Comments on Advance Indiana™: Ginsburg's Stunning Bigoted View On Abortion: Feared "Growth In Populations That We Don't Want To Have Too Many Of"

I'm all for government funded sterilization. ...

2009-07-09T10:59:45.392-05:00

I'm all for government funded sterilization. Let's pay people $100 a pop to prevent conception!

Ginsburg blames the lack of federal funding of abo...

2009-07-09T08:56:54.712-05:00

Ginsburg blames the lack of federal funding of abortions as the problem; others would point to government policies which reward mothers who have children out-of-wedlock. I'm not sure that the availability of a free abortion would have stemmed the number of births among the poor, as she and others liberal thinkers preferred, given other government policies allowing an out-of-wedlock mother to receive free government housing, guaranteed welfare payments and free health care.

AI, You're exactly right about the Hyde Amend...

2009-07-09T07:47:12.919-05:00

AI,

You're exactly right about the Hyde Amendment. It received bipartisan support. There were plenty of Democrats who voted for it.

IPOPA, I reread the comment again, for the reason...

2009-07-09T07:45:32.948-05:00

IPOPA,

I reread the comment again, for the reason you cite. It's pretty clear that she was including herself in the group that shared that view.

Here's the key part of what she said: "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that WE don’t want to have too many of."

You see the "we?" She could have easily used "they," but she used "we" instead. That means she shares those views.

It's not exactly news that there are pro-abortion folks who are motivated by the bigotry of racism and classism. Certainly not all of them or the majority of them, but there are people out there for whom that is their motivation. That Ginsburg said that out loud is astonishing.

You can't tell me that if Scalia, Thomas or Roberts uttered such a statement there would not be a firestorm of people in the media demanding their resignations.

So you don't think people have strong moral objections to taxpayer money being used for abortion and that might be the overriding motivation for the Hyde Amendement instead of some strategy to keep poor women poor?

There is no misrepresenting her view, Chris Worden...

2009-07-09T07:40:06.208-05:00

There is no misrepresenting her view, Chris Worden. She is clearly perturbed that the government is not paying for abortion on demand through the Medicaid program. She knows the demographics, and she meant exactly what she said. And you are totally misinformed on the enactment of the Hyde Amendment. Yes, it was sponsored by a Republican, Henry Hyde of Illinois, but it drew widespread bipartisan support. Democrats controlled both chambers by wide margins at the time of its passage. I'll cut you some slack about your ignorance of the Hyde Amendment. I met one of Henry Hyde's daughters in Springfield at a bar when I worked for the legislature there. I brought up the Hyde Amendment during the conversation. No kidding, she thought it was a constitutional amendment. She had no clue what the Hyde Amendment was. I was too embarrassed for her to correct her.

And remember. This nomination was confirmed on a ...

2009-07-09T07:14:32.309-05:00

And remember. This nomination was confirmed on a unanimous vote by a Republican controlled Senate.

Of course, that was back when the Senate understood "advise and consent".

Under today's rules, one would expect she wouldn't even make it out of the Judiciary Committee (if it were Republican controlled, of course).

You have COMPLETELY misconstrued Justice Ginsburg&...

2009-07-09T06:30:53.568-05:00

You have COMPLETELY misconstrued Justice Ginsburg's comment! She wasn't saying that was HER view. She was hypothesizing about some of the forces she believed helped give rise to the Medicaid funding provision. Plus, YOU are the one who makes the leap that it was a racial thing. Call me crazy, but I'm not keen on women, regardless of race, who cannot afford the kids they have now having more. Apparently, you are. But the difference between the two of us apparently is that I'd at least let the women have a choice, and so would Justice Ginsberg.

The reason we know you are wrong about her remarks is because if you read your OWN post it is clear that her point is that children are costly, and that if you, by virtue of cost, effectively have it only available for rich people, we will have more women stay broke.

The Hyde Amendment was nothing more than just another effort by the Republican Party to keep poor women poor, so that it can legislate morality from its wealthy perches.

This is the same thing they do now around the globe. We have massive population explosions in 3rd world countries, and yet there the Republican Party stands, conditioning every bit of foreign aid on the complete exclusion of family planning services.

Take the log out of your party. Then we'll talk about bigotry.