It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Designed to Limit Populations That We Don't Want to Have Too Many Of

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM

Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don't Want to Have Too Many Of'...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tells New York Times Magazine she thought the Roe v. Wade decision was intended to diminish "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

[edit on 10-7-2009 by MOFreemason]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM
Just when I thought today's news headlines couldn't possibly get any more bizarre...

...Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg has recently been making some very brash comments to the public media. Long considered an unofficial no-no for any Supreme Court judge to hint toward their politics (unless giving presentations to law school students), Ginsburg has felt free to be more candid.

Some pundants believe it is to help provide a safety screen for Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor, who will begin Congressional hearings next week. Ginsburg was said to give a full exclusive to the New York Times magazine set for publication this Sunday, but her comments became available online today.

Either way, very shocking comments from one of our highest judges in the country.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
Here's a more detailed portion of her interview with the New York Times magazine, that will be distributed Sunday:

Here’s a transcript of that portion of the Times' interview:

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. 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 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.”

The comment suggested Ginsburg eventually changed her mind and concluded that Roe was not decided with the idea that abortion could be used to limit "growth in populations we don't want to have too many of." But she did not qualify her position that the policy enacted under the case put an unacceptable burden on poor women.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:29 PM
I thought this story would generate more interest, but surprisingly it hasn't.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:41 PM
This is essentially what Richard Nixon had said concerning babies of mixed ethnicity wasn't it ?

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:16 PM
I don't care what judge Ginsburg first thought. Roe v Wade had absolutely nothing to do with diminishing "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

I know Sarah Weddington very well. For those who don't know the name, she and Linda Coffee represented "Jane Roe" in the landmark Roe v. Wade case in the United States Supreme Court.
Sarah fought the battle because she believed that a woman's body did not belong to a court, or to a man. That each woman should have the right to make her own decision regarding her body and whether to reproduce. Nothing more.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:40 PM
How uncalled for! A supreme court judge letting the entire world know her political views on one of the most controversial cases in history? How can anyone expect her to rule according to the letter of the law after hearing that. Roe v. Wade was never about population control and all about women's rights.

I think this goes to show that it's not just liberal judges who can be labeled as "activist judges". You can't tell me that only liberal judges let their personal views get in the way of their duty to adhere to the constitution.

No one forces women to have abortions. In fact, I was just reading a woman's blog yesterday who is a volunteer for Planned Parenthood clinics and frequently gives referrals to women who come in to find out if they are pregnant and then decide to have an abortion. What really got to me was that she said she has had MANY women sit in front of her and say, "I don't believe in abortion, but I CANNOT have this baby". She refuses to give them a referral after that. Now I'm not sure if I agree with this part but she won't give them the referral unless they can basically see how hypocritical they are being. She said she has only had two women in her many years ever decide that she's right and chose not to get the referral. And a third woman told her she was right but then came back the next day and saw another volunteer who wasn't so strict and got a referral to an abortion doctor.

I am of the feeling that I don't think it should be illegal but I would never have one. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in that position.

My point is that even women who are adamantly against abortion will chose to have one because they feel so desperate and suddenly they believe their right to chose outweighs their moral convictions.

So you see, it's most obviously not about population control.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by MOFreemason

Word! Someone with that mindset doesn't need to be on the bench. And what group of people are they referring to? Poor people? Middle class? White/black? The msm where all over the Hispanic judge let's see if this gets any air time.

2nd line, hehe.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 05:52 PM
Have you guys ever read the book "Freakonomics"? It has a very clear correlation between the passing of Roe v. Wade and the corresponding drop in the crime rate. It was very interesting, completely backed by numerical data. Just wondering if anyone else picked up on it.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 06:37 PM
Please use the original thread to continue this discussion:

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many

Thread Closed.

top topics


log in