Frankly,” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg in July 2009, “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.”
Ginsburg offered that assessment in a July 7, 2009, piece in the New York Times Magazine, titled, “The Place of Women on the Court.” Such was the place of women on the high court, in her view — to advance such concerns. It raises the question: Who are these populations that RBG and allies don’t want to have too many of?
It’s a question not being asked right now amid the remembrances of RBG. It seems especially pertinent given that the nominee to replace Ginsburg is Amy Coney Barrett, mother of seven, including a Down Syndrome child and two adopted children from Haiti.
Barrett evidently doesn’t share the same dismal view of Roe. Ginsburg saw in Roe a great added utility: Not only could it give women the “right” to abortion, but it could open the way for the federal government, via Medicaid, to fund abortions of undesired populations.