A Ginsberg Quote I Thought Might Be Fake – I Was Wrong

I looked up this quote, and it’s real. Furthermore, the interviewer who elicited the quote is a leftist and later on tried to get Ginsberg to explain herself and keep the hostile right from using it against her.

She wrote about the follow-up in Slate magazine, and cupped a fart, took a breath and declared the issue settled. Except for one thing. Ginsberg never addressed the part of the quote where she says, “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”


I read her back her 2009 quote and asked her what she meant by it.

“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” she said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

I asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes, and then returning to the issue of whether Congress could restrict Medicaid from covering abortion, added, “But I turned out to be wrong. Not too long after Roe v. Wade”—in Harris v. McRae— “the Supreme Court said it was OK to deny Medicaid funding for even therapeutic abortions.”

Justice Ginsburg also made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races). In the end, if that concern has a legacy, it’s in the promotion of contraception. But of course social conservatives never want birth control to be the focus of a discussion about reproductive rights, because on that ground they lose.


Did the above, in any way shape or form, address the issue of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Didn’t think so.

The left avoided this article like the plague.

There is only ONE, count em’, ONE comment on the article.

Frank Winterbourne

1) She expressed concerns over “populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” not “we don’t want our population to get too big.” That implies a certain group of people, likely the poor, one would assume.

2) Even if she were trying to state the latter, how high the population gets in the US is of no concern to the Court.

3) This op-ed is shameless. It employs some half-assed logical gymnastics, then ends with an entirely irrelevant note about Ginsburg failing her driving test, and her erstwhile plans to become an opera singer.


33 Comments on A Ginsberg Quote I Thought Might Be Fake – I Was Wrong

  1. Let these weirdos keep talking and exposing themselves.

    Like Chelsea the other day talking about the wonderfulness of abortion. It’s amazing she didn’t get scraped away herself. Her birth must have served a purpose for Hillary’s master plan or it would not have happened.

  2. Ginsburg is a prodigy of Margaret Sanger. Sounds almost identical to what Margaret Sanger said about eugenics.

  3. whoops, someone’s hatred is showing! …. another grizzled-up piece of progtard hatred of humans … (except those within her circle that she deems worthy)
    I bet her & that other gristle-meat Sorass just love swapping tongue-juice (now there’s a visual that will give nightmares to your children … “you better be good or you’ll grow up like Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg & swap spit w/ George Sorass!”)

    I try not to wish harm on anyone, including John McShitstain … but, Good Lord, have the human decency to just shrivel up & go away & do no further harm to your fellow beings!

  4. “Justice Ginsburg also made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races)”

    Notice there is no quotations from Ginsburg to support this statement from the author of the Slate article. Pure bullshit to cover for her racism.

  5. $5 says she’s dead by this time next week.

    Probably not, but a fella can fantasize can’t he?

    Can you imagine PDT with 2! more picks going into the imaginary blue wave this November?

    Libtards will rush to pedal a Tour d’ Afghanistan en mass.

  6. When a gargoyle climbs down the side of the building and sits behind the Bench in a courtroom….. the end is near.

  7. There is a bridge in my neighborhood that my daughter is afraid to go over! I asked her why and she said that an ugly old troll lived under the bridge and ate young children for a snack! I looked under the bridge and sure enough, old, demented, and putrid Ruth Bader Ginsburg is living under there!

  8. @PHenry:

    $5 says she’s dead by this time next week.

    I’m very tempted to take that bet and wager that in a week she’ll only be as almost dead as she is today.

    I’d rather lose the bet, but even if I do have to cough up the five bucks, I win anyway because I’ll have spent a pleasant week contemplating her demise.

  9. @Uncle Al ~ I’ll spot you the fin …. & hope that I have to pick up the marker

    … best $5 I ever spent!

  10. after a bunch of mumbo jumbo: “… So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

    That is saying she was swayed by public opinion. She didn’t base her decision on the law, but rather shaped the law to fit opinion. And now she is stating that the public opinion turned out to not be accurate. She apparently thinks the Constitution is a living, dynamic document. We, the governed, shape our lives to fit the Constitution- the document is not to be altered to accommodate current, possibly temporary opinions. It is one of the most incredible things ever crafted by man, and people such as her should not be attempting to alter it to suit their seasonal opinions. Nor should they be given the opportunity.
    There is no such thing as gender fluidity, and the Constitution is not fluid either. And for good reason.

  11. Sure, it’s all about population control. Ginsberg’s idea of the pursuit of happiness seems to be killing millions of babies she considers undesirable. It’s LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Has she even read the Declaration of Independence? What an evil crone.

  12. and Lucifers trick is convincing the world he doesnt exist. But he does, he’s hiding inside her.

  13. But of course social conservatives never want birth control to be the focus of a discussion about reproductive rights, because on that ground they lose.

    Birth control (NOT having a baby) and reproductive rights (HAVING a baby) are two different things, dumbass. When you conflate the two, there’s no point in having a conversation when you don’t understand the basics.

    1. Have sex – 2. Get pregnant – 3. Have baby
    A three step program to reproductive rights.

    1. Take birth control – 2. Don’t get pregnant when having sex – 3. Don’t have baby
    There’s your birth control.

    1. Don’t have sex – 2. Don’t get pregnant – 3. Don’t have baby
    There’s another form of birth control.

    1. Have sex – 2. Get pregnant – 3. Murder baby
    That’s murder. It’s the opposite of reproduction and it’s the opposite of control.

    I’ll have this conversation all day long, and I will win every single time.

  14. Quite frankly, the ol’ lady is right. My views on abortion are not as black and white as some on this post. While I wouldn’t celebrate it as an enshrined right, I can’t help but believe that a woman who is denied to terminate a pregnancy would then be inclined to raise a model citizen. And before you say adoption, take a look at the broken kids languishing in foster care. Maybe there is a utilitarian purpose for abortion. Heaven knows I’m tired of paying the freight for slackers and criminals who aren’t raised right

  15. See?
    A socialist ideologue CAN mumble the truth, even if it is only by accident.

    The point of Roe v Wade is to atomize the sin. Make us all responsible by collective guilt. If we pay for murdering the innocent, we are just as guilty as the abortionist we pay to perform the actual vivisection.

    “Murder of the Innocents” has the Supreme Court Seal of Approval!
    That makes it OK!
    Dred Scott gave Slavery the Supreme Court Seal of Approval, too.

    We really are kind of fucking stupid to put the eternal damnation of our souls into the hands of 9 ideologues. But there it is.

    izlamo delenda est …

  16. When talking abortion with anyone from the left, you need to understand two things. 1.) Democrats made all of the Jim Crow laws. 2.) Roe v Wade was a long fought battle for the Democrats to have the right to kill black babies.

    Think about it. The elitist left isn’t fighting for their own abortions, they’re rich enough to do whatever they want. They simply want to keep poor brown people from overrunning their empire. It’s their right, the supreme court said so!

  17. I wonder what makes RBD think that, if a population could select its constituent ethnicities, hers wouldn’t be the first to be left behind.

  18. “…populations that WE don’t want too many of “…..
    I wonder just exactly who is “We”, and who in the hell gives them the right to decide if they’re wanted or not?

  19. If she agreed with Sanger, then one of those population groups would be the Irish.
    Oh, and Stop2think, there are plenty of homes for children who are available for adoption. The foster care system’s purpose is to keep families together, if at all possible. Those children have not been given up for adoption. Domestic adoption is darn near impossible because of….abortion! There are not enough babies for the couples who are infertile or who want to add to their families. That argument, that we need to kill babies in the womb because they won’t have a good home, is without grounds.


Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!