RACIST!

Incredibly, you won't hear that from the mainstream media in response to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's unbelievable admission that she thought abortion was meant to limit certain populations. From CNSNews.

In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

[snip]

Here’s a transcript of that portion of the Times' interview:

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. 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 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.”

The comment suggested Ginsburg eventually changed her mind and concluded that Roe was not decided with the idea that abortion could be used to limit "growth in populations we don't want to have too many of." But she did not qualify her position that the policy enacted under the case put an unacceptable burden on poor women.

During the interview, the justice also affirmed a position she took on abortion during her Clinton-era confirmation hearing, suggesting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was a better grounds for justifying abortion on demand than the "right to privacy."

“The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman,” Ginsburg told the Times.

Let's play the old "what if" game. What if Justice Antonin Scalia had made such a comment? "Populations we don't want to have too many of." Which populations exactly would those be, Madame Justice? We can connect the dots quite directly from her statements to state with certainty that she meant poor populations - and if we don't want too many of them, they must be minority populations.

Here we have a Supreme Court Justice who advocates using taxpayer dollars to commit genocide against poor minority populations. And the left dares to call the right racists?

And this is the same woman who just took the unprecedented action of endorsing Sonia Sotomayor. That should tell you all you need to know.