Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

July 14, 2009

Abortion and Eugenics

Elections have consequences.

As do Supreme Court nominations. 

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

As empathy-queen Sotomayor sits in the hot seat, we’re reminded by this–er–savory bit from current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just why these grilling sessions are necessary; if only we could have weeded this out of Ginsburg before she was approved for the SCOTUS.

In an interview last week with NY Times Magazine’s Emily Brazelton, Justice Ginsburg offered this revealing comment regarding the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Huh, interesting.  And what populations would those be, Ms. Ginsburg?  Do tell.  Amazingly, hardly anyone has followed up and pressed her on this statement.  She went on to bemoan the fact that a 1980 Supreme Court decision didn’t require Medicaid to cover abortions.  In Ginsburg’s mind, it’s apparently the poor segments of the population we “don’t want too many of” and therefore taxpayers should foot the bill to eliminate their unwanted get.  Nice. 

And yes, folks, this philosophy has a name:  Eugenics.  And apparently Ginsburg ascribes to the eugenics philosphy.

There’s simply no other way to conclude otherwise. 

But this is in no way a stretch; research Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s views on population control and abortion’s role in it.  I’ve always maintained that radical, liberal pro-choicers, at heart, ascribe in one degree or another to a eugenics philosophy, otherwise we’d actually make some progress with the Planned Parenthoods in the nation when it comes to other options to abortion, like adoption.  When you look at the statistics of PP clinics who have actually referred a woman toward an adoption clinic, they’re barely there.  Yes, money has a lot to do with it; killing babies is very lucrative.  But there’s this ugly little mindset that the left has rightly pushed beneath the surface, but it’s there nonetheless.

Jonah Goldberg briefly looks at Ginsburg’s comments, here.   

And lest we think that this phenomenon is going away, please note Barack Obama’s latest pick for “Science Czar,” John Holden, whose own opinions closely reflect that of Ginsburg’s.  In a book he authored, he wrote:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

I don’t need to detail why each and every idea here is abhorrent.  But if you want some more sordid details on the person now in charge of Science in the United States, read this link.

Well, Ginsburg should be a little less disturbed should Obamacare pass, as it would cover abortions for all–especially those in “unwanted” populations. 

Lord, help us.



  1. Ginsburg should be concerned! She is getting old, afterall. I don’t expect “Obamacare” to be kind to the elderly, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see forced euthenasia. Afterall, the elderly are an unnecessary burden, are they not? They don’t work and don’t contribute much to society, but require billions of dollars in the aggregate just to extend their lives a few years. It’s not a big jump from abortion and eugenics to euthenasia.

    Comment by thenaturallawyer — July 14, 2009 @ 3:42 pm |Reply

  2. It isn’t fair how the Democrats are trying to paint the dissenting Republicans on Sotomayor’s nomination as racist or sexist.

    Comment by Al — July 15, 2009 @ 10:00 am |Reply

  3. Al: I certainly agree. The people who do so fail to recognize that just a few years ago the Republicans deeply wanted Miguel Estrada on the bench but he was blocked by the Dems. Those racist, bigoted anti-Hispanic Democrats! 🙂

    Comment by thenaturallawyer — July 16, 2009 @ 1:04 am |Reply

  4. Excellent post – will link.

    Lord have mercy is about right.


    Comment by Lone Star Parson — August 10, 2009 @ 3:00 pm |Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: