by Ron Millerhttp://regularfolksunited.com/index.php?tab=article_view&article_id=1943 The controversial comments made in a New York Times interview by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg concerning Roe vs. Wade speak a great deal to how morally bankrupt our nation has become. What - you say you're not aware of these comments? Well, my friends, that is part of the tale I have to tell you. Please read on.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times, Justice Ginsberg waxed eloquent on all things related to feminism. Near the end of the interview, she is asked about the Supreme Court upholding the Hyde Amendment which prohibits Medicaid funding for abortions:
Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae â€” 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 donâ€™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 didnâ€™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.
Justice Ginsberg is surprised the Court upheld the prohibition on Medicaid funding for abortions because a "woman of means" can afford an abortion but poor women can't. She thought Roe vs. Wade was enacted in part because of her perception of society's concern about overpopulation, "particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." The Court reached a decision that, in her view, would have the opposite impact.
I want to be careful here. I don't know from this interview if Justice Ginsberg agrees with the concept of using abortion to suppress population growth among "undesirables." She is speaking of the prevailing attitudes at the time. Clearly, the circles in which she traveled must have believed in abortion as targeted population control. The dictionary definition of such a policy is eugenics:
"Eugenics is 'the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).'"
Eugenics was the foundation of Nazi Germany's drive toward the "perfect race" which was achievable only by encouraging "good" Germans to procreate and eliminating "Lebensunwertes Leben" - life unworthy of life. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a leader of the American eugenics movement in the mid-20th century, advocating the use of sterilization, abortion and birth control to "stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence."
Eugenics has a toehold in America despite being publicly discredited after the Holocaust. One of every two black babies is aborted. Black women make up 13% percent of the female population but underwent over 36% of all abortions. Eighty percent of aborturaries are located in minority neighborhoods. 16 million black babies and counting have been murdered since Roe vs. Wade. I can recite these statistics by heart, and that to me is heartbreaking. Black pro-life advocates call abortion "black genocide" and what is maddening is our willing participation in our own destruction. Ms. Sanger's "Negro Project" is working:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
The other telling fact is had it not been for a conservative public relations consultant who is a friend of mine, I would not have known of Justice Ginsberg's statement. I did a news search and her statement was addressed prominently by pro-life and conservative websites, blogs and news outlets but largely ignored by the mainstream news media. Censorship? Hard to say. A lack of concern? Probably. Acquiescence? Frightening.
So here we have the most anti-life President in American history if the speed and scope of his policy changes regarding life are any indication. We have a sitting Supreme Court Justice casually discussing eugenics as a prevailing societal concept. We have a press that doesn't even blink at the horror of her words. Welcome to the brave new world.