Last week I read of Justice Ginsburg's horrifying statement about her views on Roe v Wade. Her response is the sort of thing that "right wing conspirators" toss around about the true motives behind abortion and frequently those people get called "right wing conspirators". Is it a conspiracy if it is the truth? If this was truly her understanding of the purpose of Roe v Wade, and for years she remained silent about it, I do not believe it is too great of a stretch to suggest that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an extremely vile racist human being and guilty of many things, including deriliction of her duty as a Supreme Court Justice. [I get called racist frequently because of my opposition to the policies of the Obama administration so I do not use the word racist lightly]
From Catholic Fire
Emily Bazellon of the New York Times Magazine conducted an interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled “The Place of Women on the Court” which appeared in its’ July 7, 2009 issue.
Justice Ginsburg was amazingly candid about her support of unrestricted abortion. In response to a particular question she supported even eugenics as a legitimate reason for a woman “choosing” to take the developing human life growing in her womb.
Here is an excerpt:
Q If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: 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: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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.(emphasis added)
Read the entire article here.This is so sick! And someone like this is on the Supreme Court? Lord, have mercy! Related Information:LifeSiteNews.Com: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through AbortionWorldNetDaily: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirablesWhat Does The Prayer Really Say? Justice Ginsberg originally thought Roe v Wade was about control of undesirable populations
On the other hand these 19 members of Congress are standing up to Madame Speaker and insist that she remove abortion completely from the health care reform legislation and they deserve at least a phone call of encouragement...and yes I do know that one of them is John Murtha. But, for me, the defense of life is the top priority.
From Creative Minority Report
Dear Honorable Pelosi:As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked. Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families.
Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.
Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.
Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request. By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.
Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).