Oh, I think Madame Justice is going to have a bit of explaining to do, once this gets around:
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?
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.
Highlight added. And, like Ed Whelan, I have to ask: Just which populations do you think we don't want too many of, Justice Ginsburg?
Of course, support for eugenics is one of the great skeletons in the closet of American liberalism, arising as part of the Progressive movement. Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood, was a devout believer in eugenics, and her influence is felt in the upper reaches of American liberalism to this day, though they try to gloss over the unsavory, ugly truth. If Justice Ginsburg truly thinks eugenic ideas are acceptable and that there are "populations we don't want too many of," she needs to be called on the carpet to explain herself.
Related Reading: Liberal Fascism.