Justice Ginsburg, Eugenics, the President and the Pope

By Deacon Keith A. Fournier
7/10/2009
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

In a candid interview Justice Ginsburg reveals her support of unrestricted abortion...even for eugenic reasons?

This President is in serious error concerning a matter of life and death. That error contradicts his claim to admire the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church as well as his expressed desire to build a more just society. He is set to nominate as many as three new Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court! Will they be of the same mind as Justice Ginsburg?

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) � I write hours before the much anticipated meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and U.S. President, Barack Obama. The editorials, commentaries and speculation concerning what might or might not occur at this meeting is filling up the blogosphere and saturating both new and old media outlets.

I, like millions of other Pro-Life people, am sincerely hoping that the Lord will use Pope Benedict XVI to help the American President see the conflict between his claim to respect the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, most especially as it relates to our obligations in solidarity to give the poor a love of preference, and his failure to support the preeminent right to life. As Blessed Teresa of Calcutta reminded us so clearly, children in the womb are the �poorest of the poor.� Yet, he has stopped his ears to their cry.

Throughout his campaign Barack Obama reminded us of our obligation to love our neighbor. He told us that we are our brother and sisters keepers. Yet, he fails to acknowledge that the child in the first home of the whole human race is our first neighbor. I am sure that if he were asked, the President would agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent neighbor. Yet, he does not see the contradiction in his support of the positive law in the United States which protects the intentional killing of our youngest neighbors for any reason up to the moment of birth and his claims of compassion.

That brings me to Justice Ginsburg, eugenics and the meeting between the Pope and President. First, a tip of the biretta to the ever interesting Fr. John Zuhlsdorf whose excellent blog �What Does the Prayer Really Say� (http://wdtprs.com/blog/) brought the New York Times interview which I am about to quote to my attention. Emily Bazellon of the New York Times Magazine conducted an interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled �The Place of Women on the Court� which appeared in its� online July 7, 2009 issue and will be found in its print edition this weekend. Justice Ginsburg was amazingly candid about her support of unrestricted abortion. In response to a particular question she supported even eugenics as a legitimate reason for a woman �choosing� to take the developing human life growing in her womb. Here is an excerpt:

QIf you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don�t know why this hasn�t been said more often.

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?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae � in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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.(emphasis added) 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.

Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion � like a waiting period � that are not deemed an �undue burden� to a woman�s reproductive freedom?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I�m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman�s decision. It�s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn�t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours. I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 24 Comments

Jean
3 years ago
Reply from previous Ginsburg article: Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations.

Kevin humbly, respectfully and Im sure I have a lot to study and learn and it takes a lifetime and I hope that my foolish self will become wise for the Lord.
God Bless to you.

First of all Kevin this is a Catholic News Source and most of the people who make comments here come from every walk of life. Everyone is entitled to an opinion we live in a free society even though we sometimes disagree.

I dont see mean spirited people here or hate because I know these people wherever they are in the world. (People are human and they make mistakes in word and deed Im not naive about this.)

I see people who are trying to defend their faith the best they can.

Some come off a little rough. Its ok but hate no way.

Im sorry you see it this way humbly.

I made the comment about parents being the primary educators because that's what the Catholic Church teaches. I like it.

The Church may not be the first one's to promote it but they have tried to make well use of this for 2000 years. Im a simple women who studies this faith in a simple way and I like this too.

Like Christ I dont have a degree either. I have a simple profession as He did and try to study His precepts etc.

Politics:

Also for 17 years I worked locally under the politicians in my area and worked for them in the Abstract business (real property) it was owned at one time by a judge and other prominent people.)

(Recently I found out my family was here before the Mayflower. With a little humor that makes me old to. One of the oldest families in America. My family has been both Protestant and Catholic.)

I ran abstracts to judges, lawyers, banks etc. I was on the outside and am no expert but maybe a layperson in observation of this estate. My roomate in business school was legal secretary and became a paralegal eventually and is still practicing. Humbly I have a slight understanding of Ms. Gingsburg.

Your entitled to your opinion about Ginsburg but Im aware a smidge of how the legal eagles work from afar and the politicians. They have to make practical decisions.

As far as I see someone had an agenda back in 1973 because they surmised about the future regarding overpopulation. Now were in the future and we have new problems.

We have a workforce crisis because no one knows how we will solve healthcare, social security etc because the babyboomers are too old.

I understand this is what Gingsburg is saying as well.

One example I will give you when you work for politicians you had better be one of them or otherwise your toast.

I dont know if this is what Gingsburg followed but most of the politicians in Washington and all the states seem to be this way.

I know she got there because she was shrewd and she knew how to play the game and if you dont play the game in this country you loose.

Ive been on that end of it to and I lost my job which I enjoyed because of it.

I played for the wrong team thats why Im pro-life; not out of spite because my eyes were opened as to how this country is run in laywoman's observation.

Now if you have pets whats the first thing that the public wants you to do?

They want you to fix (sterilization) them and keep the population down.

Do you think humans are set apart by the animal kingdom just a bit because of our intellect?
Keep in mind some spheres of the population think we are part of the animal kingdom. So therefore we should be sterilized to a certain degree and the population controlled because of this.

Its a hierarchy that runs this country.

It doesnt necessarily mean they made the right decision in 1973 but they hold onto it because its a control over the masses in times of trouble?

Back to the Church: It goes back to the 1st century banning both artificial contraception (pharmacaea- sorry phoenetically written) and abortion.

Something noteworthy about the early church in pagan times.
The Church used to pick up the discarded, unwanted pagan children left to die. They still do.

Ms. McKorvey tried to get the Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade because she alleges she was pawn and quite frankly I believe her.

She is now sticking up for the unwanted.

Over 50,000,000 children aborted in this country doesnt constitute a people?

You dont think these children could have helped us with the problems we have today?

I know there is no easy solution but prior to 1973 we never thought of abortion and Drs. had an oath now that oath isnt necessary for sanctity of human life. (Check out the Human Secularists to.)

Back to Catholic Church which is in full communion with not shouting down an opponent but to listen to what they have to say.
One of our Priests mentioned this kind thing on EWTN.

I have listened to what Justice Gingsburg said and Im sure I would like her but like most Americans who dont trust the hierarchy one has to discover on their own what is the real truth about people in all walks of life.

I believe that the Courts made a big mistake economically if not spiritually when they decided to terminate our workforce in 1973.
Again I dont mean to minimalize this just to a workforce but it is primary in a budding economy.

This statement she made that bothers pro-life people and anyone who respect life:

"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," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

As for Priests for Life being confusing you have to digest it a little at a time. If your not Catholic or dont understand the Catholic Family its hard to understand Im afraid.

Kevin Im sorry but regarding the Church excepting abortion they never have and they never will.

They probably will never except the secular viewpoint unless its withing teaching of the Christian perspective. Not because they are narrow but mainly because they know they arent a political entity in this world.

This may help you understand some of the core of the Catholic Church: She is in the world but she is not of the world (Perhaps this helps the fact that she wont except some of the secular teaching.)

If you want to understand we Catholics check out a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Also read the New Testament.

No one is perfect especially a society. Thats why we have a rise and fall in the history of civilzations in the world.

The thing is you have to study why you have these rise and falls.

Take Care Im not here to argue just to discuss. The Lord doesnt want us to enter into controversies but He does want us to defend His Bride the Church.

If you get a chance read about Norma McKorvey (Short version of her life on Wikepedia. She also wrote her own biography.)

Also African Americans should be as angry as the Jews for this kind of extermination since its there race that is still being targeted.

To be quite honest Kevin Im probably closer to Ms. Ginsburg genration or my mother was. (Off the record Kevin Im from a small city that took in 500 Jews during WWII and we are proud of this. So it would be taboo of me to insult a Jewish brother or sister as John Paul II has taught.)

I used to hear the negativity growing up of this time especially regarding life issues. I almost bought into it until I a lapsed Catholic came home.

I have been in the world and I am back home to the Catholic Church for better or worse.
I am not an Academic but I try to use my head and hope that I am on the path to truth, justice and true love of humanity.

I did have an excellent 8 years of primary school in a Catholic School and am now just appreciating this.

Im also not saying that Ms. Ginsburg isnt intelligent and more than likely more intelligent than myself even though I was once an honor student with potential but was too poor until now to go back to school. So I may have some empathy and closeness to these women who are poor.

I also have seen women get pregnant around me and also have abortions and once more I did nothing.

I also am guilty of being Pro-Choice at one time and even tried talking my roomate into getting rid of her kid which I will always regret.

Kevin I hope this helps and clears up what I said. No reply necessary because I understand what you are saying but I also know what Ms. Gingsburg is saying and as a Catholic I cant go along with it. I cannot pick and choose what I believe because I have come back home to the Church and I believe in what she has to say.

I am bound by a person and His teaching and that person is Jesus Christ.

I am in the world but not of the world.

To you also Kevin love in Christ and brotherhood.
Jean | 7/15/2009
Kevin
3 years ago
Charles,

I appreciate your interesting, unconventional wording and tone. Of course I write my comments from the safety and comfort of my own bedroom on my laptop. We all have a safe haven in our personal computers. It is not something that I, alone, enjoy. We all do when writing these notes, including yourself.

I assure you, though, I have no issues with publicly announcing these same statements with full vigor. Further, with all due respect, I feel your comment more accurately describes your own words, given that you denounce my unease with this article, but give no adequate explanation as to why you disagree with my previous statement.

Your note doesn't really explain your reasons for eloquently mocking me. You do not explain where my argument is "floundering." You apparently do not like my reasoned sympathy for J. Ginsburg. You haven't given me much reason to think I am wrong, other than telling me just that. I would appreciate more input.

Do I "play it safe" due to my support for pro-life efforts, but my unwillingness to condemn Ginsburg as an evil woman? I suppose it could be seen that way. Truth be told, my academic training and my profession properly prevent me from making rash judgments based on equivocal facts. Like I said earlier, I don't like what Ginsburg said, but I cannot agree with the majority on this board simply because I don't think the facts, from this article, support its conclusions.
Charles Maringa
3 years ago
Kevin, above plays it pretty safe from his comfortable hideout sympathising, even empathising with Ginsburg. However I appreciate his gentle floundering through the topic as it unveils clearly where the zillion dollars should be pumped instead of supporting abortion. The long and short of it is that all and sundry should concentrate their efforts towards education of the youth on the dangers of sex-before-marriage and its attendant possibilities, i.e., unwanted pregnancy, STIs, HIV/AIDS, you name it. The consequecies of contrary education and distribution of condoms is fire fighting since people cannot openly admit the Catholic Church was all along right.
Joe
3 years ago
Look at what we have done. We are allowing ourselves to kill each other and justify it by saying that the life taken is better off than the potential of poverty, etc. How dare we justify ourselves by that. We can use all the legal terminology and double talk we want, but when it's all said and done, we all have to stand in front of God and answer for our actions. I for one am disgusted by our leaders! We all should be ashamed for allowing them to make these laws and allowing ourselves to follow their policies. We deserve what is coming to us! May God have mercy on our souls.
Kevin
3 years ago
I think the author takes a single line of J. Ginsburg's response and makes way too much out of it. Although I don't agree with Ginsburg's views on abortion, she is a Supreme Court Justice. As a member of the legal field, and someone who has to do a lot of balancing when hearing arguments, I do not like this author making her out to be some kind of killing-machine simply because her words have a suspicious tone. No doubt the "populations we don't want too many of" language is eye-opening, bad choice of words on her part. However, I think this needs to be taken in a context.

Although I do not like abortion, I see what it is she is saying, and it is a very interesting and persuasive argument. We have a lot of young, unwed mothers, mostly from poor economic backgrounds becoming pregnant. Although I hate to see those mothers make a choice of abortion, the flip side is America has an influx of young mothers incapable of raising children and paying for their lives, that quite frankly, I don't think anyone on this board would think appropriate for a small child. Often times, these children's lives are at risk simply because they are in these situations. I think this is what J. Gisnburg is trying to get at with her comment (among other things). Again, I am not saying it is a fool proof argument, I am not saying she's right, but her opinion does have merit. She is simply recognizing the problems that would come around with a full ban on abortion. I have watched abortion videos and clutched my head in terror at what I saw. However, I cannot say that the born child, living a sub-par life with parents too young and too irresponsible to understand the needs of a young child is a situation American society is going to accept. Indeed, I think it would be darn right irresponsible for American society to demand a full ban on abortion, but then turn a blind eye to the problems that will emerge. Although I hate abortion, I also hate, with equal zeal, seeing children living in wretched, irresponsible households with unmet needs.

Personally, I think the problem lies in poor sexual education for young adults. People need to learn at a very young age that sexual procreation produces children. They need to understand the consequences that come from having children at a young age.

Although I stand on the Catholic Church's side with this one, I wish the pro-life movement (especially those who veer in that direction for religious reasons) would start a plan for the consequences that would come after a full ban on abortion. I also cannot condemn J. Ginsburg for uttering those words when her arguments do have merit.
Debra
3 years ago
I can't ehlp but wonder with no small amount of disgust and concern, what "unwanted populations" she was referring to. Poor people? The uneducated? Different races? Different religions? I shudder to think about it.
Dave
3 years ago
Expected nothing less from this woman. Pray for our leaders.
paul stahlberg
3 years ago
if a woman can prosecute someone who, in the commission of felony, takes the life of the child in her womb yet not be prosecuted for taking the very same life in her womb; then i think it should be pretty obvious that the fetus is "a life" and that these people want simply to reserve for themselves the right to kill without penalty. you can't call it killing, or dying in every case except when the mother does it and then call it deciding.
Jean
3 years ago
They just finished the Genome Project.
So the females in my family I think are carriers of the Type I diabetes which the males get predominantly.
So does this mean that eventually in the future if they dont come up with a cure for Type I the females in our line will be "undesirables"?
Think about it when it comes to Genetics.
So are Justice and Hilary Clinton hinting at the "New Super man" as the Nazis claimed during WWII?
Are we going to be genetically marked and tried in the future for our genes?
Whose line survives and whose doesnt through "superhuman" selection?
Interesting is this history repeating itself quietly behind the scenes?
If I were some of you I would e-mail or send this to your Congressmen and as some serious questions about Euthanasia, Eugenics and the future of these nations.
Love in Christ
brothers and sister and pray for our brothers and sisters persecuted in the world.
Laurie
3 years ago
The words of this woman hopefully will be viewed by many Pro-choice Catholics. This judge believes that not all men and women are created equal. Especially undesirable populations. Where is the media on this? Where is the outrage? For a United States Supreme Court judge to express her opinion in such a matter of fact way is just plain chilling. May God have mercy on this country. I pray that America will wake up before it is too late.

Prev12 3 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment