It Took Her Over 3 Years, but, Justice Ginsburg Backtracks From Racist Abortion Comments.......[of coarse she meant it the first time!]

Justice Ginsburg Backtracks From Racist Abortion Comments

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/23/12 12:31 PM
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made comments about the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.
Roe is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that, along with Doe v. Bolton, allowed virtually unlimited abortions for any reason throughout pregnancy.
Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and followed it up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“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,” she said then.
Reporter Emily Bazelon then asked Ginsburg a question about what she meant and Ginsburg responded that the 1980 Harris v. McRae ruling upholding the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions, surprised her.
“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,” Ginsburg said.
Now, Bazelon has written a follow up article, in which she reports Ginsburg “made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races).”
“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” Ginsbug said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”
So predictable. When things go south for the repukes, they can always fall back on the old reliable saw: the abortion wars.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz
Ruth was right. We need to have more abortions performed so we have fewer of the wrong kind of people living among us who cause trouble and are lazy, shiftless and living off the system......some of you pro-lifers might say it's the murder of innocent human life, but I say "so what?" They would just be inconvenient to their families and society and we're being proactive about removing vermin.......
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 11-07-2012, 11:42 AM
So predictable. When things go south for the repukes, they can always fall back on the old reliable saw: the abortion wars.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz Originally Posted by timpage
of "coarse"
Ruth was right. We need to have more abortions performed so we have fewer of the wrong kind of people living among us who cause trouble and are lazy, shiftless and living off the system......some of you pro-lifers might say it's the murder of innocent human life, but I say "so what?" They would just be inconvenient to their families and society and we're being proactive about removing vermin....... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Look at the little toad, throwing his childish, foolish, incohert, diarrhea-flowing of the mouth off.

Sadly there is a lot of work to be done, by both sides. There was no real mandate made by last night's election. Politicans on both sides need to stop being politicans and attempt to be leaders...on BOTH sides.

Talking Heads' song "Same as it ever was" should not be the theme of this election.

First step, is for both sides to eliminate the "extremist" views on both sides, and understand nobody is going to get 100% of what they want.

We have our share of extremist on the left...this clown is a perfect example of the right.

Both extreme sides need to be neuter...
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater