The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

July 9, 2009 Chris Reilly, Seattle writes:

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.

July 9, 2009 Brian, WA writes:

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

July 9, 2009 Steph, MN writes:

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.

July 9, 2009 Ginsburg Said What about Roe? « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity writes:

[...] Ginsburg Said What about Roe? Posted in Heritage.com by nhiemstra on July 9, 2009 via: Heritage [...]

July 9, 2009 Steven D. Morton writes:

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

July 10, 2009 dennis sculimbrene writes:

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?

July 10, 2009 jim smith writes:

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.

July 10, 2009 ame, PA writes:

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 -

July 10, 2009 Mike Rapkoch, Billings, Montana writes:

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.

July 10, 2009 Pat, Vancouver WA writes:

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.

July 10, 2009 greatgrammaT writes:

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!

July 10, 2009 Daver Ft. Worth writes:

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?

July 10, 2009 Margaret Mueller, CA writes:

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.

July 10, 2009 Angel, Ohio writes:

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!

July 10, 2009 Ross, Bradenton, Florida writes:

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.

July 12, 2009 Edward Foster writes:

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

July 13, 2009 Katy, Delaware writes:

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.

July 14, 2009 Gary, Norfolk, VA writes:

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