I just ran across some surprising words stated by Ruth Ginsberg of the US Supreme Court.
"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 having 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."
I looked for the broader context to see if she was taken out of context. The broader context of this statement was made in relation to the Court’s 1980 decision in Harris v. McRae, which ruled that the Hyde Amendment’s exclusion of nontherapeutic abortions from Medicaid reimbursement was constitutionally permissible. In other words, I-don't-want-the-child type of abortions could not be reimbursed by Medicaid.
Did Ginsberg misspeak? Am I somehow misunderstanding her words? What populations is she talking about limiting? Is the limiting certain populations what the abortion crowd is really all about?
6 comments:
Not a chance. It isn't about population groweth at all. It's all about..."I don't want this baby. I want to be free to do anything I want to do, I just don't want the consequences or the resposibility of it all."
I view the situation very differently when it comes to rape and incest....but generally speaking, people who have abortions want them because the pregnancy is inconvinient and unwanted...usually because of promisquity.(spelling?)
I have my opinions as well about abortion...surprised? I think there are more reasons for abortion than there are pregnancies that end in abortion.
I believe abortions of convenience for the mother are wrong and should be outlawed. Again it is a lack of responsibility or willingness to accept the consequences of ones actions. Too many people are willing to adopt but the adoption process gets bogged down in red tape.
Abortions of medical necessity on the other hand, along with abortions as a result of criminal actions are too sensitive to be left to law makers. These should be left for individuals to make.
As for the words of Judge Ginsberg....I would hate to think any judge on the supreme court would have such an opinion....scary.
My point isn't about the right or wrong of abortion as such. My point is the astounding statement by Ginsberg. Was it misreported, or did she accidentally divulge the true agenda of the pro-abortion crowd?
Well I think her statement is an excuse to justify obortion. To give them an out of why obortion should be ok. That's rediculous if they think orbortion is a good and effective way to control population.
I will not give here my thoughts on abortion.
I will give my thoughts ('answers' is not the right word) on his questions.
First her comments don't make sense to me given what I know of the pro-choice movement. I have had occasion to get to know Planned Parenthood employees, volunteers and the leadership of Utahns for Choice. I have also had many conversations with pro-choice folks. I have also listened intently to many debates in the media regarding this subject. This is the first time that I have ever heard
put forth the argument in italics quoted by Alan.
For me it is shocking and is entirely foreign to all my experiences dealing with the subject of abortion. I cannot help but believe that there must be further information regarding Ginsberg's quote that would shed a lot of light on the quote. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dedicate to it.
Did she misspeak? I don't know, she may have been misquoted (not by Alan but by his source).
Is Alan misunderstanding? Maybe, more context is needed.
Which populations? I can't imagine. The pro-choicers are the precisely the same side of the ledger that are so adamant about multi-culturalism. Doesn't make sense to me at all.
Limiting certain population a purpose of pro-choicers? I've never heard such an outrageous thing before and I have moved a lot in those circles.
Post a Comment