Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently unburdened herself to the New York Times: “Yes, the ruling [in Harris v. McRae that the federal government does not have to pay for elective abortions] surprised me. 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.”

Here, if ever there was one, is a smoking gun. Here is confirmation of what pro-lifers have long maintained—that liberal abortion is, in Jesse Jackson’s words, “black genocide.”

Or did Justice Ginsburg simply mean the poor, in general? Are they the population we don’t want too many of?

Could she have been describing children of prisoners? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once approved the forcible sterilization of an innocent person in Virginia saying--infamously-- “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

Might Ginsburg be referring to with disabilities? Let her explain if that’s who she means.

Exactly who does Justice Ginsburg think is a “population we don’t want too many of?” Shouldn’t she be required to give a full explanation of this despicable phrase?

Thirty-three years ago, Republican Ag Secretary Earl Butz told a dirty joke that ridiculed black Americans. He was forced to resign -- and perhaps should have been. Twenty-five years ago Republican Interior Secretary James Watt described his advisory board as “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt was forced to resign -- and purpose should have been.

Then, Republicans joined the chorus of denunciations.

Will liberals now demand Ginsburg’s resignation? Justice Ginsburg, so far, has gotten away with a far more offensive statement. What she means is that these “populations we don’t want too many of” should be killed before they are born. That’s what she said abortion is for. Continued...