What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?

The mainstream media have been incredibly slow to pick up on a creepy comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a New York Times interview published today but flagged last week. In it, Ginsburg talks about on Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalised 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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
​

What? You can find ***********0000ff]the full context of the remark here[/COLOR], in the Times interview, but it doesn’t settle matters. And the (pro-choice) media haven’t exactly jumped on the story. Bloggers are incredulous. This is what ***********0000ff]Creative Minority Rreport had to say yesterday[/COLOR]:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about using abortion as population control raised a lot of eyebrows in the blogosphere. Over 9,236 to be precise, according to Google blog search.
Huge sites too like Hot Air featured the story prominently. Even Drudge ran with the story yesterday.
But as of this morning the mainstream media have completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations “we don’t want to have too many of”.
What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media’s complete silence on this issue? They don’t see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context?
As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they’re wondering why. This is why.
​

Fair point. You might think the New York Times might want to trumpet its exclusive. But the mindset of that pompous, prickly, boring, self-regarding publication is so overwhelmingly liberal that it didn’t even realise it had a story on its hands.

 

Did you read the full comment in context?

Here it is, just in case. Not nearly as creepy, when you read the whole thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

 

So, in answer to the thread question, what she meant is that she shared a concern with many that when Roe V Wade was decided abortion could be tied to eugenics, and that underprivileged women would be pressured to have abortions they did not want. However, she says, the opposite has happened: Abortion is available most easily to the privileged, and least easily to the underclasses.

 

You'd think a Jewish person would stay away from the subject of population control.

No wonder so many people think the holocaust didn't happen.

 

Those "people" would just assume see you & me killed before a live studio audience, preferably slowly and gruesomely.

 

A little bit of historical background...

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

 

:smt099