Posted in its entirety by BettyJean Kling
I thought I could rant but I cannot- I just am at a loss for words … Was The Times purposefully trying to make Justice Ginsburg out to be Frau Hitler, misquoting her use of the terms eradicate unwanted populations. They actually stripped me of my ability to speak – I best just bring you the article in its entirety and wait and see what you comment- for I must have just lost my mind- I am sure of it! Please comment! Either I lost it or they expect readers to think Justice Ginsburg has just confessed to a cleansing crime! Is there no women from either side safe from vicious attack in this country today?
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg:
I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through Abortion
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups “that we don’t want to have too many of.”
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.
Justice Ginsburg’s remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century’s eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.
Ironically, the New York Times interview began as an exploration of Ginsburg’s thoughts on Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor as she prepares for her confirmation hearings this month. Coverage of Sotomayor frequently emphasizes her success story as an underprivileged minority from the Bronx who rose to prominence at Princeton and Yale Law.
Ginsburg also defended a controversial statement repeated by Sotomayor in several speeches, where she stated she “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.”
“I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that,” said Ginsburg. “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. … 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.”
The judge also praised the advent of earlier abortions with the wider distribution of the morning-after pill, saying “I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.”
When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court’s reasoning “reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution – ideas that have long since been discredited.”
Original Article CLICK HERE
Filed under: Uncategorized |
ceceisnotyouraveragelatina
cjwk
democratsagainstunagenda21
FreeMeNow
itsmelouisa
kmorrison33
mattdp
Mary Ellen
nitlifetime
onewaypress
pghpuma
Savant Noir
robinofberkeley
Free Us Now Weblog 
I think Kathleen Gilbert is an ass, like most of the media, if she’s trying to accuse Ruth Bader Ginsburg of being some sort of Nazi-like advocate of forcing abortions on women to control certain segments of the population.
The answer IMHO ironically lies in the quote about Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment when Ginsburg said,
“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 old enough (and Ginsburg certainly is) to remember when there was an intense discussion about whether giving some poor welfare mother an additional $4 or so a month when she had another child would actually encourage people on welfare to have more children. Like there were really women out there so stupid they would think, wow, I really need that extra $4 so I’ll deliberately have a child that will cost me about a hundred times that.
So I suspect when Ginsburg unwisely used the pronoun “we” it was possibly in an ironic tone, as one might do when mocking people who might actually believe it was all right to use abortion to keep the birth rate down on those who are not “our” kind of people. Because that is clearly what she is saying — she was concerned that the Roe decision would be used to coerce abortions for poor women. Then after the McRae decision, she realized her concerns were unfounded.
I thought I would never read anything more stupid than the accusation that Palin killed Michael Jackson, but to accuse Ginsburg of this definitely meets that standard.
Betty Jean:
I know that is how her interview is being spun by certain interests. This is the second one attempting to capitalize on that headline.
When I saw the headline of this in an email sent to me yesterday by someone forwarding the same headline from (World Net Daily) and the way it was sensationalized – I immediately went and read the whole article at the NYT.
But, read without the spin, it is clear that it was not Ginsburg’s “hope” but rather her concern at the time that abortion would be ultimately misused against “poor women and/or undesirables” from reproducing.
WITH THE “SPIN:
“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.”
WITH THE SPIN OF THE LIFE SITE NEWS ARTICLE:
“Justice Ginsburg’s remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century’s eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.”
—————
REALLY?
Ginsburg as Frau Hitler?
That’s precisely the picture Life Site News article’s commentary on the New York Times attempts to paint.
It just goes to show how easily we can be manipulated by certain kinds of spin in either direction that only serves to derail the ONLY issue at stake which is that of “choice”.
Sorry the first excerpt should have read:
WITHOUT THE “SPIN:
“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.”
And that is not the original transcript of the interview (if we can even trust the Times to be accurate in that). Here is the controlling quote from it, where Ginsburg says:
“The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
Ginsburg has never been anything but an advocate for women and their right to make their own choices about their lives and bodies. This Gilbert woman should be ashamed to show her face in public, and she definitely should make the Hall of Shame along with Maureen Dowd, Katie Couric and Tina Fey.
Sorry to keep belaboring this (I know I’ve had more than my say, but it just makes me so mad), but after all the wild, unfounded accusations made about Hillary and Palin, we need to be cautious about giving credence to anything like this that is said against someone we know to be as honorable as Justice Ginsburg is. The press just loves to pick a word or a few words out of context or twist things around to give them a meaning clearly not intended by the person speaking. A legitimate journalist would have at least given Ginsburg the chance to respond to such a scurrilous accusation, but then we have to consider that apparently responsible journalism is no longer with us.
I know I was flabbergasted when I read this – I could not even speak but now that you are all unspinning it – well quite frankly – either Ginsburg lost her mind or she had to be misquoted.
Who in her right mind would make such a confession. I should have realized! I was so shocked that I couldn’t make sense of this at all — not at all- I guess that is because it made no sense.
Thanks for staying up late and helping me out – I thought I had lost my marlbles .
Sorry I got so heated, but the state of the press today just infuriates me. I’m glad I don’t have to be so careful about every word that comes out of my mouth, but if you’re a public figure and a woman, apparently you are fair game to have your comments misconstrued whenever possible. All the press today thinks about is controversy and sensationalism and spin. Wouldn’t it be great if they devoted the same amount of effort to truth, accuracy and fairness?
This is the second time lately I’ve been defending Ginsburg, though. If I have to do it again, I want to be named the Defend Ginsburg Czar and get paid that hundred-and-fifty thou all the other czars get.
marcy- you NEVER have to be sorry with me- I like that kind of guts and I like honesty and courage and I am always ready to talk things out – that’s how we learn and i love spirit!! thanks for taking the time and having the patience – you did not attack me- you came out and laid it on the line – like a lady and spelled it out . You gave me facts and something to weigh. I did and it made sense.
Why can’t we all discusss things like that?
Welcome to my blog – please stay – I like your brand of honesty! Gals like you and me can make things happen.
Lets!
Have you all see Where’s the Line?
“Why can’t we all discuss things like that?”
Thank you for the kind words, and I absolutely agree about the above question you posed. I was an unquestioningly loyal liberal Democrat (my knee jerked frequently and uncontrollably, heh) until they stole the nomination from Hillary, but I’ll tell you what, their actions in doing that really opened my eyes. I’m not a Republican (but I’ll be voting for them in 2010 just to put the brakes to all the stupidities the Democrats are foisting upon us), but my eyes have been opened to the fact that not only are the Democrats NOT the party of truth, justice and the American way, they are possibly even more evil than I once thought Republicans to be.
Anyway, I don’t really fit in anywhere anymore since I think both sides are screwing us over; so thanks for providing a forum where you can in a civil manner discuss both sides of a topic.
We need a place where we can discuss these things without jumping soen each others throats.
We need to be able to talk to each other to help each other – to educate each other – We have been too too long ready to judge rather than ready to reach out.
I think many of us learned a lot these last two years – heaven help those of us who did not learn a thing.
And still we must be patient with those who still need to be convinced – we must be united and time is of the essence. We will never get ERA if we loose Liberty and freedom for all.