Here is Ed Whelan's post on NRO's "the corner" blog, about which April is commenting: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sotomayor and Abortion for Undesired 'Populations':
2. Speaking of something that maybe “didn’t get out quite right” (but maybe did): As part of her broad-ranging discussion of abortion, Ginsburg offers this, er, interesting comment why the Court’s 1980 decision in Harris v. McRae, which ruled that the Hyde Amendment’s exclusion of nontherapeutic abortions from Medicaid reimbursement was constitutionally permissible, “surprised” her: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.Gee, Justice Ginsburg, would you like to tell us more about your views on those populations that “we don’t want to have too many of”?
Here is the New York Times Magazine article in which Ginsburg's interesting comment is reported: The Place of Women on the Court
Now, of course, none of this is *news;* none of this is something which we just didn't happen to know previously about the abortion regime. What's newsworthy is that Ginsburg slipped up and admitted the truth which we all knew. That's a serious "gaffe" in politics.
7 comments:
there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
Through the 1970's, the "chattering classes" were obsessed by overpopulation.
Population growth among the poorer sections of society was an increasing burden on the provision of Health, Education, and Social Security.
It is thus quite clear who the "population we don't want too many of" is.
It appears that Ginsburg interpreted the Roe v. Wade ruling as the administration clearing the way for the provision of abortions for the poor, 'on demand', on Medicaid. (Nixon was president, and his appointee wrote the Court's ruling.)
(Of course, if you were a paranoid Democrat, you could also see it as the Republicans removing your future voters. But then why would another Republican spoil such a cunning plan?)
Hi again, Ilion. Good to see you in action. Mind if I add your link to my own site?
Or would the association hurt your "cred."
I'm not as knowledgable as you on most items regarding the arguments you seem to get tangled with over at Reppert's site and with Beast Rabban, but I AM trying!
Ah yes. As ict558 says, those were the days of Paul Ehrlich and the population bomb and off little proffys at State colleges asking you if (due to global warming) you want a gondola ride to the Empire State Building, etc, etc.
The late Julian Simon showed Erhlics junk to be just what it was.
But yeah we get left with the Chatter Class deeming "levels" of human populations.
No doubt this class considers IT'S opinions and contributions to society to be above that of mortal men.
I have no cred to be hurt; and why would I imagine that you would hurt it, had I any: link away.
In fact, I have so little cred that one of the persons who had (suggested to me and)encouraged me to start my own blog has decided that I'm a racist.
As someone who suggested you start your own blog, all I can say is I'm glad I did. You've resulted in interesting reading to say the least.
Incidentally, this is the anon from Reppert's blog who you suggested to get an actual handle for commenting.
Thanks, Crude. I appreciate that.
Still, you're not quite keeping up your side of the (admittedly, unspoken) agreement: to either offer me substantive critiques ... or tell me how excellent-as-is the post is. ;)
ps, and more seriously: And aren't you glad you're no longer a mere Anonymous?
I think it's a good post, but really, Ginsburg rather handed herself over on a silver platter on this one. And the entire abortion debate tends to involve elaborate, strange dances by pro-aborts who are striving desperately to ignore multiple elephants in the room.
As for no longer being an anon - I guess it's alright. Less confusing, since I had a habit of arguing with other anons as an anon, which always causes headaches. ;)
Post a Comment