I really hate to keep harping on this same issue, but each day I see more and more information that steadily confirms my thought. This particular story was in fact broken last week, but I didn’t realize what was truly said just by reading the headline. It seems that the shortest of the black robed deities had a little slip of the tongue in an interview. Justice Ginsburg admitted that this whole time she thought Roe vs. Wade was really about population control and design(i.e. eugenics). The quote:
Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “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 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 barred 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.
I hope you appreciate the magnitude of Ginsburg’s admission. She just confessed what we have all known for decades. The end game for abortion is not women’s rights. It’s eugenics. Sure, at a very local level you’re going to have any number of so-called useful idiots that carry out the actual abortions under the illusion of women’s choice. But at the top of the movement, where the elites control the purse strings and set the agenda, it’s all about population control. To them, the poor are not to be helped. They are to be extinguished. Abortion has been the weapon of choice ever since forced sterilization got a bad rap under Hitler. Before the Nazi’s were so blatant about it there were many influential people that were vocal supporters of sterilization. I listed some of them in my first post on this subject. Woodrow Wilson was one. As well as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Jonah Goldberg talks about Oliver Wendell Holmes, who’m I had been unaware of in this regard:
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 vs. 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 Ginsburg’s comments suggest, the taboo hasn’t eliminated the idea; it’s merely sent it underground.
I’ll try to move on to a different subject tommorrow I promise. But, in the mean time please just stop falling for the standard media line about all this stuff. Modern liberalism is just a tamed version of Progressivism, and progressivism has always been about eugenics. Is it so hard to accept the fact that some people are evil enough to want power over the life and death of others on a grand scale? I don’t think that’s hard to believe at all. In fact, I think that when we look at history it’s pretty darn obvious.