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.
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.