Comments on: What did Justice Ruth Ginsburg mean when she said “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”?

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:09:53 +0000

Eddy – They know each well. And GInsburg confirmed the question. Where the elaboration would have been appropriate as well would have been to ask “who are we?” and “which populations?”

By: Eddy

Eddy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:51:23 +0000

I just love it when the questioner injects their own POV into their apparently ‘open question’.

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?

Instead of ‘can you elaborate?’ or ‘what did you mean by that?’

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:56:03 +0000

Dangling a preposition? Who knows…..
.
My guess is she was thinking of those in poor shape economically. Those who could not afford more mouths to feed or on welfare, and thus not a statement considering of ethnicity.

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:50:44 +0000

I doubt she was going for coercion either. I do think social engineering is a bad thing. Abstinence and contraception is a good thing but I do not support targeting it via court cases or legislation toward certain populations.

Not sure it is damning, but I would like some Supreme Court reporter to ask her who she was referring to.

By: hazemyth

hazemyth — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:56:14 +0000

It depends on what kind of control you mean. I doubt Ginsburg was advocating coercive population control in the Chinese vein. Do you know of statements that are more explicit in this regard? Voluntary population control, especially through simple abstinence or contraception, might not be a bad thing. Or do you disagree?

And, again, I agree that ‘the ones we don’t want too many of’ is very disturbing… but also ambiguous. It could be poorly worded — very poorly worded. It’s likely that her intent, whatever it was, is problematic in some way or other. But, respectfully, the statement in itself is still not so clear as to be damning.

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:30:14 +0000

hazemyth – I have several past speeches and essays from Justice Ginsburg where she knew that the intent of some at the time was to strive for population control. She did not condemn this aim. Furthermore, she promoted government funding for abortions throughout her career. So given her assumption that Roe was in part to control the growth of populations (you know the ones we dont want to have too many of), why would she support federal funding, if she was opposed to this kind of control?

By: hazemyth

hazemyth — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:21:40 +0000

I’ll agree that the statement is problematic. I, too, would like clarification. However, in the absence of such clarification, it seems you may be reading a lot into it.

Your final summation seems to me a mis-characterization of Ginsburg’s statements. Particularly, “aborting certain populations” is a very leading phrase that does not resemble Ginsburg’s language. She seems concerned with providing abortions to certain populations, which is not the same as ‘aborting’ those populations. Firstly, such policy as she advocates would result in abortions among those populations. Secondly, there is a key difference between a government policy making voluntary abortions available and government policy for abortions per se. Ginsburg certainly wasn’t in favor of mandating abortions for certain populations — she’s clear in her concern about government coercion. Your phrase might be read to imply otherwise.

Lastly, as a question, this summation is loaded. It packs several complex issues together, such as the relation between Roe v. Wade and Medicaid, the general role of policy in jurisprudence, and particularly policies regarding population growth. Also, do you mean to ask Sotomayer about SCOTUS’s intent in deciding Roe v. Wade?

I’m sorry if I’m being very semantic but, after all, we are talking about the interpretation of statements.

By: Debbie Thurman

Debbie Thurman — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:37:43 +0000

Scary stuff. The truth has a way of being outed.

By: Byron

Byron — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:17:12 +0000

How does one wiggle out of those words? Won’t that be fun to watch when our crack American media does its job and ferrets out her words!!!

I mean…our crack American media WILL do its job and find out, won’t it?

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:01:52 +0000

Oh boy – can she ask for a do over?