Ginsberg Does Not Support Eugenics

The Sunday New York Times interviewed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in which she made the following comments.

Ginsberg: 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.

Politicans and bloggers have pounced on these statements to suggest that Ginsburg supported eugenics, the theory that selective breeding can better the human race. For example, on July 17th, Rep. Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, declared Ginsburg's "eugenics way of thinking debases all human life" and he expressed shock that a Supreme Court justice would suggest certain classes of people are not worthy of life and should have been aborted.

I agree that eugenics is a discredited notion that is empty of both science and ethics. I also concede that eugenics informed the population control movement that included the legalization of abortion. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for example, often asserted a racist, eugencist point of view. I think it is disingenuous, however, to associate either racisim or eugenics with those who are pro-choice. People arrive at policy conclusions in different ways, and an abortion-should-be-legal position need not be predicated on a hatred of other races or a desire to breed out inferior humans. But no where in that quote that Ginsberg suggest that she supports eugenics or wants to use eugenics to control certain groups of people.

I'm amaze that people can absorb the same words and those words can trigger interpretations that are diamentrical to what the writer or speaker intended. This is a good example of such a situation.

So what is Ginsberg saying? Let's break down the statements.

Ginsberg: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out.

As a legal question, Ginsberg suggests, the question of reproductive choice remains unsettled.

There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious.

And it is also obvious to me that women with money have choices that women without money do not have. Thus, before Roe v. Wade, a women could travel to a different state or country to get an abortion. The overturn of Roe would only put the question back to the states.

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.

I disagree that the decision to abort or not abort is primarily financially driven. There are surely social and psyuchological factors at play as well. But I cannot disagree with her statement that states allowed abortions are going to repeal their laws to restrict abortions, and states that don't allow abortions clearly impact poor women and families.

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.]

Ginsberg answers this question in the context of the prohibition of the use of Medicare.

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.

"There was concern." Ginsberg is making a statement about motivations behind Roe. She is not saying that she shares those motivations. The "we" as used in this sentence refers to prevailing sentiment and "that we don't want to have too many of" refers to people who could burden the state in one way or another-- the premise behind eugenics.

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.

Ginsberg is clearly troubled about the potential abuses of public funding of abortions, and that some states could use Roe to coerce women into having tubal ligations or abortions.

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.

And so here she disassociates herself from the eugenics premise and implies consideration for pro-lifers who are appalled at the notion that some women are predestined to have their fetuses aborted. Ginsberg has clearly wrestled with this issue, and she is far from the feminist ideologue that some have painted her.