Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Poor People Should Have Abortions, Not Children

[ShootSpeeders]

I agree. That's why we also need to stop basing welfare on how many kids the welfare queen has. Most black women now view childbirth as a career.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Poor People Should Have Abortions Not Children LifeNews.com

sep 24 2014
The headline for this article may seem controversial, but that’s another way to state the pro-abortion views Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spouts in a new interview.

“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people,” Ginsburg says.

This isn’t the first time she’s sounded in favor of eugenics. Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made comments about the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.

 

[Desperado]

Make you wonder how this old bat got confirmed to the Supreme Court in the first place.

 

[bendog]

makes me wonder if you guys can READ.

 

[chikenwing]

makes me wonder if you guys can READ.

Read what? a few sentences?

 

[chikenwing]

The lady is out there,scary people this one.

 

[depotoo]

"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."
..........
she stated what the Dems have been denying for years now, but it is how most of the party elite really feel.

 

[R.D.]

Tough one.

Killing off the liberal voters before they are born is not in step with the votes needed to continue the socialism slide

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Tough one.

Killing off the liberal voters before they are born is not in step with the votes needed to continue the socialism slide

I thought the same thing. I've always wondered why liberals support abortion when they need poor people to swell the welfare rolls and vote for the welfare party.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So she's saying that my Dad, Aunt and Uncle shouldn't have been born.

 

[Care4all]

I agree. That's why we also need to stop basing welfare on how many kids the welfare queen has. Most black women now view childbirth as a career.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Poor People Should Have Abortions Not Children LifeNews.com

sep 24 2014
The headline for this article may seem controversial, but that’s another way to state the pro-abortion views Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spouts in a new interview.

“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people,” Ginsburg says.

This isn’t the first time she’s sounded in favor of eugenics. Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made comments about the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.

Your State can introduce a Family Cap, if the woman is on public assistance already, and conceives and bears another child, she gets no more money in welfare for that child....in NJ THIS CAUSED MORE abortions....according to one study....

Family cap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Child Exclusion" redirects here. For other uses, see Child Exclusion (disambiguation).
Family Cap is a practice to deny mothers and families who receive welfare assistance further financial assistance after the birth of another child.[1]

This is practiced in some states of the USA and in some Asian countries such as South Korea and Singapore.

Contents

• 1 United States
  • 1.1 Federal Government
  • 1.2 State Information
• 2 Criticisms of the Family Cap
  • 2.1 Abortion
  • 2.2 Children Poverty and Health
• 3 Proponents
  • 3.1 Reduction in Birth Rates
  • 3.2 Personal Responsibility 8
• 4 References

United States
Traditionally, each family member is entitled to an allotment of welfare benefits. , if a family had a child while receiving welfare assistance the grant amount would increase moderately. However, this changed in 1992 with New Jersey being the first state to implement a “family cap” policy. Currently, about 23 states have implemented some type of a “family cap” or “child exclusion” policy.[2]

Federal Government
Under the current 1996 federal welfare law block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), states have discretion to implement a family cap policy.[3] Prior to TANF, under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) states had to obtain waivers before imposing family cap policies.[4]

State Information

Repealed Family Cap	Currently Adopt Family Cap
Illinois	Arizona
Maryland	Arkansas
Wyoming	California
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oklahoma
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin
Delaware

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Criticisms of the Family Cap

Child poverty rates of different ethnic groups in the U.S.
Year	Total	African-Americans	Hispanics
1996	20.5%	39.9%	40.3%
2001	16.3%	30.2%	28.0%
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/chap09.htm

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Family Caps are highly controversial. Critics argue that the policy negatively affects children’s poverty levels and health and also increases abortion rates.

Abortion
There are conflicting studies on the abortion issue. A 1998 study conducted in New Jersey found that for new welfare recipients there was an increase of 14% in the abortion rate, but for ongoing cases of recipients there was no significant difference in abortion rates cause by the family cap policy.[2] Between October 1992 and December 1996, the New Jersey family cap averted 14,000 births and caused 1,400 abortions that otherwise would not have occurred.[5] For this reason, family caps are criticised by the New Jersey Catholic Conference, Pro-life organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women.[6] However, in 2001 another study found that family cap policies are inconclusive regarding reductions of out-of -wedlock births, abortions, or the size of welfare caseloads.[4]

In contrast, a study in Arkansas and Arizona found that there was no significant difference in birth rates. If in fact these policies correlate with a reduction in birth rates, the question remains whether they are caused by abortions or increased use of contraceptives.[2]

Children Poverty and Health
Critics argue that the child exclusion policy keeps children in poverty by denying them the critical supports they need at a young age to become self-sufficient in adulthood. A decrease in family wealth usually leads to negative effects on children.[7] Specifically, family caps were found to increase the poverty rate of children by 13.1%.[8] Also, critics argue that the costs of child exclusion exceed the savings. Nationally, the costs associated with child poverty total about $500 billion a year, the equivalent of 4% of the GDP.[9]

The effect child poverty on health also raises concerns. Children living in poverty are 3.6 times more likely to have poor health and 5 times more likely to die from an infectious disease than children that are not poor.[10] In the area of welfare sanctions, such as family caps, a termination or reduction in benefits translates into a 50% higher risk of lacking nutritionally adequate food, 30% greater risk of hospitalizations for infants and toddlers than those whose assistance were not decreased, and 90% higher risk of being admitted to the hospital during an emergency room visit.[11] Also, the increased need for medical treatment is not only felt by the children but also by society’s health expenditures.

Currently there is an estimate of 108,000 families affected by the family cap in the United States.[4]

Proponents
Proponents of family caps argue that the policy serves as an economic incentive to reduce birth rates and encourage personal responsibility.

Reduction in Birth Rates
Proponents argue that the policy would help improve contraceptive practices or increase abstinence from intercourse.[4] However, as mentioned above, the effects on childbirth have been inconclusive. A New Jersey study found that there was an estimated reduction of 14,000 births. However, a 2001 study found that the effects of the family cap policies were inconclusive, without any finding of a reduction on out-of-wedlock birth, welfare caseload, or abortions.

Personal Responsibility 8
States support the policy because family caps could limit the number of out-of-wedlock births and strengthen families by limiting the births of additional children.[2]

Other benefits of the policy, as mentioned by the Governor of Mississippi, include a reduction of crime levels caused by lower births among teenage mothers.[12]

Family cap - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[High_Gravity]

What net worth should you have to allow you to have kids?

 

[depotoo]

Tough one.

Killing off the liberal voters before they are born is not in step with the votes needed to continue the socialism slide

I thought the same thing. I've always wondered why liberals support abortion when they need poor people to swell the welfare rolls and vote for the welfare party.

Have you ever wondered why one demographic group never seems to grow? It is 5% smaller today than it was in 1790.

 

[Care4all]

What net worth should you have to allow you to have kids?

Well, in my opinion, there should be no ''net worth'' involved...government has no power to stop a woman from having her child, and NEVER should.....

and I don't agree with a family cap....but Shoot speeder and many others from the right wing, always claim women get more money for more children, and that IS NOT A FEDERAL issue, it is the States themselves....and near half of our states DO HAVE or have had, a ''family cap'' when it comes to welfare payments....who DO NOT pay more for more children.

 

[High_Gravity]

What net worth should you have to allow you to have kids?

Well, in my opinion, there should be no ''net worth'' involved...government has no power to stop a woman from having her child, and NEVER should.....

and I don't agree with a family cap....but Shoot speeder and many others from the right wing, always claim women get more money for more children, and that IS NOT A FEDERAL issue, it is the States themselves....and near half of our states DO HAVE or have had, a ''family cap'' when it comes to welfare payments....who DO NOT pay more for more children.

If you needed to be well off to have children alot of us on this board would not be here, thats a very shitty way of thinking.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Your State can introduce a Family Cap, if the woman is on public assistance already, and conceives and bears another child, she gets no more money in welfare for that child....in NJ THIS CAUSED MORE abortions....according to one study....

Thanks for mentioning that. Article says family caps are controversial but i don't see that. With the ease of abortion and birth control, there is no excuse for welfare queens having kids.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What net worth should you have to allow you to have kids?

Well, in my opinion, there should be no ''net worth'' involved...government has no power to stop a woman from having her child, and NEVER should.....

HAHA . Stupid knee-jerk liberal response. No one is stopping a woman from having children. But many of us think poor women should not be ENCOURAGED to have kids and that's what our welfare system does.

 

[HenryBHough]

In the context, more abortions, fewer future liberal voters.

What's not to like?

 

[bendog]

makes me wonder if you guys can READ.

Read what? a few sentences?

the link in the OP to the NYT interview, which shows she said nothing remotely connected to the OP.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Tough one.

Killing off the liberal voters before they are born is not in step with the votes needed to continue the socialism slide

No need for abortion for white liberals. They have very few kids anyway.

 

[Desperado]

makes me wonder if you guys can READ.

Read what? a few sentences?

the link in the OP to the NYT interview, which shows she said nothing remotely connected to the OP.

Direct from the link.... Sure sounds connected to the OP

Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:

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.

Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice