Why the Surprise over Ginsburg?

I wade into this topic with some apprehension.  It seems even the tiniest drop in the water on topics like abortion can cause tsunamis.

There seems to be some shock over Justice Ginsburg’s statement.  She apparently thought the follow up to Roe vs. Wade would be Medicaid funding for abortions.  The purpose of which would be allowing low income people to have all the abortions they need.  Or as Ginsburg referred to them “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”.

The origins of the pro-choice movement have ties to eugenics.  There certainly was a need for education on contraception at the time that Margaret Sanger was disseminating information on reproductive health to girls in the early 20th century.  However, Sanger herself said some very controversial things that sound an awful lot like Justice Ginsburg.

Compare Justice Ginsburg:

“Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. 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. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into 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.”

To Margaret Sanger:

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

It is blatantly obvious that controlling specific populations is a part of the pro-choice movement, and always has been.  The lesson to be learned, as usual, is individual responsibility is key.  The federal government must not be involved in the business of abortion, especially if government run healthcare is on the horizon.  The prospect of the government promoting abortion for certain racial or income groups is disconcerting.  The legal debate over life must be returned to the states.