“Concern about growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
The current and sole female to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Ginsberg sat down this week with New York Times reporter Emily Bazelon for a very revealing discussion about Sonia Sotomayor and the role of women on the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg also had some very enlightening comments about abortion.
When asked about the future of the feminist agenda, Justice Ginsberg said that “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out.” It is “obvious” to her that wealthy women, because of their means, will always have the option of abortion on-demand—despite any current or future laws. Therefore, she concluded, abortion policy will only ever affect poor women. When asked about the Hyde Amendment, which restricts Medicaid funding for abortions, the Justice had this to say:
“Yes, the ruling about [the Hyde Amendment] surprised me. 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.”
Now, let’s get this straight.
At the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, Justice Ginsberg believed the decision would lead to government subsidized abortion on-demand—a measure she very much supported, especially considering the worry at the time over population growth; “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
I wonder if the Justice would mind telling us a bit more about that statement. Of which “undesirable” populations is she referring? Could she mean those whom, since its inception in 1921 (then known as the American Birth Control League) Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly to exterminate through a eugenics-fueled birth control and abortion machine? It is impossible to deny the connection between statements of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger—who thought of immigrants, the poor, and particularly those of African descent, as “unfit,” and who said, “Over-population is a phenomenon connected with the survival of the unfit”—and the remarks made by Justice Ginsberg. For such a highly educated and well-respected woman, who has made such advances for women in the legal profession, to make a statement demonstrating such shocking ignorance and concealed hate for the “unfit,” is completely outrageous.
Justice Ginsberg shows further lack of knowledge by claiming that “some people” (read pro-lifers—and proud of it!) believe access to government-funded abortion on-demand could lead to coercion of women into having abortions they don’t want. Newsflash for Justice Ginsberg “some people” do not just feel that coerced abortions are a risk—they know it!
As Congresswoman Michele Bachman pointed out at the recent press conference held by the House Pro-Life Women’s Caucus, it is a universally acknowledged fact that more funding for abortion results in more abortion, not less. What’s more is that a recent study shows that 64% of abortions involve some type of coercion; situations where women did not want to kill their children but felt pressure from either their families, their child’s father, their economic standing. These pressures range from withdrawal of financial, physical, and/or emotional support, to full on domestic violence in order to force a woman to abort.
Justice Ginsberg’s extreme lack respect for all Americans, born and unborn, is clear in this interview. She grudgingly admits that upon the decision made in the Harris v. McRae case (which upheld the Hyde Amendment opposing government money for abortion through Medicaid) she “realized that [her] perception of [how Americans viewed government subsidized abortions] had been altogether wrong.” Yes, that’s right Justice Ginsberg, Americans care enough about their fellow citizens, born and unborn, to not allow money to be moved from their pockets to the abortionists coffers. Between Supreme Court Justice Nominees who think it is constitutionally acceptable to say that the Courts are “where policy is made,” and Justices who believe there are whole populations not worth protecting—the U.S. could be in a lot of trouble.
For more information about eugenics and the racism of abortion and Planned Parenthood, be sure to go here.
