“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Margaret Sanger
I’m going to post a couple things out of order because I haven’t put anything on in a while…
Proud Brooklyn Jew and incidental Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (quite a title, no?) freely told the New York Times Sunday Magazine that
she thought Roe v. Wade was originally decided with the understanding that global overpopulation needed to be sorted out. Therefore, she figured some sort of legal apparatus would be set up to allow abortion funding through Medicaid — that way, we could just get rid of the populations that wear their pants around their knees and aren’t good enough to do any cool shit like camping in the Castkills or getting Mitzvah’d.
The full insanity:
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 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.
Oops! A mere 7 years later, when Harris v McRae saw the Supreme Court uphold the Hyde Amendment (which disallows Medicaid funding for abortions), Ginsburg decided maybe Roe wasn’t about pulling what Margaret Sanger called “human weeds” after all.
The Times reporter of course was neither taken aback by this nor feeling compelled to ask a follow-up question. Instead, she shared some of her own views on the accessibility of abortions with a hilariously leading question, allowing Ginsburg to chime in: not to worry, women will soon be popping the morning-after pill with abandon. FULL TRANSCRIPT.
Ginsburg is already on the record many times over as thinking that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a better way to justify abortion than a 4th Amendment right to privacy incorporated through Due Process. A woman, she says, cannot be viewed as a fully adult and equal citizen in the eyes of the law if she is treated like a child, deprived over the choice of what to do with her pregnancy regardless of the stage.
In fact, she thinks Roe stymied a progressive march toward unlimited abortion rights by codifying some legal abortions and prematurely inciting the rage of social conservatives.
It reminds me of a question Justice Rehnquist asked her when she was arguing before the Supreme Court in Duren v Missouri: “You won’t settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar, then?”
Here’s the piece I wrote about it.
After Drudge posted it in the dreaded Red Ink, it got so many clicks it crashed our site, and Hannity did a segment on it that evening, generously saying, “That’s certainly a pro-abortion argument that I have not heard in a while.”
Jonah Goldberg also is filing an editorial about it to appear in tomorrow’s Los Angeles Times and he confirms my suspicion that these kinds of feelings have only been bubbling under the surface. Citing the opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes on sterilizing “imbeciles,” Goldberg looks at Buck v Bell, which held that sterilizing lower-class women was constitutional. Goldberg writes:
In recent years, openly discussing the notion of eugenic aspects of abortion has become taboo. But as Ginsburg’s comments suggest, the taboo hasn’t eliminated the idea; it’s merely sent it underground.
Ginsburg is a native a Midwood, just north of the Belt Parkway and Sheepshead Bay, an area that was once heavily Jewish and also kvelling over having produced notable Jew like Gil Hodges, Chuck Schumer, Arthur Miller, and Woodie Allen. Her cocamamie, fercockt thoughts on Roe came in the 1970’s, just as Midwood saw an onslaught of immigrants from places like Jamaica, Haiti, Guyana, Turkey, and Korea, to name a few. Presumably because it’s easily accessible via the now-horrid B trains from Midtown, it changed the complexion of the neighborhood.
This story is bigger than just this, though. It seems to me that under the mistaken impression that flagrant liberalism is sweeping the nation thanks to D’Ohbama, people of this persuasion are openly admitting what they’ve often been too shrewd to in the past. I wrote a story the other week about the UN Population Fund– despite being an organization that claims it is “using population data for policies and programmes to reduce poverty,” it really deals in euphemisms about abortion. Funding for it is being restored through USAID this year despite the fact that they cooperate with Chinese authorities who coerce women into abortions.
And in March, my favorite, Hillary Clinton, made the breathtakingly stupid comment that she was “in awe” of Margaret Sanger upon being presented Planned Parenthood’s prestigious Margaret Sanger Award. (FLASHBACK: Undercover Caller Asks to Earmark Donation to Abort a Black Baby; Employee Laughs, Says “Understandable”).
Melanne Verveer, recently installed as the State Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for Women’s Issues, will further use diplomacy and our tax dollars to advance this philosophy.