I Say Let Them Have Their Abortion Ban

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I'm willing to give the religious wackos the abortion ban they so desperately crave. But here's what we're going to require in exchange.

First, in order to pass the law that bans abortions, we're going to do things a little bit differently. The vote will be out in the open. Everyone in favor of the abortion ban will put his/her name on a list. Then we go to the list and count up the names on the "Yes" side and compare them to the names on the "No" side, and the majority wins. Here's the kicker, though. For every unwanted child born in that State after the ban goes into effect, we'll go to the list, and one of the names on that list will be randomly selected to be the adoptive parent of each child.

Second, we're going to use the figures anti-choice advocates use for the number of children aborted per year in this country, calculate the average cost of raising a child from pre-birth through the age of 18, and then we're going to increase spending on social programs that benefit the parents of those children (in order to feed, clothe, educate, and care for those children) by that amount. And THEN, we're going to go back to that list we talked about above, and those folks will have their taxes raised accordingly in order to offset those spending increases.

That's all we want in return. And I'm sure you'll all be willing to give us that, right? Because you're all members of the "Party of Personal Responsibility," right? Well, it's time for you to take personal responsibility for your choices, AND your vote, on this matter. That's not too much to ask for in exchange for all those precious, precious babies to be born, is it? I mean, if you're going to ask OTHER PEOPLE to make sacrifices you wouldn't make YOURSELF, you'd just be a hypocrite, wouldn't you? So here it is. A law that gives you what you want while ALSO allowing you to take personal responsibility for your choice. Best of both worlds, right? Right?

[ehrnst]

1. There is no, "Well, in order to pass this..."' That's done.

The law passed, and will be signed by the Governor.

The ones who voted on it are matter of public record.

There is no "We want this in return." They stated openly that they want this to go to SCOTUS, so that the Bros on the Bench can use it to overturn Roe.



Edited to add: I don't care if there are 100 people lined up to adopt every single reliquished child or baby it's not a justification for forced childbearing, ever.

[Sherman A1]

2. Yup

That’s how it worked.

[MH1]

6. Yup. The time to protect Roe v. Wade was in 2016.

Too many so-called "progressives" did not do enough then, for whatever reason. The misogynists won. Maybe we can turn the tide before it is too late. But it may be already too late.

Or in cruder more common lingo, you can shit in one hand and wish in the other, guess which one fills up faster?

Women in this country were handed a load of shit in 2016 by everyone who was too idiotic OR too "pure" to back the Dem nominee. Whatever Hillary's faults and failings may have been on other issues, SC would have remained a bulwark for Roe v. Wade.

[StarfishSaver]

10. "Hillary WAS a flawed candidate, after all"

The first presidential candidate in history not to be flawless.

Her fault.

If only she had been perfect and had no baggage (like all of the other flawless, baggage-free candidates she ran against and throughout history), she would have deserved for women all over the country to vote for her and she would have won and we wouldn't be in this mess.

I blame Hillary.

[MH1]

14. LOL.

Yep I saw your stealth sarcasm tag.

[ehrnst]

19. +1000. (nt)

[Maven]

23. Exactly.

I am through with all the qualifiers when it comes to mentioning Hillary.

"Whatever you may think of her..."

"For all her faults..."

No. Fuck that. She was and is the most qualified. She is honest, she has integrity, she is brilliant, she is compassionate, she is tireless, she is a patriot and she was robbed. But the robbers had a lot of help.

[StarfishSaver]

32. But she didn't INSPIRE every Democrat in America

So none of that matters.

[Maven]

33. Right. Another talking point that needs to die.

She inspired me. Still does. And so many others!

[ismnotwasm]

16. We told them

“I told you so” is an unsatisfactory statement however

[qazplm135]

21. they care more about "neoliberals"

then they do about choice.

Sorry, but that's the fact.

If they could get a socialist economy but had to give up abortion rights to do it...they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[ehrnst]

25. +1000.

If it can't be solved with a higher wage, then the problem really isn't that pressing, because it's not a "universal issue."

[JustAnotherGen]

11. Exactly

And truthfully - I don't want a bible bumpers in the South telling folks in New Jersey what we can and cannot do.

They get our money (we get .62 cents back for every dollar we pay in) they don't get anything else.

We do NOT have to be like them and they don't have to be like us. Let 'em go.

[marybourg]

3. Their intent is not to produce more children;

their intent is to prevent the poor from having sex. So they will not agree to support more children; they will only throw roadblocks, such as reduced access to birth control and reduced welfare , in the way of poor people having sex.

[MH1]

7. I think it is more about control than sex.

They really get off on keeping women subservient. By keeping them "barefoot and pregnant" they force dependency. Women being dependent on them reinforces their actual power as well as their perception of power (machismo).

[ehrnst]

17. That pro-forced childbearning movement is deranged about women having "sex for mere pleasure."

Why else do you think so many who think that it's "babykilling" suddenly change their minds about "the baby" if it turns out she didn't want sex? Rape and incest exceptions make no sense if it's about "saving the baby."

They WANT unplanned childbearing as a behavior modification tool for women, just as they want the risk of STDs and cervical cancer.

That's why they are opposed to the HPV vaccination and contraceptives. They want a stick to hang over the heads of kids.

“Planned Parenthood from the top to the bottom is a corrupt organization,” Miller told Ave Maria Radio’s Teresa Tomeo, “corrupt in its view of the sanctity of human life and corrupt in its view of human sexuality. And I say even if Planned Parenthood didn’t perform one single abortion, just the mere fact that its sexual ethic is corrupted means right there, should be the reason right there, that they should not receive any federal money. The kind of sexual ethic that Planned Parenthood promotes is sex for recreation, sex for mere pleasure.”

https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/10/09/22985819/leading-anti-choiceanti-planned-parenthood-activist-gives-away-the-real-agenda-of-the-anti-choice-right

[StarfishSaver]

20. You are so right (again)

This has nothing to do with protecting babies. This is about punishing women for having sex on purpose.

If it weren't, these people wouldn't permit exceptions for rape or incest since, if they truly believe a fetus is a human life, what difference should it make how it was conceived? It makes a difference because a woman who had sex on purpose must be punished while a woman who had sex forced on her is innocent and, therefore, it's ok for her to "kill" the baby.

These people are sick.

[LonePirate]

24. Their intent is to control women and stop the massive decline in the white birth rate.

If they could, they would pass a bill to promote abortions among WOC - maybe even mandating them - while outlawing abortions for white women. Their motives are ones of control and racism.

[sarabelle]

27. Nail meet hammer!

[treestar]

34. I believe that you are right

Immigrants are also objectionable when not white. They could take the the same place in the economy, but the right would rather white women have more babies than get new people from immigration of nonwhite people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Their intent is to prevent *women* from having sex.

Men can fuck their brains out all day (though with whom I'm not sure, since women aren't allowed to do it).

[treestar]

35. +1

When arguing with them, they will often say: "keep your legs closed" indicating a desire to go back to the time when women were virtuous for not having sex and policing it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. This is cute, but still erases people who get pregnant from the equation.

As long as you're talking about adoptive children and supporting them, people who don't want to be pregnant have to be. It makes it sound like their needs are negotiable, even in jest. NOPE.

[ehrnst]

18. Yep. I don't care if there are 100 people lined up to adopt every relinquished infant or older child

it's not a justification for forced childbearing, ever.

[LonePirate]

28. Forced childbearing is involuntary servitude which is outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

[ehrnst]

31. I don't think that case could be made, as Roe found that the right resides in the 14th amendment's

due process clause, and is related to the right to medical privacy. That may be the chink in the armor - that if Roe is overturned, what precedent does that set concerning medical privacy for everyone?

The ninth amendment might be even more relevant.

There are "involuntary servitude" exceptions to the 13th amendment, in terms of prison labor and required community service sentencing, so that wouldn't last very long at all in arguments. I think they would also argue that the constitutional right for citizens to vote can be suspended by states for those in prison.

[Delmette2.0]

36. I admit I didn't think about your argument

That may be the chink in the armor - that if Roe is overturned, what precedent does that set concerning medical privacy for everyone?

Thank you for bringing that up. This could be another slippery slope.

[comradebillyboy]

5. So you are OK with forcing women to have babies they don't want?

[FarPoint]

9. We just don't have enough people who use the services out in the street.

We have become complacent, falling in line essentially...taking for granted woman's rights and all services for woman's health are being taken for granted....We who have always been in this fight, are weary....thoes who need it need to also fight....

The outrage is just not visable today....loosing it can become motivation.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. I'm not

But obviously the people of Alabama are.

We can't change them. They is what they is.

[Solly Mack]

8. No.

[hlthe2b]

13. So, you are willing to let them enslave women. Not a big leap for immigrants and POC next...

After all, "Xians" used the bible to defend slavery before. But, we'll just turn a blind eye and let Alabama be Alabama? Really?

[ChoppinBroccoli]

15. A Lot Of People Are Missing The Point

How many of these religious wackos do you think would STILL vote yes if they were forced to raise the children they want born? Or have to pay more in taxes to raise them?

THAT'S the whole point. When you make THEM take personal responsibility for their own beliefs, they will quickly change their votes. I'm absolutely 100% sure of this. Make them OWN their beliefs, and you'll see just how strong their beliefs really are.

[ehrnst]

22. If you have ever raised a child, you would never want to see ANY child raised by someone who feels

feels forced to do so. You would never even suggest reducing the responsibility of parenthood to "penalty," even as leverage against these assholes.

There is no way of making them personally suffer the consequences, and forced childbearing is NEVER acceptable, any more than requiring someone to raise a child they don't want to raise. You don't make a threat of forced parenting, or forced childbearing.

That's where your OP really misses the point. If you have ever raised a child, you would never want to see ANY child raised by someone who feels forced to do so. You would also never tolerate forcing a woman to give birth - especially to "teach someone else a lesson."

Furthermore, in what scenario does a party with a supermajority ever "compromise" with the minority party on passing a bill? Would you ever see Democrats tolerating Democrats "compromising" with Republicans on a bill where they didn't need to in order to get it passed?

They think that women will stop having sex if they can't get contraception, or access to safe, legal abortion. They are MORE than happy to own that, just as they are more than happy to cut funding for food assistance for families.

[trixie2]

30. You are reminding me of a time years ago

My brother and I were driving by a Planned Parenthood that did not perform abortions. Anyway the crowd was yelling and had signs. My brother pulled in and yelled, "We have a bus load of AIDS babies that need homes. Stay right there and take at least one with you". The crowd dispersed and the police were cracking up.

I know it is not funny that at one time (the 90s?) that AIDS babies were given up. His point was that there was a way to help babies who were born and had no homes. Maybe it was in the mid 80s because I remember us being in our early 20s.

[smirkymonkey]

37. You know, if this goes through, they are going to have to legally find a way for men to

take responsibility for the children they father, financially and otherwise. They can positively prove paternity through DNA tests, so once this goes into fully swing I have a feeling that a lot of men aren't going to be very happy about this either.

Who do they think all these women are having sex with anyway? Do men really think they are going to have string-free sex after this with no repercussions?

[Raine1967]

38. I'm just gonna assume you are a man.

it appears that you are willing to use a woman's autonomy as a political bargaining chip.

That's what you just proposed. My body is not a bargaining chip. FFS.

And No, in advance, I did not miss your point.

[demmiblue]

39. Amen, Raine1967.

I mean, !

[Raine1967]

40. Thanks. For years we were told that abortion is a wedge issue.

I have long held the opinion that it is not.

We (women) were told this was little more than a fundraising campaign. I have always felt that they were walking and chewing gum at the same time on this issue.

They raised money and now they are trying to go for the kill.

I'm not willing to make concessions about this issue.

Abortion is a right that every woman should have access to, I am sick and tired of anyone trying to make morality a legislative part of a medical choice.

[shanti]

41. They don't care

more white babies will be available for infertile white couples to adopt.

[Hekate]

42. No. And I am glad to see how many posters are fighting back on this...

This year we've had quite a spate of posts from DUers who think Roe is in no danger (it hangs by a thread), that attempts to overturn it are recent (they aren't), and that pregnant girls/women will have no difficulty travelling to another state ( )

The threat is real and deadly. The de facto ban already exists where clinics have been closed across states like Texas, where the maternal mortality rate rivals that of Third World countries.

[Initech]

43. Actually, the evangelical's reckless sex education policies created this mess.

Wouldn't it be better if these unwanted pregnancies didn't happen in the first place? We should be focusing on that and teaching proper, real, sex education rather than abstinence, obsession and repression. That might actually be, I don't know, pro life?