In an interview to be published Sunday in the New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice, Ruth has admitted that liberals such as herself hoped the legalizing of abortion on demand would help control the growth of populations “we don’t want to have to many of.”
“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.”
This was no surprise to me. Many years ago my late mother wrote a book which was picked up and read by the wife of Colorado’s “duty to die” governor, Dick Lamb. Dotty Lamb subsequently had tea at the governor’s mansion with Dotty Lamb. Mom enjoyed the experience and enjoyed Mrs. Lamb. She found her very gracious. But in reporting to me on her conversation with Mrs. Lamb, which touched on abortion, she reported that Mrs. Lamb had made a similar argument, arguing that the costs to government of maintaining certain populations was a growing problem. My mom — who had a liberal streak — did not pick up on the nature of this argument, and really didn’t buy it when I said we were basically talking about eugenics aimed at certain racial or social economic groups.
Mom and I had quite an argument about this because mom was quite taken with her new friend. But I filed it away in the back of my mind with 
several other statements made by Governor Lamb. I didn’t like his politics, but I always felt he was ahead of his time and that what he said in his off-the-cuff comments was a good indication of where the country would ultimately go and what was being talked about by the liberal elite. So Ginsberg’s comments reminded me of that old argument with my mom, and what was being said at the time…which corresponds to what the Lambs were thinking about the same time. So surprise. Those familiar with Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, controlling the population growth among the unwashed masses has always been a secret part of the “pro-choice” agenda.
Out of curiosity I hear the name of this trial alot. What was so significant?
By: Matthew on July 13, 2009
at 12:25 am
Mark,
I hope that the move to Kansas went peaceful for you and the Mrs.
My apologies for this comment not being completely on topic. Reading your post though, an underlying thought that I take is that the devil is in the details ie; it’s not only what one is saying that we should be paying attention to but also what they haven’t explictly said.
Regarding the comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg “…we don’t want to have too many of them…”. <strong“We!?”, how spiritually ignorant and downright arrogant of a comment to make. I’m curious as to where exactly Ruth thinks that she’ll fit into the scheme of things (the entire healthcare issue) as she progresses in age and becomes more of a “medical liability”?
We can’t have too many old folks creeping around sucking up valuable air and resources you know.
Grace and peace be with you.
By: Christopher on July 13, 2009
at 9:27 pm
Hi Christopher! How great to hear from you again, brother! Our move has gone well. Actually, it was a double move since we lived in another house for a month while we were waiting form the closing on the house we are in now. We moved into our new home Saturday. So this was our second move in a month (If you count a separate move for my office and library, our third). So I haven’t had much time for much of anything the last month or so, and I’m still trying to recover. But God is always good and there have been so many wonderful blessings. Our send off from Ogallala was wonderful. There were so many expression of love that Pam and I were truly overwhelmed. Then our reception here has been just as wonderful.
As to the substance: I don’t think you are off topic at all, I think you are right on. Like you I find statements like “we don’t want to have to many of them” so offensive on every level. I also think you are right in pointing out the next logical step, getting rid of the elderly. I think the present effort at “reforming” health care will have that consequence and I am not convinced that it is unintentional. I have long felt that Social Security and Medicare will be, to use the current catchphrase, “unsustainable,” as the baby boomers reach retirement age. So I have felt that the logic of abortion would eventually boomerang and hit the generation that introduced it in the backside in their old age. In other words, those who we didn’t abort will eventually abort us, or a least help us us do what Dick Lamb called our duty and die. There is a strange irony and poetic justice in it all when you think about it, but it is chilling to contemplate. I predict that if Christ tarries His coming we will not have nursing homes 20 years from now. Private nursing will be available to the wealthy/powerful, the rest of us will be dependent on the mercy of our children and grandchildren. That’s why I treat mine very well. Grace and peace to you, brother.
By: markcarlton on July 14, 2009
at 2:42 pm
Hi Matthew. Roe v. Wade, and a companion decision, Doe vs. Bolton, are 1973 the cases that resulted in abortion on demand for any reason during the entire nine months of a woman’s pregnancy being declared a fundamental Constitutional right. Doe is generally not mentioned and it’s results are generally thought of as part of Roe.
By: markcarlton on July 14, 2009
at 2:44 pm
Hmmm,
Perhaps I should follow suit and start treating my
knuckleheadsbeloved children better?Aside from the obvious commandments from Exodus, a recurring thought that plays through my mind is how we in the US are practicing the same thing that Israel and Judah did with regards to sacrificing their children to the god Baal. Same idol, just goes by the name of “Convenience”.
Chilling indeed, but not paralyzing, thanks to the Lord.
Grace and peace be with you.
By: Christopher on July 14, 2009
at 4:26 pm
Hi Mark,
I find it interesting, a comment made by Nancy Pelosi that abortion on demand would lower costs to the federal government. When one considers the following statistic; (“Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI)”). and couples that statistic with Pelosis comment you could easily reach the conclusion that Nanci Pelosi would use easily obtainable abortions as a means of controlling the minority population. Am I missing something here or is this stance by the speaker of the house completely racist?
Couple that with the head of Health and Human Services Cathlene Sibelius, who accepted mega bucks from the now deceased George Tiller (Tiller the baby Killer) and I begin to wonder what is at work here? This seems particularly odd considering Barak Obamas ethnicity. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Gods grace be with you,
Bill
By: billstoke on July 27, 2009
at 2:08 am
Very good post. I think it obvious that controling minority population growth at the one end and euthanasia at the other is the unstated policy of some on the left. I believe Nancy Pelosi is one of them.
By: markcarlton on July 27, 2009
at 2:13 am