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 don’t know why this hasn’t 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 — 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.
So Ruth Bader Ginsberg admits that RvW was entirely about killing people "that we don't want to have too many of."
Like, poor people. Like, black people. Like, Trig Palin. Like, the kind of people who can't get into Harvard or Yale.
Like, me. (I'm the eighth of nine kids.)
In any sane society she would be tried at Nuremberg.
Risen Christ have mercy.
ADDENDUM JULY 12, 2009
In the U.K., the Telegraph asks: What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?
We KNOW what she meant--poor white trash and black people need to be dead at public expense.
Why didn't the well-known political blog "The New York Times" trumpet their own story?
The Telegraph's answer makes sense: "[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."
One remembers Traudl Junge, Hitler's personal secretary, at the close of the movie Downfall:
Of course, the terrible things I heard from the Nuremberg Trials, about the six million Jews and the people from other races who were killed, were facts that shocked me deeply. But I wasn't able to see the connection with my own past. I was satisfied that I wasn't personally to blame and that I hadn't known about those things. I wasn't aware of the extent. But one day I went past the memorial plaque which had been put up for Sophie Schöll in Franz Josef Strasse, and I saw that she was born the same year as me, and she was executed the same year I started working for Hitler. And at that moment I actually sensed that it was no excuse to be young, and that it would have been possible to find things out.
It is also no excuse to be a leftist journalist--particularly when finding things out is your damned job.
But Ms. Junge has another insight for them: "I believe now that you can stimulate your conscience, help it fall asleep, and manipulate it."