“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.... 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.”That is, she intuited the Court's motivation, which she says she was wrong about — as she observed in the old remark and repeats now — because the Supreme Court later, in 1980, upheld the political decision to exclude Medicaid funding for abortion, in Harris v. McRae. Ginsburg's 2009 quote was:
[Roe v. Wade] 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.These remarks conflate the Supreme Court and Congress. It could have been that concern about overpopulation motivated the Court in Roe, as it pushed back the states' power to ban abortion and put abortion in a relatively positive light as something women had a right to do. That created the political space within which Congress might have opted to fund abortions for poor women. All that happened in Harris v. McRae was acceptance of the political reality that did ensue, the decision not to pay for abortions. The Supreme Court failed to predict the political fallout from Roe. The Court could still, at the time of Roe, have believed that it was enabling Congress to undertake population-control policy. When Harris v. McRae arose, the Court had new information and a new question to answer. It declined to extend Roe to mean that Congress was obligated to fund abortions as part of Medicaid.
Bazelon blithely concludes:
The history lesson is this: There was a feminist women’s rights argument for legal abortion in the 1970s, which the Supreme Court accepted in Roe v. Wade. And there was a separate and distinct argument about preventing population growth by being pro-abortion, made by groups like Zero Population Growth, which the court did not accept, not in Roe and not later.The women's rights argument is presentable and defensible. Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort. What is uncomfortable is suppressed. In that sense the denial is admirable. But Bazelon's instruction on the "history lesson" is too pat and too sanitized to be taken uncritically.
Posts
151 comments:
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.
Read black babies.
The left has to be able to control the herd.
Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort.
Well, just think of it as a tax, and then it's fine.
"Well, just think of it as a tax, and then it's fine."
I know you're making a joke based on the Obamacare case, but there's no joke needed here, because Medicaid is spending. Congress easily had the power to fund abortions, which is the constitutional question. It make the political decision not to fund abortions. So Harris v. McRae wasn't a search to find power for Congress. It was an argument about Congress lacking power to make an exception for abortion within its spending plan.
Population effects and abortion meld neatly in the so-called Roe Effect theory. Didn't it predict what we're seeing?
Maybe we don't need to fear "too many people for the planet", but rather, a la Idiocracy, we should start fearing "too many unintelligent people for the planet".
Watch for things to get really interesting when we get just a little better than we already are, at typing fetuses in the womb for more than just major afflictions. You'll soon be able to also de-select based on sex, height, and (omg) even IQ.
Won't that be special.
@Ann " ... too close to racism ..."
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood), Women and the New Race
I wonder if today's progressive mind is just a full malignant infection of such thoughts. Thoughts about themselves and the society the live in.
Imagine if the court had decided Congress was obligated to fund abortions.
Where would that have stopped?
Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort.
That was Margaret Sanger's motivation, of course. I thought that would have been the main historical fact informing Ginzburg's sense of things.
"mark said...
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood), Women and the New Race
I wonder if today's progressive mind is just a full malignant infection of such thoughts. Thoughts about themselves and the society the live in."
Of course they are, but not in the obvious way as Sanger. Instead it's criticism of large families, concern over "the planet", etc.
I don't read Justice Ginsberg as being appalled or disapproving of the Zero Population Growth movement/rationale.
An argument for government funded abortion that I've repeatedly heard out here in the real world, is that it will reduce the number of future welfare recipients.I've heard both consevatives and liberals advance this opinion. Pretty brutal in my opinion, but definitely widespread.
But how long before Obamacare, if it remains, does fund abortion? Certainly, we'll have situations with a woman with a problem pregnancy that's a threat to her life. Then the can of worms is open, and although Medicaid didn't cover, Obamacare?
But let us not call this a slippery slope.
"Abortion for population control was and is too ugly . . . for comfort." But saying a woman has a right to abort her child for whatever reason or no reason is "presentable"? I really don't understand the distinction.
"There was a feminist women’s rights argument for legal abortion in the 1970s, which the Supreme Court accepted in Roe v. Wade."
That doesn't seem right--Blackmun says that the personhood of the fetus, if established, would automatically undermine the claim. But that straightforwardly contradicts Thomson's violinist argument, which I had assumed was the best exemplar of the "feminist women’s rights argument" (as opposed to Tooley & Warren's lack-of-fetal-rights argument).
"It was an argument about Congress lacking power to make an exception for abortion within its spending plan."
Admittedly, my joke wasn't a very good one and so you rightly address the key issue of this post in response to the all too obvious obamacare comment.
Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, though, taxation serves a couple of purposes in today's society and thus raises a couple of issues. One is its role as a way of raising money and thus fits in with Congress's given power to use or to apply funds.
The second is a moral use of taxation. In effect, progressives who are aghast at the idea of legislating morality, are perfectly fine taxing it. In effect, taxation becomes an ethical loophole.
So, my joke was more referring to your thought that abortion as a moral issue is too close to racism, outside our comfort zones. If we think of the practice, however, as a tax, it's just one way the government can work to control citizen lives, encouraging abortion as itself a tax helps regulate expenditures in other areas.
Abortion is a way of taxing behavior so that it doesn't negatively impact other social services.
In other words, like with other forms of progressive social control, if you think of abortion as a population tax all the apparent ethical problems of legislating your personal morality should disappear.
Broomhandle, yes, it might. But I suspect that first there would have to be no benefit for unwed mothers for having children. As long as there is...
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.
Eugenics. In other words: Lets not have too many poor people, black people and other undesirables. Doncha just love Progressive/Liberal social engineering. These people are just evil to the core.
Plus the plan has backfired since many 'so called desirable' people [aka: upper crust liberal women's babies] are being aborted. Best laid plans and all that.
Althouse: "Congress easily had the power to fund abortions..."
Oh really.
I'm looking through the list of enumerated powers, and I'm not finding that one. Maybe you could point it out for me.
Or maybe you don't mean that they have the legal power to do this...you mean they have the political power to do it. Sort of like saying that the mullahs in Iran have the power to hang homosexuals and stone adulterers.
Well, 60% of all African-Americans in New York City die via abortion. Is that the kind of population control the left wants?
Think of it more cynically.
It serves statist interests to establish as many state-dependent households as possible, where the one or two or more parents are more likely to vote their way.
However, you don't need too many of the little bastards per household to accomplish that objective, and the cost of too many of them per household would crimp expansion of the larger vote-securing enterprise.
In other words, abortion helps manage the cost to dependent voter ratio.
Do I believe that's the motivation? Not sure.
Dust Bunny, you beat me to to it. This is eugenics, much more horrific than racism, in my book.
Given that Ginsburg wasn't on the court when Roe was decided, why would we even care about what she thought their motivation might have been?
She had no possible way to know.
(MayBee said: Imagine if the court had decided Congress was obligated to fund abortions.
Where would that have stopped?
Congress would have ignored the court, I reckon - and worked on either an Amendment or law, depending on the Court's rationale, to "fix that".
Turns out, as Andrew Jackson noted, that the Court can't actually make Congress or the Executive do any-damned-thing.
Then again, I can't imagine what basis that requirement would have come under - is there any case law at all saying Congress is ever required to fund anything at all if it chooses not to?)
I know rich white liberals from urban areas. They give 2 reasons for supporting abortion:
1) They don't want to be burdened with a kid if they have sex without birth control. Selfish, but fine.
2) The welfare argument. They say it is cheaper to abort them then to give them welfare their entire lives. If you know a rich white liberal in a large metro area, they aren't talking about the white trash, they are talking about Blacks in city.
Not to mention the idea that all unwanted black babies will grow up to be gang bangers and welfare queens is racist and twisted.
What is uncomfortable is suppressed. In that sense the denial is admirable
If an important progressive talks about how to deal with the problem of having too many black people in the world (but doesn't say "black people"), that's uncomfortable, so it's admirable to suppress it.
If an important conservative talks about the problem of having too many people dependent on the government (and also doesn't say "black people" but uses an image of a black person illustrating dependency), that's ugly, so it's important to criticize such behavior at length.
bgates....as a conservative who think we have too many people getting free stuff from the gov't (yes, including urban blacks), I want the solution to be installing a work ethic and bringing industry back to our cities to employ these people.
How does that compare of someone who thinks we should abort peoples of color?
Abortion has always been about eugenic population control. All the talk about "my body" and "women's rights" is just a soft sell.
See Sanger's discussions about a Negro Project. Advocates of eugenics understood that they couldn't force it by law. There were to many people like Chesterton who plainly showed that the eugenic ideas were for monsters.
So they had to soft sell the ideas. That it wouldn't be about killing black babies. Rather improving your life through fewer kids.
And now, 3 generations later, society believes the lies and has forgotten the truth.
And isn't the sales pitch:
"Hey, your life can be so much better! You just need to remove that fetus."
.. sound better then ...
"Hey, my world can be better then this! You just need to kill your inferior kid."
"Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort."
Maybe terribly un-PC, but like every American city in a process of decay and decline due to a high crime, dysfunctional culture, high parasitism population...
Or Europe looking at a future when it's native population is overwhelmed by high breeding rate Muslims and Africans - when bowing to Mecca and living like third worlders will be expected by all - an unavoidable thing.
Either the concept of majority rule and government benefits goes away - or the productive and law abiding and non-Islamic become less and less of the population and more and more needs to be taken away from them ..
As ObamaPhone Momma is succeeded by 7 children all who need all the dole and free medical care and free ObamaPhones...
******
The other consideration is sustainable planet resources. It comes down to food, fresh water, arable land. And the limits on supporting exploding populations are already exceeded on lands from Haiti to Rwanda to Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh. And less and less are people in other lands buying the idea that 30 million excess Egyptians have a "moral right" to immigrate to W Europe if Egypt collapses, excess Indonesians to Australia,
The people behind the Green Revolution warned that it was a one shot deal, based on their understanding of genetic potentials and practical limits to agricultural productivity and there will not be a second "miracle high tech" Green Revolution
Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort. What is uncomfortable is suppressed. In that sense the denial is admirable.
Why? As pointed out above, getting rid of the "lesser breeds" was Sanger's primary motivation for PP. Anyone supporting that loathsome organization should have that thrown in their faces whenever they dare mention it.
Ginsberg got the memo.
Maragaret Sanger, like her penpal, Der Reichsfuhrer-SS, was worried about the lesser races and peddling abortion was the way to fix it.
Until they could sell people on Dachau-on-the-Brazos.
As Curious George noted
- Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood), Women and the New Race.
Sieg Heil, Big Mama.
chickelit said...
Population effects and abortion meld neatly in the so-called Roe Effect theory. Didn't it predict what we're seeing?
funny how that works out.
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.
That seems rather more like a political and policy consideration - you know, the proper purview of the legislative branch. Do you still utilize similar considerations as you approach cases, Justice Ginsberg.
And to think anyone is naive enough to believe the Supreme Court is just supposed to weigh constitutionality...
Forget the eugenics/population growth angle. Isn't it a bit controversial that she thinks Roe was decided the way it was in order to set up some other policy goal? Should courts be deciding a case on abortion rights with an eye on how that will affect Medicaid's ability to pay for abortions?
Roe v. Wade denied personhood for the unborn, since the outcome of the case required making killing unborn humans legal for political and progressive philosophical reasons. The fact that, genetically, a baby human always results from a full-term preganancy was dismissed as irrelevant. There were things more important than human lives at stake.
Soon, of course, the objective genetic evidence will likewise be dismissed as irrelevant when euthanasia for the greater good becomes necessary.
Chuck,
You have to go back a month to the Obamaphone controversy round these here parts.
bgates is skewering a certain cruelly neutral hostess.
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.
Don't want "too many of". Wow. Progressivism and leftism is was and always will be a death cult. It always comes down to killing the undesirables for these people.
Bader Ginsburg is a thoroughly repulsive person. She really let the mask slip there didn't she?
Reva Siegel and Linda Greenhouse in their study of the history of abortion as a subject of reform in the decade or so prior to Roe v. Wade acknowledge that arguments over environmental sustainability and overpopulation occupied "a very powerful and significant role" in the time leading up to Roe. (See the video in the link below at about the 10:30 mark). They note that they found the presence of this claim and other arguments (e.g. the public health argument) "disorienting." They are indeed a quite different mode of argumentation from the feminist argument that arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s based on women's autonomy.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/12/reva-siegel-and-linda-greenhouse.html
Who cares what the old crone says? She doesn't like The Constitution anyway.
Then again, I can't imagine what basis that requirement would have come under - is there any case law at all saying Congress is ever required to fund anything at all if it chooses not to?)
That's what I'm wondering.
I thought Congress's check on the other two branches was the power of the purse.
Imagine if it were deemed by the Court to be unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to fund a law it didn't pass.
But think how much we've saved in not giving Obamaphones to all those aborted feti.
Hitler liked Sanger's work.
Well considering that 50 million babies have been aborted over the decades since Roe v. Wade according to The Alan Gutmacher Institute, then if you break down the racial component of those abortions, then you issues like the Gordon and Levitt study of 2001 that concluded that since Roe v. Wade, crime has fallen nearly 50% due to abortions based on statistical analysis of the primary user of abortion services, namely young, unmarried women who fall into the lower socio-economic scales.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=blewp
If you look at the interview of Ginsburg's interview of "The Place of Women on the Court" from Emily Bazalon in the NYT in July of 2009, the money quote is on page 4 here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2
And yet in the same breath Ginsburg says the government has no place in making the decision for a woman with concern to reproductive rights. A clear indication that Roe v. Wade is bad law. But here is the total quote incase people don't want to click on the link:
"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."
She believes that abortion is about population control, but she doesn't state which part of the population. However, the clear indication is that she is a proponent of eugenics, which is what abortion clearly is.
I'm still struggling to understand how Bazelon thinks it's racist for working class white men to study hard and pass the firefighters' exam in Boston, but that she should be a quota recipient for her gender, even though she's descended from a family of wealthy lawyers and academics.
Congress does not need to fund anything at any certain level. For example, wittholding funding is the implicit check on the CIC's ability to wage undeclared war.
Progressives, almost argue, as if they do not want anyone.
As someone with a large family, by today's standards it is horrifying how people speak so easily about population control. My first and second born have more right to exist, then the children born after?
These remarks conflate the Supreme Court and Congress.
This happens a lot when discussing constitutionality of policy with liberals. I'm not surprised the rot goes all the way to the top.
Congress does not need to fund anything at any certain level. For example, wittholding funding is the implicit check on the CIC's ability to wage undeclared war.
What does it say about Ginsberg that she was surprised by Harris v McRae, reasoning about zero population growth aside?
The women's rights argument is presentable and defensible. Abortion for population control was and is too ugly
Ann, you're going to have to help me on this one. Possibly someone has mentioned this up above, but still...
If a woman, whether single (population 1) or married (population 2) decides to get an abortion because she doesn't want the baby, how is that not population control and how is it not ugly for the same reasons? If you're going to counter that it's uglier because population control as a policy includes orders of magnitudes more people, wouldn't you just be rephrasing "the death of one is a tragedy, but the death of millions is a statistic?"
That's pretty ugly.
The population control hysteria of the 60s and 70s should be a cautionary tale for the global warmists.
Paul Erhlich ignited the hysteria with his book "The Population Bomb," which prophesied food riots and commodity metal shortages, among other things.
He turned out to be famously wrong on all counts because he didn't anticipate the green grain revolution.
I'm sure you all know about his losing bet about commodity prices.
Everybody (and I mean everybody) who was a certifiably decent, right thinking person was absolutely certain Erhlich was right back in those halcyon day. His book was presented as an authoritative bible that could not be challenged in many of my college classes.
Progressives, almost argue, as if they do not want anyone.
Not entirely. "Just enough of me, too much of you" is their motto.
As someone with a large family, by today's standards it is horrifying how people speak so easily about population control. My first and second born have more right to exist, then the children born after?
Actually, none of you have a right to exist. You (but not they) are a cancer on the planet. Or so the "green" movement argues.
--Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort.--
I thought conservatives were ugly for pointing things out like this?
"Abortion for population control was and is too ugly — and too close to racism — for comfort"
is nonsense of course.
If something is socially desirable, not to mention compelled by the realities of dwindling energy, scarcity of clean water, and loss of wildlife species and living space, it makes sense to adopt measures to promote it; the idea that it is "racist" is a total canard: every arguably sensible policy, like encouraging use of solar panels, levying of a carbon tax, forced sorting of your garbage, public funding of universities, and reliance on SAT scores for college admission are "racist."
If you want racist, you've got it in our national parks and forests, among our most racist institutions, where you will hardly ever see a Black or Brown face.
It would have been interesting if Bazelon would have asked specifically about the populations we don't want too many of.
She avoided that. Is that admirable?
Are you a Freshman in college, jimbino?
That stock recitation would have fetched me an "A" in Rhetoric 101 in 1968!
I missed out on the Obamaphone threads, but have to say....the urban Black of today...many many have the entitlement mentality. I am hoping to change the future. Give them jobs and work ethic.
Racist or not, I can see how many get a negative view of many large city minorities when it comes to financial handouts. I lived in one large city a while back (not Milwaukee) where the downtown post office was across an intersection from the county building that was responsible for the handouts.
I used to dread driving by as all the cars being double parked in the driving lanes. The welfare types were too lazy to park a couple of blocks away and walk to the bulding. And yes, they were almost 100% peoples of color. This city was only about 30% white, and those folks tended to be fairly well off college and gov't employee types.
As a side issue, it creeping me out how President Obama keeps talking about contraception coverage being an economic issue for women and not an issue of privacy or personal choice. It reminds me of times when an employer wouldn't hire an engaged woman, or women would have to quit when married.
I know they can not ask if I'm using contraception, and they can not ask me if I will have any more children.
Some women will use contraception/sterilization, others will not. We make those choices, ourselves. Economic issues may play in that decision, but that is a personal decision that should not be connected with gender discrimination in the workplace.
So is it OK to discriminate against a woman who wants children, because she is really the problem with gender inequity pay? Only if she put her career first, then there wouldn't be such an wage gap.
When you ask the employer to pay for it as a mandate, well it will become a conflict.
You'll soon be able to also de-select based on sex, height, and (omg) even IQ.
Better hope no-one discovers an innate (genetic) basis for sexual orientation.
I don't know if Bazelon is (1) trying to deceive us or (2) desparately needs to deceive herself in ignoring the established fact that eugencists were both the "progressives" of their day and the primary advocates for abortion.
Its the phenonmenon that Jonah Goldberg routinely writes about. Anything that liberals once staunchly supported, but that is now seen as ugly or wrong, is either (1) falsely attributed to conservatives, (2) ascribed to humans in general, never to liberals or their belief system; or (3) completely ignored.
jimbino says:
"If something is socially desirable, not to mention compelled by the realities of dwindling energy, scarcity of clean water, and loss of wildlife species and living space, it makes sense to adopt measures to promote it; the idea that it is "racist" is a total canard: every arguably sensible policy, like encouraging use of solar panels, levying of a carbon tax, forced sorting of your garbage, public funding of universities, and reliance on SAT scores for college admission are "racist."
Sanger Likes
Third Reich Likes
I still don't get whose denial of what is admirable.
But even if Ginsburg intuited only that the SC was worried about overpopulation, that movement was based on eugenics, and she knew that, given her comment about what kinds of people should or should not be born.
Being for abortion because your baby will inconvenience your life is not as ugly as being for abortion because it will harm the planet?
I'm sorry, but take a step back. A blood sacrifice for your own selfishness is worse than your misguided environmentalism.
Margaret Sanger, PP's founder -- what a piece of work:
"The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
[..]
c) to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
"...criminal" we'd have been spared the Kennedys.
d) to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
...like, you know, Southern and Eastern Europeans.
"But Bazelon's instruction on the "history lesson" is too pat and too sanitized to be taken uncritically."
Why is it too pat and too sanitized to be taken uncritically?
Is there any criticism of abortion rights that advocates of abortion would listen to, let alone allow to change abortion laws?
The answer, like the moral logic of abortion, is exceedingly obvious.
It is entirely based upon expediency.
I will concede however that for supporters of abortion, the expedient reasons do vary, although they not necessarily conflict.
In the end, a human life is killed.
And that's just a fact.
In the end, a human life is killed.
In the end, a population is controlled.
I've got mine (life). Screw the rest. -CP
Well, is abortion a right or not? Does it depend on whether the population is growing out of control? What about if the population is shrinking? That Ginsburg thought population issues are relevant to rights tells us all we need to know about her respect for the Constitution.
Froid would say that Margaret Sanger was bloody frigid.
Among the most racist and sexist programs in our society are Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security. All discriminate against the child-free Black man in favor of the breeding White woman.
Take Social Security, please: its benefits are designed to kick in just about when the average Black man will expire, at age 71, leaving the bounty of his lifetime contributions to the White woman, who is expected to die at age 81, enjoying about 4 times his benefits, and to any rugrats she has when she turns 66 or dies.
cf. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#022
Wow, jimbino... just Wow!
You're new here, right? Looks like you make Andy R, our resident gay victim, look like a right wingers!
@jimbino: Imagine how conflicted Obama must feel according to your racist scenario. He spent all that time supporting his grandma.
@ST: Jimbino's big tells are his obsessions with National Parks, race, and pot. I think he was busted for smoking pot by a white guy in a National Park. It's only a working theory though.
"Maybe we don't need to fear "too many people for the planet", but rather, a la Idiocracy, we should start fearing "too many unintelligent people for the planet"."
The real racists, the ones that whole heartedly support abortion on demand, would miss the racism in that comment. I wonder if they even realize that 70% o black pregnancies are aborted ?
The best argument to legalize abortion, and the one I supported and still support, is that some women are desperate and will have illegal abortions and die. This is a better argument than that to legalize drugs, for example, because the abortion affects only the mother and child.
One of the saddest commentaries on abortion was a NY Times column by one of their writers on his girlfriend's abortion. The night before she was to have it done, she declined wine with her dinner, "because it might hurt the baby." I really had to wonder if she understood what she was doing. I was also very surprised that the writer and boyfriend would write that when they had to have friends who knew her.
It is just typical of the NY Times to print something that is so stupid and which brands their writers as callous and unfeeling.
Since around 1970, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been funding an organization, EngenderHealth, that does sterilizations in third-world countries.
It started out as an unabashed eugenics group called the Sterilization League of New Jersey, then became known as the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, then Birthright, Inc., then Human Betterment Association of America, then Human Betterment Association for Voluntary Sterilization, then the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, then the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, then AVSC International, and, since 2001, EngenderHealth.
The “narrative” -- you gotta love it.
Listen Doubting Thomas and Chicklit:
I am not new here. On the contrary, I have been improving this site with my comments since before Meade was a glimmer in Althouse's eye.
Furthermore, I, like Obama and Elisabeth Warren, am a "disadvantaged" person who has enjoyed an Affirmative Action scholarship to law school.
I have long specialized in gaming the Amerikan socialist welfare and tax systems and intend to continue to do so.
What is uncomfortable is suppressed. In that sense the denial is admirable.
Translation: cowardice trumps courage when the ugly truth about "our kind of people" rears its head.
Ginsburg is one of the most overrated persons in modern American history. She was an affirmative action selection to the Supreme Court and, while I am not very familiar with her prior legal work, I would guess that it was mediocre and inflated by the liberal MSM and democrats.
However, I have heard her talk of abortion as a population control process and found it very chilling. As I do again in the new quotes. She matter of factly accepts the proposition that a constitutional right to abortion on demand is a good idea as a form of population control. It is a seldom told truth that pro-abortion people (likely including Ginsburg) see a beneifit in the resulting population control of the lower economic and lower intelligence of our society.
So Ginsburg just assumes that the justices ruled as they did because they were worried about overpopulation. Didn't consider that the only job of the Supreme Court is to rule on a law's constitutionality.
particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
The spirit of Margaret Sanger and eugenics lives on. At the time of Roe vs Wade, I'd never heard of Margaret Sanger even though I was a junior in college. I assumed Roe vs Wade was about women not wanting to have unplanned children.
That Ginsburg thought what she did says a lot, especially since she's a leftie and supported this line of thought.
It became apparent to me in the last debate, based on Obama's comments on gun control and the the poor being more vioilent, that the elite liberals fear and despise the lower classes. The liberal social programs aren't to help the poor but to placate them and keep them on the reservations rather than rise up and rebel against these programs and other efforts by the elite that ultimately keep the poor down.
It's nice to be around and intact to discuss such things. Hey, don't forget to pull up that ladder behind you. C'mon, daddy's gonna sing the Little Mermaid song.
"These remarks conflate the Supreme Court and Congress."
Or it represents Gisnburg seeing a conspiracy...
"I thought the good progressive plan was for the court to allow abortion, and then congress would get medicaid to fund it. That's what the memo I read said would happen next anyway"
I suppose the current Chinese policy to forcibly abort a second child is a bridge too far even for the followers of the murderous English aristocrat Thomas Malthus.
Or maybe not. The Irish potato famine extermination was a deliberate act of the English aristocracy against the filthy Irish so they could steal more lands in the colony of Ireland.
There have never been tribal murderers quite like the English King/Queens organized aristocracy of murderers.
It changes with time. I don't think you'll find a more first gen pro-abortion person than my mom - who had SEVEN babies (married and could afford it). It's definitely a combination of women's rights and population control both. It's the latter that has racist overtones, but the overtones are logical rather than emotional.
The racist overtones go like this - people who can't afford babies shouldn't have them. End of conversation. She worked in OBGYN in a regular hospital and would come home and tell us tales every day about this or that unmarried woman on her 5th pregnancy with no means of support. Back then (80s) that was not as common as it is now. So is that racist? Yes and no.She just didn't happen to live in certain counties of West Virginia. If she had, I think she would have been equally judgmental.
She told me if I got pregnant, even if I had an abortion, she'd still kick me out of the house just for being an idiot.
Hey, it worked.
The population being controlled was African-Americans.
Between 15 and 20 million of them, by various counts, since Roe was decided.
The United States counted 3,850,928 slaves in the Census of 1860.
I wonder if knowing at the time about how many Black babies were gonna be killed, and how lopsided the racial makeup was going to be, if it would have change the decision. I know it wouldn't matter now, but we used to care about such stuff.
Then again, Democrats would see all those lost votes and have to think it over.
One would think that, as a Jew, Justice Gisnburg would be sensitive to a movement targeting Rassenschande.
I suppose the current Chinese policy to forcibly abort a second child is a bridge too far...
Mainland China is confronting a grim demographic reality where up to 30 million young men will never marry because there will be no nice Chinese girls for them to meet. Lots of rootless young men in the cities. Lots of elderly grandparents without a daughter-in-law to look after them. No future taxpayers to support a rapidly-aging population.
The women's rights argument is presentable and defensible. Abortion for population control was and is too ugly.
So it's defensible to say that a woman should have the choice to have a doctor tear her baby apart limb by limb in the womb? Even if the baby can feel the pain? What the hell is so defensible about that?
And when you get down to it, isn't all abortion for "population control"? When it's the "woman's choice", it's just population control on the smaller scale.
[Previous comment deleted due to idiotic typo]
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.
Who are "we," Kemosabe?
There is no way to read that line that does not make it ugly. Then again, there's no way to read any number of lines by Margaret Sanger that doesn't make them ugly, and yet Sanger is a heroine for many.
Glad you raised this issue as it occurred to me the other day that while outlawing abortion for religious, "right wing" reasons is unlikely...
But what if birth rates in the US, and in other western countries, continue to drop and drop to the point where we are far, far below replacement rate? Allow me to bring up a story line in "Battlestar Galactica", in which the president of what remained of the human race outlawed abortion because the survival of the species was at stake.
Maybe my imagination is too fertile and gets away from me, but I can see governments trying to encourage having kids to raise the birth rate - and failing - then taking the next step: "Look, we are not making enough new people - we'll pay your pre-natal and post-natal medical care, get you hooked up with adoptive parents...you are having this baby." Alternatively, there is the "Handmaid's Tale" scenario of declining fertility. I can imagine more and more women, in a effort to get their careers started, delaying childbirth later and later - suddenly deciding they won't (or can't) take chances with their old eggs if they did not have the foresight to freeze some when they were younger.
What infertile couples are willing to pay for donated eggs has gone go up and up and up over the years...sometimes offering $15k! It was merely $2k at the outset of this practice.
(Yes - I am aware I need to cut back on post-apocalyptic story lines....)
Mainland China is confronting a grim demographic reality where up to 30 million young men will never marry because there will be no nice Chinese girls for them to meet. Lots of rootless young men in the cities.
The middle-east has the same problems, albeit for different reasons, polygamy vs forced-abortions of girls. That's worked out pretty well so far, hasn't it?
"Mainland China is confronting a grim demographic reality..."
If you look at chinese history, they are unparalleled in human tragedy. Most of the mass deaths from war and disaster have happened to the Chinese, and in far bigger numbers than anywhere else. There isn't even anybody close. It's hard to imagine how there are even any of them left, yet 1.3 billion and growing. They must have something special. I assume they will weather this storm. History says they will address it via disaster or war.
I endorse social engineering efforts. You're like an ant farm to me and it makes you more interesting.
For instance, I haven't seen it anywhere, not here, but I sense it in the Force, and I applaud these efforts, to quietly place children into the homes of married gay couples, to encourage that adoption, and I encourage that effort that I'm sensing out there.
But this reminds me, did I ever show you my first pop-up card about an ant farm? I made it twice. Once for my sister who said she pissed herself when she got it, and to another person who said he needed someone to explain it. The dumbass missed the whole world of ants underneath the table until someone showed him it is there, and those drawings are what took the most time, the most thought and trouble. Care to see it?
God invented war to solve the human overpopulation problem so that we don't have to worry about it.
Killing 50 million American inside or outside the womb, not optimal. Well, unless you are a democrat that wants abortions to be legal no matter what and have tax payer dollars fund it, then it's optimal.
Everyone who's pro-choice is racist. Abortion decimates black babies and reduces the black population. It's a crime against humanity. No woman has a right to kill her child.
"Moderates" like you know who get upset about Rush playing some less than articulate black woman on a radio show singing Obama's praises but putting an abortion clinic in black neighborhoods of every major American city is A-OK
Justice Blackmun in dissent to Beal v. Doe which allowed restriction of federal funding in the first trimester:
"But the cost of a nontherapeutic abortion is far less than the cost of maternity care and delivery, and holds no comparison whatsoever with the welfare costs that will burden the State for the new indigents and their support in the long, long years ahead."
"There is another world "out there," the existence of which the Court, I suspect, either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize. And so the cancer of poverty will continue to grow."
I'm neither a robin nor a sparrow but that sounds to me awfully close to justifying abortion for the purpose of limiting populations that "we don't want to have too many of."
Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade.
If you really want to get into the history, the court acted in Roe based on a false history presented by the plaintiff and the amicus briefs filed in support. In particular, Justice Blackmun did not challenge any of the historical facts presented that he eventually incorporated into the majority opinion.
I doubt that Justice Ginsburg knows this history nor has read Professor Joseph Dellapenna's "Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History".
Bernie Nathanson confessed to all of this. They used theatrical stunts to make the case for Jane Roe and it worked. It haunted him for the rest of his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson
"No woman has a right to kill her child."
The Supreme Court teaches us that is merely an interpretation of the Constitution.
A minority interpretation.
Read the textbook "Ecoscience" coauthored by Scientism czar John Holdren, then tell me why the hell is a man like this given a position of power?
Jimbino ... All discriminate against the child-free Black man in favor of the breeding White woman.
How many "child-free black men" over 20 do you know? I don't mean those not supporting kids and unmarried, I mean, literally child free?
You living in Duluth, MN or Nome, AK? You sure as hell are not noticing the demographics of large American cities.
Human beings who would presume to be gods.
To be fair, they only exploit base human desires to promote evolutionary dysfunction. Ultimately, generational suicide is a voluntary action undertaken by each man and woman who is incapable of self-moderating behavior.
For the good of the elite!
I believe Ginsburg is referencing a sentence in Roe v. Wade that opens the door to this sort of ugly talk: “In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”
Of course most of Blackmun’s opinion speaks of a woman’s right to choose. He frames it as an individual liberty that people hold against our government. Thus, the Supreme Court talks about abortion as if it is similar to our written rights like free speech or the freedom of religion. Our Constitution does not actually mention abortion, of course. But the Supreme Court always uses libertarian rhetoric when it talks about it.
Yet in this sentence, Blackmun is suggesting that something else is going on. He is arguing that our government might very well want to sponsor abortion. Indeed, Blackmun is a government official, an unelected one, and his opinion in Roe v. Wade is doing just that. He is sponsoring abortion. He is saying it is right for our society.
Blackmun names a variety of issues confronting the USA, or perhaps even the world: population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial strife. He seems to think that abortion implicates all of these issues. Indeed, perhaps he thinks that abortion might be used to resolve some of them.
In a later opinion, Harris v. McRae, Justice Blackmun fights for free abortions provided by the state. And so he dissents to the Court’s holding that the Constitution does not require the state to provide free abortions. Blackmun becomes an advocate for the poor. In Beal v. Doe, he compares the mean people who won’t use tax dollars for free abortions to Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat cake.”
Perhaps abortion reminds Justice Blackmun of the French Revolution because both involve decapitation. The difference is that the French radicals wanted to kill off the upper class. Justice Blackmun has a different concept in mind. He wants to help the poor by providing free abortions to them. He wants the poor to abort their children.
Justice Blackmun writes, “There is another world out there, the existence of which the Court, I suspect, either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize. And so the cancer of poverty will continue to grow. This is a sad day for those who regard the Constitution as a force that would service justice to all evenhandedly and, in so doing, would better the lot of the poorest among us.”
In opinion after opinion Justice Blackmun repeats his pithy bumper sticker warning about what would happen if the state does not provide free abortions to the poor. In Beal v. Doe: “The cancer of poverty would continue to grow.” In Harris v. McRae: “The cancer of poverty would continue to grow.”
I think “cancer” is an incredibly ugly way to talk about the poor--who, after all, just need a job--and it’s appalling to see such words in an abortion opinion. Doctors are not actually in the business of eliminating the cancer of poverty. But even if doctors are in the business of eliminating the cancer of poverty, isn’t terminating a baby a funny way to go about it?
Justice Blackmun writes several eloquent sentences describing how awful it is to be poor. “For the individual woman concerned, indigent and financially helpless, as the Court’s opinions in the three cases concede her to be, the result is punitive and tragic.”
Yes, it sucks to poor. It’s horrible to be homeless, or to be hungry. And Justice Blackmun wants to play Santa Claus.
What’s really notable is not Blackmun’s liberal rhetoric, or his willingness to dictate his politics in the name of our Constitution. What’s really notable is how he limits his charity to free abortions. Does Justice Blackmun argue for other welfare rights? Does he say there is a constitutional right to free food provided by the state, or free shelter? He does not. He wants to play Santa, but the only gift he has for the poor is a free abortion.
Why is abortion so important for the poor to receive? Why is abortion more important than food, more important than shelter?
Blackmun writes, “To be sure, welfare funds are limited, and welfare must be spread perhaps as best meets the community’s concept of its needs. But the cost of a nontherapeutic abortion is far less than the cost of maternity care and delivery, and holds no comparison whatsoever with the welfare costs that will burden the State for the new indigents and their support in the long, long years ahead.”
It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Babies are expensive. People are expensive. All those mouths to feed! Justice Blackmun is not giving out any welfare rights today. No free food. No free shelter. In fact Justice Blackmun is quite worried about “the welfare costs that will burden the State.” And abortion is his solution to that. Abortion “is far less than the cost of maternity care and delivery.” Yes, we don’t want those poor people having babies, do we? They’re a cancer to our society. And apparently we have to kill the cancer before it grows.
I would argue the Court’s obsession with the financial cost of babies is not only misplaced--it’s quite ugly to reduce a baby to a cost estimate on a balance sheet--it’s blatantly dishonest. Poor women have always had a right to give up their babies for adoption. If you can’t afford your baby, or don’t want your baby, you can give her up to a family that is desperate for one.
Is the Court oblivious to adoption? How can you write anguished opinions about poor women who are trapped by unwanted babies, when the reality is that these women decided to keep their babies rather than put them up for adoption?
Apparently, “the cancer of poverty” will continue to grow because many poor women opt to keep their babies after birth. Thus while Justice Blackmun and the Supreme Court often use “choice” rhetoric, it would appear there are some choices (i.e. keeping your baby) that are secretly disfavored. We see, under the Court’s utopian vision of socialism, a dark cloud where costs are measured and unwanted babies disappear because they are a burden to the state.
Aridog wonders:
How many "child-free black men" over 20 do you know? I don't mean those not supporting kids and unmarried, I mean, literally child free?
Hard to find those stats, Aridog, but I did find that 43% of African Americans over 15 have never bred.
In any case, the fewer they are, the more they are carrying the Black Man's Burden of support for White Women, White anklebiters and the national parks and forests.
Michael K, are you saying that "Idiocracy" is a racist movie? I'm not saying it isn't, but I challenge you to watch five minutes of "Honey Boo Boo", then tell me the idiocracy isn't already upon us.
Given unlimited free food, any population of any race will turn fat, stupid, and sociopathic in a few generations.
the elite liberals fear and despise the lower classes.
The Time Machine is all about this. Read up on H.G. Wells or George Bernard Shaw. Liberal Fasicism is an awesome place to start. (Goldberg named his book from a speech by H.G. Wells).
Shantastik said...
Everyone who's pro-choice is racist. Abortion decimates black babies and reduces the black population. It's a crime against humanity. No woman has a right to kill her child.
If you are pro-choice, you in effect, condone of infanticide. Period. There is simply no two ways about it. Life of the mother, infanticide, medically necessary possibly. Incest, infanticide for possible genetic reasons. Rape, infanticide for the sexual attack that it took to create that unwanted pregnancy, but it's still infanticide.
Women who are single need to keep their legs closed.
Married women need to pop out as many kids as possible. Like Ethel Kennedy. She was pregnant for 99 months. I learned that in Ethel on HBO.
Ethel seemed to keep her cute little figure during all that birthing too. She snapped right back into shape and was preggers almost immediately. She knew how to multiply, just like Mexicans.
Speaking of which, can we expect a little one from Althouse and Meadsy soon?
tits.
The history of the Supreme Court is that they make up shit whole sale when it suit them politically. They ceased being adjudicators of whether something was Constitutional or not decades ago. Fuck 'em is all the respect I can give 'em.
At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth. 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.
Yes, the left is a fever swamp of nutjob environmentalism. But Ginsburg's orginal comment said a great deal more than that.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth
She "clarifies" her comment by repeating the first part. But she can't fix the second part:
and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
There's no fixing that. She is theorizing that some people are better than others, and suggesting that the government should help remove the inferiors.
She doesn't name the inferiors. But in Carhart she refers to babies with Down's syndrome as "anomalies." So she hates the handicapped, like Blackmun hates the poor.
Defining people as sub-human--which is what Roe v. Wade is all about--opens the door to all of this. Indeed, every aborted baby is "unwanted." Ginsburg's rhetoric is just classifying large numbers of people into groups and thinking in broad terms. Dehumanization is the foundation of the socialist project.
If the intent of abortion was too control population, then logically it follows to severely curtail or abolish welfare.
I personally don't care whether or not Congress funds abortions (money is fungible so the Planned Parenthood funding goes to abortions), but the dissents in the McRae case are totally unconvincing. Brennan and Marshall's views of the Constitution were pretty much nuts.
Just to add a small sample of the insanity of leftist thought: When I was a resident at LA County hospital in the early 70s, the OB service would offer post-partum tubal ligation to women who had had four babies. Almost all of them were Hispanic. The procedure was done the day after delivery when it is very easy because the uterus still is big and the tubes are up by the belly button. If not done then, the next time we would see that woman was in labor with her next baby.
The ACLU sued the County and the practice was banned. The state of California passed a law requiring both members of a couple agree to sterilization before it could be done.
There is no such law about abortion so it has become the contraceptive of choice.
Thus the leftist form of logic.
I am not an abortion "warrior" one way or the other.
The thought of digging in a women's cunt for any reason leaves me a little queasy.
I am afraid that dingleberries and chewed gum and cum may be nestled in the lining of the vagine, vas devs and clit curtain.
tits.
@ST
Jimbino has been around as long as I have. That's all I can say for a fact. Oh, and he's coo coo for coacoa puffs over "racism" in the National Park system. What his "disadvantaged" self-descriptor means, I have no idea. But it is fun to throw peanuts at the monkeys in the monkeyhouse.
That Jimbino likes Zero and Warren just baffles the shit outta me. One is a mulatto that grew up pretty privaliged in Hawaii, and the other is a fake Indian...Oh! Now I see why Jimmy likes them! He's one of those people who self hates! Jimmy, man...you need to get some new politicians to like. You know Romney is a self hating Mexican(I saw that on the Kos so it must be true). Maybe you should support him!
Titus said...
Women who are single need to keep their legs closed.
Married women need to pop out as many kids as possible. Like Ethel Kennedy. She was pregnant for 99 months. I learned that in Ethel on HBO.
Ethel seemed to keep her cute little figure during all that birthing too. She snapped right back into shape and was preggers almost immediately. She knew how to multiply, just like Mexicans.
Speaking of which, can we expect a little one from Althouse and Meadsy soon?
tits.
I think our delightful hostess-how can I put this tastefully-..............The kitchen is closed.
That is if I have her age right.
Putting aside the moral issue, the Court's opinion on Roe was a joke in seeking to find a constitutional basis for the right to abortion on demand. Beyond the unpersuasive opition, , which is further illustrated by the disclosure of internal court memoranda which refected clueless old men trying to figure out if rights should be subject to restrition at 3 months, 6 months or some other point - the memoranda reflect how much the process was a legislative debcle rather than any principled discussion of constitutional law.
Do women's vagines "capture" clothing and food and dog hair and chizz and piss and then roll it out in a big ball and deposit it in their meat curtains?
Is that possible?
We had to do this horrible team building exercise at my last company and it required us playing Twister. I got in a position where my face was eyeing a women's cooch andI could smell my fellow employees twat and it smelled like ass.
tits.
The Court could still, at the time of Roe, have believed that it was enabling Congress to undertake population-control policy.
And thus began the all-out struggle between the Court and Congress, which continues to this day, over which can be the stupidest.
After the twister game I told many of my best girlfriends in the company that whatshername's labia smelled like ass.
How do women keep their snatch from smelling like ass?
Do you women ever sniff down there and say to yourself, "dear Lord, my jj smells like ass"?
If I was a women I would constantly be inspecting my cooch.
Squatting over a mirror, pulling the curtains back, brushing it, shaving it, cleaning the inside, sticking a bar of soap in it and then seeing how far and fast I could shoot it out.
BUT, I love being a man. I would never want to be a woman.
tits.
If ONLY we could discuss "abortion" and "probiotic yogurt" in the same thread.
But that takes GUTS!
Haven't smelled my guts.
But something tells me they don't smell like sunshine and fresh air.
Titus,
No offense or anything, I support your right to get gay-married or whatever, but I'm curious: why would something that merely smells like ass be more objectionable than something that actually is ass?
Titus said...
I got in a position where my face was eyeing a women's cooch andI could smell my fellow employees twat and it smelled like ass.
Too close to home, eh?
Penny said...
Haven't smelled my guts.
But something tells me they don't smell like sunshine and fresh air.
Summers breeze foam or douche. Goes a long way to that oh so fresh feeling.
And not to be even more unkind ...
BUTT!
Smilin' Jack Ass reminded me just how much I could LUV me some ... donkey tales and donkey trails.
Smilin' Jack said...
Titus,
No offense or anything, I support your right to get gay-married or whatever, but I'm curious: why would something that merely smells like ass be more objectionable than something that actually is ass?
Well, a twister partners vagoo that smells like ass vs. someone cock that just came outta your ass that smells like your ass. I think he objects to the womens cooch smelling like someone else's ass and not his. It's a territorial thing. It's like tolerating your own farts when no one else can. This is my smell, know it.
"If you can’t afford your baby, or don’t want your baby, you can give her up to a family that is desperate for one."
Wait... is about helping the baby or helping the family 'that is desperate for one'.
Infertility is a lost for a couple, but it doesn't give anyone the right to covet someone else's child. The reason for adoption is for the child in need, not for the fulfillment of the adult.
And when you see an elephant rounding that mountain in the United States?
Can you honestly believe you aren't at the "Big Top"?
I actually don't care for ass either.
I like to look at it in jeans but I really don't care to be around an ass.
I don't want to see it's insides, the hair on it, finger it or smell it.
Ass is for shitting.
Granted I have played with an ass before but it is my least fav thing to do on the menu. It is generally all about me.
tits.
Which is PRECISELY why donkeys "bray".
Amen!
I feel the same way about ass as I feel about cooch.
I can do without either.
I don't even like hog that much. Sure, I like to look at it and touch it infrequently but I can't suck worth shit, I don't enjoy sucking and I won't be fucked.
I do like my own hog and ass though-but just to observe. I hardly ever jerky jerky anymore. It's weird because I used to jerky jerky like 4 times a day, now I probably get one whack in a week.
There is going to be a day when I only touch my hog to piss and I am actually fine with that. My hog has had a busy career and will be happy in retirement.
tits.
I do have friends that love the hog and ass though. I listen to their love of the hog and ass and I feel nothing.
jimbino said...
... I did find that 43% of African Americans over 15 have never bred.
Forget I asked anything. Claims like that nonsense 43% number, as you've phrased it, reminds me that you're a Concern Troll.
See, the Center For Disease control (CDC) found that only 4% of the entire US population were virgins between ages 20 and 59. Only 15% were still virgins at age 21. See the mismatch here?
Titus said...
I feel the same way about ass as I feel about cooch.
I can do without either.
I don't even like hog that much. Sure, I like to look at it and touch it infrequently but I can't suck worth shit, I don't enjoy sucking and I won't be fucked.
I do like my own hog and ass though-but just to observe. I hardly ever jerky jerky anymore. It's weird because I used to jerky jerky like 4 times a day, now I probably get one whack in a week.
There is going to be a day when I only touch my hog to piss and I am actually fine with that. My hog has had a busy career and will be happy in retirement.
tits.
Frigidity, she is fickle.
"I think our delightful hostess- how can I put this tastefully-..... The kitchen is closed."
It may be open for a snack, but I don't think there will be any bread baking going on.
And Rigidity, Methadras?
Ever the "pickle".
I didn't laugh at that!
Ha ha
Hell, I hardly EVER laugh.
Let alone at a friggin' dill pickle.
"Needs more honey".
Good grief, Titus... sometimes you can be a sick fuck. But funny as hell.
I like that in a person.
I find these comments quite disturbing. I am a black woman, yet you all act as if we are being kidnapped in the middle of the night to have forced abortions.
Your opinions of abortion are dangerously oversimplistic and nothing more than a cheap shot of morality. You stereotype all women that choose abortion as either whores or clueless women. You don't care if women have no choice in the matter, and y'all sure as hell do not remember the "good" old days of abortion attemps by coat hangers, drano, and slippery elm...let me help you with that...
(Garson)Romalis (a Canadian abortion doctor) first observed the results of illegal abortions in 1960, when he was in medical school. He was assigned the case of a young woman who had died of a septic abortion after using a folk remedy slippery elm bark. It often contains spores of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene, which is what had killed the young woman. She developed an overwhelming infection. An autopsy showed multiple abscesses throughout her body, in her abdomen, liver, lungs, and brain. Romalis never forgot that case.[2]
Romalis again encountered the results of illegal abortions in 1962, during his internship at Cook's County Hospital in Illinois, when he spent a month on the septic obstetrics ward. He recalls that in those days hospitals had entire wards for the victims of complications of pregnancy, and ninety percent of them had complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds plus extra beds lining the halls for the overflow. Each day, the hospital admitted 10-30 patients with septic abortion. Each morning, the interns prepared 40 - 60 litres of intravenous fluid containing tetracycline, oxytocin and ergometrine for inocoming patients. Thanks to the discovery of antibiotics, only about one woman died each month. The cause was usually septic shock associated with hemorrhage. In the mid-1970s, a US report revealed a large drop in maternal mortality since abortion was legalized. David Boyes, a founder of BC’s Pap test program, told Romalis that the numbers were straightforward and “it suggests that politicians, with a few strokes of a pen, have saved more lives than we have with twenty-five years of effort screening for cervical cancer.”[2][3]
Garson Romalis was drawn to obstetrics and gynecology because he loved delivering babies. Abortion was illegal when he trained: he did not learn how to do abortions then. However, he remarks that he had "more than my share of experience looking after illegal abortion complications." He points out that in Canada and the U.S., septic shock from illegal abortion is virtually never seen today. Like smallpox, it is a “disappeared disease.”[2]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garson_Romalis
Every pregnacny, abortion, and birth has a story to tell. And it is *never* as simplistic and you all want it to be.
Now on Ginsburg...
what she said risks devaluation not only on abortion, but other issues by the Supreme Court. By claiming Roe v Wade within the realms of current trends rather than within the Constitution, shows they are impacted by the issues du jour like the Population Bomb.(Erlich's book was published in 1968 and was still popular by 1973).
I'm not a strict constitutionalist but when Judge Ginsberg mentioned this, I cringed.
Self-genocide is still genocide. That may be a simple statement, but it's not wrong.
"In the mid-1970s, a US report revealed a large drop in maternal mortality since abortion was legalized."
First notice how large drop is not quantified, then it is asserted, but not attested, that more lives were save by legalizing abortion than from pap smears etc.
Anyway, this is what is called an artifact of the data.
Statements can be technically true due to correlation without being caused by what is assumed. For example cancer mortality has been reduced for all ages and groups since the 1970's yet we know that isn't because abortion was legalized or because more roads were built or any other unrelated or marginally related trends.
To the point. Maternal deaths should not be calculated per woman but per pregnancy because if no women ever got pregnant, none would ever die due to pregnancy. He is incorrectly tying deaths to the woman, which seems reasonable, but actuarially speaking it is the wrong variable. Pregnancy deaths have to be calculated as a fraction of pregnancies to get accurate risk assessments for the condition of pregnancy.
So, while, technically true, he is implying that abortion specifically is saving lives when in fact that is not what is bringing down maternal deaths. Rather improved maternal care during the same period brought down maternal deaths. Many medical advancements brought down mortality for many things over the past 40 years.
He knows that, but he is dishonest and figures we don't know figures, medicine or just general stuff. He figures he can fool some of the people all of the time.
Notice the difference between these two statements:
"In the mid-1970s, a US report revealed a large drop in maternal mortality since abortion was legalized."
In the mid-1970s, a US report revealed a large drop in maternal mortality because abortion was legalized.
The speaker assumes that the audience uses since and because interchangeably. So, the statement makes the statement without technically stating it.
Parsing ad infinitum.
Post a Comment