Columnist Jonah Goldberg raised questions about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comment in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Responding to a question about the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women, Ginsburg said: “Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Goldberg wrote: “Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade, or whether she was merely objectively describing it.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
62 Comments
“…there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
==================================
And which populations were those?
I bet ole Ruth was speaking of the Darkies, eh Ruth?
Bigot.
She and Obama’s science zcar have the same opinion about abortion.
Libs are strong believers in Eugenics, just like Adolph.
#
Regular
Posted July 17, 2009 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
Libs are strong believers in Eugenics, just like Adolph.
————————————————
O, he** yes. Of course we are. We keep trying to eliminate the Republican party, but are finding we’re not needed: you guys are doing an excellent job of doing that yourselves.
If someone could post a transcript of the speech prior to that remark it could be better judged what she meant. Sometimes columnists pluck a sentence from a larger statement and present it out of Context. I doubt she meant she was in favor of eugenics myself.
From the article:
Regardless, Ginsburg is certainly right that abortion has deep roots in the historic effort to “weed out” undesired groups. For instance, Margaret Sanger, the revered feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist of the first order. Even more perplexing: She’s become a champion of “reproductive freedom” even though she proposed a “Code to Stop Overproduction of Children,” under which “no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit.” (Poor blacks would have had a particularly hard time getting such licenses from Sanger.)
We know where the LIBs stand:
“You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it…. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.”
Weddington offered a clue about whom, in particular, he had in mind: “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.” Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it.
The most important root of Eugenics was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics — and it was he who created the term “eugenics” — were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ‘higher race subjects to itself a lower race …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,’ because it was founded on science.
Hmmm, (founded on science) sounds strangely familiar to today’s Eco-terrorists, like cosmos.
The widespread public support for this policy was a result of the belief, common in the educated classes, in the conclusion that certain races were genetically inferior as was scientifically ‘proven’ by Darwinism.
The Nazis believed that they were simply applying facts, proven by science, to produce a superior race of humans as part of their plan for a better world: ‘The business of the corporate state was eugenics or artificial selection — politics as applied biology.
As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf that Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work — in English My Struggle.
Hitler was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
‘The basic outline of German social Darwinism [was] … man was merely a part of nature with no special transcendent qualities or special humanness. On the other hand, the Germans were members of a biologically superior community … politics was merely the straightforward application of the laws of biology. In essence, Haeckel and his fellow social Darwinists advanced the ideas that were to become the core assumptions of national socialism …. The business of the corporate state was eugenics or artificial selection..
Hitler’s Eugenic Goals
Hitler then argued that for this reason, governments must understand and apply the ‘laws of Nature’, especially the ‘survival of the fittest’ law which ‘originally produced the human races and is the source of their improvement’.
The Darwinist movement was ‘one of the most powerful forces in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries German intellectual history [and] may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of national socialism [Nazism]’.35 Why did evolution catch hold in Germany faster, and take a firmer hold there than any other place in the world?
http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a well known philosopher of Eugenics, which she believed in population control via means birth control. Later to be construed and implemented by the Liberals in the march for a pure race, eliminating Blacks and other minorities through abortion clinics.
And just when I figured that Cons couldn’t get any dumber….
Actually, what we want to do is bring the birthrate of you con wingnuts down to below the rate you shoot each other. Since you don’t like abortions, we’re planning on spiking Coors with Depo-Provera. That should do the trick!
XXX
Who’s the dumb one?
Eugenics seems to be part of the normal thought process of a certain class of elite Progressives. Common in the OBO administration it seems.
But if you put your hands over your ears and sing LALALALALALLALA really loud you can pretend this kind of thought doesnt exist on your chosen side of the isle.
John Holdren, Obama’s science czar, advocated totalitarian measures to address overpopulation
Saturday, July 11th, 2009 | Environment, Population, Science |
Via Ace of Spades, Zombietime has unearthed a book of environmental extremism written by Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, advocates extreme measures such as forced abortions and forced sterilization to combat the threat the authors foresee from overpopulation.
All quotes directly from the book (and Zombietime has photographs of these passages if you have any doubts):
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
http://www.lesjones.com/2009/07/11/john-holdren-obamas-science-czar-advocated-totalitarian-measures-to-address-overpopulation/
I love it when liberals get old and senile. The true colors start shining through.
Ol’ Ruth thought Roe v. Wade was our own little ethnic cleansing.
Nice.
The Evil Freedom of Choice Act – Government Forced Eugenics
The Democratic Party’s Final Solution
In July 2007, Barack Obama promised a group of his supporters that, if elected president, he would sign perhaps the most evil piece of legislation in the history of our republic.
It’s called the “Freedom of Choice Act,” or FOCA — but don’t let the Orwellian title fool you. It isn’t about “freedom” or “choice” at all. It’s about forcing each and every American citizen — regardless of his or her view on abortion — to support abortion-on-demand not just as a “fundamental right” but as a taxpayer-funded
entitlement.
But the compulsion wouldn’t stop there. Because FOCA would also run roughshod over the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals that oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds — forcing them to provide or counsel for abortion or face professional de-certification, loss of funding, lawsuits, and even prosecution.
Not only that, FOCA would immediately strike down any and all state restrictions on abortion — even those with wide popular support, such as prohibitions on partial-birth abortion and parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions.
his 2007 campaign pledge to Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger, Founder, the Eugenics Cheerleader) members, Obama promised that signing FOCA would be “the first thing I’d do as president.” The only reason he hasn’t followed through on that promise is that Democratic-controlled Congress has yet to introduce and pass it.
* Establish abortion as a “fundamental right,” elevating it to the same status as the right to vote and the right to free speech — going beyond any Supreme Court decision in enshrining unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law
* Eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide — including 44 states’ laws concerning parental involvement, 40 states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions, 46 states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers, 27 states’ conscience protection laws for institutions, 38 states’ bans on partial-birth abortions, 33 states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion, and 16 states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
* Compel taxpayer funding of abortions through state and federal welfare programs, federal employee insurance plans, and in military hospitals.
* Force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions
* Force doctors and nurses to provide counseling and referral for abortions
Mike Huckabee, Human Events
(title is mine)
John Holdren, Obama’s science czar
==================================
What a twisted fuq!
So I think she’s simply saying, she dosen’t want to see the poor and uneducated have higher birth rates than the slightly more well to do off, and educated. Is she trying to make a link to this and the dumbing down of our society? I gotta give her some credit, it takes balls to so eloquently say that, in a way, without actually saying it. She’s sure to take some flak for it.
Maybe she’s in support for, handing out propaganda abortion pamphlets to low income women, and building an express lane for them?
Just another way to polarize America.
eckler
Posted July 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
XXX
Who’s the dumb one?
Eugenics seems to be part of the normal thought process of a certain class of elite Progressives. Common in the OBO administration it seems.
================================================
Really? You forget the purely conservative ideas of: Witch hunting, denying women the vote, the dark ages. You guys don’t come off too well in history, nor are you coming off as anything better today. In fact, you all are coming off as the party of old white guys afraid of becoming, well, old white guys.
Take, for instance, “The Evil Freedom of Choice Act – Government Forced Eugenics
The Democratic Party’s Final Solution.” I’m assuming your going for those stupid enough to believe that? Like the Democrats will have enforced lines of anybody stupid enough (Republicans)to think eugenics is what it’s all about waiting for those forced abortions? You people don’t need Democrats to abort yourselves: your doing a fine job yourselves.
She’s probably just worried — when that new girl gets there, Ruth won’t be the office hottie any more.
You people don’t need Democrats to abort yourselves
==============================
I ain’t one of them fancy ’scientist’, but I don’t think it’s possible to ‘abort yourself’.
Isn’t it funny how the dimlibs come out of the woodwork to defend the idiotic comments of one of their own?
(– See chass’s post as another example –)
Let a conservative have said that. There’d be blood on the walls.
Evidently Eugenics passes as ‘progressive’ science for the O’Bama Administration….
I’m thankful I did vote for that Kook.
or didn’t, rather.
Philip, Philip, Philip–
Mein Gott, man.
Do you even read the responses to your own WEBlog threads?
If you had, then you’d have seen this tempest in a teapot has already been hashed out.
The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out,” said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women “of means” can easily access abortion.
“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 told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.
“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.”
Harris v. McRae is a 1980 court decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.
******
So Ginsburg is saying that her fear is that some people might use gov’t funded abortion to reduce the population of groups that THEY “don’t want to have too many of.”
Sheesh, use your brain. No Supreme Court Justice is going to argue that poor people’s kids or black kids should be aborted because there’s too many of them, for heaven’s sake.
Not even the reich-wingers are THAT crazy.
Sheesh, use your brain. No Supreme Court Justice is going to argue that poor people’s kids or black kids should be aborted because there’s too many of them, for heaven’s sake.
======================================
Ginsburg did.
“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 told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.
“We”.
ChrisfromMacTown posted this the other day, and I was outraged, until I took the time to look at the entire quote and see how it was meant.
If it doesn’t sound like something a sympathetic and intelligent woman would say, then she probably didn’t mean it the way you’re interpreting it.
Duh.
Yes, Anti, she said “we.” As in those people who say that would say “we.”
Language is ambiguous (i.e., has more than one meaning).
Flying planes can be dangerous.
If one pilots a plane, it can be dangerous OR
Planes that are flying can be dangerous.
It’s impossible to know which meaning is intended by the original sentence.
When Christ said, “give us our daily bread,” he just meant bread, no butter, no tuna fish, no BLT . . . if you’re a CON . . .
Hey Capn’A,
Your Boy appointed a ‘Science Czar’ that firmly believes Eugenics is ‘progressive’ science.
Here’s what the Freedom of Choice Act says (from Wiki):
The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which “declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.”
*****
In other words, it simply standardizes the laws already on the books.
Yawn . . .
The Freedom of Choice Act is coming – Democratic ‘Jack-boots’ marching down the street, chanting their Liberaryan pure race intentions and their ‘Final Solution’ to control population through abortion and genetic selection.
XXX
Posted July 17, 2009 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
And just when I figured that Cons couldn’t get any dumber….
==========================================
I agree, XXX…. And just think — Regular wants everybody to believe he is intellectually superior to EVerybody!!! LOL
What a joke!!
Speaking of jokes – there’s Chas, the make up German acronyms (STFU) – poster boy and stroke finger victim.
wait for it…
Duh Libs will show up like ‘bobble-headed’ democratic party jack-azzez – all lined up in a row, bobbling their head in compliance and according to Der Fuhrer O’BAMA’s teleprompted words.
Can’t you see it?
(bobble, bobble, bobble)
John Holdren and Ginsburg are probably working on something more efficient than large ovens to eliminate “undesirable populations”.
Holdren’s book, to which he was a THIRD author, is like 900 some pages long.
It, not necessarily “he,” is talking about possible scenarios in some societies somewhere. For instance, China currently enforces a “one-child” policy right now.
The book isn’t saying that this SHOULD be done. It is one possibility that some cultures might attempt in the face of growing population.
The passage itself even proves this when it reads: depending on the society.
He’s not talking about what US policy should be.
Try to think this through, folks.
If it doesn’t sound like something a Harvard physicist and Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory would say . . . then he probably didn’t say it.
If it doesn’t sound like something a Harvard physicist and Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory would say . . . then he probably didn’t say it.
===============================
Uh huh….
Theodore Kaczynski said some unlikely things…..
She must be a libtard, her name wasn’t preceeded by “Consrvetive” or “Republican appointed”….
if it’s blank, it’s a libtard.
Kaczynski received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25 but resigned two years later.
Agreed, Chas.
When you’ve got nothing to offer except “no government!” then the only thing left is to twist what your opponents say.
Who was it that opposed Civil Rights in this country? The CONs or the Libs?
The CONs. William Buckley, James J. Kilpatrick, and a host of others argued that it was one’s “individual right” to not have to associate with another race, meaning hire them, eat with them at a lunch counter, educate their children with them.
Right-wingers like the John Birch Society and the Citizen Councils linked Martin Luther King with communism.
Who has attacked and tormented Jews more than another group in this country? The CONs or the Libs?
The CONs. The KKK hates Jews as much as they hate African-Americans. Was the white racist who blew away the black guard at the Holocaust museum a CON.
Yes, he was. A proud poster at FreeRepublic no less.
I don’t know what Margret Sanger believed and I don’t much care. The fact is that today minorities support the liberal agenda because they stick with the people that have done the most for them over the decades.
da WIKI
Kaczynski is the exception that proves the rule.
He was brilliant but crazy as a loon.
In no way can he be compared to someone who has built the massive CV that Dr. Holdren has.
CraponAmerica- wonders: Who was it that opposed Civil Rights in this country? The CONs or the Libs?
———————————
Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Regardless of his promises, in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue. The 1963 March on Washington was initially opposed by Kennedy as he believed that any march during his presidency would indicate that the leaders of the civil rights campaign were critical of his stance on civil rights.
civil rights act of 1964: The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”[5]
humm….
Anothe great democrap all for equal rights…..
George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998) was a Governor of Alabama for four terms; 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987. “The most influential loser” in 20th-century U.S. politics according to biographers Dan T. Carter[1] and Stephan Lesher,[2] he ran for President four times, running officially as a Democrat.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
When Christ said, “give us our daily bread,” he just meant bread, no butter, no tuna fish, no BLT . . . if you’re a CON . . .
——–
Chuckle. What a moroon.
And the their is Robert KKK Byrd (D)
The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: “There are white ni66ers. I’ve seen a lot of white ni66ers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
Goldberg just writes columns for the sole purpose of making Palin look intelligent by comparison. Nothing the blow hard, no talent hack writes should be taken seriously.
Thanks for the CONtent free post, outlander, with a garnish of cheap-shot.
Real Christian of ya.
“Who was it that opposed Civil Rights in this country? The CONs or the Libs?”
The dims,i.e. Algore Sr.
“The KKK hates Jews as much as they hate African-Americans.” That would be Dim Senator Robert K.K.K. Bird.
Donny–
Not all Democrats are liberals.
Duh.
Dondublin thanks for displaying your inability to fully understand history. Pay attention in high school history class next time and you’ll understand why I’m laughing at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0LiydCYJQs
Listen to CON Pat Buchanan argue against Affirmative Action and say, “this is a country that has been basically built by white folks.”
Hoo boy . . .
Then he digs himself into a deeper hole by saying “she only got into Yale, she only was a Law Review editor because of Affirmative Action.”
Nevermind that Bush would have never got into Yale except for his Senator father and Senator Grandfather.
The LIBs are really stretching to defend their Eugenics believing buddies today.
Sick Fuqs.
Maddow: Why do you think it is that of 110 Supreme Court Justices we’ve had in this country, 108 of them have been white?
Buchanan: Well, I think that white men were 100 percent of the people who wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.
This is been a country built basically by white folks in this country
*****
Nevermind that only white men COULD legally sign the Declaration of Independence.
Here’s a real racist, CONs, and he’s on your side.
Anti–
They don’t believe in eugenics, as much as you “sick fuqs” try to spin it.
I wonder if you really believe that or whether you’re just trying to demigog the issue.
Stupid or dishonest, hmmm, so hard to tell with a CON.
HappyHeathen
…Sometimes columnists pluck a sentence from a larger statement and present it out of Context. ===========================================
Please, say it isn’t so!
In the Roe v. Wade rhetoric of the 70s, there was a lot of talk about “unwanted, unplanned pregnancies.”
To stretch that into eugenics, Hitler (Godwin’s Rule), and “evil“ution just smacks of CON madness.
Like how CONs dig up the old “Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964″ meme.
Those who don’t know history are doomed to be CONs.
rgroves
Posted July 17, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
She’s probably just worried — when that new girl gets there, Ruth won’t be the office hottie any more.
—
I used to know a guy named Russ Groves, back in the day. He was strongly drawn to politics and political debate, too.
If that’s you, Russ, what do you make of Ike and his UPenn gig? Former Georgetown gig he had at one time, too, and I believe he was also at Princeton for a while. Pretty impressive, no?
And Abraham Lincoln once thought that blacks and white should live segregated lives… and worse….
“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,44563,00.html”
He transcended it by the force of American ideals.
Sanger had some wrong headed ideas too,
Once they dig out the Nazi references, the thread is dead….
“John Holdren and Ginsburg are probably working on something more efficient than large ovens to eliminate “undesirable populations”.” (Anti)
______________
Come on, they can’t do it alone..they’ve gotta check with Van Jones, the communist Green Jobs Czar & Carol Browner the socialist Environment Czar first to do a carbon footprint study. Then check with Harold Koh, the transnationalist State Dept lead attorney to get his take on German/Russian/Chinese/Sudanese/Viet Namese/Egyptian & Myanmar precedents.
This is what passes for debate these days – unfounded accusations and distortions of history.
Damn.
You Conservatives need to get a grip and become part of the solution instead of just part of the problem.
For starters, offer something other than “no.”
ANTI
Posted July 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
You people don’t need Democrats to abort yourselves
==============================
I ain’t one of them fancy ’scientist’, but I don’t think it’s possible to ‘abort yourself’
==========================================
Oh, I think the political suicide you all are going through qualifies.