Oh? And which "populations" would those be, Your Honor? Margaret Sanger, meet Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg, meet your predecessor. A girl's club! "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
Her Honor made these astonishing remarks in an interview forthcoming in the NYTimes Magazine, not yet available online. MC will link to it when it is. Ed Whelan of NRO has the following to say:
"As part of her broad-ranging discussion of abortion, Ginsburg offers this, er, interesting comment why the Court's 1980 decision in Harris v. McRae, which ruled that the Hyde Amendment's exclusion of nontherapeutic abortions from Medicaid reimbursement was constitutionally permissible, "surprised" her: 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."
The drive by media coverage? None. If Justice Scalia had talked about "populations that we don't want to have too many of?" Mein Gott. Mon Dieu. Yah Allah. Pinch would have it on the front page of the NYTimes for weeks until he resigned from the bench. The drive by media would have followed in spades. But this?
Crickets. Silence.
Pathetic.
