This week, the New York Times op-ed section pivoted from telling the Left to stop freaking out the squares with our fancy gabbagool and strange beliefs about how trans people are human beings who deserve access to health care and actually published an article suggesting that conservatives do something different. Whoa, right?
This is something I feel I have been suggesting for millennia — and yet, somehow in practice it is not actually any better. In this particular essay, Daniel K. Williams, an American history professor at Ashland University, a private Christian college in Ohio, laments that there have not actually been fewer abortions in the US since Roe was overturned, and suggests that they might have better luck reducing that number by supporting a social safety net that would make it less financially burdensome to have children.
Now, these programs are things we should all support anyway as a matter of reproductive justice and because we are not monsters, but the framework here is a tad bizarre. And ignorant.
It didn’t have to be this way. As a historian of the anti-abortion movement and abortion politics, I wrote in early 2021 that the end of Roe may “only marginally reduce the number of legal abortions” in the United States and “at worst, may lead to a pro-choice Democratic backlash that will expand the number of legal abortions.”
It’s not so much that everyone ran out to get a spite abortion in order to teach innocent forced birthers a lesson about defying us as that the same number of people still needed abortions regardless of whether or not it was banned in their state. Though, for the record, a whole lot of people who needed abortions were not able to get them, some because they just weren’t close enough to dying. I guess that should give him some comfort.
I also pointed to another way to reduce abortions in the United States — expanding the social safety net so more pregnant women choose to keep their babies. Some abortion opponents advocated this strategy nearly 50 years ago, but it was largely forgotten after the anti-abortion movement allied with the political right in the Reagan era. Today, as the anti-abortion movement faces new challenges amid rising national abortion numbers, it may be time to rediscover this forgotten path.
I don’t know that this path was “forgotten” so much as actively opposed by people who oppose the social safety net just as strongly as they oppose abortion. The ability to vote for and advocate for a social safety net that would support pregnant people and families was with them all along (and didn’t even require any special footwear). They chose not to, because again, they oppose that just as much as they oppose abortion, for the most part.
There were lots of people who personally opposed abortion but didn’t vote Republican because they actually cared about poor people or opposed war or the death penalty or the School of the Americas or supported gun control or literally any policy conducive to life after birth and thought those things were more important.
The anti-abortion movement believed that legal prohibitions could move the cultural consensus in a pro-life direction, but it seems that the opposite has happened.
Yes, because it made people realize just how dangerous those bans are. The worst thing that could have ever happened to forced birthers, from a PR stance, was for people to find out what it’s like to live under abortion bans.
In such a political climate, abortion opponents must focus on changing hearts and minds before changing laws. They need to win public trust by demonstrating that their respect for life does not end with birth.
And yet, that does not appear to be the case.
I would certainly love to believe that this man is opposed to abortion because he just truly loves life, across the board, as a rule … but the fact that neither birth control nor the fact that lives have been lost and put in serious danger because of these bans are even mentioned in this piece does put that into question.
Missouri Group Hopes To Get Abortion On The Ballot
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, a coalition of reproductive rights groups in Missouri, is currently collecting signatures in hopes of getting the right to abortion on the ballot this November.
As it currently stands, all abortion is banned in the state of Missouri, except in the case of medical emergencies (although we all know what that looks like in practice). The ballot initiative would enshrine in the state’s constitution the right to abortion up until viability and after that for issues such as a nonviable fetus or a threat to the mother’s health or life.
Confusingly, the amendment will still allow legislators to restrict abortion rights when there is a “compelling governmental interest,” though what that could possibly be I couldn’t tell you.
The right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the Government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid. For purposes of this Section, a governmental interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose and has the limited effect of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking care, is consistent with widely accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision-making.
Am I especially thrilled by the fetal viability standards here and the insinuation that there would be a compelling governmental interest in what is happening in anyone’s uterus? Not so much. Is it better than nothing. Clearly.
And with all of that, it’s still a hell of a lot better than what they do have, so if any of you are from Missouri, go here and sign the petition. If you’re not, you can still donate — they’ve already raised a million dollars since launching yesterday, so let’s keep that ball rolling.
Speaking Of Ballot Measures …
On Thursday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen blocked an abortion rights ballot measure on the grounds that it was “legally insufficient” because it did not allow for voters to express their nuanced opinions on when abortion should be legal.
“Ballot Measure 14 creates an express right to abortion but denies voters the ability to express their views on the nuance of the right. This is classic logrolling and is prohibited by Article XIV, Section 11” of the Montana Constitution,” he wrote.
As I could not figure out what any of that means (since when are ballot measures nuanced?), I asked Former Montana Resident Our Editrix and she was not aware of ballot measures being especially “nuanced” in the state. Absolutely no one was clear on how it was “classic logrolling” (unless he is referring to the literal rolling of logs and not “exchanging political favors” somehow?) or how it violates that part of the Montana Constitution, which reads:
If more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted upon separately.
It’s just one amendment, which, like Missouri’s proposed measure, allows for abortion up until viability or if the life or health of the patient is at risk. What does he want? The ability to check “yes/no/maybe”? Or for people to somehow vote on what week they want to ban abortion after? How would this work? How do we do “nuance” here? Also can we ban Republicans from using the term “nuance” and ruining it for the rest of us?
To make things even more confusing, abortion actually is currently legal in Montana until fetal viability so this ballot measure would really just enshrine the current status quo in the state constitution.
Those backing the amendment say they plan to challenge Knudsen’s ruling and if the state supreme court sides with them — it is strongly pro-privacy but that is not at all certain to hold after this November’s elections — the measure could be on the ballot this fall.
Dems Move To Protect IVF
Now that they’ve successfully overturned Roe, many anti-abortion activists have turned their attention to banning things like in-vitro fertilization that actually help people get pregnant. Why? Because of the embryos, goshdarnit. They love the embryos more than they love the actual children that the embryos could become.
On Thursday, Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, and Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild introduced the Access to Family Building Act, which would make access to assisted reproductive technology a statutory right in order to fend off any legislation regulating the practice, as well as anti-abortion laws regarding embryos that could make it more difficult to access.
“Since the Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade, our nation has seen a wave of Republican-led states not only enacting strict abortion bans that severely limit their residents’ right to access basic reproductive care — but also pushing proposals that would jeopardize access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies that millions of Americans need to start or grow their families,” said Senator Duckworth, who relied on IVF to have her two daughters.
Democrats are not exactly the only ones going around getting IVF, so you’d think that at least some Republicans would support protecting the right to the procedure and other fertility treatments, but the last time Duckworth tried to pass a similar bill, she tried for unanimous consent and it was blocked by Mississippi Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith. Hopefully this time it will go through.
PREVIOUSLY:
>>In such a political climate, abortion opponents must focus on changing hearts and minds before changing laws. They need to win public trust by demonstrating that their respect for life does not end with birth.
Yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit.
The abortion bans were about one thing and one thing only: Their utter contempt for women. Back when abortion was legal, these nuts would go and scream their heads off at the women walking in and out of abortion clinics. They never did that because they had some kind of rational argument about why abortion is bad. They did that because they wanted to scream their heads off at women. Hell, they never even cared if the woman was going there for reasons other than an abortion.
To hell with the pro-life movement, and I wish them nonstop, continuous failure.
There's a scene in a Superman comic and movie adaptation where, long story short, Lex Luthor temporarily gets the powers of Superman and he finally sees the world as Superman sees it: how we humans are all we have and how we're connected to one another and he finally understands Superman and his altruism because in helping one, he helps everyone. Then Lex loses the powers and Superman destroys the serum that gave them and Lex yells that he could have saved the world.
Superman says, "If you really wanted to save the world, you would have already done it, Lex."
And in that moment, Lex finally realizes how wasted his life was and he submits to arrest and a pending execution. (He does do one altruistic thing before he dies because the last person Superman saved was his worst enemy because that is who Superman is. That's why he's a beloved hero.)
Anyway, I think about that whenever someone like that says they should strengthen the social safety net to show everyone how "pro-life" they genuinely are.
If you were really pro-life, you would have done it already. And you would have implemented stronger gun control laws so little kids don't get blown to pieces or traumatized having to smear their friend's blood on them to look dead, you wouldn't cheerlead and sponsor wars, you wouldn't fantasize about murdering your political opponents, you wouldn't cheer on a Texas governor and his murder of three immigrants, who of which were children; you wouldn't scream about vaccines and masks, you wouldn't yell about gas stoves; you wouldn't scream in rage about measures to address Climate Change; you wouldn't reject funding to feed kids as welfare and dependency. You wouldn't demand innocent people or mentally handicapped people get murdered by the state in new and crueler ways. You would try to address the root of violent crime and addiction. You wouldn't let pharmaceutical billionaires get away with millions of harmful addictions and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of deaths.
I mean... all of this was and has been and is on the table and you could have done any of it anytime in the last 50 years.
But you chose abortion and Christian nationalism. So don't act surprised when people see you as nothing more than a misogynist ghoul and hate your religion and your politics.
Take personal responsibility. You are not Superman. You are Lex Luthor.