In this week's column (not yet available on the Center's website), Weigel writes of an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which he noted appeared in a recent issue of The New York Times Magazine.
Weibel writes "There, in the course of relating her surprise at the court's 1980 decision upholding the Hyde Amendment (which banned federal funding for abortion), Justice Ginsburg had the following to say about legal history, social policy, and political surprises:"Weibel then goes on to discuss the eugenicist mindset of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the ugly history of eugenics in the mid-20th century."Frankly, I thought at the time Roe was decided, there was a 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 of abortion."
But what I find surprising is how little notice Ginsburg's comment attracted. In fact, the bold supposition that abortion has a social eugenicist element by Ginsburg didn't even earn a follow-up question. Imagine if it had been uttered by Scalia or Thomas.
All this is nothing new, of course. There is an element of utilitarianism in progressive and liberal social theories, even though the argument for abortion has evolved into a libertarian one -- that a woman has the inherent right to exercise control over her body.
However one approaches that ideal, and as a man I have no comprehension of the emotional and psychological issues inherent in a woman's approach to life in the womb, I know that Ginsburg utilitarian (and somewhat elitist) idea to abortion provides an insight into the issue of disability.
First, it does so in a practical sense. Children-in-womb with Down's Syndrome (something that can be determined by pre-natal testing) are being aborted ninety percent of the time. That has an enormous social impact, and one displayed in ways we cannot comprehend.
Second, Ginsburg has a vote in any issue regarding disability rights that comes before the US Supreme Court. It is difficult for me to understand how a person can compartmentalize utilitarian values. However liberal Ginsburg might be regarding, for example, the scope of The Americans with Disabilities Act in employment or access issues, I see no reason to suppose that she would not support a Singer-inspired movement to apply utilitarian quality of life assessments to life issues relating to permanent disability.