The Jaffe Memo, Ginsburg, Harris v. McRae, and Population Control – PART 5
|December 24, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General|
In my first post, I showed how the beliefs of the Nazis and the eugenicists are disturbingly similar to viewpoints of some modern liberals. I gave three examples; I could have given three hundred. The Jaffe Memo shows that ‘population control’ is central to the the progressive outlook on the world. It is an aspect of their ‘religion.’ As progressives have flooded into the government over the last sixty years, the moral (!) righteousness of population control has become institutionalized.
I illustrated this fact by showing how several issues typically promoted as planks of the Democrat platform on the basis of ‘equality’ are revealed by sources such as the Jaffe Memo to be disingenuously put forward. The plotting liberals said they wanted ‘women’s liberation’ but in fact they wanted to ‘encourage women to work’ because then they couldn’t have large families. They say they are for gay rights, but this isn’t because of a particular fondness for gays, but for the obvious biological fact that gays will procreate with *ahem* difficulty. They say they are for a ‘fair wage,’ but things like the minimum wage were originally enacted in an attempt to starve poor black people to death, since the work they were qualified to do was so low that no employer could bring himself to pay that kind of wage in order to have it done.
I say ‘plotting liberals’ to make clear again that most liberal secular humanistic atheistic progressives that you find on the street don’t imagine that their viewpoints are actually a vehicle for some of their elitist friends to carry out their population control measures. They are splendid dupes.
I brought up the HARRIS v. McRAE case because it is one more example of this sort of thing. You will remember that this case centered around an amendment that would have disallowed Medicaid from paying for the abortions of the ‘indigent.’ If you read that case, you will see the minority simply besides themselves that the majority would deprive poor people from the means (ie, the money) to exercise their constitutional right to have an abortion if they desire. These soft-hearted and soft-headed judicial misfits really thought they were coming to the defense of poor (black) women. (Don’t get mad at me! That’s what THEY said!)
But another Supreme Court Justice was confused about that. Somewhere along the line, this ACLU lawyer had been given the impression that Medicaid, and subsidizing abortions through it, wasn’t about empowering minority women, but controlling the population. It’s best if you read Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own words:
Yes, the [Harris v. McRae] ruling about that 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. 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.
This is from an interview in the New York Times from 2009. Let’s analyze it a bit.
Now, at the time, there was some who came to Ginsburg’s defense, arguing that this statement does not mean that she herself was in favor of the eugenics agenda that is on display. For my purposes, it is irrelevant. What is indisputable is that she linked the Roe vs. Wade decision to “concern about population growth” and… and this is just beautiful… “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” I will pass over the magnificent ‘we’, because as I said, I don’t frankly care if the truth is that Ginsburg would like to see the numbers of black people decline.
The remarkable thing is that this statement reveals the prevailing thought processes that drove the liberal progressives of the 60s and 70s to pursue legalized abortion on demand. You thought it was about women’s liberation! The empowerment of women! The right for women to do as they pleased with their own bodies! YOU SPLENDID DUPE. YOU USEFUL IDIOT. THAT IS WHAT THEY TOLD YOU. THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY WANTED TO REDUCE CERTAIN POPULATIONS.
To add insult to that injury, we then find out that Ginsburg had been under the impression that the whole goal was to link Roe with Medicaid as a way to provide those abortions- and hence that population control they were so interested in. ‘Some people’ were concerned that some people might be coerced into having abortions when they didn’t want them, but then that is a small price to pay when trying to save the earth. At any rate, Ginsburg was surprised at how the court ruled on the Hyde Amendment, given her understanding of the real impetus of legalized abortion. And you can understand her confusion: the justices that decided the Harris case were almost identical to the justices that decided the Roe case. It appears to me that she thought the population control agenda was going to continue to inform what makes something ‘Constitutional.’ I wonder where she got that idea in the first place?
I can’t hang too much on one anecdote, and I’m not trying to. There are lots of examples that I could give to support what I’m saying but what I’m really trying to do is drive the reader to think for himself and take nothing for granted, and an example from a sitting Supreme Court Justice has enough weight all on its own. We must come to grips with the fact that there are people out there that are actively manipulating us to support policies for one set of reasons when they themselves support them for another, diabolical set of reasons. It isn’t even a matter of whether or not good people can have different answers- we must also make sure the question is legitimate.
In this lengthy essay (and the one previously) I have shown how these social engineers have worked to implement their policies over several generations and how they have attempted to insulate themselves from criticism by framing their own motives and ends as purely secular and appropriate for determining public policy while those who disagree have ‘religious’ motives and when they try to determine public policy it is tantamount to an establishment of religion.
The Harris vs. McRae Supreme Court case nicely corroborated both of these points, but it also brings us to a consideration of the legitimate question of how much a Christian should be involved in ‘politics,’ but in a very specific context.
That is, we are not asking “How much should a Christian be involved in ‘politics’ in 1790?” or, “How much should a Christian be involved in politics under a monarchy?”
We are asking the question from the point of view of the Christian in American society in 2011, where abortion on demand is legal, euthanasia and assisted suicide is making inroads, and the growing demand is for Christians to butt out of ‘politics,’ since their involvement apparently amounts to an ‘establishment of religion’ and a violation of the ‘separation of church and state.’
It is very important that I put it in that context, because something very significant has happened over the last three decades: ‘politics’ has become all-encompassing.
In short: everything has become political.
And if everything is political, and religious and moral perspectives are to be excluded from politics, then…. you do the math. Or wait until my next post, when I’ll do it for you.