Where does Ruth Bader Ginsburg stand on eugenics?

[Rasp]

Where does Ruth Bader Ginsburg stand on eugenics?

By Jonah Goldberg

Here's what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

said in Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from interviewer Emily Bazelon

or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 ba
rred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had "too many of," you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.

Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade, or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Justice Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.

Regardless, Ginsburg is certainly right that abortion has deep roots in the historic effort to "weed out" undesired groups. For instance, Margaret Sanger, the revered feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist of the first order. Even more perplexing: She's become a champion of "reproductive freedom" even though she proposed a "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children," under which "no woman s
hall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit." (Poor blacks would have had a particularly hard time getting such licenses from Sanger.)

If Ginsburg does see eugenic culling as a compelling state interest, she'd be in fine company on the court. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a passionate believer in such things. In 1915, Holmes wrote in the Illinois Law Review that the "starting point for an ideal for the law" should be the "coordinated human effort ... to build a race."

In 1927, he wrote a letter to his friend Harold Laski, telling him, "I ... delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day — and felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform." That was the year he wrote the majority opinion in Buck v. Bell (joined by Louis Brandeis) holding that forcibly sterilizing lower-class women was constitutional. In recent years, openly discussing the notion of eugenic aspects of abortion has become taboo. But as Ginsb
urg's comments suggest, the taboo hasn't eliminated the idea; it's merely sent it underground.

To be sure, some heterodox liberals speak up. The writer Nicholas von Hoffman has written: "Free, cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don't want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster."

In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — aka "the abortion pill" — to market as quickly as possible.

"You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country," Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don't want. "It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.... Think of all the poverty, crime
and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

Weddington offered a clue about whom, in particular, he had in mind: "For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime." Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it.

Unlike Bazelon, I would like to know whether Ginsburg believes there were — or are — some populations in need of shrinking through abortion and whether she thinks such considerations have any place at the Supreme Court.

And while we're at it, it would be interesting to know what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks about such things.

 

[Rasp]

Justice Ginsburg In Context

By Michael Gerson

There was a scandal this week concerning the Supreme Court, though it didn't concern the nomination of its newest member.

The New York Times Magazine printed a candid interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, including this portion:

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 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."

A statement like this should not be taken out of context. The context surrounding this passage is a simplistic, pro-choice rant. Abortion, in Ginsburg's view, is an essential part of sexual equality, thus ending all ethical debate. "There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to be so obvious," she explains. "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." Of pro-lifers, she declares, "They're fighting a losing battle" -- which must come as discouraging news to litigants in future abortion cases that come before the high court.

Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to h
ave too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?

It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables. Neither judge nor journalist apparently found this attitude exceptional; there was no follow-up question.

At the very least, Ginsburg displays a disturbing insensitivity to Supreme Court history. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote the 1927 decision approving forced sterilization for Carrie Buck -- a 17-year-old single mother judged to be feebleminded and morally delinquent. "It is better for all the world," ruled Holmes, "if instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." Such elitism has been discredited; it is not extinct.

The entire Ginsburg interview is a reminder of the risks of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Immune from criticism, surrounded by plump cushions of deference, the temperament of a justice can become exaggerated over time. For Ginsburg, complex arguments are now "so obvious" and "can never be otherwise" -- and opposition is fated to failure. Such statements, made during Ginsburg's own nomination hearing, would have been disqualifying. Now she doesn't give a damn.

Her timing, however, is instructive. Ginsburg made her remarks as Sonia Sotomayor is emphasizing her poor and minority roots. In the past, Sotomayor has argued that her background as a Latina brings special insight and empathy -- a humanizing, bottom-up perspective on life and law. This is true in life, where her Puerto
Rican experience offers many lessons. It should not be true in applying the law, where the goal is objectivity -- as Sotomayor herself has now backtracked to acknowledge.

But there is another view of the disadvantaged found on the left (and not only on the left). Instead of especially valuing the experience of the disadvantaged, some hope that public policy can thin their ranks. This is no longer pursued through the eugenic decrees that Holmes admired but through the advocacy of Medicaid abortions.

It is estimated that the Hyde Amendment limiting Medicaid abortions has saved 1 million lives since its passage in 1976 -- some, no doubt, became criminals and some, perhaps, lawyers and judges. It is a defining question for modern liberalism: Are these men and women "populations that we don't want to have too many of" or are they citizens worthy of justice and capable of contribution?

 

[Rasp]

A Smoking Gun — But with a Silencer

By Ken Blackwell

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently unburdened herself to the New York Times:

“Yes, the ruling [in Harris v. McRae that the federal government does not have to pay for elective abortions] 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.”�

Here, if ever there was one, is a smoking gun. Here is confirmation of what pro-lifers have long maintained — that liberal abortion is, in Jesse Jackson’s words, “black genocide.”� Or did Justice Ginsburg simply mean the poor, in general?
Are they the population we don’t want too many of?

Could she have been describing children of prisoners? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once approved the forcible sterilization of an innocent person in Virginia saying -- infamously -- “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”� Might Ginsburg be referring to with disabilities? Let her explain if that’s who she means. Exactly who does Justice Ginsburg think is a “population we don’t want too many of?”� Shouldn’t she be required to give a full explanation of this despicable phrase?

Thirty-three years ago, Republican Ag Secretary Earl Butz told a dirty joke that ridiculed black Americans. He was forced to resign -- and perhaps should have been. Twenty-five years ago Republican Interior Secretary James Watt described his advisory board as “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.”� Watt was forced to resign -- and purpose should have been. Then, Republicans joined the chorus of denunciations.

Will liberals now demand Ginsbur
g’s resignation? Justice Ginsburg, so far, has gotten away with a far more offensive statement. What she means is that these “populations we don’t want too many of”� should be killed before they are born. That’s what she said abortion is for. She says she was surprised by the Supreme Court’s 1980 opinion in Harris v. McRae that Medicaid funds did not have to go for abortions because she seems to have thought getting rid of these undesirable populations was the whole point of Roe v. Wade.

This is not letting the cat out of the bag. Ginsburg has let a man-eating tiger out of the bag. Justcie (sic) Ginsburg’s statement is not just an offensive, racist joke. This is not just a callous reference to disabled people, this is life and death. Ginsburg lines up on the side of death.

Why has there been no uproar in the liberal press? Why no demands for Ginsburg to step down? This smoking gun has a silencer attached. Oh, she was talking about abortion. That makes it all OK.

Her office wi
ll probably clean up all the rhetorical blood on the ground and issue a clarification. They’ll probably say the Justice misspoke, that she was really expressing her concern that these “populations”� would be underserved by the cutoff in Medicaid funding.

When you read the entire quote, don’t forget: There are whole segments of America that Justice Ginsburg thinks we’d be better off without. Not just criminals. They’re not the ones accessing Medicaid. Her deadly sweep includes the poor, minorities, many people in Appalachia, some people with disabilities. It’s a large and growing list that Justice Ginsburg thinks “we don’t want too many of.”�

This smoking gun will only be silenced if you remain silent. Let’s speak up against the lethal logic of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and liberal abortion. When we call our highest judges “Justice,”� shouldn’t we cry out when they become instead advocates for injustice?