Ginsberg on Unwanted Populations
Throughout her career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been hailed as a prominent figure and a celebrated icon by those on the Far Left. She has consistently fought for gender equality and women’s rights, making significant contributions in her role as an attorney for the ACLU. One of her notable successes came in the case of Reed v Reed (1971), where she successfully argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to women, prohibiting gender-based discrimination. As a Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg continued to be a staunch advocate for women’s rights, as demonstrated in her opinions in United States v. Virginia (1996) and Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007).
However, because of the passage of North Carolina’s new abortion law, renewed attention has been drawn to a peculiar quote from Ginsburg in 2009, raising questions about the true motives behind her advocacy for women’s rights. These questions emerge when examining her actions alongside this statement, prompting an exploration of the underlying intentions behind her involvement in the movement.
(Below) Vigil honoring Ginsburg’s life shortly after the announcement of her death. Photo by Ted Eytan.
Ginsburg’s Under-reported New York Times Quote
Ginsburg’s quote was part of an interview conducted by Emily Bazelon, published in the New York Times Magazine, a Sunday edition newspaper insert. The issue was coming off the Fourth of July weekend, so little attention was paid to it.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on abortion, New York Times Magazine, July 2009
As National Review pointed out a few days after the interview was published (15 July 2023),
“The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had ‘too many of,’ you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.
“Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.”