Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "I thought Roe was to rid U.S. of undesirables!"

Unbelievable. Then again, not really. Shades of Margaret Sanger and the purpose behind Planned Parenthood's founding. If this doesn't tell the population how crazy it is to have people like Ginsburg sitting on the SCOTUS, simply nothing will. Nothing! This is battiest form of moonbattery there is. Ironically, the black population votes 9 to 1 for Democrats that put these disciples of Molech on the bench that help organizations like Planned Parenhood set up shop specifically in minority neighborhoods butchering mostly minority babies. More on that later. First, from WND today:

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Ginsburg responded:

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Question: 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?

Ginsburg: 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 woman is not, and has never been, qualified to sit on any bench whatsoever! This is exhibit A in why our judicial system is so utterly broken. Planned Parenthood was founded, however, on exactly the concept that Ginsburg expounds on - eugenics. PP targets specifically minority populations. Here in Oakland County, Michigan, where PP wants to get a foothold, they're not eyeballing Rochester, or Bloomfield Hills, or any other well-off suburb. The ghouls are targeting Pontiac, the poorest most despondent population in the County. Yep - poor minorities targeted for termination. Exactly how Margaret Sanger set up Planned Parenthood. Keep in mind what this organization was founded to do: abort minority babies at as high of a rate as physically possible. Thus the locations here in southeastern Michigan: Detroit, Warren, Jackson, Lansing, East Lansing, Livonia, Ypsilanti, etc. What do all these have in common? They are close to large minority populations.
It is so ironic for the black population to be voting for these liberal loons that want nothing more than to exterminate them utterly, under the auspices of "choice." Hitler is well known as a genocidal maniac for exterminating 6 million jews. Here in the U.S. we already have the blood of 50 million innocent babies to account for. And that just since the unconstitutional Roe v Wade debacle in 1973. The number grows daily.

UPDATE: Welcome readers from Ace of Spades HQ!

UPDATE #2: reading through Ace's thoughts, he makes some good points:

She does allow that, based on subsequent rulings, her initial belief that Roe was a eugenics program first and foremost turns out to have been wrong.

I guess that's something.

Her "perception" undermines the entire stated reason that Roe is a constitutional right. The decision itself casts it as a right to reproductive freedom of an individual. And in court cases, if a dispute can be cast as the individual versus the state, the individual will almost always win.

Ginsberg, however, seems to think that the whole purpose was not to advance the interests of the individual, but to advance the interest of the state in culling undesirables from the population.

... her belief that sound public policy goals were being served by paying off the poor to abort babies, and that such policy goals were of constitutional relevance (!), is pretty extreme, even without my overstatement. She may or may not have thought this was a proper factor in deciding Roe, but she definitely believes it should have been a factor in a later case, following Roe.

Click over and read the whole thing. You wonder how many other justices, on SCOTUS and all the way down to each district, have similar thoughts that they dare not share. Maybe Ginsburg simply made a Freudian slip here in her old age. In any case, this is one piece of evidence that the entire Law School philosophy of a "living document" view of the Constitution is fatally flawed as this kind of absurdity should never get into any court of law at any level. Justices by their very nature must be conservative (not in the political sense) when interpreting the founding documents.