I am always amazed that the pro-abortion types don’t slip up and tell the truth more often. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just did. In an interview with the New York Times on Sotomayor Ginsburg opined that what she originally thought (read hoped) that Roe would result in Medicaid funded abortion.
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.
That is right. A sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States just lamented that Roe did not mandate funding of abortion through medicaid in order to reduce “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Now can anyone point out any one particular population that is impacted by medicaid funded abortions? A population that we don’t want too many of?
A sitting Supreme Court Justice just lamented that Roe did force medicaid funding to control the number of undesirables in this country. From Margaret Sanger to Ginburg – the agenda of racist eugenics has not changed one bit. She should be impeached.
Thanks to Ed Whelan
Update from Ed at Hot Air:
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?
July 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm
boo-hoo-hoo. those darn activist judges. boo-hoo-hoo.
July 13, 2009 at 6:13 am
Anon at 7:34, may God have mercy on you and may you come to know the infinite love He has for you and for the poor prisoners who have hardened your heart so much.
July 18, 2009 at 2:17 am
Whoa…I have to say I don't see how you get that she is advocating reducing populations that we don't want to have too many of through this statement.
She thought that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about …" Nowhere does this say she supported that "concern." That was her perception of the prevailing opinions of the time (not her opinion). This is about what she thought others thought.
Seriously. I'm staunchly pro-life, but pro-lifers really, really decrease their credibility when they respond like this because it is a knee-jerk reaction that shows either you didn't read what she said or you couldn't comprehend the words…
June 2, 2010 at 7:06 am
Birth control was specifically created for the unwanted people she is speaking of… Watch "Maafa 21" on youtube! The eugenics movement in a nutshell! And it is still going strong!
June 2, 2010 at 7:08 am
The first prolifers were the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam… Im just saying…