Population Controlled

GM,

If you ever wanted proof of the Left's elitism, racism, obnoxious paternalism, and just plain wickedness, consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg's statements from two weeks ago:

"Yes, the ruling about [Harris v. McRae–in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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."

This woman represents one-ninth of our nation’s most authoritative entity on matters of legality–and, indirectly, social policy and justice–and she unabashedly admitted to trying to limit the birth rate of certain "populations." For her, "pro-choice" would not be the correct term; she is undeniably pro-abortion–at least for certain "populations." She believes in choice, but she would prefer that the "right" choice be applied over and over, resulting in a decelerated birth rate in certain "populations." So here’s the million-dollar question: Who is a member of these populations? The poor? The stupid? The uneducated? The jobless? The invariably ill? Every recipient of Medicaid?!?! Have she and her fellow liberal justices taken it upon themselves to monitor the breeding habits of these people and even, through legislation, nudge them in the "right" direction?

Let me tell you something that you already know. Even before we explore a certain possibility regarding the identity of the "populations" discussed in Ginsburg’s statement, it is itself absurd, bigoted, elitist, paternalistic, immoral, patronizing, backwards, un-American, and evil. It shares a logical basis, though not an extreme, with Hitler’s plan for Germany. She condoned forcing all Americans to contribute financially to what many consider to be a reprehensible act. Obama has us doing this again overseas, but to me, the idea that my tax dollars would fund the abortions of my compatriots is more offensive. I imagine Ginsburg’s stance was: "It is our duty to financially support societal drains, but if we can stop them from giving birth to more people who are likely to be societal drains, it’ll be cheaper in the long run." Any Medicaid recipient should be deeply offended by this remark. "We don’t want your kind having children."

But maybe, just maybe, a certain type of person should be really, really curious about what she meant by "populations." Twenty-two percent of the black population is on Medicaid–the highest of any demographic. I’ve been taught–by liberals–that liberals are the more progressive party on racial issues. But if Ginsburg was referring to African-Americans–a concept so racist that it would seem impossible were it not for the absurdity of the statement even if taken in the best possible light–we need to reevaluate what the American Left actually wants.

-JW

JW,

Deep within the dark heart of liberalism lies the notion that individuals exist primarily as members of racial and socioeconomic groups, and that the competing claims of those groups can be ranked on a moral scale that takes into account both present circumstances and historical wrongs. Hence liberalism's concerns with equality and conservatism's with liberty. Equality is possessed by groups (women equal to men; blacks equal to whites; gays equal to straights), whereas liberty is held by individuals.

I'm not surprised, then, by Ginsburg's thinking in terms of "populations." She's only being true to her underlying philosophy. In Ginsburg's mind, America consists of not one but many populations, and the notion of our country as a melting pot--as having an identifiable culture to be either preserved or lost--is simply anachronistic. Seriously, say the word "assimilation" to a liberal. And then stand back.

Furthermore, Ginsburg's comments are indicative of liberalism's tendency to view human life as quantifiable. (Simply put, she doesn't believe in the existence of the soul.) Thus, abortion is nothing more than a mathematical equation--so many Medicaid dollars for abortions versus so many Medicaid dollars to support those who made it out of the womb, quite literally, in one piece. It's an obscene calculus, yes, but not a surprising one.

Nor is it surprising, I'm sorry to say, that Emily Bazelon (Ginsburg's interviewer) seemed entirely untroubled by Ginsburg's statement. No follow-up question was asked nor clarification requested, and one can almost see Bazelon nodding in agreement as Ginsburg moved America yet another step closer to the forced abortions of "modern" China.

Whether or not the tide is turning, Ginsburg represents a brand of secular liberalism whose devaluing of life renders it unsustainable. God willing, some alive today will live to see the end of it.

-GM