More abortion, fewer ‘undesirables’
It’s not a stretch to see Justice Ginsburg’s remarks in the New York Time’s interview as saying that.
In fact, she did say that.
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.
Ginsburg revealed a eugenicist’s ideology in this interview.
Justice Ginsburg’s remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century’s eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.
Her views are extreme.
When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court’s reasoning “reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution – ideas that have long since been discredited.”
Here’s what her scathing dissent scorched, just to refresh the memory and put truth to words. This snip follows an equally grisly one just before it:
“Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms — everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. … The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. … He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’â€
And Ginsburg is upset, very upset, that any abortion may be restricted.
She sees women on the Court as an important thing for assuring such ‘rights’, and she defends Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks about a Latina woman reaching better conclusions than a white male.
“Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. … That I’m a woman, that’s part of it, that I’m Jewish, that’s part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me.”
But justice is supposed to be blind. Evidently, some justices are blinded by ideology.
0 Comment
First of all, I am a pro-life. But then again, I think this is a misquote. The whole quote reads: “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.” So, in the end, she say that her perception is wrong. That doesn’t mean that she’s a pro-life, but still, the end does not justify the means.
All justices are blinded by ideology. It is more that those whose ideologies we agree with we find the most impartial. We bring our life experiences with us to court. The woman on the jury who can tell when someone is lying on the stand…because she’s a mother, brings with her life experiences that a man cannot. If anyone has been on a jury, you realize that we are encouraged to bring our life experiences to the jury room along with the law. Justice is blind not because everyone sees things the same way, but that truth is derived from the system itself and not one particular person or part. Justice is blind because of the diversity of its parts and not whatsoever because their uniformity. Would it be better if the court was replaced by 9 computers? Would we be more content with the result? The more diversity on the Supreme Court the more viewpoints, the more life experiences, and a justice system more impartial. The more diversified the parts, the more blind the result.
Tune – Good to scrupuously examine both original statements and the reporting about them. Look at text of the NYT interview just before the snip in question, both Ginsburg’s and Bazelon’s follow-up question, to put it in context. Then, look at the whole quote you cite again…
Ginsburg is admitting that the McRae ruling forbidding Medicaid funding for abortion suprised her, because…why?…as you note in the italicized quote of hers, she thought Roe would set up Medicaid funding for abortions to address the “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Which is an astounding statement and admission.
Among the ‘some people’ who felt federal funding of abortion in Medicaid would risk coercing poor, underprivileged women to have abortions….was Congressman Henry Hyde. His achievement with the Hyde Amendment protecting such women proved Ginsburg’s perception (that Roe would facilitate the reduction of populations ‘we don’t want to have too many of’) wrong.
Even for Ginsburg, this is a stunningly brazen admission.
Hi Sheila, thank you for the clarification. I am a big fan of your blog and I am delighted to have a reply directly from you! =)
Yet, I was still a little bit confused with this particular statement of hers. In the end, which part of her perception that justice Ginsburg was deemed to be wrong then? That Roe would set up Medicaid funding for abortions to address the population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Or that the Hyde Amendment was upheld to forbid the use of Medicaid to fund abortion? Forgive my slowness, it is hard for me to understand where this “perception that I was wrong” from Justice Ginsburg is directed to.