Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by the New York Times Magazine this weekend and made a comment about Roe v. Wade that has me thinking this woman embraces Progressivism all the way to its eugenics core. Ginsburg claimed that the decision was made in Roe v. Wade because the Supreme Court’s majority had a desire to stall “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” The question that Ginsburg was asked when she made this unbelievable comment was, “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’s full response to the question was: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. 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 to 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 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.” The McRae case was a decision that prohibited the use of Medicaid or any federal funds for abortions. The reasoning of Ginsburg seems to be that she thinks the government would want to fund abortions so that poor women could have access to them – not just because she thinks a woman has a right to choose – but because the government thinks babies born to the poor are of a population we do not desire to have grow.
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).” This was a science embraced by the Progressive Movement that started around the time of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. The idea that Wilson and his administration would fund abortions for the poor is very plausible. But would the government at the time that Roe v. Wade was decided embrace eugenics? That would be 1973 and Richard Nixon was president. I hardly think that Nixon would have supported such a notion. So what exactly was Ginsburg trying to say with her comment? Is this possibly something that she would support if it were brought before the Court? Would she support it just so that poor women would have access to abortions or would she have other reasons as well? Keep in mind that Ginsburg during her confirmation hearings supported a stance on abortion that would allow for no state restrictions on abortion. Currently, Roe v. Wade restricts abortion on babies that would be viable outside the womb. Sounds like Ginsburg and Obama share opinions about abortion.
Ginsburg also stated her support of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice during the interview. A Justice has never before endorsed a nominee to the court. It would seem that this interview puts into question the judgement of Ginsburg – a Supreme Court Justice! If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Court – which I have no doubt will happen – we can expect much of the same from her as well since she will have the loftier judgement of a latina woman.