We already knew that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a penchant for issuing reality-challenged rulings based on straw-man arguments. Now in an interview in the New York Times she openly admits to not just supporting eugenics but also believing that abortion (and it's legalization) was a way to fulfill that vision.
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.
Wow...using the government to get rid of "undesirable" populations. Right out of Margaret Sanger's teachings!
And there are also little gems like this:
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Excuse me? What part of "gender equality" is served by an abortion? That because men don't "have" to be pregnant, neither do women? What kind of thought process is going on there? I think it is very revealing in all the talk about abortion in the article not once does Bader mention babies or children. Apparently there are only oppressed women and their patriarchal oppressors involved.
It's also revealing that she complains that a woman's "right to choose" shouldn't be given to the state where abortion is concerned but argues that exact opposite of that position when ownership of guns is the issue. Yet ownership of firearms is a clearly established right via the Second Amendment while abortion is not.
It's like I said: it's becoming impossible to distinguish between parody and actual statements from Democrats on the issues. They've simply dropped all pretense of hiding their real agenda: they want to run your life for you. Hey, it's only a bad thing if you disagree with them. :P
Welcome to the new slavery! Current Mood : determined Location : Home
"Let us beware that while they [Soviet rulers] preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination over all the peoples of the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.... I urge you to beware the temptation ... to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil."
Previous entries