___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Today's posts - Obama - Obamacare - Mark Steyn - Women - Children - Michelle O - Quoteworthy - Music - Books - Media bias - Culture - Best of P&P
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Mark Steyn

But community organizers, though often charismatic, can also be annoying jerks. Daniel Henninger
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Justice Ginsburg might want to clarify that statement

Damian Thompson asks: What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?

No one in the msm seems to need an answer to that question. But if her words had been uttered by anyone not on the left, regardless of the ambiguity of intent, he or she would by now be an unrecognizable pile of despised debris.

The meaning of Ginsburg's statement, though certainly referring to eugenics-through-abortion, is unclear. Here it is:

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.
How about a follow-up question on that? Like, "Who is we?" Nah.

It's very unclear: "I had thought at that time" might mean that she later thought something else. "There was concern" leaves out who was concerned. "Growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of" is a sentiment everyone condemns, right? If I had uttered those two sentences, which leave the door wide open to some very ugly assumptions, I'd be dying to clarify them. And if I were a jounalist I'd be dying to ask the questions.

Thompson quotes CMR on the msm silence:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about using abortion as population control raised a lot of eyebrows in the blogosphere. Over 9,236 to be precise, according to Google blog search.

Huge sites too like Hot Air featured the story prominently. Even Drudge ran with the story yesterday.

But as of this morning the mainstream media have completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations “we don’t want to have too many of”.

What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media’s complete silence on this issue? They don’t see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context?

As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they’re wondering why. This is why.

I'd like to add some links about abortion among the poor and the non-white, but I've got four white shirts to iron this Sunday morning. So look around yourself and decide whether abortion actually does serve to suppress growth in certain 'undesirable' populations.

Comments welcome.

Most recent posts here.

0 comments:

Post a Comment