SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg slips

Attempting to sell a lie as truth can become difficult at times:

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. [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. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having 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.

So... according to a liberal Supreme Court Justice, the Roe v. Wade decision had nothing to do with a woman's right to choose and everything to do with controlling population growth and particularly growth of that portion of the population that "we don't want to have too many of".

There's your empathy on the court people.

I can't wait to see Obama asked by the press what he thinks about Ginsburg's comments.  Just don't hold your breath until it happens though.

H/T The Deacon's Bench.

Comments

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

"I can't wait to see Obama asked by the press what he thinks about Ginsburg's comments"

Why Rick? He'll just resort to his tried and true playbook of a.)Saying the complete opposite of what was said or b.) Some nonsensical BS answer that drags on for 5 minutes that has little or nothing to do with what Ginsberg said.

Everyone in the media audience will smile; the people at home will think "Wow, he's so articulate" and it will all be forgotten.

Case closed.

Sorry to be so cynical but I'm just calling it like I see it.

[dymphna]

I went over to the NYT interview to read the whole thing. Since I don't agree with the liberal bent of this Justice, I wasn't impressed. OTOH, the interviewer has met with her many times. Thus the atmosphere of the whole Q&A was most sympathetic.

And the old "women have to do more housework than men do" canard was dragged out, dusted off and set on the mantel to go over one more time.

This woman wants it both ways: women are equal to men; women are better than men.

In the interview she thought it was an advantage to have a woman justice coming aboard whose native language wasn't English. That is an advantage in what way?

Heck, if they're going to use that as a virtue, how about a few Latvians for consideration?

This woman is so unbalanced in her thinking (and so predictable in her leanings) it's amazing she can walk upright.

As for her interlocutor's failure to pick up on what she said -- quelle surprise! This was a cheerleading session, not a serious interview.

Ginsburg just shows her old Planned Parenthod philosophy. Don't forget that Margaret Sanger was/is their patron saint. And that woman was a radical preacher of eugenics, especially when it came to black people and the "feeble-minded".

If she had ever been seriously questioned on these issues in her confimation hearings, it would have been amazing. But the invertebrates among the Republicans wouldn't dare stir the water.

Their lack of spine is dismaying. Her views are disgusting. Or vice versa.

[chuck aka XtnYoda]

dymphna wrote:

Don't forget that Margaret Sanger was/is their patron saint. And that woman was a radical preacher of eugenics, especially when it came to black people and the "feeble-minded".

Just don't want anyone to miss this that dymphna said... let me say it another way... what Ginsburg said is absolutely the TRUTH! It's just funny that she let it slip out... but that was exactly the purpose of abortion on demand in this country.

[buck]

Abortion, is how we handled our dog or cat when it had a litter. Putnem in a bucket of water and drown them.
It's the same way people should handle a child birth.
I think a mother should have to keep her baby until she could get up and then kill it if she doesn't want it.
She could make the choice then, and she would kill it, by drowning. Just like they did in the old days, No big deal If you did decide you liked it, ya just kept it. No Doctor fees.
Abortion, sound kind of sick when explained this way, but same difference. When you drown them, they don't make a sound. Just wiggle and gasp for air for a short time, then their dead.