Last week I did a great piece if I say so myself, tipped off by my friend Mark, about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's bizarre comment about abortion as a means of eugenics, limiting "populations we don't want too many of." Well today Jonah Goldberg, with whom I probably disagree on 90 percent of all issues, joins me by devoting a column to the ugly statement and wonders as I do, why journalist Emily Bazelon didn't follow up on it. (I say it's because of Bazelon's identification with Ginsburg as a Jewish lawyer, feminist, elitist; so there's no cultural detachment). Hope Goldberg can get the jungle drums in the blogosphere beating out their mad tattoo on this one:
Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of RoeWade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times
interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial
characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.
