Justice Ginsberg On Abortion

Elitist, nazi-like idiocy…

-Jim+

“Growth in populations we don’t want to have too many of.”  As she is Jewish, one would think that this aspect of abortion, if nothing else, would give her pause.  Instead she quite casually endorses language which really differs none from that of the Nazis, who in fact were even often more nuanced and subtle in their euphemisms for genocide than she is.  Ironic, too, that the “populations we don’t want to have too many of” often turns out to be women, as abortion is used for sex-selection.  Protecting “choice” has cost the lives of millions of females, just for being female.  Quite a help to women Justice Ginsburg has been.

That is a VERY disturbing comment by Ginsburg.

I wonder if people appreciate the import of what Justice Ginsberg is implying. She is saying (I believe)that she thought at the time of Roe that judicial conservatives (as they might have been considered then) like Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun supported Roe because they thought that it might control the number of black people in the population, and not until conservative judges found against a right to Medicaid funding for abortions did she realize she had been wrong.
It is a very strange interview throughout, not one that one would have expected to see 10 years ago. She has not been known for blurting out odd comments.

Jackie, you’re too nice. Let’s call PP like it is - a surviving organization that originated with Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and purity, particularly of the Aryan race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the fit to reproduce and the unfit to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion. Sanger’s first clinic was an illegally operated a birth control clinic in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, NY. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed unfit to reproduce. Sanger also enlisted African American ministers. She wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Many of the ideas that Joseph Goebbels used in his ‘Final Solution’ were directly influenced by Margaret Sanger herself. Rudin’s “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” article was published in the journal Birth Control Review Margaret Sanger started is said to have influenced Nazi Germany’s sterilization laws. and then there’s this: Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood’s purpose and planned course of action: “... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy.”  Or in Sanger’s own words, “The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order…”

Yep Justice Ginsberg, quite a legacy you wish you could have implemented.

Wonder how she’d look with a comb-over and a little black mustache…

Not to sound racist, but isn’t there is some irony with Obama being a radical supporter of abortion rights, given that the founder Margaret Sanger was about as racist as they come?  Wouldn’t Margaret have been in favor of aborting Obama? 

Or did I miss something??

The trick is to not be part of the undesirable class, no?

The comment set in bold, references what was known about the feminist pro-abortion movement, and was cited as a legitimate concern regarding legalized abortion, decades back. Yet, the radical feminist, pro-abortion movement derided those who cited that concern as lunatics and extremists, they claimed it was a lie. The “journalist” who interviewed Ginsburg and wrote the piece is a fascistic hypocrite. I’ve read many of her articles. She also advocates the displacement of citizens at our colleges, universities and in the workplace. She claims we have no right to be given preference as citizens, that such a sense of entitlement deserves a slap down. Yet, she is a beneficiary of legacy in getting into the high flying ivy league university she attended, she was the beneficiary of getting into law school, because her grandfather was a famous judge.

Toral1, what nonsense.  Are you claiming that Ginsberg is simply acting as a medium to reveal the thoughts of ex justices from the great plane far beyond this dimension? 

She makes it all too clear that she is speaking as an observer of the court’s ruling at that time.  The word we is a subtle clue to this conclusion.  She is speaking as an advocate for unfettered access to abortion.  Which she supported then and supports now.  She was truly gobsmacked that the elitist racism that underlies much of the abortion agenda did not win the day. 

Your attempt to spin this as well the conservative racists on the court were a sure bet for ruling in favor of using Medicaid to keep the poor, minority population in check and boy was I ever surprised it failed is tortured logic. 

There is a racist in the room and she is not communicating from the beyond.

Uh, I think it’s obvious that Justice Ginsburg was not making a public confession that she and her fellow liberals and feminists supported Roe in order to reduce undesirable populations, and that she and they are racists. She’s talking about someone else, and that someone else is/are the people who are responsible for the 1980 decision upholding the Hyde amendment, to her surprise. Those people would be judicial conservatives.
If my logic is tortured nothing in your post shows it.

and we have the possibility of adding another…........guess the answer is ..never be in the position of having to have a “judge” make decisions about your life

Toral1, just what do the words I and we mean to you?

That is a good question, Paula. The “we” usage is what may confuse people as to what Justice Ginsburg meant. I would suggest that she meant by “we” means society in general, especially its conservative elements (and including conservative jurists) She is still polite and discreet enough to avoid stating directly that the non-liberal, non-feminist portion of the population are covert racists, or people who want to see the poor have fewer children, or whatever.
(As a side point I would note that Justice Ginsberg is noted for having said that at the time of Roe the pro-choice movement was gradually achieving abortion legalization by democratic means, state by state, and that Roe, by energizing the pro-life movement may have actually slowed the acceptance of abortion rights in the long run. That is—she has reason to be aware that abortion liberalization was being achieved with the support of many people who were neither liberals or feminists.)
Now my question for you, do you think that by using “we”, Justice Ginsberg is including herself among those who do or did not want too much growth in some populations? Because if so, I would suggest that 1) stories about the interview would have been on Page One, not Page 16 fillers; 2) Emily Bazelon, clearly an admirer of the justice to the point of sycophancy, would never have printed the words on the first place.
I am open to alternative interpretations, but they must explain 1) why Justice Ginsburg was surprised at the decision in Harris v. McRae; and 2) why that decision caused her to conclude that she had been wrong about someone’s perceptions at the time Roe was decided; and 3) why in particular she concluded that her belief that some people were supporting Roe as a “set up for Medicaid funding for abortion” turned out to be wrong.
There is also the alternative possibility that what she said makes no sense and there is no point trying to construe it as if it does, but I think it makes perfect sense—it just sheds an unattractive light on her beliefs about the motivations of people who did not agree with her.

Her comments are appalling especially since they come from a woman is a member of a group that the Third Reich considered “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”. Her pious concern for women of the lower classes is a screen for her real concern: eliminating the poor by encouraging them to restrict their breeding activities. She deserves a eugenicist medal of . . .

Toral1, I’ll allow someone else to respond because I am unable to do so with any semblence of charity.

The interviewer, Emily Bazelon, has clarified what she thought Justice Ginsburg meant:

The main thing I’d say about this is that it was clear that when Justice Ginsburg said “we,” when she was talking about populations that we don’t want to have too many of (you can get the exact quote from the piece), she meant some people in the world, not herself or a group that she feels a part of. That’s not how she sees the world, as you I’m sure know. Her point was about other people’s conception of who they thought should be encouraged to have children and who shouldn’t be, not her own.

:http://jezebel.com/5311192/justice-ginsburg-eugenics—feminist-criticism-of-planned-parenthood
In other words, what I said.

Talk about trying to shove a cat back into the bag.

Toral1, sorry, but that was a pretty weak attempt, your grade is fail. Society in general.. hmmm.. Ginsburg was referring to the “we” as in those who were the rabid forces pushing for abortion, again, she was talking about those who supported abortion back then, and she meant exactly what it sounded like, just like her hero, Margaret Sanger advocated abortions to deal with those in society she considered undesirable. Conservatives weren’t supporting abortion, but left wing ideologues like Ginsburg were, just as she was fighting, even back then, to over turn age of consent laws to 12, because she favored pedophiles being able to have a loophole to claim that a 12 year old, for example, “consented” to have sex with them, it wasn’t “molestation”.

wow, there’s nothing sadder than a Jewish person who sounds so in tune (pardon the pun) with Adolph Hitler.  Oh the irony….

My grandmother was raped when she was 17yrs old, unmarried, during the Great Deprassion. By not choosing to abort her daughter, my mother, grew up, married, and had 10 children. My parents now have over 100 grand and great grand children. As one of her sons I have 10 children, 28 grand children and one great grand child on the way. I’m only 62 years young. I would like to see legislation to allow one’s offspring to fund one’s Social Secutity retirement. Since we have aborted 50 million babies and perhaps 100 plus million were contracepted out of existence, we need about that many willing aliens to take the place of the children we did not want to make Social Secutity solvent. Raising children to build the Kingdom of God is storing up your treasures in heaven, eternal investments. Everything else is “chump change”.