Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Author Topic: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables  (Read 14215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waketheherd

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • LansingandBeyond.com and WaketheHerd.com
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« on: July 09, 2009, 10:56:14 AM »
Quote
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: 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 donít know why this hasnít been said more often.

Q: 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?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae ó 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 donít want to have too many of. 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 didnít 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Offline WarChest

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • I lift their veil of ignorance and see the truth
    • http://www.myspace.com/warchest_nc
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2009, 06:25:50 PM »

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This is a travesty!


If a man were to know at the end of this days business there would come. But, it suffices to know that that the day will end and the end  be known.
If we meet again well then weíll smile and if not, well then this parting was well made.
Col. Jason Rhodes USMC

Offline TimeLady

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,309
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2009, 06:29:02 PM »


AFAIK she wasn't a justice until the Clinton administration. She didn't rule on Roe vs. Wade.
Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2009, 06:37:53 PM »
DUDE! This deserves full post.  And true she wasn't justice back then, but there is the fact she was justice when deciding on Armed forces providing funds for overseas abortions.
LAW OF THE LAND

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'
Posted: July 08, 2009
9:46 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Ginsburg responded:

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.
Question: 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?

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae Ė 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. 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.

When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

Asked if that meant getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion such as a waiting period, the justice said she was "not a big fan of these tests."

I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman's decision. It's entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn't mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So 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.


Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during a hearing in 2006
 

Three years ago, Ginsburg received some embarrassing national attention when she napped on the bench during a court hearing.

"Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge," reported Gina Holland of the Associated Press.

The incident caught the attention of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who said:

"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning Ė not denied by a court spokeswoman Ė Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.

"It's lucky for Ginsburg that the Supreme Court has so far refused to allow television in the courtroom, for her visit to the land of nod would have found its way onto late-night shows."

Offline TimeLady

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,309
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 06:44:43 PM »
Quote
And true she wasn't justice back then, but there is the fact she was justice when deciding on Armed forces providing funds for overseas abortions.

Armed forces =/= civilian life. Can't have a pregnant grunt getting a back-alley abortion now.
Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Offline WarChest

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • I lift their veil of ignorance and see the truth
    • http://www.myspace.com/warchest_nc
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2009, 08:40:34 PM »


AFAIK she wasn't a justice until the Clinton administration. She didn't rule on Roe vs. Wade.

I never said that she did.

The story never said that she did.

The travesty is her thoughts on the matter. DUH?
If a man were to know at the end of this days business there would come. But, it suffices to know that that the day will end and the end  be known.
If we meet again well then weíll smile and if not, well then this parting was well made.
Col. Jason Rhodes USMC

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2009, 09:11:13 PM »
Is this shit confirmed?

Is this for real?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline TimeLady

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,309
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 09:24:01 PM »
I never said that she did.

The story never said that she did.

The travesty is her thoughts on the matter. DUH?

The story makes it sound like she did.

WND is fail.
Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 09:46:50 PM »
The story makes it sound like she did.

WND is fail.

actually, it looks 150% right on the money. WTF? she said that she thought Roe v. Wade was to rid the population of undesirables.

Has she been given a psych evaluation yet?

WTF is wrong with the so called "supreme" court?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2009, 11:20:59 PM »
Is this shit confirmed?

Is this for real?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae ó 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 donít want to have too many of. 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 didnít 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.

Offline sharpsteve

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,358
    • Twitter Me
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2009, 11:24:26 PM »
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117854.0
    
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg thought Roe was to rid undesirables
ę on: Today at 02:09:43 AM Ľ

Offline TimeLady

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,309
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2009, 11:27:34 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae ó 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 donít want to have too many of. 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 didnít 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 this means that she changed her mind?
Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2009, 11:54:54 PM »
actually, it looks 150% right on the money. WTF? she said that she thought Roe v. Wade was to rid the population of undesirables.

Has she been given a psych evaluation yet?

WTF is wrong with the so called "supreme" court?

For the exception of a few.  Power corrupts.

and the word:  supreme actually means  :  SUPER-REAM

Lucian Solaris

  • Guest
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2009, 12:45:34 AM »
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

LoL Ginsburg let the cat outa the bag LuLLz.

Watch it be ignored by the greater drive-by media...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 - *.:{Hack.I.T Edition r0001}:.*

iJ4EAREKAAYFAkpWx1AACgkQ+7Rzy15t3vY5TgH9FmZMKXf+17bGQO+NPVeSrezw
h96OitoV4Y5/+4lqePWp9WrPAoepn0LaabiNlL+OcoEe7CZXl0La1Dw3EAsGJwIA
lb8McYPP6h5kl0Z4O1vmhH6P9FsUIBpjLBkRkSeVrMS9OwQ8SZ6K49yAHH0EqD++
v9H5LGa3JJFb6QqpGxJf0A==
=LGmt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2009, 03:14:32 AM »
At the time of Roe v Wade, Ginsburg was national director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2009, 01:20:16 PM »
At the time of Roe v Wade, Ginsburg was national director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.

bwaaahahaha - you cannot make this shit up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2009, 02:41:51 PM »
bwaaahahaha - you cannot make this shit up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1000. You don't get to be a higher-up member of a Rockefeller Foundation front group unless you sell your soul to the Rockefellers (which is why the last two former ACLU presidents - Nadine Strossen and Norman Dorsen - and the current ACLU executive director - Anthony Romero - are all CFR members).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Strossen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Dorsen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Romero  (also worked for the Ford Foundation)

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22332892_ITM

Quote
The ACLU's leadership is well represented in the CFR's membership rolls and works closely with this Insider brain trust. ACLU president Nadine Strossen is a CFR member. So is ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, a homosexual activist attorney who previously was a top staff member at the Ford Foundation, the CER-directed revolutionary cash cow providing funding to the ACLU. Stanley Sheinbaum, the longtime patriarch of the ACLU of Southern California, one of the organization's most influential chapters, is also a CFR member. So is Morton Halperin, the Marxist revolutionary who, for many years, ran the ACLU's project to neuter our police and security agencies. President Clinton tried to appoint Halperin to a top Defense Department post, but was prevented from doing so when this magazine and others exposed the nominee s ultra-radical, pro-Communist, pro-terrorist record.

In 1996, ACLU President Nadine Strossen was one of three CFR panelists on the council's program, "Combating Terrorism: What Works? What Doesn't?" This conference, broadcast over C-SPAN, provided an even earlier trial balloon than Hart-Rudman to measure the American public's response to proposals for draconian measures to fight terrorism.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=8540

Quote
The ACLU has pointed to the Orwellian Big Brother potential of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) to boost recruitment and raise funds. Apparently this scam is working; the organization claims that its membership has jumped to an all-time high, and funds are pouring in. What the ACLU does not point out is the close relationship of its top players to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) architects who gave us the HSA. The HSA and the mammoth new Homeland Security Department was created by legislation that originated with the CFR-spawned Hart-Rudman Commission. Known formally as the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart-Rudman Commission was established in 1998 at the urging of President Clinton (CFR) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (CFR).  The commission was co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR).  It should be no surprise that the commission proposed what Congress has essentially adopted and President Bush has signed.  ACLU president Nadine Strossen is a CFR member.  So is ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.  The CFR seeks nothing less than the absolute destruction of American sovereignty and liberty.

Offline hardrain77

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2009, 05:16:32 PM »
This story might have some legs. Drudge just carried a link to it.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50819
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, they had better not speak above their breath."

Woodrow Wilson

Offline scepticalbeliever

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2009, 10:40:03 PM »
It should be absolutely criminal to try to "get rid of" the nation's "undesirables".