With a tip of the biretta o{]:¬/ to Sancte Pater, I present this from Worldnet Daily.
I was amazed… amazed to read this.
LAW OF THE LAND
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables
Justice discusses ‘growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of’
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don’t want to have too many of." [The legacy of Margaret Sanger.]
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Ginsburg responded:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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.
There is more of this…. go read it at Worldnet Daily and the NYT.
Loading ...
“that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Well if Margaret Sanger is any indication of such populations, it would be poor, African-Americans, who currently have the highest percentage of abortions.
Ironically, my anti-spam word was “say the black.”
Here actual quote is unclear. “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth”
So is that her opinion, or is she just talking about concerns that other’s had at the time Roe was decided?
Most abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods, so good work your “honor”, mission accomplished.
:-\
Okay,
Is anyone actually surprised by this? I’m not.
Shocked, SHOCKED I say, that liberal use the courts for hidden agendas and assume that other liberals are also using the courts for a hidden agenda. Her surprise, note it well, was that there WASN’T a eugenics hidden agenda here.
I find it interesting that abortion was legalized just after the Civil Rights movement. While many did honestly (albeit wrongly) see it as advancing women’s rights and freedom, I can’t help but think some got on the abortion bandwagon to, in Justice Ginsburg’s words, eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Disgusting, just disgusting
Matt- I think that, having read the whole interview, that what she was saying was:
(a) Back when Roe was decided there was a lot of talk about abortion and population control
(b) This talk influenced and informed the Roe decision
(c) To Justice Ginsburg, it seemed natural to interpret Roe as being, at least in part, about state-sanctioned population control
(d) The 1980 decision to uphold the Hyde Amendment played out as it did indicated to her a “re-alignment” of Roe which moved it away from the Sanger stuff to being about “reproductive rights” stuff.
It’s not clear if she wants to get rid of a chunk of the population but, given that she seems to be very much a fan of the reproductive right stuff and because she doesn’t see any continuity between Sanger and Eugenics with reproductive rights (that is: she sees this re-alignment as “straightening out” abortion and Roe), I would have to say that it seems to me that she does _not_ think that we need to cull the population.
And, frankly, that sort of notion does not seem very much of a piece with her history in the courts.
PS –
I am not saying that Justice Ginsburg is a racist, but I certainly have to wonder. She may or may not be. But with language like “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” and you consider the social climate in 1973, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that some racists got behind abortion to shrink the African American population (along with other populations). This is especially plausible when you consider that Margaret Sanger had this same line of thinking.
legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
How very much she sounds like Planned Parenthood founder, the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger with that comment – she shows her true stripes.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040306.html
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
Ok, after reading the NYT interview, it’s quite obvious that Ginsberg IS NOT saying she thought Roe v Wade was about control of ‘undesirable’ populations.
Here’s a summary of her quote:
1. At the time of Roe, there was concern that medicaid would be used to influence poor women to have abortions that they didn’t want.
2. Ginsberg didn’t like this, and was worried about it.
3. Hyde amendment was upheld which keeps medicaid from funding abortion, thus reducing the risk that poor women would be influenced to have abortions they didn’t want. At least by the government, that is.
Here is the entire quote:
“JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] 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.”
Matt,
You are incorrect, if you reread your own post you’ll see that she was surprised in 1980 to learn that Roe wasn’t about population control of the undesirable.
The classic Kinsely gaffe, right here. Every so often, the mask slips.
She is at the very least adopting a neutral tone towards a eugenic understanding of Roe, and I think a fair reading of the remark is that she herself understood this to be a rationale behind Roe. While it’s wonderful that this extremist is retiring, her putative replacement, Sonya Sotomayor, is on record not once, not twice, but three times opining that ining that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” make a difference in the task of judging. So we get rid of a eugenicist and replace her with a racist who sees no problem with claiming that there are “inherent physiological” differences between groups of people.
It’s gonna be a long four years.
Its Souter that is retiring, not Ginsburg…but six of one half a dozen of the other.
Come on guys, its getting a little too ‘conspiracy theory’ in here. If Ginsberg actually ‘slipped’ and inadvertently revealed her grand effort to rid the population of undersirables, wouldn’t you think the NYT might have followed up and asked her to explain her comment?
And in case you think the NYT is part of the grand conspiracy, then why wouldn’t they have simply covered up this supposed ‘gaffe’ of Ginsberg?
We can fight these people on their support for abortion itself. We don’t need to make up fake issues by misreading her quotes in order further justify ourselves.
“wouldn’t you think the NYT might have followed up and asked her to explain her comment?”
No. It isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s what the leftists believe, it’s the natural logical conclusion of their stated positions.
And the NYT agrees with them. Any non-leftist would have asked the obvious follow up.
The NYT agrees, and so it isn’t even an issue. The real shocker is that it was even published, since the left understands the importance of keeping their positions hidden from the sheeple.
Matt, I happen to think mass murder and lying go hand in hand.
“The real shocker is that it was even published, since the left understands the importance of keeping their positions hidden from the sheeple.”
OR
Ginsberg is simply saying she was happily surprised when Hyde was upheld which would eliminate the worry of having poor women influenced to have abortions they did not want through medicaid.
People like this “woman” is no different than China, North Korea… Hitler. The results are the same–oppressive destruction of people and society. Those who sing the praises of this kind of people are dolts. They will never comprehend the evil they embrace because of the self-centered ill-will it proclaims.
It’s also very telling we cannot rely on the courts or legislation to remedy the evil of abortion. It just won’t happen. People like this Gainsburger person are just too prolific to get a proper vote. At the moment, there is a conservative majority on the High Court but as of yet no case has yet come before that court compelling enough to overturn Roe, or least put great restrictions on abortion? Dozens of just such cases from the States have been heard already and also pending. What are they waiting for?
It tells us these justices don’t care about it either.
Read the quote carefully, she says, “…there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She didn’t say, populations that some people don’t want to have too many of, she said WE don’t want to have too many of. She includes herself by use of the word we.
I also think the reason a follow up question was not asked is because the reporter didn’t catch the significance of what she had just said. If he had, he would have at least let her explain herself so there would be no misunderstanding. The reporter had a list of questions he wanted to ask, and just didn’t catch it. It happens all the time. That’s why people so often have to put out statements after the fact explaining themselves.
….but people who have been watching these judges for years have been able to discern their agenda many many years ago. We were just laughed at, called crazies, right wing wacos, etc.
If you think SHE was bad just wait until some of the other judges are replaced. King O’ will replace them with people who have a far worse and more damaging agenda. What do I mean by that? The replacements will not care WHICH ethnic group you belong too. They will want to get rid of as many PEOPLE irrespective of who or what you are.
Ok. You can call me a wacko, but that is the way I see things going.
Wow, an honest answer from the culture of death!
Balint Vazsonyi described it like this: Liberal, socialist, communist, facist. Once you start on that road, it follows to it’s logical conclusion. The only way to properly see this vision, and get everyone to think like you, is to eliminate people who diagree with you (I am paraphrasing)
So, if you are prepared to support murder of the unborn, then eugenics follows, then extermination, the logical conclusion.
Semper Fi!
Ah! NUTS……….http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0474_Roe__v._Wade.html – 57k
Father,
The book “Freakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner, shows the direct correlation between the legalization of abortion and a decrease in the incidence of crime. I believe that this may have been what Justice Ginsberg may have been referencing in terms of “populations you don’t want to have too many of”. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect. Whatever of the motive(s) behind Roe, what we have ended up with is a eugenics program.
To be entirely fair, I think Matt’s interpretation is the only reasonable one. Reading it back, the “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” can only really be attributed speech to those whose opinion this was (as if in scare-quotes) – I mean, she would hardly admit to such an opinion if she shared it. And I think it’s simply unjust to attribute it to her on the basis of this interview.
Just my tuppenceworth.
Matt –
You have to be kidding. You are actually trying to say that Ginsberg was “happily surprised” when the Hyde Amendment was upheld? I’m sorry, but give me a break.
She clearly states that “The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.” She then goes on to laud the use of morning after pills, and states that she believes that in increasing women’s access to abortion, “Time is on the side of change.” She is plainly staking out a pro-abortion position. Since she wants unfettered access to abortion, and feels that the Federal government should PAY for those abortions, how on Earth can you claim that she was “happily surprised” that the Hyde Amendment was upheld? What in her clearly laid out position on abortion would indicate that?
I’m not remotely surprised by this opinion – the only surprising aspect is that Justice Ginsberg let it slip. Anyone who has researched abortion and been involved in efforts to oppose it knows that most of the leading proponents of abortion were eugenicists, who sought to use abortion to control “undesirable populations, just as Justice Ginsberg says. Belief in eugenics was, and I would imagine remains, very prevalent in many progressive circles – circles in which Ginsberg has traveled her entire career.
Watch the video at maafa21.com. This is probably the best documentary highlighting the link between Planned Parenthood, abortion proponents, and eugenics. Given that 40% of African-American babies are aborted every year, I’d say these eugenicists have been very successful.
“She didn’t say, populations that some people don’t want to have too many of, she said WE don’t want to have too many of.”
As Benedict Ambrose mentioned, she’s using a scare quote (picture holding your hands up while talking and making a quote gesture), not expressing her personal opinion.
“there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in [scare quote] populations that we don’t want to have too many of. [end scare quote]”
The entire point of this interview is to show how “pro-woman” Ginsberg supposedly is. Do you honestly think the NYT would therefoe include a kill-the-undesirable-populations quote if they truly thought that was Ginsberg’s opinion? That makes no sense.
Larry, she’s pro-choice, without question. But she seems to be against pressuring women into as well as out of abortion. And, despite that one ambiguity, she does not come across as being in favour of eugenicist agendas. Or so it seems to me. Call me naive, but…
It may be Souter retiring but Ginsberg has pancreatic Cancer and is a 10 year colon cancer survivor… she wont be on the bench for very long either. if she doesnt respond well to the chemo and radiation. The prognosis for most pancreatic cancers are not good.
No conservative majority yet…we are at 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and 1 “lets split the difference” moderate. We have a “centrist” court that will limit but not overturn Roe. (Yes I know that centrist is a relative term.)
I think there are serious questions that are raised by Ginsburg’s comment although the way it is put does not indicate whether she favored the eugenics interpretation of Roe or not. I think her comments about Roe guaranting equal access to abortion for the poor tell the tale. The impression I get is that she feels the Hyde Amendment gutted the point of Roe. I don’t see anything indicating that she feels relief that the Hyde Amendment was upheld.
“You have to be kidding… I’m sorry, but give me a break.”
Try and be a little more charitable, Larry.
Ginsberg raised as a concern that medicaid funded abortions could lead to the government influencing poor woman to have abortions that they don’t want. Hyde stopped this, thus my assumption that Ginsberg was happy about it. Maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe she’s happy about that part of Hyde and unhappy that poor woman can’t afford abortions.
I would be cautious in interpreting her words. I initially reacted as others
are reacting but then I thought I would do some research and located a law review article that
she wrote.
http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/63_N_C_L_Rev_375.doc
“In 1971, just before the Supreme Court’s turning-point gender-classification decision in Reed v. Reed, n4 and over a year before Roe v. Wade, I visited a neighboring institution to participate in a conference on women and the law. I spoke then of the utility of litigation attacking official line-drawing by sex. My comments focused on the chance in the 1970s that courts, through constitutional adjudication, would aid in evening out the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women and men. n5 I did not mention the abortion cases then on the dockets of several lower courts — I was not at that time or any other time thereafter personally engaged in reproductive-autonomy litigation. Nonetheless, the most heated questions I received concerned abortion.
The questions were pressed by black men. The suggestion, not thinly veiled, was that legislative reform and litiga-tion regarding abortion might have less to do with individual autonomy or discrimination against women than with re-stricting population growth among oppressed minorities. n6 The [*377] strong word “genocide” was uttered more than once. It is a notable irony that, as constitutional law in this domain has unfolded, women who are not poor have achieved access to abortion with relative ease; for poor women, however, a group in which minorities are disproportion-ately represented, access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.”
This may be what she is repeating. Everyone can reach their own conclusions, but I would be cautious. In my view, it doesn’t make her a eugenicist.
In the same spirit of disclosure, pray tell, Madam Justice, what are the populations you want to get rid of?
Matt Q,
You’re completely wrong on Justice Ginsburg and the Hyde Amendment.
And you surely haven’t provided any evidence that she was happy about
the Hyde Amendment. The opposite is the case.
In light of this discussion, I have a new mantra: “I Agree With Father Z…I Agree With
Father Z…”
Has a peaceful ring to it. (Totally serious…no sarcasm).
Ginsburg may not be a eugenicist. I think the counter-points are
strong. (Note: I do not like Ginsburg, as a judge, or in any
socio-economic-political way. And I am not convinced, deep down,
she is not a eugencist. This NYT artice is not proof. Her support
of abortion, particularly Planned Parenthood, is the proof.)
But abortion is eugenically-driven genocide. No doubt about that.
Initially, it was drivien by eugenics. No doubt about that, either.
I still believe it is. Can anyone prove it is not? The gentlemen
she met in ’71, the African-American men who cried “Genocide”…
Sage men, indeed.
As a person with a disability, I find this absolutely terrifying. Are advocates for abortion and euthanasia so emboldened by recent events that they can now speak openly of their real motives and objectives? Do they really want to cull the herd and dispose of “those populations we don’t want to many of”–those with mental and physical disabilities, those who are not fast enough, strong enough, healthy enough, pretty enough, Aryan pure enough? One of the first things the Nazis did on coming to power was to purge Germany of those deemed “useless eaters,” people believed to be merely a drain on the resources of the Reich. The more things change . . .
Without attempting to cast Justice Ginsburg as a eugenicist, the article clearly focuses on her feminist view of the law and society, more generally. Just before the quote in question, she and the interviewer have an exchange about how obtaining an abortion is NOT a problem for most middle-class and affluent women in the US in 2009, but she complains that it is a problem for poor women who cannot afford to travel far to a clinic (and presumably, for whom Medicaid will not cover the abortion procedure, pace the Hyde Amendment which she finds to be negative). She states that a goal of feminist law should be to provide for abortions for even the poorest women, and she implies that she would see Medicaid or other public funding for abortions as a step in the right direction.
Does this mean she is an anti-poor or racist eugenics supporter? No. But it is of a piece with the mentality or slippery slope that leads directly to such uses for abortion. In any event, she is a radical abortion extremist, and she is very open in saying so.
In the interview, she also, with apparent sarcasm, belittles and trivializes
post-abortion trauma.
Can there be any doubt that this “woman” if such a name she deserves, is a dangerous Nazi? Socialism by any other name would be as murderous. African-Americans, is this truly your saviour? Because founded as it is in the philosophy of Eugenics, YOU are one of the prime population groups SHE can do without. They must be stopped. Our nation drips with the blood of innocents. We should fear the reckoning that the Almighty will visit for this outrage.
finally some honesty, keep it coming
James The Less, you got the wrong Matt.
Niall, the answer to your question is yes and the vehicles will be socialized medicine (with its attendant rationing) and “assisted” suicide. I too have disabilities and am also otherwise “undesirable.” gaack.
Matt Q,
Apologies.
I think Christian charity demands that before we assume that Justice Ginsburg was talking about eugenics, we consider whether the phrase “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” can be read another way. I agree with Matt that it can and should be read another way.
When abortion was first legalized, its proponents argued that it would allow poor women, raped women, and unmarried women to avoid the “burden” of motherhood. Then all kids would grow up in two-parent families – populations we want more of – and no kids grow up in broken homes – populations we don’t want to have too many of. [However, that would mean that abortion was still being used to control groups of people, under the guise of … what… concern? benevolence?]
Prophetically, the Catholic Church stood alone in calling this proposition into doubt and in arguing that legalized abortion would do exactly what it has done – weaken families, devalue motherhood, and encourage adults to see children as a burden rather than the blessing they are. But the proposition was not eugenic (even though Margaret Sanger was); it was simply misguided, if evilly and tragically so.
Madame Justice, your slip is showing.
I read it like Matt: she’s saying that she assumed a primary purpose of abortion was to limit certain populations, so she was surprised in 1980 when the obvious next step–paying for abortions with Medicare–wasn’t taken. She’s not saying whether that was good or bad.
So the question then must be: did she support legalized abortion prior to 1980 when that was her assumption about it? If she did, then she must have thought that was a good thing, or at least accepted it as part of the overall program.
I have no idea about Justice Ginsburg’s racial attitudes. I doubt that every feminist and every pro-abortion person is a dyed-in-the-wool racist.
But …
The cynicism, indifference to common humanity and the natural law, and the general malaise common today in American society may very likely make it only natural that people (including Justices of the Supreme Court), without thinking, trivialize the genocidal effect of abortion as “collateral damage.” If they don’t care about the murder of millions of children, why would they care about genocide?
I’m glad I’m old, and don’t have a lot more years to put up with this sorrow. When I was younger, I thought I was doing things that would make a difference and that would avert this kind of evil. Where did I (and those who worked alongside me) fail?
Bill, You didn’t fail. You did your best, didn’t you? The Bible says a lot about why God allows such evil to prevail for so long. Just keep praying. That is our job. You will surely hear “well done, good and faithful servant.”
If she is to be read as merely assuming that abortion was to limit certain populations by the royal “we”, then she must form decisions as a sociologist would see things – the liberal approach. And when she “discovers” later that she was wrong in her thinking … well, the damage has been done to large populations. The end for the impersonal/sociological way of thinking.
This is one stubborn little feminist. Never does she permit even an inkling of consideration of the child in the womb as a separate person with any rights to be considered. It’s all about “sex equality” which is a bit of an oxymoron at its full consideration. One wonders if these feminists ever got past sex ed 101 which includes the result of “activity” between the sexes for which there is a human responsibility.
“Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?” (Now, has the constitution ever been so interpreted??? Or is that another case of the evolving constitution?)
“JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.”
Now look at the implications of this blanket kind of reasoning in order to get something done for one’s personal agenda. This type of reasoning would extend to same sex marriage and/or adoption by same sex couples or reproduction only for parenthood by same sex couples and how that must come about through the perverted use of technology.
Her desire for the state/laws to completely disregard personhood or the right to life of the unborn and thus stay completely out of the question is a true reflection of a very cold hearted woman. How convenient for her and her ilk.
Another confusing form of her reasoning is to believe that poor women could be “forced”, or at least influenced by gov. payment for abortion, and yet she shows no equal concern for women of means who would always be able to choose. They’re not influenced by their own available means of payment when they too feel pushed to find a “solution” by bosses/parents/husbands/boyfriends??
I was a bit surprised that our armed forces provided abortions in rather coercive manner right on bases before ROE. And now there is the “equal” positioning of both sexes in close environments out on ships for lengthy tours when abortions are not permitted? We continue in the “stupid is as stupid does” mode of losing our minds….not that abortions should ever be the implied form of birth control in such situations, but just the ignorance of human nature.
Folks, keep in mind that this is the report of an interview. Journalists believe that it’s okay to put quote marks around sets of words that are not necessarily ipsissima verba spoken during the interview. I know this from experience. When speaking we often ramble; the journalist believes it’s okay to condense. In this case, the condensation may have introduced ambiguity or the ambiguity may have been there in the conversation itself. We don’t and cannot know.
In the printed words, she goes from passive voice past tense(“there was concern”) to present tense first person plural but the import of the present tense first person is in reference to back then, if the two parts are to have any reference to each other. That could mean the “we” is historic present tense in indirect discourse.
There’s no way to know. The rest of her views on abortion are objectionable in the extreme. I hold no brief for her as a whole. But I don’t know that we can justly, from this second-hand source place so much weight on “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Caritas in veritate requires that we treat even our enemies with fairness and truth.
This was no ordinary journalist doing the interview. Emily Bazelon is a lawyer and member of the faculty at Yale Law, from where she graduated and served as an editor of the Law Review. She clerked for one of the judges on the First Circuit and is, herself, granddaughter of the long-serving (liberal)former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, David Bazelon. I would expect her to be very careful in reporting Justice Ginsberg’s precise words. The Justice’s lack of clarity is not unusual for her.
I have to agree with Matt on his take from the interview. I don’t think it does us any good to resort to this type of thing when reading quotes. We all know how often the pope’s quotes have been misinterpreted or even intentionally misrepresented. Let’s not prop up our argument on what is essentially a flimsy quote. Someone said that some people use statistics as a drunkard uses a lamp post — to prop up their arguments rather than illumination. Flimsy quotes which may or may not have been taken out of context aren’t worth trying to prop up an argument. I don’t even know the entire context of the answer because no quote was included.
Let us not, in our attempts to uphold the dignity of people, violate the dignity of the people on the other side. While it is great for building momentum, that type of momentum doesn’t last long and only hurts our goal.
Whether Justice Ginsberg was revealing her own opinon or simply stating the reason for abortion at that time does not matter. She will be on the court until she retires. The revelation about the eugenic basis for abortion is not new.
Check out the websites for LEARN INC., blackgenocide.org, or Life Dynamics Inc. LDI’s new film Maafa21 connects the dots and documents the eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement and Planned Parenthood in particular.
The important thing now is for Republican and like minded Democrats/Independents to aggresively question Judge Sootamayor’s legal reasoning, decisions and public statements so “Ginsberg # 2” will not be added to the court!
This woman is a liberal from the depths of her soul. I’m pretty sure this is how she thinks. liberals want to take care of everybody, even those who can take care of themselves. because it isn’t fair to the poor that the rich can do what they want. and we all know that liberals know better how to spend the wealth of those who are good at making it. so because of the ever expanding population, and the finite amount of resources, liberals will never have enough to provide for everyone’s needs, and this makes them feel terrible. so terrible that they get it into their head that some people would be better off dead than having to put up with the sheer misery of not being provided for. therefore resources must be allocated so that those with the greatest potential will receive the most benefit. and those who have little potential, the “undesireables” will be given the opportunity to end their pitiful existance.
I agree with Matt, Benedict Ambrose, and Kevin in Texas…
But Joe Magarac (July 9, at 2:15 p.m.) hits it out of the ballpark. Zivio, Joe!