,”We will accept your resignation for this nomination since, by your own definition,, you are a racist.”
I paraphrased all of the above,, but I do remember it pretty clearly and think every thing I wrote is pretty close to the actual words.
JellyToast on July 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Saaahnds laahk Miss Ruthie afraiyad of too mahnah dahkies around heyah.
kurtzz3 on July 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Margaret Sanger was a good and decent woman who just happened to kill babies.
Got it.
ORconservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM
BetseyRoss on July 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Well, I don’t really like the un-American labeling. I’d say that Obama is pro-America… he’s pro-Obama’s version of how America should be.
That said, I think we could make the argument that many progressives want power (don’t we all?). So they use government programs to get this.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM
.
FIFY
MarkTheGreat on July 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM
.
Ah yes, the plural past tense ploy does work better.
.
Stick around Mark because between the two of us, one of us will succeed in making their point related to the thread.
Americannodash on July 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Clearly, she’s referring to women who should (in her opinion) abort for financial reasons… certain “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” This is liberal disdain for the little people, the peons neither educated in Ivy League schools nor welcomed into the inner sanctums of power.
The fact that, well, so many of “them” seem to be people of color is just… coincidence.
T J Green on July 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM
I honestly can’t figure out what she is trying to say here. What does she think she was wrong about, exactly?
Count to 10 on July 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM
BetseyRoss on July 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Ummm…she thought that other people were racist enough to promote abortion to keep down the numbers of black people, and that they would pass Medicaid-funded abortions to help that ideal. But they didn’t, which offends her sense of propriety: why should poor women not have access to the same “right” as rich women.
She’s aware of the racist angle, but doesn’t want to own it.
Any other interpretations?
Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Well, this is exactly why I didn’t expect rational dialog.
It really should be obvious to any person reading her statement above what is responding to. She’s responding to the reality that there are people with paranoid conspiracy theories, as there are such people today. For instance, there are people who claim that polio inoculations are actually western attempts to spread AIDS in third world populations.
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
Justice Ginsburg, you may now apologize to Dr. Mengele.
sawbuck on July 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM
WTF??
Restating this would leave you with: The only reason abortion is legal is because people use “religion” to oppose it!
That makes no sense whatsoever and is so indicative of the intellectual level of liberal “thought and argument”.
There are lots of people who are against abortion who are athiests, who do not have any religion at all, how do you explain that?
And how would you explain all those arguments against abortion that are not based on religion?
This is so pitiful. Its almost like claiming that the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade sat back and thought:
“Hmm, people only oppose abortion for religious purposes. Anyone who makes a decision on the basis of religious belief has to be stupid. Therefore, any opposition to abortion is stupid. I am not stupid, therefore I will vote to create a constitutional right to abortion! Yeah, I be smart!!!”
Sheesh.
Fatal on July 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Liberals are just plain dangerous. With thinking like this, there will never be bipartisanship, and the gulf will only widen. Ginsburg is a racist too boot.
kirkill on July 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Eugenics aside…
Her answer shows a more fundamental problem.
She believes that the state, the Government, should be able to dictate to its own people, how to live, and even procreate.
That the “State” can and should have goals…
vice the Libertarian view that the State should be nothing more than a referee for a Free People.
That the State would jerrymand the Constitution to create a means of controlling its own population, “for their own good”… is the real problem.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM
An honest liberal. Amazing.
evergreen on July 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
That might not be the way that the Supremes thought, but unfortunately it’s a pretty good summary of how ordinary, not very religious people think. At least in Britain, which I know pretty well. A Catholic blogger (Ed West of the Daily Telegraph)asked this question of his non-believing friends and was surprised by exactly this kind of mumbled response.
Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Oh no, you misunderstand. We realize full well that Sanger was simply part of a vanguard trying to create a Great Society, who were not above… well, anything… to achieve their ends. And today’s progressive apples have not fallen far from the tree. Do you think you’re defending Sanger by pointing out there were many others like her in power, Wilson and Roosevelt included?
evergreen on July 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM
“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
M. Sanger
Hmm..just ideals from those times?
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Neither, a liberal like this will cast any vote, support any issue to “stay in the fold”.
They don’t care how many babies are killed, if she spoke out against it, she knows she would be shunned by the feminists, and liberals.
She had a “high position”, and a few hundred deaths is insignificant to her “rightful place”.
So typical of a liberal, willing to give someone else’s all, for their own good.
No, she gets no “attaboy” from me, I just shake my head to the almost disbelief that someone, to bask in adulation, would allow barbaric sacrifices to sustain that “prominence”.
Glad she recognizes that abortion can keep fewer blacks (let’s be honest in who she was talking about), it just supports that the most racist group in the U.S. are liberals…and the worst are the elitists.
Now, please, some liberal come forward and tell us how much “smarter” Ginsburg is then Palin.
To be Ginsburg smart you need to kill thousands…
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Ahh, thanks for proving my previous point.
Liberals like to make the argument that: “Its okay for [insert name of liberal hero here] to have been a [racist, eugenics supporter, etc. etc.] because other people were too!”
It’s a logical fallacy (dishonest?) and an extremely weak argument, but that’s nothing new. Also, there’s the typical “ad hominem” in that statement as well. If you can’t argue against the position, then belittle those making the argument.
Nice.
Fatal on July 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Check out blackgenocide.org to find out Margaret Sanger’s and Planned Parenthood’s policies towards African Americans.
theCork on July 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, made Lothrop Stoddard a board member of the forerunner to PP (the Birth Control League). Why was the Birth Control League reconstituted as Planned Parenthood? The ‘Nazi smell’ of BCL was so bad, that some ‘cosmetics’ were required.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Double talk…the idea of a post is not to list all the abhorrent things that Sanger said, but to bring to light what she stood for.
You got the drift, and added to it, so you obviously know she was a racist…and the liberals continue that racist theme.
So you complain the quote is evidence enough, then site more evidence…what a weird debate, like you are debating with yourself and losing…
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:21 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.” (3)
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM
One can draw a horse to water ….
OldEnglish on July 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM
A Jew, arguing for eugenics. Wow.
And baldly stating that her assumption was that Roe v Wade was a policy decision from SCOTUS, as though that is unremarkable in her world view.
Does anybody else think her answers were rambling, somewhat incoherent?
Lest we forget, this woman was confirmed by the Senate 96 to 3. Way to go, Republicans.
guntotinglibertarian on July 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
What’s so shocking about that? To anyone without an agenda, it’s clear she actually meant to say, “We are determined to assure that women have adequate access to reproductive health care.”
guntotinglibertarian on July 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Fabulous bit of reasoning there. By that standard, well, Hitler wasn’t really all that bad, either, because Stalin shared his statist views and had racked up a bigger body count prior to 1939.
And Pol Pot was practically a humanitarian, compared to Mao.
guntotinglibertarian on July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Time to kill the babies…. [/pp]
spmat on July 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM
She said we should give “sympathy” to the firefighters of New Haven, but not justice. Is this a good way to make decisions?
budorob on July 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Sanger gave talks before the KKK and solicited money from them. Here are some other quotes from her:
“Negroes and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans”
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit.”
She really is one of the great monsters of history. There’s a reason Planned Parenthood aborts African American babies in such disproportionate numbers.
The Sangerite HISTORY OF CONTRACEPTION by Norman Hines (from the 1930s, long considered a standard work) ends with a chapter denouncing the Catholic Church as the only real obstacle in PPF’s path. It also raises the prospect that if the Church is not crushed, America will be inundated with “inferior foreign stocks.” That’s the actual quote.
Here’s HG Wells in the introduction to his lover Ms. Sanger’s book Pivot of Civilization:
“We want fewer and better children who can be reared up to their full possibilities in unencumbered homes, and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict upon us.”
It’s interesting to hear Thuja defend Sanger and her devotion to eugenics. Many feminists still hold those beliefs.
theCork on July 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Wonder where Thuja has been the last few hours… I was really hoping for a rational discussion…
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 1:09 PM
What does the pro-life movement feel such a compulsion to lie about Maraget Sanger? By no fair and reasoanble standard was Sanger’s racism out of step with her time. Look up Teddy Roosevelt’s and Woodrow Wilson’s racism and explain how she was worse. Oh, and keep in mind that Sanger’s most racist statements were political statements intended to win over the support of racist Congressmen. When people make political statements, they often appeal to the biases of their audiences.
I realize that there is zero chance of rational discussion here as the dishonesty of the pro-life forbids it. But sometimes a good and decent woman like Sanger needs to be defended from their disgusting lies.
Let me end with another fun Sanger fact: Sanger’s political odyssey ended with her in the Republican party!
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Teddy Roosevelt was actually a little ahead of his time. Keep in mind this the early 1900s:
Although Roosevelt did some work improving race relations, he, like most leaders of the Progressive Era, lacked initiative on most racial issues. Booker T. Washington, the most important black leader of the day, was the first African American to be invited to dinner, on October 16, 1901, at the White House, where he discussed politics and racism with Roosevelt. News of the dinner reached the press two days later. The white public outcry following the dinner was so strong, especially from the Southern states, that Roosevelt never repeated the experiment.
Publicly, Roosevelt spoke out against racism and discrimination, and appointed many blacks to lower-level Federal offices, and wrote fondly of the “Buffalo Soldiers,” led by “Black Jack” Pershing, who had fought beside his Rough Riders at the Battle of San Juan Hill in Cuba in July 1898. Roosevelt opposed school segregation, having ended the practice as Governor of New York. T.R. also did not subscribe to anti-Semitism—he was the first to appoint a Jew, Oscar S. Straus, to the Presidential Cabinet.
Woodrow Wilson who was a Democrat and a known racist was also believed to be a KKK member.
Margaret Sanger quotes: PS: She voted democrat lifelong
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
Yes Thuja, she is a paragon of morality. Do a little research and read a little more before you make your statements.
akerralls on July 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
oops sorry i forgot to quote thuja at the top of my post. Sorry, i was irritated.
akerralls on July 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I have often wondered about this myself, mainly because it is so sad that so many prominent Catholics are so vocal and active in supporting abortion as a right.
What I have come to conclude is that they are more concerned with their earthly power than they are with their eternal souls. A lot of people believe in a kind of abstract way without actually living out those beliefs. And some I believe truly think that this compromise is necessary in order to achieve other goals in the social justice agenda. And finally, I think that there has always been this prejudice that Catholics who serve in public office have a greater loyalty to the Pope than to the constitution. This was never more apparent than when JFK ran and promised that he would not let his Catholic faith influence his presidency.
You say that abortion is not a religious issue, that it is in fact murder, but why do you suppose murder is considered wrong? I don’t ask this out of contrariness but rather as someone who agrees that abortion is murder and should be illegal.
Jvette on July 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I get exactly what you are saying. I was a bleeding heart lib for most of my life. One day it just dawned on me that all the liberal policies just seemed to make things worse or caused the problems they claim to want to solve. I don’t know if it is stupidity, insanity or just a denial of reality but I know so many liberals who are good people and just won’t admit that liberal policies are subversive and cruel to the very people they profess to care and about and want to help.
Jvette on July 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Don’t worry all you lying lefty Eugenics supporters, the totally corrupt SCM will never report what she said, and most of the dumbMasses out there will never hear about it.
-Dave
Dave R. on July 9, 2009 at 1:27 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
No, you didn’t think beyond your instilled Commie, Libtard ideologies. Good try.
Dr. ZhivBlago on July 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Anyone have Al Sharpton’s email address…
TN Mom on July 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
HaHa! There have been many times in my daughter’s life that I could just kill her! And now she is off to college and I will be thousands of dollars in debt to fund it. Boy, if I could just off her now, I could live the high life.
Jvette on July 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
“Why are you lying about Sanger by calling her a racist, which she was?”
Huh?
cs89 on July 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
The elderly.
csdeven on July 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Comparing one evil person with other evil people is no way to make a point. Also the Republican party in the early 1900s was awful and the Dems good. Take a look at the 1928 party platforms and you will see they are almost the opposite of what they are today. Then the libtards captured the Dems with Comrade Roosevelt.
bill30097 on July 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Nazism isn’t dead nor does it sleep. What qualifies as a medical problem? Why apply this just to children? Why not rid ourselves of any of the unproductive or troublesome members of society in one final solution?
This is why the disabled are becoming increasingly suspicious of progressives. Check out “notdeadyet.org”.
theCork on July 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
ANY supreme court judge that falls asleep, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg did, during a hearing, should be booted ASAP off the bench. Ginsberg NEVER gave an excuse, nor did she APOLOGIZE to the parties for her behavior that came before that last resort tribunal.
The woman is a disgrace to the judicial process, and obviously clueless to the paper work, and costs involved just to get there. Maybe Ginsberg would have a better appreciation for her position and the SCOTUS process, if she had to sit in front of a computer for a few months, and do the tedious word processing format that’s typed into the wasteful archaic booklets, that that stupid court requires.
byteshredder on July 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I fail to understand how double talk has anything to do with what I’m saying. 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! I’m just saying that the facts are Margaret Sanger wasn’t particularly racist for her time, and that the pro-life movement’s use of racism is as honest as Congressmen Clyburn (D-SC) claiming racism was why people opposed the Porkulus bill. Our racist hunts today are no more sophisticated or rational than were medieval witch hunts or sadly witch hunts in Kenya today.
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM
OT, but you are wrong about the parties. Look up the “libtard” William Jennings Bryan. He was a three time Democratic nominee for President and his economic policies were awful. He did end up fighting evolution and I suppose some in the religious wing would like him for that. He was the Jimmy Carter of his age.
thuja on July 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Oh wow, Ginsburg a conspiracy theorist?
Looks like those kooks are on to something.
True_King on July 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Liberalism and Progressivism are INTRINSICALLY EVIL.
They ultimately lead to mass murder in the end for a great utopian cause.
If O-man wins a second term, he will reset the calendar to:
YEAR ZERO.
Sapwolf on July 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I DO agree with her. A lot of the challenges are to people who are of a “certain” class, and I most definitely agree….we are absolutely not going back to coathanger abortions.
Ain’t happening.
AnninCA on July 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Yep. We are gonna choose life, not eugenics.
Sapwolf on July 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I’m telling you, read Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascists. He documents the linear descent from the Italian fascists through the Nazis and through Woodrow Wilson and FDR down to the present day, following their affinity for the things we normally associate with facism but also environmentalism, vegetarianism, eugenics, attacks on the family, gay rights, anti-smoking crusades, and so on.
The “liberal” fascists might be nice about it, but they’re fascists nonetheless.
Akzed on July 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Who accuses her of being “untimely racist”? We’re saying her eugenics were tied to her racism, and promoting her policies, today, is consistent with advancing a racist agenda. Eg Ginsburg*, Nixon.
Your whole argument is that Sanger was great and good, and any lies and racism she may have engaged in MUST be viewed through rose-colored glasses of appreciation.
*Anybody who thinks Ginsburg was NOT making a racist argument here, must sincerely think Ginsburg instead meant America could breed out poverty. I find that too silly to accept.
Chris_Balsz on July 9, 2009 at 3:12 PM
If bad genes could be “bred out” look at Ginsburg, she’s be the first to go. Even her mother was scare off by that puss.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Population control? So she was following China’s example?
heh, wow. At least she’s being up front about it
0.o;
FontanaConservative on July 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
You start off saying that the quote doesn’t show Sanger as being a racist (rarely does one quote do that anyway), and say that proves nothing, taking the side of not being a racist…then you throw out quotes (to make you sound like you know what you are talking about) that confirms she is a racist.
So my statement is, double talk, then you end up debating yourself and losing…read and comment on the whole post, not just the part with single syllables…
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
They are not even nice about it. Try visiting SF Bay Area and having a pleasant discussion of the facts with them, and see how long it takes before they start calling you names.
Sapwolf on July 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Coathanger…the boogey man that never was.
So you agree that aborting black children from poor homes is a good idea…
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »