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. (emphasis mine)

That should settle the question. Ginsburg makes it very clear if you read the entire interview that she strongly supports reproductive rights — meaning both the right to terminate and to carry to term a pregnancy. She even litigated a case 2 years before Roe defending the latter. She does not suppport abortion as an economic policy, she supports it as a fundamental right. She was describing her perception of part of the reasoning behind Roe (reasoning which she had criticized in responding to the previous question, incidentally).

Is she one of the “we” she speaks of?

Was she one of the ‘we’ she speaks of. Probably not. Even if you want to assume the worst possible interpretation of her remarks, however, she repented nearly 30 years ago, after the Harris v. McRae decision in 1980. In her words, “she realized that her perception had been altogether wrong.”

One small caution — in the days of Holmes, the words “idiot” “imbecile” “moron” etc. were technical scientific terms in intelligence testing. Those words didn’t carry the connotations they have today, so unfortunately we have to give them a pass for those particular offenses.
jeff_from_mpls on July 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Darn, that kills any chance of applying it to the ruling class.

jeff_from_mpls on July 15, 2009 at 9:36 A

Very true. As each term became derogatory, it was dropped. “Mentally retarded” was the polite term for many years, but then “retard” became a perjorative, and political correctness kicked in. Now it’s either “mentally handicapped” or “mentally challenged”?

But President Obama’s hand picked man and his description of human beings as “maggots” — there is no ambiguity there, no charitable explanation. It’s just evil.

Evil by its very nature is deception.

This article is deserving of front page exposure.

Liberalism exposed is very ugly indeed.

Good work Pundette…

Keemo on July 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Indeed. Ed, Allah, front of the line, please.

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough”.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

Virginia had a compulsory sterilization law for the mentally retarded. Carrie Buck got pregnant when she was raped by a cousin. She supposedly had the mental age of nine, but being “feeble-minded” was an excuse some families used to explain away an embaressing illegitimate pregnancy. Carrie’s mother was allegedly retarded, too, as supposedly was Carrie’s daughter.

Both Carrie and her daughter were sterilized pursuant this law. Her daughter died at the age of eight(!). None of them probably were probably not mentally retarded by modern standards, as “feeble-minded” was a pretty broad category back then. The VA law was repealed in 1974.

Holmes’ fuller comment:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

One wonders if a Twenty-First Century Holmes would ask the “imbeciles” to “sacrifice” one kidney for the greater good and to compensate for all the money society spends to care for them.

Liberalism exposed is very ugly indeed.

Good work Pundette…

Seriously, best lines above:

There really are two kinds of people: those who see human beings as “maggots,” “imbeciles,” and “monsters” and those who see human life as precious and sacred.

I agree, and it shows up in the debates about abortion, so-called “global warming,” etc.