Population Control? If Only!

July 10, 2009

View as Single Page

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently revealed in an interview from the forthcoming Sunday New York Times Magazine that she originally believed Roe v. Wade to be a form of population control, meant to diminish ?populations that we don?t want to have too many of.? CNSNews.com reports:

Ginsburg discussed her surprise at the outcome of Harris v. McRae, a 1980 decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of Medicaid and other federal funds for abortions.

Here?s a transcript of that portion of the Times’ interview:

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. 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 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.?

Some commentators on the right are celebrating this apparent revelation, claiming that many abortioneers are racist for supporting population control. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and controversial supporter of negative eugenics, comes to mind.

Dare I prefer that argument? If, indeed, leftist supporters of abortion were advocating the removal of those nasty little breathing fetal tumors in order to preserve a stable American population (which, of course, they are not) at least we would be discussing the importance of populations in America! As it stands now millions of unborn are slaughtered for abstract nonsense like “choice” and “autonomy over one’s body.” Wouldn’t we prefer the injection of a little “national interest” into the discussion?

In all seriousness, abortion is an aberration of the worst kind. But imagine, if you can, an abortion lobby that would reject platitudinal nonsense and instead discuss the importance of dying populations in America, like brilliant thinkers occasionally have.

Something tells me that if population control was the concern of abortion doctors and not the concern of the Minute Men, it would be a little less racist and a little more common sense.

SUBSCRIBE
For Email Updates