It’s not a stretch to see Justice Ginsburg’s remarks in the New York Time’s interview as saying that.

In fact, she did say that.

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.

Ginsburg revealed a eugenicist’s ideology in this interview.

Justice Ginsburg’s remarks appear to align her
expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder
Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century’s
eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the
systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce
the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.

Her views are extreme.

When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion
ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court’s
reasoning “reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family
and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been
discredited.”

Here’s what her scathing dissent scorched, just to refresh the memory and put
truth to words. This snip follows an equally grisly one just before it:

“Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed
the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and
pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s
body and the arms — everything but the head. The doctor kept the head
right inside the uterus. … The baby’s little fingers were clasping and
unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the
scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like
a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he
is going to fall.

“‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction
tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby
went completely limp. … He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the
placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the
instruments he had just used.’”

And Ginsburg is upset, very upset, that any abortion may be restricted.

She sees women on the Court as an important thing for assuring such ‘rights’, and she defends Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks about a Latina woman reaching better conclusions than a white male.

“Yes, women bring a different life experience to the
table. … That I’m a woman, that’s part of it, that I’m Jewish, that’s
part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp
in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me.”

But justice is supposed to be blind. Evidently, some justices are blinded by ideology.