Archives

Las Vegas Weather

Categories

Tags

Recent Visitors

Justice Ginsburg – Roe Vs. Wade Was For Population Control

Say what youwant to about the abortion issue.  I myself don’t know how it can be possible perceived as a Constitutional right, but then again I’ve read the Constitution.  As a legal matter, I think it should have been left to the states.  My personal position is pro life.

That said, my opinions carry very little weight.  I’m just a tech support guy who writes a blog, shoots his guns, and generally tries to pay the bills.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is different.  Notice that title – Supreme Court Justice.

What I read recently in the pages of the New York Times shocked and appalled me.  It also made me sick to my stomach.  Check this out:

From the pages of the New York Times:

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.

Can you tell what bothered me so much?  I’ll give you a hint – it’s in red.

Elements of the Federal Government of the United States of America were trying to reduce the population of undesired groups of people by abortion.  Even if it was just Justice Ginsburg, this is unacceptable.

But of course, nothing will be done by those in power who only want to keep that power.

Share

2 comments to Justice Ginsburg – Roe Vs. Wade Was For Population Control

  • Kath

    Hang on a second. I’m not sure we’re not reading something into this — at least that’s what I WAS GOING to say.

    That maybe she was basically saying — I thought such and such was about this, then afterwards I realized I was looking at it wrong.

    Well, I could maybe go with that — BUT the words that really piss me off is “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Excuse me?

    There are so many things wrong with that — first who is the “we” making the decision and then who is on the list that we don’t want to have “too many of”?

    Who exactly have “we” decided against and what is the cut-off point? One million or 500,000? Or is it per city, per town? Asians, Blacks, Latinos, White Rednecks? Or just simply anyone you deem unfit?

    Sounds like the kind of crap you hear from your Great Aunt Matilda and Uncle Henry. Not what I want to hear from a Supreme Court Justice.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*