Justice Ginsberg "Roe v. Wade to rid undesirables"

[See It Clearly]

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Hmmm, would one be so bluntly honest if the loons weren't in total control? I wonder which "population" we don't want too many of. Any guesses?

When is Uhmerica going to wake up?

WAKE FREAKIN UP PEOPLE!!!!


Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457) to story

Another Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=1) to story.

[CaptainPike]

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Hmmm, would one be so bluntly honest if the loons weren't in total control? I wonder which "population" we don't want too many of. Any guesses?

When is Uhmerica going to wake up?

WAKE FREAKIN UP PEOPLE!!!!


Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457) to story

Another Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=1) to story.

I'll try to dig up some stats, but I'm pretty sure I know what population is in question.

[CaptainPike]

I dunno man.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp

[captusa]

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Hmmm, would one be so bluntly honest if the loons weren't in total control? I wonder which "population" we don't want too many of. Any guesses?
......
Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457) to story

Another Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=1) to story.

I'd have to see some verification.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.

[Gabby]

I'd have to see some verification.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.

Will the New York Times do?


"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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4&ref=magazine

[DLaw911]

Well IMO there is a direct correlation between those who seek abortions, and those who are poor or would make bad parents. Too many people making bad decisions leading to pregnancy and then taking it out on the fetus.

[Pauper66]

So the ends justify the means.

[See It Clearly]

Well IMO there is a direct correlation between those who seek abortions, and those who are poor or would make bad parents. Too many people making bad decisions leading to pregnancy and then taking it out on the fetus.

Soooo, you are assuming she is referring to "poor" populations. When she says, "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." You think she is referring to poor population?

[countmein]

Well IMO there is a direct correlation between those who seek abortions, and those who are poor or would make bad parents. Too many people making bad decisions leading to pregnancy and then taking it out on the fetus.

D, a lot of people are poor, that doesn't make them bad parents. I was a single mom bringing home less than $15,000 a year, but somehow I have managed to raise an upstanding young lady. She will be 16 in Dec., she doesn't talk back, she respects me, she is looking forward to getting a job soon, she could be starting college this fall (yes, at 16), and she is a wonderful older sister to her siblings. She will be majoring in pre-law, plans to earn her law degree and then serve in the military. I know a lot of people that had a heck of a lot more money than I did, yet their kids didn't turn out as well as mine have, so far any way.

I came from welfare poor, yet I managed to earn a BA, work hard, and owned my own successful company before retiring to stay at home and raise my kids.

Money is no indicator of good parenting, IMHOA.

[angelicmadrigal]

I was a single mom bringing home less than $15,000 a year, but somehow I have managed to raise an upstanding young lady.

I imagine you actually either 1) wanted your child or 2) at the very least didn't resent her for being born. I know it might be hard for you to imagine, there ARE people who just do NOT want to be parents, and who hell may well just not like kids. Those people should NOT be parents EVER. That's definitely a population of people I'd like to make sure never have children.

[angelicmadrigal]

Soooo, you are assuming she is referring to "poor" populations.

The rumor is she meant black people.

[NascarGirl2448]

Populations we don't want too many of??? What the heck???

[ShinGouki]

What she said by "undesirables" is code speak for "black."

People like that are no better than Hitler.

[ShinGouki]

Populations we don't want too many of??? What the heck???

That's code for "black."

[See It Clearly]

I imagine you actually either 1) wanted your child or 2) at the very least didn't resent her for being born. I know it might be hard for you to imagine, there ARE people who just do NOT want to be parents, and who hell may well just not like kids. Those people should NOT be parents EVER. That's definitely a population of people I'd like to make sure never have children.


I know what the "rumor" is, I am just wondering though, have they ever really classified "poor" people as a population group, or bad parents, or people who don't want children? I know "well to do" parent's who aren't doing such a good job and they wanted children.

I agree with your comments, but since Ginsburg is being so honest in her response to why abortion has been tolerated, why doesn't she just come out and state which population group she is referring too?

[DRS]

Soooo, you are assuming she is referring to "poor" populations. When she says, "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." You think she is referring to poor population?

What is the usually the largest complaint?

Welfare famalies, welfare moms, how many times on this board have we not seen the people suggest that others should not be allowed to produce offspring?

[super cool ski instructor]

She's the modern day Margaret Sanger.

[LouC]

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.


NYT Page 3 LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=3)

NYT Page 4 LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4)

No where in the New York Times article did the term "undesireables" get used by Ginsburg.

The thread title quote in the OP is a total fabrication by WND.

From reading the article it is to me that Ginsburg is saying she had a notion that Roe v. Wade (by intent of the court) would be set up to use against poor populations for the purpose of population reduction and that the Harris v. McRae ruling showed she had had an incorrect perception.

I in no way see this admission by Ginsburg as some "Leftist" conspiracy evidence.

Despite my detest of the woman.

[LouC]

People of the World...

Don't take what you read at WND as Gospel!

Do some independent thinking.

Wake the Freak up People!

[5thIDSoldier]

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Hmmm, would one be so bluntly honest if the loons weren't in total control? I wonder which "population" we don't want too many of. Any guesses?

When is Uhmerica going to wake up?

WAKE FREAKIN UP PEOPLE!!!!


Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457) to story

Another Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=1) to story.

This doesn't surprise me. It's the "final solution part 2". My father was a survivor of the first attempt this last century to rid the world of "undersireables". The similarities in attitudes never fails to amaze me.

[ExDem]

There are many racist abortion providers, too. They also see it as a way to get rid of the "undesirables."

[ExDem]

I dunno man.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp


Blacks have the highest abortion ratio and rate.

____________________________ Whites____Blacks

Abortion ratio &&--------------------- 217_____ 538
Abortion rate *** ----------------------13______ 40+++

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&& Calculated as the number of legal abortions obtained by women of a given race per 1,000 live births to women of the same race.

*** Calculated as the number of legal abortions obtained by women of a given race per 1,000 women 15-44 years age of the same race for these states.

+++ Rates for black and "other" races exclude Louisiana because abortions for blacks and others were grouped together.

[LouC]

This doesn't surprise me. It's the "final solution part 2". My father was a survivor of the first attempt this last century to rid the world of "undersireables". The similarities in attitudes never fails to amaze me.

You do realize Ginsburg was not on the SCOTUS for Roe V. Wade.

Also that she was not saying that was her desire for Roe v. Wade but thought Medicaid funded abortion would be made part of it for that "solution" purpose.

[DLaw911]

D, a lot of people are poor, that doesn't make them bad parents. I was a single mom bringing home less than $15,000 a year, but somehow I have managed to raise an upstanding young lady. She will be 16 in Dec., she doesn't talk back, she respects me, she is looking forward to getting a job soon, she could be starting college this fall (yes, at 16), and she is a wonderful older sister to her siblings. She will be majoring in pre-law, plans to earn her law degree and then serve in the military. I know a lot of people that had a heck of a lot more money than I did, yet their kids didn't turn out as well as mine have, so far any way.

I came from welfare poor, yet I managed to earn a BA, work hard, and owned my own successful company before retiring to stay at home and raise my kids.

Money is no indicator of good parenting, IMHOA.
I said:Well IMO there is a direct correlation between those who seek abortions, and those who are poor or would make bad parents. Too many people making bad decisions leading to pregnancy and then taking it out on the fetus.Note the word I underlined. You assumed I meant "and" and I didn't. I stick by what I said. A lot of people get abortions because they believe they cannot afford a child. I never said the reverse was true or that poor people make bad parents.

[Buffalo]

You do realize Ginsburg was not on the SCOTUS for Roe V. Wade.

Also that she was not saying that was her desire for Roe v. Wade but thought Medicaid funded abortion would be made part of it for that "solution" purpose.
Exactly.

[RickRhetoric]

What she said by "undesirables" is code speak for "black."

Hardly. Like Obama, Ginsberg is a super-Democratic socialist liberal. She was no doubt referring to southern redneck conservatives as undesirables.

It would make no sense whatsoever for anyone to refer to blacks as undesirables. It should be exceedingly clear to all America that white people have placed black folks on a pedestal and cherishes them with an almost fetish-like adoration.

[See It Clearly]

No where in the New York Times article did the term "undesireables" get used by Ginsburg.

The thread title quote in the OP is a total fabrication by WND.

From reading the article it is to me that Ginsburg is saying she had a notion that Roe v. Wade (by intent of the court) would be set up to use against poor populations for the purpose of population reduction and that the Harris v. McRae ruling showed she had had an incorrect perception.

I in no way see this admission by Ginsburg as some "Leftist" conspiracy evidence.

Despite my detest of the woman.

So, I'm just guessing here, maybe you can help with this one, but when someone states:

"...there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of"

is the population that we DON'T want too many of considerd desirable or undesirable?

[angelicmadrigal]

I agree with your comments, but since Ginsburg is being so honest in her response to why abortion has been tolerated, why doesn't she just come out and state which population group she is referring too?

Like I said, the rumor is it means black people. There is also a possibilty she was talking about the urban poor.

[LouC]

So, I'm just guessing here, maybe you can help with this one, but when someone states:

"...there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of"

is the population that we DON'T want too many of considerd desirable or undesirable?

Thanks for asking.

Answer: Undesirable.

But before you begin to gloat.

When you put quotations around a sentence or phrase right next to a persons name IE Justice Ginsberg "Roe v. Wade to rid undesirables" what does that usually indicate?

It usually indicates a direct quote, at least to me.

Even had it been indicated it was paraphrasing it still would have been wrong because it left out a very important fact and that is it was a misconception she had 36 years ago, not what she thinks today.

Ginsburg did not use the word "undesirables", so making it seem she did is blatantly false on WND's part.

Also she said she thought "at the time" (1973) Roe v. Wade would be set up for "Medicaid funding for abortion" to that end.

She did not say Roe v. Wade "is" to rid undesirables.

Now had it been Justice Ginsberg Roe v. Wade to rid undesirables, without quotation attribution that would have been fine.

[See It Clearly]

Thanks for asking.

Answer: Undesirable.

But before you begin to gloat.

When you put quotations around a sentence or phrase right next to a persons name IE Justice Ginsberg "Roe v. Wade to rid undesirables" what does that usually indicate?

It usually indicates a direct quote, at least to me.

Even had it been indicated it was paraphrasing it still would have been wrong because it left out a very important fact and that is it was a misconception she had 36 years ago, not what she thinks today.

Ginsburg did not use the word "undesirables", so making it seem she did is blatantly false on WND's part.

Also she said she thought "at the time" (1973) Roe v. Wade would be set up for "Medicaid funding for abortion" to that end.

She did not say Roe v. Wade "is" to rid undesirables.

Now had it been Justice Ginsberg Roe v. Wade to rid undesirables, without quotation attribution that would have been fine.

Thanks for the answer.

I won't debate the quotation issue with you because I think we are dealing with perception, you say tomato I say tamato, no need to bicker on that. But I do have another question.

Do you think, based on Ginsburg's acknowledgement of an undesireable population group, that her view is similar to that of Sanger's views on eugenics?

[LouC]

Thanks for the answer.

I won't debate the quotation issue with you because I think we are dealing with perception, you say tomato I say tamato, no need to bicker on that. But I do have another question.

Do you think, based on Ginsburg's acknowledgement of an undesireable population group, that her view is similar to that of Sanger's views on eugenics?

No I do not.

[ThrowCop]

Thanks for your patience with the slow-to-comprehend, Lou.

I am anti-abortion & after reading the full interview, I understood that she was not speaking in the terms most here have tried to say.

[LouC]

Thanks for your patience with the slow-to-comprehend, Lou.

I am anti-abortion & after reading the full interview, I understood that she was not speaking in the terms most here have tried to say.

Thanks :redface:

[See It Clearly]

No I do not.

Why not? If there is a "group" we don't want too many of, and we institute measures to control the growth of that group via death of the unborn, is that not eugenics?

[LouC]

Why not? If there is a "group" we don't want too many of, and we institute measures to control the growth of that group via death of the unborn, is that not eugenics?

Why not?

Because my friend there is no evidence of it.

Pretty easy to see it clearly, just need to look, the answer to that question was already contained in this thread.