sounds more like she just misspoke and now you're twisting her meaning.

@Lynnjynh9315 - Reading the article I doubt that she misspoke, especially sense she emphasized the population growth..  "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of" To be honest this doesn't surprise me, there is prejudice
everywhere you look, even in High School I would over hear different
groups of students talking like this, so hearing someone let this slip, even a Supreme Court Justice, doesn't surprise me much. 

@lizardsjade - yes, but is this an example of racism or socioeconomic prejudicism? Maybe I'm just a little tired, but I can't seem to wrap my head around how this statement is prejudiced and in what way.The whole "...populations that we don't want to have too many of..." certainly sounds elitist, but... I don't know, I got up at 7:00am and I am SO not a morning person. Doesn't help that I get to bed at 1:00am. : (

Bro, you gotta tell me when you blog this stuff.  I was about to do a post on this, but I see you've already covered it quite well.

It was once pointed out to me that if you looked at which babies are being aborted most often in this country, a certain "G" word would come to mind.

@Lynnjynh9315 - Considering the actual facts -- that black women are a smaller population, yet have more abortions, than white women; that abortion has long been used by various cultures to cull unwanted populations (China's Zhuan community, WWII Germany's Jews and other "religious undesirables," all the way back to the days of Hippocrates); and that those who championed abortion in the United States were, by and large, unabashed eugenicists, especially (but not only) Margarette Sanger -- it is not even the smallest bit of a leap to presume Ms. Ginsberg was referring to racial populations just as much as economic ones.

But let's be generous and grant her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she's only saying that the intention of Roe v. Wade was to cull the population growth of impoverished Americans (even with all the economic data working against her -- but that's another rant entirely). Isn't that the same as effectively saying that the children of impoverished persons are less worthy of being alive, deserve less fundamental protection, than the children of rich or well-off parents? Whether it's race or economics, let's be honest, here: We're still talking about killing children for reasons well outside their realm of control. If that is the case, we have no business telling those who birthed their children under good economic conditions, but who fall on hard times later on, that they do not have the right to then kill their children. Likewise, such a position supposes that those who are "impoverished" by our standards will never see their stations improved, which is simply untrue: The poor in this country do better today than they did 20 years ago, and the median income continues to increase overall. And finally it supposes that there are simply no other options, when there are; adoption is becoming more accessible in most states, and the advent of the Baby Moses law in many states allows women to give up their children without suffering any penalty. And no, I don't think adoption is an easy decision, but we do not discourage people from doing the right and just thing simply because it is difficult. Despite the moniker "Pro-choice," the reality is that women choose to abort their pregnancies because they feel they HAVE no other choice. One would think so-called "pro-choicers" would be the most enthusiastic about adoption, parenting assistance, educational opportunities, money counseling, jobs benefits, etcetera... yet all we ever hear about "reproductive choice" is how NOT to reproduce, how difficult (if not impossible) adoption is, and how children are more burden than blessing.

The point is, a person's economic situation at the time of conception bears little relevance to the fundamental question in the abortion debate: The question of humanity. There is no ambiguity in the science of reproductive development: The unborn are fully human beings at the particular stage of development appropriate to their age and size. It is so sad that a children's author knows better what our own leadership ignores: "A person's a person, no matter how small." (Dr. Suess, Horton Hears a Who)

The workings of the extreme liberal mind come into view and people still refuse to see it for what it is 

1 in 3 African American pregnancies are terminated and most abortion clinics are centered around poor, minority communities. So the liberals either hate the poor or the minorities they pander to - ironic.

@JJ_Ames - They pander to them, but do they really care to help them?  No.  Look at the assistance programs offered by liberals - they foster further dependence while penalizing those who seek to rise above their circumstances (a father of six on welfare who gets a part-time min. wage job risks losing benefits for his entire family; it's better for him to just stay home than try to support them at all).  The system is not designed to help the poor; if that were the case then the poor would eventually lessen in number and ... guess what? The liberals wouldn't have their pet sympathy cause anymore.

@GermanWrench -  "Despite the moniker "Pro-choice," the
reality is that women choose to abort their pregnancies because they
feel they HAVE no other choice. One would think so-called
"pro-choicers" would be the most enthusiastic about adoption, parenting
assistance, educational opportunities, money counseling, jobs benefits,
etcetera... yet all we ever hear about "reproductive choice" is how NOT
to reproduce, how difficult (if not impossible) adoption is, and how
children are more burden than blessing."

Please don't think I'm crazy when I say I couldn't get to sleep thinking on this topic.
It doesn't matter how many choices you give a woman if they are set to have an abortion they will. I have a friend that recently chose to have an abortion. First she said that she didn't want the baby to end up in foster care and have to live in "The System" all their life. So when I provided a name of a place, an address and a phone number for her to call and talk to someone about her adopting the baby out to a family that would love and raise the baby in a happy and healthy home the truth came out. She told me that it would be, and I quote, "a waste of my time and energy". Knowing full well that she may become pregnant, not taking precautions to not have this happen, when she knew full well she wasn't ready for a child in her life she continued with what she was doing. How sad it is that even when given a way for a child to live without having to worry that they aren't taken care of, the choice of aborting is still prominent. 
Still a tender subject for me, I pray that places such as the one I told my friend about would be talked about more and more, letting people know that there is a better option than killing something so wonderful.

@lizardsjade - I agree completely -- this is a very sad and discouraging reality in our world. The other day, while sitting at the DMV, my husband struck up a conversation with a woman who told him he has no right to have an opinion on abortion and that children younger than 8 weeks are, direct quote, "just lumps of jelly." When you're dealing with people who have undergone years of indoctrination in bad developmental science and faulty logic, they really will begin to believe that an abortion is easier, safer and better in the long-term than the chance of birthing a child on the behalf of another. There is a very severe lack of information being made available to women, not only about adoption, but about embryonic development, human rights, and basic comprehension skills (why do we not teach logic in schools?).

It's hard to really understand that mindset and still have an optimistic view of the world. I suppose the truth is not that they feel they have no other choice (although many women really are so desperate as to feel abortion is the only option), but that any other choice is harder, less rewarding, and will ultimately damage themselves and the child. They've been told all their lives that no one else has the right to use them as "incubators" and so begin to see adoption as even more selfish than abortion.

Unfortunately there is another factor here most people miss.  Years ago before the Roe decision, abortion was legal in New York.  I worked at a hospital (inner city) that did lots of abortions. What I saw over and over again was women having abortions they didn't want to have because they were pressured by their husbands/ boyfriends or in one case their father.  Sometimes even when the woman "wants" the abortion she has been baggered for days or even weeks beforehand to "want" it. The woman is being made to choose between the child and her boyfriend.