As quoted in an interview with the New York Times (you know, that bastion of right-wing conservatism), here’s what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say about the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade:

“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.”
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, New York Times

Wow. All I can say is, wow. It’s astonishing to me that someone finally had the nerve to actually say in all honesty the real reason behind the founding of most abortion rights groups. But the mere fact that Ginsburg is showing any semblance of support for such reasons, that’s truly frightening.
What were those reasons? One need look no further than Margaret Sanger and the organization she began, Planned Parenthood. Sanger has been praised by the left for ages, including Hillary Clinton who spoke of Sanger several times throughout the most recent presidential campaign. But what the Left often neglects to mention while heaping these praises upon her memory is that Sanger was a staunch believer in Eugenics, the idea that society could shape and plan the breeding of their own children so as to eliminate either unwanted genetic traits or diseases, or entire unwanted races. That’s precisely what Ginsburg is referring to in that quote, when she speaks of population control, particularly in “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

What are those populations that Eugenicists didn’t want to have too many of? Of course they include the handicapped, physically or mentally. But what most people tend to forget about, is that minorities were – and still are – included in the list of unwanted aspects of our population.
With that in mind, is it any surprise that although African American babies make up 20% of live births in this nation, that they account for 36% of all abortions? Furthermore, over 80% of Planned Parenthood offices are located in predominantly African American neighborhoods! Margaret Sanger spoke repeatedly and specifically that abortion would be a tool not only of controlling and limiting the African American population, but that it could be used to utterly “exterminate the Negro population.” Given that, can we really dismiss such statistics as mere coincidence? In my opinion, no.

I’m astounded that Justice Ginsburg had the nerve to actually come out and say that abortion is a form of targeted, specific population control, and that such feelings about population influenced the outcome of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps her statement will lead others to understand the true intentions of those who championed abortion in the beginning, those who made it so commonplace as it is today. Perhaps then people will better understand exactly what it is we’re dealing with and why such intentions are so terribly, terribly dangerous.

You have to see this. It’ll break your heart. It certainly does mine.

Only two days in, while in the midst of a major economic crisis, what does Obama do with our money? He uses it to kill babies in foreign countries. Hooray for change.

Needless to say, abortion is a heated topic of debate, one that opponents rarely find much common ground on which to stand. There is, however, one exception to that rule:
The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.

This bill, known as H.R. 2175 (you can read it in full here) passed unanimously in both the US House and Senate in 2002. It received support on both sides of the aisle, from Ted Kennedy to Rick Santorum.
The bill stated that any child born alive – either through natural birth or a failed abortion – was entitled to the same rights as any American as guaranteed by the Constitution. Meaning that any child born alive, even in the process of an abortion, was entitled to any measure necessary to save and prolong their life.
Or, in other words, if a baby were born during a failed abortion, that child couldn’t just be left to die.

A version of this bill also arose on the state level, including the Illinois State Senate, where Obama was serving at the time. Aside from his duties as a state senator, he was also the chairperson of the Health & Human Services Committee, through which the bill had to pass. Considering the unanimous support this bill received elsewhere, it’s surprising that its only opponent was Barack Obama, who sought to block the bill on all fronts.

Before continuing, it’s important to clarify the exact record regarding Obama’s opposition to the bill in the Illinois State Senate. So after the jump, we’ll examine his record, his explanation as to why he opposed the bill, as well as the discrepancies between that argument and the actual records from the Illinois State Senate. On top of that, we’ll explore how we’re left to wonder about what Obama really does believe. Finally, I’ll provide a video from CNN as a decent synopsis of this topic. Click “More” for more of this vitally important topic every voter should be aware of.