Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many Of'

newsbusters.org

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court" apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon 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."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

(visit the link for the full news article)

Unfortunately, the highest court in the U.S. is not merely an interpreter of law but is one of the creators of social policy in the U.S. and has been for many years.

With Obama's astounding (to me at least) public revelation that he agrees that justices should interpret the law based on empathy and not on strict law, I would say that our constitution HAS evolved, whether we like that fact or not.

newsbusters.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I was so shocked to read her comments. Just putting it out there. Especially in the context of Malcolm Gladwell's statistical observations regarding abortion rights and the crime rate.

It makes one wonder if we allow it not so much because in a free society a woman should have decision making control over her own body but because it's socially convenient for managing "populations that we don't want to have too many of"...

Kind of frightening.

[edit on 10/7/2009 by kosmicjack]

"We" as in, 'people who don't agree with us.' If you've noticed the rather ballsy trend of TPTB getting more and more overt in their plans that will come as no shock. I read between the lines, so that's just my interpretation.

And they say Sangers vision of culling the undesirables has nothing to do with modern abortion.

6 in one half dozen in the other I suppose.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It makes one wonder if we allow it not so much because in a free society a woman should have decision making control over her own body but because it's socially convenient for managing "populations that we don't want to have too many of"...

You hit the nail on the head.

Now, how about the role of the Supreme Court in doing this? That, to me, is the scariest part of all.

If there is any truth in the depopulation conspiracy then this could be some proof. Mandatory abortions are around the corner. Whether it is for population control, medical researches, or ties into saving alien races from extinction is anybodys guess for now. But you will see a change in the abortion movement no matter what the reason or reasons are. Just my opinion.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

This does not surprise me because from it's start in the United States abortion has always been about Eugenics.

The founder of Planned Parenthood was a radical proponent of Eugenics and even her most loyal supporters must admit she was a racist.

Wikipedia Article on her involvement with Eugenics

In 1939 Margaret Sanger started “The Negro Project”. She enlisted black preachers to support sterilization. The plan was shown in a letter to Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble Empire,

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Hundreds of other disturbing quotes by Margaret Sanger exist in which she proposes Eugenics in the pursuit of racist ideals.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Studious]

Did it really take someone stating that out loud for this to be understood?

Of course euginics is and has always been at play. Now they have taken it even further. Those unborn babies stem cells can be used to salvage the population that they want to keep. Its not just those unborn babies but those women generally cant have another child after an abortion or two.

Its legalized, governmnet financed, world wide, eugenics. Up untill now it was great because it was in the name of science and helping the poor sick people who are already alive. Darn those people for making it clear. geez.


just to note, the above comment was ment as sarcasm my personal stance is against abortion unless the womans life is at serious risk.

so, if they're capable of admitting that (testing the waters again) how long will it take until they admit that big pharma's snake oils are tempered with to the same ends?

as far as i can tell, this should be a wake-up call that these people are our declared enemies and shouldn't be trusted ever, no matter what.

Wow. I just came across this. I really hope it's just some blathering blog talk.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Wow. I just came across this. I really hope it's just some blathering blog talk.

Wow! That guy's a nut! And to think he's the newly appointed Obama Science Czar. It doesn't matter if it's just talk... he wrote it in his book in 1970... so he was clearly thinking about it. This is from that blog and is a supposedly scanned in quote from his book.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/053ed9d8a320.jpg[/atsimg]

I wonder who concluded this... him, the author, or...?



[edit on 11/7/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

Why is it that once again this all to the fault of the government?

Is everybody forgetting that nobody forced these women to have unprotected sex in the first place!

Why is it that we never hold those that make the initial mistake responsible? Once again, women get pregnant, don't want the responsibility of raising a child for WHATEVER REASON, and suddenly they are victims?!

Here's a few ways to stop the "government's plan":
Close your legs!
Wear a condom!
Go on the pill!
Take the day after oops pill! (also known as plan B)
OR....dare I say it? Have the baby and step up to the damn plate!

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Wow. I just came across this. I really hope it's just some blathering blog talk.

Now THAT is a very serious discovery.

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Whats backwards about this statement is that we have already been through half of that. Before the 60's they where taking unmarried womens baby's away and it destroyed alot of people. This guy is SICK.

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many Of'

newsbusters.org

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court" apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon 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."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

(visit the link for the full news article)

5.4.2022

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's stance on Roe v Wade is resurfacing even though she is now deceased, because it looks like that abortion ruling is about to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many Of'

newsbusters.org

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court" apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon 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."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

(visit the link for the full news article)

5.4.2022

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's stance on Roe v Wade is resurfacing even though she is now deceased, because it looks like that abortion ruling is about to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

Oh my... there's an inconvenient truth that most pro-abortion people try their hardest to ignore.
Abortion has always been pushed with racist intentions. That's why Planned Parenthood clinics are typically located in black neighborhoods.