Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Abortion Is About Getting Rid Of Undesirables

Getting Rid Of Undesirables

Ruth Bader Ginsburg “Undesirables”

by Beverley Russell, Op-ed contributor Trumpville Report

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Abortion Is About Getting Rid Of Undesirables Friday, July 10, 2009

At times it is easy to forget how completely obsessed the global élite are with eugenics and population reduction. But an incredibly shocking and offensive quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is bringing the issue of eugenics to the forefront once again.

You see, the agenda of population control and of getting rid of undesirables has been around for a long, long time.

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people who the élite do not want to have around: “Frankly I had thought that when Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

What in the world? Talk about offensive!

Somebody needs to ask her EXACTLY what she means by “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

And yet the liberal dishonest media let her slide on this one so far…..

That is because the liberal media is only owned by a handful of elitists, most of which totally agree with the eugenics agenda.

For example, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood expressed her feelings about unborn children this way: “The most merciful thing that a poor family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

A shocking statement indeed, but you can see her philosophies reflected in Planned Parenthood throughout the nation today. In fact, Planned Parenthood regularly plants their clinics in the very poorest of neighborhoods. By doing so, they help to advance the sick eugenics agenda of the global élite.

Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and several other “super wealthy” Americans gathered for a secret meeting in Manhattan. Apparently one of the most important items on the agenda of the meeting was to discuss how their combined wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population.

So why didn’t we hear about this meeting in the media?

Well, the reality is that there was almost a COMPLETE blackout by the American news media of this secret gathering. They reportedly met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of Rockefeller University. The secret meeting was supposed to be so discreet that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at “security briefings”.

However, some details about this clandestine meeting have emerged.

According to one major U.K. newspaper, one person who attended this meeting said that “a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”

That same article includes some incredibly disturbing quotes about the meeting from that same anonymous source…..”This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers.” “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

In other words, the “big brains” have decided that if they don’t start aborting, sterilizing and killing more of us, then we are going to have a disaster of catastrophic proportions. Which is ridiculous of course. If the greedy global elitists were not hoarding the vast majority of the world’s wealth then there would be more than enough resources for everyone.

In fact, the assets of the world’s three richest men , #1 Bill Gates $75 B , $78 B Real Time Net Worth as of 7/25/2016 , #2 Amancio Ortega $67 B , $73.3 B Real Time Net Worth as of 7/25/2016 , #3 Warren Buffett$60.8 B ,$64.7 B Real Time Net Worth as of 7/25/2016

These three me’s wealth exceeds the combined gross domestic products of the world’s 48 poorest countries. Think about that, 3 men have more money than 48 countries combined! Talk about greed.

Getting Rid Of Undesirables

And now the global elitists have decided that they have way too many servants and they need to start “culling” the herd. Thinning Us Out!

Meanwhile, more than 2.8 billion people, close to half of the world’s population, live on less than the equivalent of $2 a day. Hundreds of millions of people are barely scraping by while the global elite of the world discuss how they can keep them from reproducing. We live in a very sick world.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to the New York Times Magazine. At one point, about the lack of Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, because of a 1980 Supreme Court decision called Harris v. McRae.

She said then: The ruling 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.

To imagine that Justice Ginsburg would endorse eugenics as a motivation for supporting legal abortion, It’s a gotcha, and nothing more.

In an interview with Justice Ginsburg before an audience at Yale College. Times read her back her 2009 quote and asked her what she meant by it.

“You know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” she said. “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.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade much concern about overpopulation.”

When asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes, and then returning to the issue of whether Congress could restrict Medicaid from covering abortion, added, “But I turned out to be wrong. Not too long after Roe v. Wade”—in Harris v. McRae— “the Supreme Court said it was OK to deny Medicaid funding for even therapeutic abortions.”

Asked if the idea of a link between concern about population growth and the court’s rulings on abortion turned out to be wrong. Justice Ginsburg said yes, stating the obvious: After all, Roe v. Wade and the decisions that came after it is rooted in the right to privacy.

Justice Ginsburg also made it clear that the issue she had in mind when she spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races). In the end, if that concern has a legacy, it’s in the promotion of contraception. But of course, social conservatives never want birth control to be the focus of a discussion about reproductive rights because on that ground they lose.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to put the controversy over her recent criticisms of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump behind her, issuing a written statement of regret and telling NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “I did something I should not have done. It’s over and done with, and I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”

But the issue of judicial speech on political matters is hardly over and done with. It will remain fodder for the 2016 presidential election because Donald Trump criticized Ginsburg, even questioning her mental competence (“her mind is shot”) and calling on her to resign. Many court watchers worry what might happen if the court is called upon to rule on any kind of election dispute and that brings a reprise of calls for her to recuse in any Trump-related litigation. And on top of all that, the court itself will soon decide whether to weigh in on a case challenging an Arizona rule that bars judicial candidates from doing the very thing Justice Ginsburg did: openly supporting or opposing a candidate for public office.

This in my opinion is a disgrace , for a supreme court Justice , whom is for getting rid of undesirables, comes out and criticises a presidential candidate and says She’ll step down if he is elected is cause for her to resign now. I agree with Trump , her mind is shot.

She has proven she is biased and should not hold her seat any longer. I just hope she keeps her word and steps down when Donald J Trump becomes the next President of the United States of America! Then he can fill her seat with a conservative judge that won’t be Getting Rid Of Undesirables or anyone else. Once again we will be America. Don’t like it, leave, please don’t stay here and complain. We don’t like whiners, any more than you do.

Trump 2016

by Beverley Russell, Op-ed contributor Trumpville Report

Related Posts

2 Comments on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Abortion Is About Getting Rid Of Undesirables

  1. This is a hallmark of the ideology of the left. They are forever wanting to murder in large numbers those they view as undesirable. They have defined undesirable at various times as black, Jewish, Catholic, educated, uneducated, or simply for being in disagreement with their ideology. Babies might become undesirable so killing them before birth eliminates greater effort later.

    Look up Obama’s good friend William Ayers, who has visited the white house many times. Ayers voiced his fervent desire of murdering thirty to fifty million Republicans forty years ago. This solution to gain them unrefuted power was a part of the left’s eventual plans for America.

  2. Trump is not the Ideal Candidate, but who has ever been the ideal person? No one! At least Mr Trump is Honest in his feelings and love for our Nation, unlike Hillary, or the Globalists from both Parties. Career Politicians to be Truthful, are lifetime Leeches, living off other folks money thru constantly telling BS and Lies. I refuse to vote for any politician who has served over 12 years in Congress, even my own state Senator, whom I like, but he has been in office way too long! Since Congress will never give themselves Term Limits, it is up to We, the People to vote them out after so long. Same needs done to the Supreme Court, Term Limits. No one is so good and correct and lawful as to have a lifetime appointment, only JESUS was that good! Bader is a disgusting bag of bones and we need PRESIDENT TRUMP so that we will be guaranteed decent folks to replace the empty seats in the SC. TRUMP/TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS 2016!


%d bloggers like this: