It appears that in the mind of at least one leading female liberal, abortion is not about women’s rights, but about eliminating the types of people that “we do not want to have too many of.” On July 12, 2009 a Newsmax posting describes an interview between NY Times writer Emily Bazelon, and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On the matter of abortion, Ginsburg said she had always assumed the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was intended to aid population control among lower-income Americans. Thus, from her point of view, the liberal mindset was focused more on eugenics and genetic engineering by government fiat than on any concern about freedom or the “right” to choose.
Ginsburg pointed out that many states had already legalized abortion prior to Roe v Wade so it was no longer a problem for women, at least those of some financial means, to obtain a legal abortion if they chose to have one. So, she admits, the pro-choice mantra was used for a more insidious purpose: to increase abortions “among those who we don’t want too many of.” And the activists goal was to 1.) have the taxpayers pay for everyone’s abortions, and, 2.) extend the practice to all states whether the state’s voters wanted such “freedom” of choice or not. Thus the goal was to circumvent voters and use the Court to "legislate" their agenda.
In the same interview, Ginsburg expressed her disappointment with the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. McRae, the 1980 case that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions for poor women. "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." Clearly the goal was not just to allow abortions, but to bless them in every state and pay for them out of the government checkbooks--all to halt reproduction rates among the most undesirable populations.
Ginsburg admitted to the NY Times reporter her own state of confusion over the issue after the Harris v McRae case was decided. That case came out the wrong way for Ginsburg. The Supreme Court appeared to be saying there could be choice, but no funding: “Then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." Of course her perception wasn’t wrong--the activists wanted Government encouragement and payment for all abortions, but the Court just stopped short of giving them everything at once. After all, the majority of Americans were and remain against the wide-spread practice of abortion. Ginsburg was simply naive to believe the Court would go all the way.
Ginsburg’s admission that she had been “altogether wrong” in her thinking is worth noting. Of course the mental processes of members of the liberal fringe have often appeared confused or contradictory. But, it may be she had reached a point where the logic of retirement was overwhelming, because there is really no confusion over the goals of the pro-life activists she supported.
Those fanatical activists will not settle for the simple right of a woman to have an abortion. Instead, the pro-life activists have continued to demand 1.) late-term abortions, teen age girls’ rights without parental notification, partial birth abortions, government funded abortions, teen counseling about their right to abort, and suppression of alternative solutions such as adoption, abstinence, and the personal responsibility of caring for the life created. If their concern was primarily over the right to choose, they would not demand such a broad advocacy of every abortion scenario. Their agenda is so sweeping that it can only indicate the desire to kill as many people as possible--especially those from the poor and other types that they “do not want to have too many of.” It is this type of racial Nazism, or fascism, that links the Far Left to all authoritarian systems of government.
Whether a system is labeled communism, socialism or fascism doesn’t matter--as long as they can rule and dictate policy from the top without any input from the common people. Indeed, Ginsburg admits their goal is to create less “common” people.
It is noteworth that this subject also reveals how the Democratic Party is not the party of the common people. Instead it is the party of the intellectual elites like Ginsburg who want to abort common people, enhance the standing of the intellectual elites, and impose their latest theories on everyone remaining.