U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting statement recently. The statement was in relation to abortion, and more specifically, the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
As a Constitutional Originalist, I recognize that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional in a number of ways. It overturned a Texas state law, of which it is unconstitutional for the federal government to overturn state law unless the issue falls under federal allowances (see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment). Also, with the Roe v. Wade decisions, law was made by the courts, of which is also unconstitutional. It is for Congress to make law. The Supreme Court is supposed to give opinion regarding the application of the U.S. Constitution, and then it is up to Congress whether or not to determine to follow the Supreme Court's decision, or not. This is why, to this day, the Supreme Court dockets begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."
Ginsberg, however, has another angle regarding Roe v. Wade. According to Ginsburg the legalization of abortion was also for the reason of eliminating undesirable members of the populace, or limiting the "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Sounds Hitleric, doesn't it?
Could the drive for the legalization of abortion be that insidious? Is there more at play than the mere "choice" aspect of the issue?
Abortion is in fact the killing of babies, and the use of abortion to stop the birth of undesirable babies is not some piece of fiction conjured up by pro-lifers. A great example is the fact that 9 in 10 babies who, by pre-natal testing, are determined to have Down Syndrome, are aborted. Isn't that the abortion of what would be considered by some heartless individuals as "undesirable members" of the populace? Isn't that an example of Eugenics?
Ginsburg observed 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."
Then, when considering the government funding of abortion, and taking into account Harris v. McRae in 1980 in which the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions, Ginsburg said, "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. . . The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."
This is not to say that Ginsburg is becoming a pro-lifer. Her concern is the government's involvement in the decision of whether or not to abort an unborn child. She believes it should be solely a woman's decision without government influence of any kind.
Ginsburg's statements brings to mind the link of Planned Parenthood to Eugenics. Though not ready to give up abortion, and proclaim it as the destruction of innocent lives that it is, Ginsburg's observations about the possible goal of those pushing abortion to be related to population control, and eugenics, has a historical connection.
The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger, who opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York in 1916. Sanger was a racist, and believed that the black population needed to be controlled. Her racism was the motivation behind Planned Parenthood, and her drive for birth control.
Following this line of reasoning, by wishing to limit the population of blacks, this means that Sanger believed that the non-black populations must remain the majority, in control, and ultimately, that the whites were somehow superior human beings. In other words, she believed in birth control because she wished to control the births of blacks so that the "superior" race could remaind the majority.
In other words, eugenics.
Eugenics, defined by Wikipedia, is the "possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
So, using that definition, Sanger wished to limit the black population because she assumed that blacks, by the very nature of their race, were undesirable, and their reproduction needed to be discouraged.
Coupled with Ginsburg's statements, it makes abortion look much more insidious than it is already believed to be by pro-lifers.
Is it possible the initiators of the abortion movement desired its legalization for the reason of eugenics?
Shades of Reverend Wright.
Fascinating to say in the least. In the end, however, regardless of the origins of the movement, or the reasons behind Roe v. Wade, I continue to simply believe that life begins at conception. A baby's time in the womb is simply a human stage of development which only differs from the stages of development outside the womb because of the womb, and that to murder these innocent babies is evil, and wrong.
The eugenics connection only solidifies my belief that abortion was born from evil.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
'Eugenic Abortion’: With Pre-Natal Testing, 9 in 10 Down Syndrome Babies Aborted - CNS News, Penny Starr
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables - World Net Daily
Eugenics - Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment