About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative media distort Ginsburg interview to claim she "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables"

July 13, 2009 5:51 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Conservative media have distorted Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent comments on abortion to claim that she, in Glenn Beck's words, "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables." In fact, Ginsburg was attributing that sentiment to others.

28 Comments

Following a July 7 New York Times Magazine interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, conservative media have distorted Ginsburg's comments on abortion to claim that she, in the words of Fox News and radio host Glenn Beck, "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables." In fact, in the interview, Ginsburg was attributing that sentiment to others.

From the New York Times Magazine interview:

Q: If 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. 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.

Instances of conservative media figures and outlets that have distorted Ginsburg's interview to smear her are listed below:

  • During the July 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh read a portion of Ginsburg's comments and stated, "I think in Ruth 'Buzzi' Ginsburg's case, when she says that she thinks Roe was about population growth, particularly growth in populations you don't want to have too many of, she's probably thinking about aborting conservatives." He went on to add, "Now, what's astounding about this is that a matriarch of modern liberalism was candid about the underlying objective of the abortion movement -- that is to rid society of entire populations deemed unworthy."
  • During the July 13 edition of his radio program, Beck stated: "[H]as anybody really talked about Ginsburg and what she said last week about how she thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables? Excuse me?" He went on to assert that "progressives believe and always have -- look up the history of Planned Parenthood -- that it is a way to weed out undesirables. Now we have a Supreme Court justice who said, yeah, well that was pretty much my philosophy."
  • Despite providing the relevant transcript from the Times interview, a July 8 WorldNetDaily article claimed that "[i]n an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it 'populations that we don't want to have too many of.' " The article was linked to by the Fox Nation with the headline, "Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Was to Rid Undesirables."
  • A July 8 post on the National Review Online blog Bench Memos also provided the relevant portion of Ginsburg's comments but concluded, "Gee, Justice Ginsburg, would you like to tell us more about your views on those populations that 'we don't want to have too many of'?"

From the July 13 of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: I'm going to talk a little bit about the Sotomayor hearings today. But I think this is just another classic case of misdirection. She is expected today to address the "wise Latina" bullcrap that she -- that spilled out of her mouth not once, not twice, but five different times. Meanwhile, while we're paying attention to this, there's a lot of other things that are going on, including -- has anybody really talked about Ginsburg and what she said last week about how she thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables?

Excuse me? I thought this was about a woman's right to choose. No, the progressives believe and always have -- look up the history of Planned Parenthood -- that it is a way to weed out undesirables. Now we have a Supreme Court justice who said, yeah, well that was pretty much my philosophy. Is anybody talking about that? The coming -- the coming full implementation of the ideas of the progressive movement is absolutely horrifying. Sotomayor, she is a -- I, you know, I think that she is a -- she's a Trojan horse.

From the July 13 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The Sunday New York Times published a recent interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, and after expressing her annoyance over a 1980 decision that forbids using Medicaid tax dollars for abortions, Justice Ginsburg said this -- I want to quote it: "Frankly, I had thought at the time that Roe was decided that there was concern about population growth, particularly growth in populations we don't want to have too many of, so that Roe was going to then be set up for Medicaid funding for abortion," unquote.

Now growth in populations we don't want to have too many -- that's Planned Parenthood. That was the original goal of Planned Parenthood. The original goal of Planned Parenthood was to abort various minorities out of existence. That was the original purpose. I think in Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg's case, when she says that she thinks Roe was about population growth, particularly growth in populations you don't want to have too many of, she's probably thinking about aborting conservatives. But the problem with that is it's the liberals that are aborting each other, or themselves -- their future generations.

Now, what's astounding about this is that a matriarch of modern liberalism was candid about the underlying objective of the abortion movement -- that is to rid society of entire populations deemed unworthy. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an early proponent of this. You know, it's called eugenics. And her aim was to wipe out the African-American population.

Other infamous world figures acted upon similar instincts using other means to object -- achieve their objectives: concentration camps, mass gassings, so-called ethnic cleansings. Planned Parenthood's no different -- Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood no different than any of the people that used concentration camps, mass gassing, so-called ethnic cleansings.

And what's just ironic as it can be is that the primary supporters of Planned Parenthood are liberals. And it's -- but here comes Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg just out of the box admitting what this is all about.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fantagor (July 13, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
      2  
      Just reread the above text and it's sickeningly obvious who is actually concerned about the issue (Ginsburg) and who is using it as fodder for cheap jokes (the usual suspect intellects). The GOP's special ed group couldn't care less about the unborn or the born. It's about controlling the actions of strangers, ordering people around. It's about desperately insecure white men with a god complex. It's about time people stopped taking them seriously.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (July 13, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
        2  
        "It's about controlling the actions of strangers, ordering people around"

        That's how conservatives describe liberal motives. It makes no sense at all; people with bad motives seek power for wealth or personal gain, not for randomly dumping on people in a vacuum.

        Republicans use abortion to get Christians to vote against Jesus on every other issue.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by all your eyes (July 14, 2009 9:16 am ET)
             
          or, randomly dumping people into a vacuum.. sorry, i'm no pro-lifer, but you left that one wide open.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
              1
            I find it rather revealing that you say you are no pro-lifer. You expose the anti-life message of pro-choice/pro abortion.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 14, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
                 
              You expose your brainwashing with every post you make. Your anti logic message is pretty amusing though
              Report Abuse
    • Author by reanna-mator (July 13, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
         
      Painting reproductive freedom advocates as eugenicists. That's new. Can't say I think it'll catch on, because it sounds like the nuttiest one yet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
        1 2
        You speak from ignorance. I suggest you look at the writings of Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who among other things said the following:


        "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
        Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

        "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
        Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

        "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
        Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

        "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
        Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

        "Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
        Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

        http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1089680
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 14, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
             
          AA,

          Has Planned Parenthood engaged in proactive sterilization for those they find unfit to have children?

          Your comparison would be like lambasting Eisenhower for taking an idea he saw in Nazi Germany and urging its passage here because the Nazis were awful. He did base his interstate highway idea on the autobahns constructed by Hitler.

          Senger was no saint, but her ideas about having reproductive freedom for women were valuable.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
            1 2
            fried,

            You surprise me. Islamofacists make your same argument regarding Hitler and the Jews.

            What is apparent is that liberals and feminists are simply useful idiots pushing eugenics without knowing it.

            1. In Mississippi, for example, while African-Americans represent
            only 37 percent of the population, they account for 73 percent of the state’s abortions. More than 78 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion centers are in or near minority communities.

            2. Despite minorities comprising only a quarter of the population, they account for more than half of all abortions. Minorities abort at a rate of 10.7 per 1,000 population, which is more than three times the rate of only 3.3 abortions per 1,000 population for non-Hispanic whites.

            1.http://www.reformedblacksofamerica.org/rbasite/downloads/Abortion_by_race_Bradley.pdf

            2.http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+minorities+abortion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 14, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                 
              WHOA, AA, I am just saying that just because someone has some evil ideas doesn't mean they don't have at least a few good ones.

              All I was saying is that we took the highway idea from Nazi Germany. Are you saying that you would have opposed the interstate highways because Germany was the inspiration?

              That's all I was saying, please don't go there with the Jew analogy, AA. That hits far closer to home than you'll ever know.

              The poverty rate, when you compare minorities to whites, especially blacks, mirrors the abortion rates pretty closely:

              http://www.manchester.edu/links/violenceindex/NewsReleases/PovertyGap2006.pdf

              Useful idiots? Please stop being so insulting.

              Look at the black poverty rate in Mississippi: 19.93%

              http://www.poverty.uga.edu/stats/faq.php

              One biased site, not posted, said the black poverty rate is 3x the white poverty rate in Mississippi. Could that have something to do with it?
              Speaking of the SCOTUS, will you finally admit you were wrong about it putting out rulings not to be used as precedent?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (July 13, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
      1  
      One of these days, this country needs to have a serious talk and debate about abortion. Unfortunately, no one wants to have such a discussion...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
      1  
      I believe what she was trying to say (correct me if you think I'm wrong) was that it makes little sense to withhold abortion from women on Medicaid that will necessarily increase the number of people on Medicaid. She could've been more clear though.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 6:48 pm ET)
           
        Should read '...because that will necessarily increase the number of people on medicaid.'
        Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (July 13, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
        1  
        That's not what she's saying. I think she's saying at the time Roe was decided, she thought it was going to be set up in a way to eliminate the "undesirables" (this is her perception of it, not her desire). When the court decided that Medicaid could not be used to fund an abortion, she realized her perception had been wrong.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 11:53 pm ET)
          1  
          Really? You think she was against Roe v. Wade until the Hyde amendment was upheld? It seems to me that when she says "[W]e have a policy that only affects poor women..." she is saying that Harris v. McRae effectively nullifies Roe v. Wade for poor women and that needs to be addressed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (July 14, 2009 6:20 am ET)
               
            When did I say she was against Roe? She thought some people would use the Roe decision maliciously and McRae changed that perception.

            Also, your post is conflating two different issues. First she says whether on not abortion is legal, it only affects poor women because rich women will always find a way to have an abortion. The questioner brings up Medicaid not funding abortion and then she switches gears and talks about how that decision surprised her. The two are wholly different topics.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (July 14, 2009 11:22 am ET)
                 
              My interpretation may be way off base but I don't think I'm conflating the two. The McRae decision is meaningless without Roe v. Wade. But what you say about her thinking people might use it maliciously is probably right. I missed that. I don't think she supports Mcrae though. I think she's saying that decision made her realize that rather than her fear of poor women being forced into abortions all they were really doing was maintaining the status quo. Abortion is legal but still not available to poor women. Actually now I'm just trying to defend my initial statement. I have no idea if she supports Harris v. McRae. :)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
                  2
                Loonz,

                Ginzburg's quote "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."

                You see Ginzburg is agreeing with the "concern". It is very revealing and runs counter to her "desire".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                     
                  oops... the last sentence should read ... and does not run counter to her desire"
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 14, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
                       
                    And what were the chances you would see it the way your Limborg masters TOLD you to?

                    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 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.


                    Clearly this is about her perception of the AGENDA she percieved which she admitted she got wrong NOTHING about HER desire is mentioned and how many times do I have to point out that neither YOU nor Rush have amazing mind reading powers?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by anotheramerican (July 14, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
                         
                      Solon,
                      You start off with your typical liberal ad hominem attack. I had to laugh at the bottom because you are the one who is claiming the mind reading. You argue like a child.

                      Clearly you are ignoring my post. It is plainly evident that she sided with the those who have a "concern". Otherwise she would have used the pronoun, "they" as in "...there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that they don't want to have too many of..."

                      By identifying with that statement using the pronoun "we", Ginsburg's true feelings about eugenics were inadvertently exposed.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 14, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
                           
                        You put words in people's mouths better than anyone I think I have ever seen, AA. You claim Powell only voted for Obama because of race and this (only two examples), and my post above, WOW.
                        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 14, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, I think you;re rightm and that we all know what she meant, but it was poorly stated,
        Report Abuse
    • Author by artyman76 (July 13, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
         
      But wait... A sitting SCJ who ponders every word from her appelants, and from all accounts is active in pouncing on statements, is apparently ambushed by a reporter from the NYT?

      Question: No one in the NYT thought to clarify or jump on this statement? This is the "Newspaper of Record"?

      Folks - RBG needs to restate her comment and afirm that what she said could have been misconstrued (like countless lawyers in front of her have had to do). Although it will never happen, I will say this: Please God, make sure Ruth doesn't have a driver's license.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 13, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
      2  
      Has anyone else ever stopped to ponder how much time, energy and expense are expended each day in the dissemination of misleading and/or false information about politics, the operation of our government, or about the principle characters, all by people with an axe to grind. Ever think how well informed this country could be if only half that time was spent in a conscientious effort to actually inform the public accurately. Naaaaaa...that's too much to ask.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (July 13, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
      1  
      Her perception was wrong and one can see that when 87% of the counties in the US have no abortion provider. That sort of context is, as usual, missing from any discussion of the issue today. Just as the fact that other developed countries with universal health care spend half as much as the US.
      Context is invariably missing from media reports in this country, it's one reason we will fail. And that right quick.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Craig (July 14, 2009 12:14 am ET)
         
      I'm having trouble seeing the articles above and below. I get a few lines and then an "endif" tag.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wilsonrenny (July 15, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
         
      FYI!!! Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the The International Planned Parenthood Federation. Scary isn't it? I find it hard to click on the Thumbs Up icon for comments I agree with. Is it just me or are some of the comments closed for this?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.