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.