Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg Believes in Eugenics?

I know this is political theater. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has already stepped out in support of potential Supreme Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor. Now she makes a comment that is sure to grab the news media's attention and to possibly take some heat of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing that begins Monday.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a liberal and a feminist. So, if you are a hard working male, you are in double jeopardy already. Like Sotomayor, Ginsberg considers herself an affirmative action byproduct and has gender biased beliefs.

In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Ginsberg made claims that Columbia University motivation to offer her tenure as a law professor was political. The majority of the interview is pretty much standard women's lib issues and her reasoning for Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg uses the typical liberal tactic of shadow talk when she goes on about how she thinks some people in Congress [Republicans] will criticize anyone President Obama nominated. Ginsberg claims this is due to her [Sotomayor] being a woman and the remarks about Latina women. What Ginsberg fails to understand is that Sotomayor did not just make the "remark" once...she stated it more than 5 times.

In 2001 Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." That is a remark that many find offensive considering that justice is supposed to be blind and equal for all...no matter what your background experience is!

Ginsberg claimed it is "ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that. Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table."

Ginsberg continued, "All of our differences make the conference better. That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me."

Again, what Justice Ginsberg fails to understand is no matter what background experiences you have, as a Supreme Court Justice you are required to base each case on law...not empathy, feelings, race, sex, gender or anything else. Maybe Ginsberg and Sotomayor should step outside the Supreme Court and look at the words written above the entrance: "Equal Justice Under Law."

Ginsberg's defense of Sotomayor is shocking to some but the real bombshell is what she said about Roe v. Wade. This is Ginsberg's "wise Latina moment." But I'm sure she will spin it in typical liberal fashion.

Ginsberg was asked "If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?"

Ginsberg answered "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."

The interviewer immediately asked Ginsberg "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?"

Ginsberg's answer was "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. 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."

So, let me understand. Ginsberg was surprised by the 1980 ruling that forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions? Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources...aka...poor white and black people.

So when Ginsberg makes the statement "there was CONCERN ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH AND PARTICULARLY GROWTH IN POPULATIONS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY OF," is she saying abortion is a eugenics tool designed to "destroy" the population that "we" don't want to have to many of?

Is Ginsberg taking pages from the play book of Margaret Sanger? Margaret Sanger is a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society...ohhh...and she just happens to be the founder of Planned Parenthood. She is loved by the likes of Ginsberg and Hillary Clinton. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQ6wEz4QXE)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W-iP_oejJ8)

I could go on and on about Margaret Sanger and her racist ideology. How she pushed birth control into the black community to destroy those she saw as "unfit" or as Ginsberg claims "populations that we don't want to have too many of." This sounds more like a Nazi General than a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

I am sure Ginsberg meant to say it differently? At least thats what the excuse will be when this comes to light. Do a little bit of research on Margaret Sanger and Eugenics. Hillary Clinton said this would be part of the new administration.

Source: New York Times Magizine