Justice Ginsburg turns on the lights

In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the following about Roe v. Wade:  “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.”

Really?

The apologists on the left and in the SRM are already dismissing any criticism of Justice Ginsburg because (a) she’s a good northeastern ultra-liberal who’s not afraid to change the law to fit her ideology, and (b) well, there is no (b).  Of course she simply misspoke and you conservatives who are the only real racists should just move along, nothin’ to see here.

Or maybe there is.  And maybe the criticism should be more aptly aimed at a broader swath of the American left.

Filed in 1970 by “Jane Roe” (a.k.a. Norma McCorvey who now works to oppose the abortion “rights” her case helped create) Roe v. Wade was a lawsuit that ultimately led to the decision that “constitutionalized” abortion.  Roe is the title of several consolidated cases ultimately decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court.  Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the majority opinion, examined available scientific theory, recent Supreme Court precedent that had progressively elevated numerous new “rights” to the level of constitutional magnitude, and other stuff, and found [Eureka!] women have a previously unrecognized constitutional right to abort their babies.  You see, the actual rights written in the Constitution have “emanations” and “penumbras” that actually expand the rights in…oh, never mind.  The “living, breathing Constitution” is a discussion for another day.

It should come as no surprise, however, that liberal and socialist groups in the 1970s fully supported the challenge to Texas’ laws that were at issue in Roe outlawing abortion except if the mother’s life is in danger.  One such group that proudly trumpets its role in helping get Roe through is the American Civil Liberties Union.  The ACLU filed one of more than 40 amicus briefs supporting one or more of the consolidated cases.  An amicus brief is a “friend of the court” legal brief that argues in favor of a particular side of a case or issue, usually from an organization’s perspective.

Meanwhile, around the same time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was strongly establishing her radical liberal feminist ideology in her chosen field—the law.  As a professor at Rutgers Law School, Ginsburg founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first of its kind in the nation, and she began working with her local New Jersey ACLU chapter.  According to the organization’s website, Ginsburg founded the ACLU Women's Rights Project in 1972 in order to remove the “artificial barriers” between men and women.  She also served as the ACLU’s general counsel and successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court.

Ginsburg does not appear to have been involved in the ACLU’s work in Roe.  Indeed, she has actually questioned the reasoning in Justice Blackmun’s opinion, believing that a more convincing argument for abortion rights could be found under the prohibition against sex discrimination embodied in the Equal Protection Clause, rather than as a “personal liberty.”

So where does the belief that Roe was a eugenicists dream, as enunciated by Ginsburg in tomorrow’s interview, come from?  Given her high position in the ACLU in the early 1970s, it would be unusual for her not to know the activities of the organization (or similarly aligned groups) or the motives and beliefs behind them.  It’s no stretch, then, to conclude that the “concern” about population growth in “undesirable” populations was fostered in the groups who pushed for Roe. 

But, wait, it’s only conservatives that are racists, right?  Apparently not.  Liberals, or as they ironically like to be called, “progressives” pushed for Roe and the activist “progressives” on the Supreme Court authored and joined the opinion.  At the same time, conservatives like Justices William Rhenquist and Byron White dissented from Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe.  That would seem to bring Rhenquist and White squarely against the eugenics wing of the left. 

Remember, it is “progressives” are behind the radicalization of abortion law and policy, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide and other activities that show a disdain for innocent life.  Who wants public funding for abortions for poor people in America (who are disproportionately minorities) and other nations (i.e. in Africa)?  They also favor government policies that keep poor people in their place, make it harder for them to succeed on their own, and force them into more reliance on government help.

Let me clear:  I’m not saying Ginsburg is a racist.  She’s as much of a racist as is her very close friend, Justice Antonin Scalia.  In fact, in the same interview tomorrow she recognizes the wrongness of the concern about Roe she revealed.

Ginsburg’s comments simply offer an honest look into the racism and eugenics driving the institutional left’s public policy push.  If racism should be stamped out everywhere, there’s no better place to start than with those who piously claim to be “progressive” while demonizing and demagoguing those who dare to disagree.