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 --
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.
She says she was surprised by the Supreme Court’s 1980 opinion in Harris v. McRae that Medicaid funds did not have to go for abortions because she seems to have thought getting rid of these undesirable populations was the whole point of Roe v. Wade.
This is not letting the cat out of the bag. Ginsburg has let a man-eating tiger out of the bag. Justcie Ginsburg’s statement is not just an offensive, racist joke. This is not just a callous reference to disabled people, this is life and death. Ginsburg lines up on the side of death.
Why has there been no uproar in the liberal press? Why no demands for Ginsburg to step down?
This smoking gun has a silencer attached. Oh, she was talking about abortion. That makes it all OK.
Her office will probably clean up all the rhetorical blood on the ground and issue a clarification. They’ll probably say the Justice misspoke, that she was really expressing her concern that these “populations” would be underserved by the cutoff in Medicaid funding.
When you read the entire quote, don’t forget: There are whole segments of America that Justice Ginsburg thinks we’d be better off without. Not just criminals. They’re not the ones accessing Medicaid. Her deadly sweep includes the poor, minorities, many people in Appalachia, some people with disabilities. It’s a large and growing list that Justice Ginsburg thinks “we don’t want too many of.”
This smoking gun will only be silenced if you remain silent. Let’s speak up against the lethal logic of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and liberal abortion. When we call our highest judges “Justice,” shouldn’t we cry out when they become instead advocates for injustice?