BY GEORGE WEIGEL – for EPPC – Summer 2009
Sometimes, the veil slips.
(see the full interview below)
It certainly did in a recent New York Times Magazine interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There, in the course of relating her surprise at the Court’s 1980 decision upholding the Hyde Amendment (which banned federal funding for abortion), Justice Ginsburg had the following to say about legal history, social policy, and political surprises: “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 of abortion.”
Turn that phrase over in your mind — “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Rather odd, wouldn’t you say — odd in itself, and odd in light of such 20th century horrors as the Holocaust and the Ukrainian terror famine, justified by their perpetrators on precisely such grounds? Then there is Justice Ginsburg’s rationale for Roe vs. Wade and its judicially created license to abortion-on-demand: Roe was intended to clear the legal path to federal funding of abortions for poor — read “black” — people, who clearly loom large among those “populations we don’t want to have too many of.”
Little surprise, then, that the National Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) had “no comment” when asked about Justice Ginsburg’s comments. One wonders what the first African-American president of the United States will say when Justice Ginsburg leaves the Court.
That the contemporary pro-abortion movement in America is the outgrowth of the early 20th century eugenics movement — which explicitly sought to limit “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — is well known to everyone who has bothered to study the history in question. Margaret Sanger, foundress of Planned Parenthood, was a devout eugenicist. Indeed, eugenics was very much the progressive cause back in my grandparents’ day, and enjoyed considerable support among the upper classes. Then came Hitler and his quack racial philosophy and his genocidal “doctors” — and eugenics understandably got a very bad name. That the eugenic impulse lives on, however, no reasonable person can now doubt, Justice Ginsburg having lifted the veil.
That much, as I say, we should have known all along. What continues to baffle me is the acquiescence of America’s African-American leadership in the decimation of America’s black population by Roe vs. Wade — for even without that Medicaid funding of abortion to which Ruth Bader Ginsburg once looked forward with evident satisfaction, abortion has taken a tremendous toll in the African-American community since 1973 and is likely the primary reason why African-Americans now constitute our second-largest minority, after Hispanic-Americans. And the black political leadership has, with rare exceptions, supported the abortion license.
How does this make any human sense? How does it make any political sense — to support an abortion regime that drastically cuts down your own group’s numbers? Is there any other occasion in history when a political leadership has been complicit in the unnatural (indeed violent) demise of its own population? I don’t know of one.
Just as Senator Edward Kennedy could have been the leader of the pro-life movement among U.S. Catholics, so President Barack Obama (representing one of those population groups that some people “don’t want to have too many of”) could have been a pro-life leader among African-Americans (who in fact are more pro-life than their white fellow-countrymen). Obama, like Kennedy, chose another path. And while his declared intention to reduce the number of abortions is welcome, his administration’s policies seem certain to continue the assault on America’s African-American population — all in the name of “choice” and progress.
It is all too strange. And very, very sad. Justice Ginsburg deserves, I suppose, a measure of credit for saying publicly what NARAL and Planned Parenthood and the rest of that gang have long believed. But where is the outrage at this blatant defense of legally-sponsored and federally-funded eugenics? And especially among African-Americans? Where is the new Frederick Douglas when his people — and the rest of us — need him?
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
The Place of Women on the Court
By Emily Bazelon July 7, 2009 – for New York Times Magazine
My cmnt: you can read the full interview of RBG here. This is NOT taken out of context. RBG did not like blacks and hired almost no POC in her many years on two courts. As with all important liberals/leftists who strongly support abortion they will be given a pass on everything else. A lot of democrats are racists besides RBG. Bill and Hillary are fine examples. Bill’s mentor was William Fulbright a segregationist and racist. Hillary’s most admired politician was Robert Byrd a high ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan. The Clinton’s like all democrat politicians use black people for votes.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
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.
Snorer in the court? Ruth Bader Ginsburg snoozes
By Joe Kovacs
Published March 1, 2006 at 11:54pm – for WND.com
My cmnt: Of course when President Reagan took a nap it was a sign to the Left and MSM that he was too old and senile to be president. When RBG face-plants on the bench of the Supreme Court while hearing an important case it’s nothing to be concerned about. Follow this link to the Independent Sentinel for the multiple times RBG was snoozing. The point being again that a liberal/leftist will be excused for all things as long as she strongly supports abortion.
Was it a case of dreaming of a better America, napping on the job, or just being asleep at the switch?
Serving on the highest court in the land is apparently a tiring affair for at least one Supreme Court justice who caught 40 winks on the bench, literally.
According to the Independent Sentinel, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg snoozed during oral arguments today over political redistricting in Texas.
“The subject matter was extremely technical,” notes AP writer Gina Holland, “and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair.”
During a report by Megyn Kendall of Fox News, an artist’s sketch of the hearing was aired with Ginsburg’s head using the bench as a pillow.
There was no word if there was any audible snoring echoing through the esteemed chamber, but the sleep session was noticed by Ginsburg’s colleagues who made a snap judgment to let their associate continue her slumber.
“Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge,” writes Holland.
The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who writes:
“At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News’ reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg’s snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.
“It’s lucky for Ginsburg that the Supreme Court has so far refused to allow television in the courtroom, for her visit to the land of nod would have found its way onto late-night shows.”