Democrats have recently spent quite a bit of time implying that Republicans and conservatives shouldn’t get to have an opinion on abortion because we don’t understand women. This conversation has gone so far as to even suggest that some of our Supreme Court judges shouldn’t get a say on abortion/birth control cases because they do not have a uterus.
Senate ML Harry Reid on SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling: “It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”
— Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) June 30, 2014
Trending: What’s Wrong with Liberals?
Mollie Hemingway from the Federalist just noticed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg giving her opinion on eugenics… again.
Several years ago Justice Ginsburg gave an interview with the New York Times Magazine where she said this.
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.
Sounds a lot like a modern day Margaret Sanger, no?
Here’s Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) from Woman and the New Race.
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
Well, Ginsburg just gave another interview – this time to Elle Magazine – where she reiterated those remarks and carried them even further. It sounds like she believes that our government should promote a national birth policy very similar to one that Sanger approved of.
Elle: Fifty years from now, which decisions in your tenure do you think will be the most significant?
Ginsburg: Well, I think 50 years from now, people will not be able to understand Hobby Lobby. Oh, and I think on the issue of choice, one of the reasons, to be frank, that there’s not so much pro-choice activity is that young women, including my daughter and my granddaughter, have grown up in a world where they know if they need an abortion, they can get it. Not that either one of them has had one, but it’s comforting to know if they need it, they can get it.
The impact of all these restrictions is on poor women, because women who have means, if their state doesn’t provide access, another state does. I think that the country will wake up and see that it can never go back to [abortions just] for women who can afford to travel to a neighboring state…
Elle: When people realize that poor women are being disproportionately affected, that’s when everyone will wake up? That seems very optimistic to me.
Ginsburg: Yes, I think so…. It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.
Hmmm… again, she sounds a lot like Sanger.
“I just don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control.” — Margaret Sanger, 1964
When our political leaders and our most important judges have been tainted by the disgusting racist and evolutionistic views of Margaret Sanger and her fellow eugenicists… we know we are in trouble. We cannot allow these same people to continue to lead us, because the only direction they can lead is straight into another holocaust.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com