Abortion

[HenrySwanson]

I don't get the opposition to contraception from a lot of pro-lifers. Studies show it's access to that, not making abortions illegal, that cut down rates.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't get the opposition to contraception from a lot of pro-lifers. Studies show it's access to that, not making abortions illegal, that cut down rates.

Here's my take: I don't think it's the actual abortion bit that many conservatives take issue with. It's the act of casual sex that they cannot tolerate. It's a form of FOMO, IMO. They want poor people who dare to commit this heinous act to be burdened with childcare and poverty. This squares with the opposition to contraceptives too. It squares with the relentless campaigns for abstinence in primary education. I'd say the opposition to recreational drug use comes from the same place. And rights for LGBTQ folks. It's the American beauty thing. How dare you do anything you want! I can't do anything I want because other people told me I couldn't, and I obeyed them, so you can't either!

The big 3 religions really supercharged suppression of basic human nature and we're kind of saddled with the consequences for a lot longer than I can foresee.

Did anyone actually care about homosexuality or abortion or drug use in the pre-Abraham days? Genuine question, I don't know.

 

[TexRex]

This was a really fantastic (if occasionally profane*) piece. Any profanity that appears in the linked article is censored below, but I've also omitted his abundant linked citations to encourage reading it on his OnlySky page.

*Hemant himself uses only mild profanity (a single instance that, when taken literally, refers to fecal matter), but he also uses a famous and topical George Carlin quote.

If the leaked ruling released by POLITICO last night turns out to be real—and it sure seems that way—Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned in the most extreme possible way. Justice Samuel Alito’s initial draft from February supposedly represents the view of the Court’s majority. While it could change in many ways before the final version is released next month, it calls for the compete repeal of nationwide abortion rights protections.

A woman’s ability to have a safe abortion would depend on where she lives, with an estimated 24 states likely to ban abortion given the opportunity, and what kind of resources she has to get treated in a more welcoming state. And if Republicans ever regain total control of government again, they will undoubtedly pass a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks (before most women even know they’re pregnant), making sure even people in blue states suffer like everyone else.

The SCOTUS abortion ruling, if it comes to pass, would represent the culmination of decades of right-wing activism, especially when it comes to the Court itself.

Republicans made opposing abortion rights a litmus test for federal judges. Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s SCOTUS nominee from getting a hearing in 2016 so they could install Neil Gorsuch a year later. (To put it another way, they changed the size of the Court to 8 until it was politically convenient for them to change it back to 9.) Republicans stymied a full investigation into Brett Kavanaugh so he could claim another seat without alienating the few moderate GOP senators. Republicans shoved through Amy Coney Barrett in a matter of weeks after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg so that Democrats wouldn’t have the opportunity to replace her. (All three were nominated by Trump, who lost the popular vote, but always maintained support among Republicans precisely because he outsourced his Supreme Court picks to the Federalist Society, which only boosts anti-abortion judges.) Republicans have completely ignored the growing concerns about Clarence Thomas and his wife because his predictable votes are far more important than his ethics. And, of course, John Roberts and Samuel Alito were appointed by President George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote and was only in office because a 5-4 conservative-leaning Supreme Court prevented votes from being counted in the decisive state of Florida.

There’s an argument to be made that none of the justices who are about to overturn Roe should be on the bench at all.

There is a chance, however, that all these moves could backfire.

That wouldn’t make up for the damage of what’s about to happen, but there’s a long-term view that is worth keeping in mind while Republicans celebrate a potential (major) short-term win.

The modern Christian Right wasn’t always laser-focused on anti-abortion activism. In fact, white evangelicals didn’t care about the issue much until several years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade.

Let me repeat that: Roe was decided in 1973. If you read books written by prominent Christian apologists and evangelical leaders at the time, it wasn’t a controversial ruling. While white evangelical leaders want you to believe Christians have always opposed abortion, that view, as Fred Clark so memorably put it, is “younger than the Happy Meal.”

A 1968 issue of Christianity Today (the magazine founded by evangelist Billy Graham) included essays that said things like, “God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed.” The former Southern Baptist Convention president Wayne Dehoney said in 1976 (!) that Catholics got it wrong with their anti-abortion theology because “the soul is formed at breath, not with conception.” The SBC, at the very least, adopted a resolution in 1971 allowing for abortion in many unfortunate circumstances, seeing it as a sensible “middle ground.” A 1971 book from the late Christian theologian Dr. Norman Geisler said very bluntly, “the one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder… [because] an unborn baby is not fully human… (Ex. 21:22).”

What changed? The growing right-wing movement within the white evangelical world decided supporting segregation was no longer a winning issue for them. The “culture warriors” of the time wanted to make sure private Christian schools like Bob Jones University could retain their tax-exempt status while banning Black students and opposing interracial dating. They lost that fight, thankfully. But seeing the writing on the wall, those right-wing Christian leaders knew they needed a new issue to galvanize their people. Reinterpreting Scripture to argue against abortion rights turned out to be a winning horse:

The novel translation of Exodus 21:22-23 allowed the founders of the evangelical Right to neutralize previous, Bible-based reservations about Catholic pro-life activism. By 1980, Jerry Falwell was off to the races. “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception,” he declared in his book 'Listen America!' Abortion “is murder according to the Word of God.” Falwell’s major reference for this claim was Psalm 139:13, where the author writes that God “knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Most biblical scholars, however, including many in the evangelical community, argue that this passage deals with God’s foreknowledge and omniscience, not with when life begins.

Historian Randall Balmer put it even more clearly: Evangelicals “seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term.”

If Roe is now overturned, it would undoubtedly be seen as a moral victory for the millions of conservative Protestants and Catholics who are ignorant of that history and who falsely think they just saved millions of lives. But it would also require them to shift gears.

It’s always easy to express concern about the unborn and the dead because doing so requires no actual responsibility, and it’s no surprise that many churches only ever seem to care about those groups in particular. They constantly talk about protecting fetuses and preparing for the afterlife while mostly neglecting the people who suffer as a result of their broken theology. It’s not just a talking point to say anti-abortion activists stop caring about those fetuses the moment they exit the womb. The “pro-life” crowd cares more about life that doesn’t exist, and their policy positions reflect it. They tend to oppose every piece of progressive legislation that would help people without resources. The late comedian George Carlin was on point when he summarized their position this way: “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re ****ed.”

Instead of merely opposing abortion, conservatives would have to defend the idea of forcing women to give birth in cases of rape and incest. They would have to explain why women should be forced to endure the horrors of an ectopic pregnancy. They would have to explain how they plan to care for the babies that will be born in the worst circumstances imaginable. They’ll inevitably find new talking points, but pretending they care about fetuses is a hell of a lot easier than defending the possible repercussions of rape.

Consider this: The conservative Christians who oppose abortion effectively want to force little girls impregnated by their fathers to give birth against their will. It’s not merely a hypothetical. This **** happens. And every single extremist who thinks abortion should still be impermissible in that scenario needs to be held accountable for it. It’s not enough to simply say, “It’s not the baby’s fault!”

It’s also likely that the people currently fighting to ban abortion will move to restrict access to contraception and birth control, which is a much more difficult argument to make. That’s not a slippery slope argument either, since this was always about imposing their “morality” on everybody else. That is where the path leads. And moving from accusations of “murder” to preventing other people from enjoying consensual sex is a leap that most Americans will not take.

So what happens when the dog finally catches the car?

Overturning Roe would rightly anger many of the 59% of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases along with many other Americans who don’t have strong feelings about the issue… yet.

Voting against Republicans would be the simplest way for them to fight back. Some conservative voters, having accomplished their goal, could end up not voting at all because of a sudden lack of urgency. It’s no secret that Republicans have always benefited more from saying they would overturn Roe than ever actually doing it. In 2017, Eyal Press wrote in the New Yorker, “Republicans have been able to embrace anti-abortion absolutism while avoiding the political repercussions of putting this absolutism into practice.”

If abortion rights are taken away, the resulting chaos and unthinkable suffering would rightly be blamed on those conservatives. (Keep in mind that many of the states that will ban abortion have no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.) Similarly, a lot of Americans who may be on the fence politically, or claim to be independents, could be motivated to finally pick a damn side.

To be sure, none of that is guaranteed. The Sandy Hook massacre, for example, didn’t significantly overturn the proliferation of weapons in this country. But school shootings sure as hell created a generation of young people—eventual politicians—eager to pass gun safety legislation. And a ruling to overturn abortion rights may force a lot of young people to get involved politically and break the spell of those who didn’t think it was a big deal.

There are numbers to back that up, as noted last year by Slate‘s William Saletan:

In the past, when the court has flirted with overturning Roe, that threat has motivated pro-choice voters to punish Republicans at the ballot box. A survey two months ago, conducted by Lake Research and Emerson College Polling, suggests that the same thing might happen next year if the court rules against Roe. Forty-five percent of Republicans and 51 percent of pro-life respondents said that they’d be more interested in voting in 2022 if the justices were to overturn Roe. But among Democrats and pro-choice respondents, the numbers were significantly higher: 66 percent and 69 percent, respectively. Democrats and pro-choicers also held a 15-point advantage among respondents who said they’d be “much” more interested in voting. (Lake Research is a pro-choice firm, but its sample in this survey was by some measures more pro-life than any other pollster’s.)

By finally getting what they’ve always said they wanted, Republicans and the conservative Christians who support them may have shot themselves in the foot. It’s up to everyone else to make sure they pay a price for it.

Did anyone actually care about homosexuality or abortion or drug use in the pre-Abraham days? Genuine question, I don't know.

Regarding the latter, from above:

The modern Christian Right wasn’t always laser-focused on anti-abortion activism. In fact, white evangelicals didn’t care about the issue much until several years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade.

Let me repeat that: Roe was decided in 1973. If you read books written by prominent Christian apologists and evangelical leaders at the time, it wasn’t a controversial ruling. While white evangelical leaders want you to believe Christians have always opposed abortion, that view, as Fred Clark so memorably put it, is “younger than the Happy Meal.”

A 1968 issue of Christianity Today (the magazine founded by evangelist Billy Graham) included essays that said things like, “God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed.” The former Southern Baptist Convention president Wayne Dehoney said in 1976 (!) that Catholics got it wrong with their anti-abortion theology because “the soul is formed at breath, not with conception.” The SBC, at the very least, adopted a resolution in 1971 allowing for abortion in many unfortunate circumstances, seeing it as a sensible “middle ground.” A 1971 book from the late Christian theologian Dr. Norman Geisler said very bluntly, “the one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder… [because] an unborn baby is not fully human… (Ex. 21:22).”

All of these things are likely to be nothing more than culture war clarion calls.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well, somebody climbed the tallest tower in San Francisco (really the west coast, but that's another discussion) to support the anti-abortion cause...

 

[GTvon]

Life is precious

 

[TexRex]

I would hope that in a civilized society people would treat one another with at least the respect to not kill each other regardless of age.

I'm 50 years old. Every official document relevant to my identity and age determines my age based on the date of my birth, January 11th,1972. My understanding is that this type of record is quite common.

What age is the unborn?

 

[FuriousDemon]

I’m not too optimistic that republicans will have to explain away women suffering or cases of rape. All of this can be waved away with “for the greater good” and “think of how many lives we are saving”.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So is the anti-abortion movement in the USA mostly driven by Christians?

 

[TexRex]

So is the anti-abortion movement in the USA mostly driven by Christians?

Likely nearly exclusively.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Likely nearly exclusively.

Moreso than it is a Republican thing? Or are they effectively one and the same? Would it be fair to think that the religions with a mostly Republican leaning following generally be against abortion?

 

[Darla Starch]

Would it be fair to think that the religions with a mostly Republican leaning following generally be against abortion?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The only divergence I see is the Hispanic community which is overwhelmingly (I believe?) Catholic. Catholics seem to be the most fervently anti-abortion. Hispanics also seem to be heavily democratic-leaning, although this has changed in recent years, particularly in Florida.

edit: I should add that left leaning voters overwhelmingly (90+%) support abortion rights and also represent a 5-10pt majority of US Citizens. The fact that abortion rights could be on the chopping block is a reflection of the undemocratic nature of the Senate. Even more wildly, a majority (65%) of Republicans even support abortion rights, at least those less strict than what several GOP stronghold states have proposed...

Take that all together and you have a very sizeable portion of the US electorate in favor of preserving the right to an abortion (likely more than 75%) but an extremely small contingent of evangelicals who managed to position themselves to actually make the decision. The current majority of the supreme court represents the viewpoint of probably 10% of the US population. So that's where we're at.

 

[UKMikey]

I thought Spider-Man was supposed to be about great responsibility. What next, a 2nd Amendment Hulk?

---

In seriousness, however... I wonder whether how they'll be able to fly their daughters out of the country in the event of a Republican majority and nationwide federal ban WITHOUT attracting attention. No doubt they'll just tough it out.

 

[McLaren]

Well, somebody climbed the tallest tower in San Francisco (really the west coast, but that's another discussion) to support the anti-abortion cause...

Something awfully weird about being "pro-life" whilst you scale 60-floor building with no proper safety equipment.

 

[TexRex]

Moreso than it is a Republican thing? Or are they effectively one and the same? Would it be fair to think that the religions with a mostly Republican leaning following generally be against abortion?

I suspect it's more a Republican thing than a Christian thing, with conservative Christians most likely to be behind the effort to eliminate access to safe abortion care.

There's also a distinction between the two. To be Christian isn't to be a Republican and to be a Republican isn't to be Christian, but Evangelicals male up a huge chunk of the base.

Also, to be Christian isn't necessarily to be anti-abortion. Tangentially, I think anti-abortion for the purposes of this discussion is a misnomer. I'm actually anti-abortion but I'm all for bodily autonomy. I'm also an atheist.

Honestly, I question "pro-life" (anti-choice) being an explicitly religious thing. I think it's more likely to be an authoritarian thing, with a propensity toward authoritarianism in many organized (and fringe) religions. Without subservience or acquiescence, can religion actually survive?

The only divergence I see is the Hispanic community which is overwhelmingly (I believe?) Catholic. Catholics seem to be the most fervently anti-abortion. Hispanics also seem to be heavily democratic-leaning, although this has changed in recent years, particularly in Florida.

But then aren't Catholics still Christians, though?

[Obligatory Emo Philips]

In seriousness, however... I wonder whether how they'll be able to fly their daughters out of the country in the event of a Republican majority and nationwide federal ban WITHOUT attracting attention. No doubt they'll just tough it out.

With means, a prohibition on safe abortion care doesn't eliminate access to safe abortion care.

 

[UKMikey]

With means, a prohibition on safe abortion care doesn't eliminate access to safe abortion care.

I'm aware of that, just wondering how they would avoid the backlash that comes with having one's blatant hypocrisy on display.

 

[TexRex]

I'm aware of that, just wondering how they would avoid the backlash that comes with having one's blatant hypocrisy on display.

They won't have to. Status quo; Republicans will forgive them and nobody else matters.

Edit: Republicans won't actually care. There'd be nothing to forgive.

 

[Imari]

Without subservience or acquiescence, can religion actually survive?

Some level of subservience and acquiescence is just fundamental to being a social species - we get along by sometimes doing things that are better for the group than for us personally.

I feel like what you're talking about is "harmful" levels of subservience or acquiescence, and the answer is that some can and some can't. Just like some forms of governance can't survive without high levels of subservience and acquiescence while others do just fine.

 

[TexRex]

Some level of subservience and acquiescence is just fundamental to being a social species - we get along by sometimes doing things that are better for the group than for us personally.

I feel like what you're talking about is "harmful" levels of subservience or acquiescence, and the answer is that some can and some can't. Just like some forms of governance can't survive without high levels of subservience and acquiescence while others do just fine.

I mean...yeah...but organized religion isn't just about belief. It's about preservation of organized religion.

 

[Famine]

It's certainly quite a thing when Amazon looks like the good guy with concern for its employees...

Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for abortions and other treatments

The firm will reimburse travel costs for various treatments in the US, including abortion.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Liquid]

All this will do is lead to an increase in pregnant women dying. Banning abortion, as is expected to happen in several states, doesn't mean abortions stop. Demand doesn't just go away. It just means they become more dangerous, dirtier and deadlier to those who will continue to seek them.

 

[Danoff]

All this will do is lead to an increase in pregnant women dying. Banning abortion, as is expected to happen in several states, doesn't mean abortions stop. Demand doesn't just go away. It just means they become more dangerous, dirtier and deadlier to those who will continue to seek them.

I think a lot of them will just go across borders to get abortions. This may insulate republicans from the fallout from their policies. They kinda get to have their ban and have the abortions too because it will be under the table and not in their back yard like they want.

They don't actually want no abortions, they want to pretend. Blue states may provide that.


(I'm not advocating anything else, that's probably what has to happen)

 

[Famine]

They don't actually want no abortions

Not least because no abortions makes it harder to keep their affairs with their younger "personal assistants" (and groomed schoolgirls) quiet.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 1146280

I don't know why this is so confusing to people. Adoption is for the situation where a child (an existing child) needs a home. Abortion is for the situation where a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy. Contraception is for the situation where people want to avoid pregnancy. Each of these situations will occur regardless of what is said, pretended, or ruled into law.

Adoption does nothing for a woman who does not want to carry a pregnancy. If she is fine with the pregnancy but does not want to raise the child, adoption is there for any children she has.

It's not hard!

Edit:

There are even circumstances where a woman might be perfectly fine with raising a child but not want a pregnancy. In this case, both abortion and adoption should be there for her.

 

[TexRex]

Edit: The petulant pustule in the clip says he's suspicious of Jackson because the leak--the first in the history of the Supreme Court--came shortly after her confirmation. As Mr. Kruse addresses above, that supposed correlation isn't exactly meaningful, but there's another problem with the pustule's "analysis"...

Thread by @jonathanwpeters on Thread Reader App

@jonathanwpeters: It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the ...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[TexRex]

Protecting Reproductive Rights – A Business Imperative - Levi Strauss & Co

Business leaders are responsible for protecting the health and well-being of our employees, including reproductive rights and abortion access.

www.levistrauss.com

As the pandemic has shown so clearly, public health issues are workplace issues. Business leaders are responsible for protecting the health and well-being of our employees, and that includes protecting reproductive rights and abortion access. 

Access to reproductive health care, including abortion, has been a critical factor to the workplace gains and contributions women have made over the past 50 years. Further restricting or criminalizing access will jeopardize that progress and disproportionately affect women of color, putting their well-being at risk and impeding diverse hiring pipelines. Women in some states would have fewer rights than women in others, and our country would be consigned to a more unjust and inequitable future. What’s more, companies would need different health policies for different locations – including coverage for time off and travel across state lines – to ensure employees can access reproductive health care.

We know this is a fraught conversation; it’s not something we enter into lightly. But women make up 58 percent of our global workforce, and in recent years, numerous employees have expressed to leadership their growing alarm over the rollback of all forms of reproductive care.

Our position on this is in keeping with our efforts to support employees and family members at all stages of their lives. That includes advocacy for national paid family and medical leave, protections for pregnant workers, and gender and racial equity more broadly. Our position is also aligned with majority public opinion. In recent polling, 60 percent of Americans stated that the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade and three-quarters said abortion decisions should be left to women and their doctor.

Under our current benefits plan, Levi Strauss & Co. employees are eligible for reimbursement for healthcare-related travel expenses for services not available in their home state, including those related to reproductive health care and abortion. There is also a process in place through which employees who are not in our benefits plan, including part-time hourly workers, can seek reimbursement for travel costs incurred under the same circumstances.

Given what is at stake, business leaders need to make their voices heard and act to protect the health and well-being of our employees. That means protecting reproductive rights.

And suddenly Republicans are in search of ways to hurt them as well.

 

[UKMikey]

Protecting Reproductive Rights – A Business Imperative - Levi Strauss & Co

Business leaders are responsible for protecting the health and well-being of our employees, including reproductive rights and abortion access.

www.levistrauss.com

And suddenly Republicans are in search of ways to hurt them as well.

LOL, I hope those loons remember to take their jeans off before they start attempting to burn them on TikTok.

 

[TexRex]

LOL, I hope those loons remember to take their jeans off before they start attempting to burn them on TikTok.

...

Meh.

 

[McLaren]

Edit: The petulant pustule in the clip says he's suspicious of Jackson because the leak--the first in the history of the Supreme Court--came shortly after her confirmation. As Mr. Kruse addresses above, that supposed correlation isn't exactly meaningful, but there's another problem with the pustule's "analysis"...

Thread by @jonathanwpeters on Thread Reader App

@jonathanwpeters: It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the ...…

threadreaderapp.com

That guy is all sorts of screws lose. Same dude that tried to act like Trump didn't want to pull out of Afghanistan & then got upset when the veteran he had on the air said, "Nah man, Trump stank hot doo-doo like past administrations around Afghanistan". Same weirdo that blamed Fox being liberal for Tucker defending Putin.