• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Ginsburg Said What about Roe?

    ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus

    Buried in Tuesday’s New York Times interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

    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.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to Ginsburg Said What about Roe?

    1. Chris Reilly, Seattl says:

      Eugenics has been part of feminism and the progressive movement (now labeled liberalism) since Margaret Sanger. They think they know better than we do how we should live our lives. And, they are confused enough to think they know whose lives aren't worth living.

    2. Brian, WA says:

      'populations that we don't want to have too many of'?!

    3. Steph, MN says:

      I'm not surprised, the whole "pro-choice" movement was based on eugenics and elimination of "undesirables." All one has to do is look at the writings of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. She wanted to eradicate non-whites, the poor, and the disabled.

    4. Steven D. Morton says:

      This seems to expose the bias that is common with many elite liberals. Why minorities continue to support a party that uses them to obtain power, and uses that power to keep them in poverty and dependency, is beyond me

    5. Pingback: Ginsburg Said What about Roe? « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    6. dennis sculimbrene says:

      Am I correct that the the plaintiff who was known as ROE, eventually wanted to retract her suit due to a change in mind. I wonder why Justice Ginsburg did not mention this? And was the support given to passing Roe favored by many who felt Roe would limit the birth of minorities, and women's rights were the seondary issue. This reminds me of the Civil War. Millions were slaughtered on both sides in an alledged defense of the Union (The Consitution was ratified because States were granted the right to suceed and have slavery). Conception, except in rare cases, involving rape or incest, requires two partners. Current laws regarding paternity and maternity apply to both sexes. How did the court ever decide that one of the actors in creating a conception does not have any rights?

    7. jim smith says:

      Ginsburg is just another tired, old and probably sick liberal, who, like most Washington insiders, remains diligent in out-of-step politics. Sometimes I think it's a gift until the fertilizer hits the wind turbine.

    8. ame, PA says:

      People seem to forget that the original supporters of abortion – Sanger, most notable – were doing so in the hopes of limiting the population of races they deemed unfit, and that the current abortion law is poorly written and could be challenged on that merit, but I don't advocate that. I understand that some abortions are necessary and that my moral objection to abortion cannot be foisted on others, BUT abortions must be very limited and the public should never have to pay for them – and Americans should never have to pay aid to other countries to cover their own abortions – Ginsburg is not the brightest bulb on the Court and the addition of Sotomayor will really drag on the intellectual prowess of many of the other Judges there – Sotomayor will be a disaster for all Americans – she is an Obama ideologue,an empathizer and that means prejudice, not blind justice – she is not a Constitutional scholar or supporter of our American liberties. Sotomayor is another class-warfare Democrat like Ginsburg and Souter —- AND geeze louiseeze, Obama demands infants born of botched abortions be killed! Where is the law preventing that and where is the outcry from the American people!!!!! Abortion is terrible, Obama's killing of infants born alive of botched abortions is murder!! And Ginsburg says nothing about that –

    9. Mike Rapkoch, Billin says:

      How to moderate this without am expletive? "Unwanted populations?" The left has openly declared there are genocidal philosophies and supporters in its midst and they are the poor, unwanted, minorities…it makes a grown man want to weep. I know that eugenics has always been either an explicit or implicit goal of the left; how could it not be so for advocates of egalitarianism. But to be this brazen is nonetheless shocking and deeply troubling.

      Yet, in this country it has, at least since the civil war, been the left that has treated blacks, hispanics, latinos and other "undesireables" as less human.

      The implicit foundation of the welfare state is that many persons, races, are so "beneath the line" that government must support them–until it can erase them–and abortion, where the majority of killing centers are located in or near low income neighborhoods, is being used for this purpose. Dr. Alveda King has amply demonstrated the bigotry and genocidal goals of abortion purveyors and their political, academic, etc. supporters.

      And I still want to weep.

    10. Pat, Vancouver WA says:

      This is not surprising to me, as the "zero population" crowd of the 50s is now the liberals of today. For a current example of this "get rid of undesirables" mind set, look at how Sarah Palin was treated by liberals because she gave life to her Down's Syndrome child.

      The day is coming, if we continue the path we are on, when the powers that be will decide which children will be born and which will not.

    11. greatgrammaT says:

      Gee where might we be if Ginsburg, Obama, Hillary, and many of their ilk had mothers who didn't want them and had an abortion…are they ticked because THEY were born or what IS their problem exactly….Has Alveda ever had the opportunity to share with Obama about the reality of the goal of planned parenthood oh, I mean "banned parenthood." Those Dumocrates!

    12. Daver Ft. Worth says:

      Tragic and yet interesting!

      All US citizens and especially minorities are to be aborted as frequently as possible. Yet foreign born minorities are to be welcomed, sponsored, etc..

      Talk about outsourcing of jobs…

      Guess we should expect to see enhanced foreign aid for welfare moms coming?

    13. Margaret Mueller, CA says:

      So, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-California)and Democrat House members , Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California)and Democrat Senators, and President Obama (D-Illinois) all agree that women's reproductive rights should be protected (especially if they, in their opinion, are minorities who reproduce too rapidly anyway) BUT Americans of all ethnicities should relinquish medical CHOICE to the GOVERNMENT bureacrats and their value judgments (i.e., you're old, your life expectancy is eight more years, so we're going to decline your prostate treatment).

      Do you really want Government-run health care? Ask Native Americans who were forced to have hysterectomies when they were teens by the American Government-run Indian Health system. Ask Oregonians denied health treatment in 2008, but offered euthanasia. Visit a Veterans Administration hospital and find out if our veterans get timely care.

    14. Ross, Bradenton, Flo says:

      What race does Justice Ginsburg and the abortionist want to limit population growth because there will too many of them? …Medicaid? That sounds like a very racist view to me.

    15. Angel, Ohio says:

      She is one scary woman!!! She is obviously experiencing some sort of dementia because a sane person wouldn’t make such ignorant comments. or, Did I misunderstand — that is what liberal judges normally sound like?

      Where do they find these people? Amazing and Appalling!

    16. Edward Foster says:

      Justice Ginsburg must have studied Mein Kampf in law school. Heil Hitler!

    17. Katy, Delaware says:

      It's O.K. if a "Progressive" says it. The other "Progressives" will just say, "Well, what she meant by that is…" and then make some inane comment.

    18. Gary, Norfolk, VA says:

      Madam Justice,

      Could you be more specific on the "populations" that you deem undesirable? It appears that soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor (sadly, its all over but the crying) may share some of your racist predispositions! Personally, I am glad you are vacating your position.

      G-man

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×