Supreme Court opinion on abortion uses the phrase "domestic supply of infants." It's on page 34

[Swede]

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=J09P-93AReIxJCUcBK_HlQ

[Pachamama]

1. Alito and the GOP see fertile women as "Producers"

Producing the supply of babies

They are truly the forced pregnancy and forced birth movement

[YoshidaYui]

26. and in early Japan women were allowed to fight

and protect their houses as WOMEN SAMURAI other wise known as Onna-musha:
Onna-musha (女武者 ) is a term referring to female warriors in pre-modern Japan. These women fought in battle alongside samurai men. They were members of the bushi (samurai) class in feudal Japan and were trained in the use of weapons to protect their household, family, and honor in times of war.

[LeftInTX]

2. That is a quote from the CDC

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/7033

The fact is: There is less stigma for single parents. Mothers don't give their infants up for adoption anymore. The Right to Life people actually encourage this as a way to dissuade abortion, "You can keep your child. There are support systems"

Abortion is not a reason for infant shortage, the Right to Life people are!

ETA: After reading the report:

It shows that the practice of relinquishing an infant for adoption has remained very low at 1.0% of babies born during this period.

The report does not even mention abortion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The section for which that forms a footnote is therefore relevant

About halfway through the 98-page opinion, which was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito — and which Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged on Tuesday as genuine — came a familiar argument: that "modern developments," including the availability of "safe-haven" laws, which allow parents to anonymously relinquish babies without legal repercussions, have rendered abortion unnecessary. The opinion noted that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home."

Tucked into a footnote for that statement was a telling citation from a 2008 CDC report that found "nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/adoption-makes-abortion-unnecessary-claims-the-right-thats-even-worse-than-it-sounds/

Full draft: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft

So what Alito is saying is "babies are just a market, and this particular market has, at the moment, a lack of supply, so it's a "seller's market"; any woman forced to continue pregnancy to birth will then have a lovely choice of prospective parents, and she can have a marvellous time choosing which of them is best, so what's she worrying her little head about?"

[LeftInTX]

35. The facts are: Women who are single keep their children and no longer give them up for adoption

He's twisting the truth from a study that had nothing to do with abortion or contraception. Women these days don't give their kids up for adoption. The prolife movement has crisis pregnancy centers. They administer pregnancy tests to women off the street who think they're going to an abortion clinic. They then tell the women that they will be eligible for food stamps, WIC, childcare etc if they give birth and keep their child.

The CDC used the exact phrase in their study. It's on page 16

This
analysis has also shown that nearly 1
million women were seeking to adopt
children in 2002 (i.e., they were in
demand for a child), whereas the
domestic supply of infants relinquished
at birth or within the first month of life
and available to be adopted had become
virtually nonexistent. While adoption
continues to be rare, this report has
shown that the prevalence of adoption
varies by demographic and other
characteristics.

On page 16 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/7033

[sop]

3. Sort of like China's for-profit forced organ harvesting using political prisoners as donors.

[barbaraann]

10. Yes. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Perhaps it's time to check out who is investing in adoption services?

Last edited Sat May 7, 2022, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

.

There were judges who would place kids in juvenile prisons that they owned.

There were psychiatrists that would 5150 perfectly fine elderly people in Florida, and place them into facilities that they owned, so the state would pay their fees.

.

[Thomas Hurt]

11. That is the whole point to "smaller gov't", less regs, more opportunity for corruption...

fiscal responsibility is an excuse given by the right to funnel money to themselves. If they can't do that then to the friends, supporters, etc.

Conservatism at its heart is all about maintaining individual power.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Yes, and which groups are lobbying Congress for favorable adoption laws and materiel

These crazies are trying to revive an industry of baby production for profit!

[littlemissmartypants]

45. Sure seems that way, doesn't it? Scary sh!t. ❤

[Tumbulu]

5. Why aren't the reporters asking these people what the government will pay per forced birth?

At the going surrogate rate? Who has the budget surpluses to take this on?

By not calling them on it, we are giving them a pass!

I want to hear from them what they are going to pay.

[sop]

36. I'm surprised some anti-abortion apologist hasn't yet argued pregnant women will now be able to

"sell" their unwanted babies for thousands.

[littlemissmartypants]

46. There are enough idiots in that cohort that I wouldn't be surprised

one hadn't mentioned such. If not in a slip up then for sure in the presence of those who appear to be sympathetic to the notion. They can be so brazen in their assumptions.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. There's also artificial insemination by sperm donors.

My never-married niece wanted children. She has 11-year-old twin daughters thanks to that option.

[littlemissmartypants]

48. Great point. Someone else on another thread mentioned

concerns for frozen embryos. I haven't read Alito's diatribe but I'd bet money that wasn't even mentioned.

Someone please prove me wrong.

[cbabe]

7. Betsy deVos and big business child selling

Christian Non-Profit Faces Scrutiny Over Government Foster Care Contract for Separated Children

Bethany Christian Services, which has links to the family of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has fostered out at least 81 children taken from their parents at the U.S. border.
Dan MacGuill
Published 26 June 2018
Updated 11 July 2018

…

Bethany Christian Services, an adoption center with financial ties to [Education Secretary] Betsy DeVos, has taken 81 immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. Most have had no contact with their families. They’re charging $700 per child per night. This isn’t foster care, this is state-sponsored kidnapping.

…

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/06/26/bethany-christian-services-family-separation-betsy-devos/

[AntivaxHunters]

8. This is straight out of some dark US history

from a time when First Nations children could be bought for a mere $10.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=_-1MdjOxxVR2m5yvAVU-mg

[GoldandSilver]

53. OMG

Appalling on so many levels.

[ZonkerHarris]

9. Supply and demand. More Republican capitalism.

[keithbvadu2]

18. Agree!

[Demsrule86]

12. That is just awful. What are they going to do have baby factories with enslaved women..wouldn't

put it past them.

[LeftInTX]

22. They are quoting a CDC study

Adoption experiences of women and men, and demand for children to adopt by women ages 18-44 in the United States; data from the National Survey of Family Growth
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/7033

The CDC study does not mention abortion. It only discusses live births. It shows that

the practice of relinquishing an infant for adoption has remained very low at 1.0% of babies born during this period.

Not enough children for adoption because single mothers now raise their infants instead of giving them up for adoption?

[Farmer-Rick]

27. The funny thing is that the forced birth movement caused this lack of supply

They made single parenthood almost sound heroic in the early years as they tried to stop women from getting legal abortions. "Oh, she's so brave to not abort her baby " was a common refrain from the forced birthers. All the single mothers who could have had legal abortions, were depicted as saints in sappy movies and TV shows.

They actively de-stigmatized giving birth out of wedlock. So, now mothers could keep their babies and not suffer guilt for decades worrying about how their babies were being treated.

GOPers think people and babies are just a commodity.

[LeftInTX]

29. Making abortion illegal won't change this stat

[Farmer-Rick]

42. Well, I wonder

So, they are all for single mothers because they are Not getting perfectly safe and legal abortions.

But when they make them illegal again, the single mother is not so brave because she has no choice. Is a slave heroic when they do as they are told? Maybe the religious forced birthers will stigmitize single mothers again and increase the baby supply?

But you are right, that just forcing women to birth will not by itself make more women give up their babies. There has to be another step for Alito to get his increase in the domestic supply of infants.

[LeftInTX]

43. Yes, they will need to stigmatize single mothers again in order for moms to give up their infants.

[Deep State Witch]

13. WHITE Infants

Lots of black and brown kids in foster care. But hey, f**k them.

[littlemissmartypants]

14. Thank you for sharing this, Swede. ❤

[bucolic_frolic]

15. It was an industry from about 1850 to the 1960s, shipping orphans and poor kids

to wealthy parents in the midwest. Perhaps they couldn't conceive, or were so scared of being human they couldn't get 'er done, but many were steeped in Christian values and raised successful children. But trying to revive it is sicko.

[PatSeg]

17. Wow, that is a punch to the gut

Could they be anymore obvious and insensitive?

[Hekate]

19. Alito's intentions are, shall we say, naked and unashamed now, aren't they?

[groundloop]

20. But what the hell does that have to do with the question of constitutionality?!?!?!?!?

I'm kind of surprised nobody else is as outraged as me, but what in bloody hell does the availability of adoptable infants have to do with the legality / constitutionality of women's health care?

It's two totally separate issues, and right wingers are most obviously just muddying the waters with unrelated facts.

[LeftInTX]

38. Not a single thing. It's based on the fact that single women tend to keep their children nowadays

It has nothing to do with abortion.

Alito is twisting facts...

It's from a CDC report on adoption. Just states that moms don't give up their newborns.

In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers

Article is very outdated, from 1996
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/


https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels#:~:text=Recent%20estimates%20show%20that%20about,worldwide%20(Chamie%2C%202017).

Recent estimates show that about 40 percent of births in the United States occur outside of marriage, up from 28 percent in 1990 (Child Trends, 2016). This increase is consistent with changes in nonmarital childbearing seen worldwide (Chamie, 2017).

I assume the "white" in 1965, includes Hispanic

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Orphan Train Movement relocated children to foster homes in the Midwest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

The Orphan Train Movement was a supervised welfare program that transported children from crowded Eastern cities of the United States to foster homes located largely in rural areas of the Midwest. The orphan trains operated between 1854 and 1929, relocating about 250,000 children. The co-founders of the Orphan Train movement claimed that these children were orphaned, abandoned, abused, or homeless, but this was not always true. They were mostly the children of new immigrants and the children of the poor and destitute families living in these cities. Criticisms include ineffective screening of caretakers, insufficient follow-ups on placements, and that many children were used as strictly slave farm labor.


Three charitable institutions, Children's Village (founded 1851 by 24 philanthropists),[1] the Children's Aid Society (established 1853 by Charles Loring Brace) and later, New York Foundling Hospital, endeavored to help these children. The institutions were supported by wealthy donors and operated by professional staff. The three institutions developed a program that placed homeless, orphaned, and abandoned city children, who numbered an estimated 30,000 in New York City alone in the 1850s, in foster homes throughout the country. The children were transported to their new homes on trains that were labeled "orphan trains" or "baby trains". This relocation of children ended in the 1920s with the beginning of organized foster care in America.

Extensive article at the link

[Delmette2.0]

24. My great grandmother may have been one of those children from NY.

We have several different stories about her but one constant is that she was orphaned by age 3. Nothing else until she has a son in Minnesota and he was given a different last name. No mention of the father's full name. She must have been a very strong woman to move further west and raise the son in her own.

[paleotn]

23. That doesn't feel like...that IS the Handmaid's Tale.

That's why those of us who know evilgelicals well consider Margaret Atwood's work, and the multi season TV adaption, a documentary of a potential future. They are that fucking evil. Trust me. I know some of them.

[SpankMe]

25. Pure Neanderthal

This appears to be the development of an idea that the demand for infants (i.e., people who want to adopt) is greater than the supply of infants due to abortion. Thus, the state has a right to eliminate abortion as a means to increase the domestic supply of infants for people who want to adopt.

This is not only misogynist, it's racist. Note the specificity of "domestic" supply. He's saying that we must favor good old American (probably white) babies instead of adopting babies from Russia, China, Central America or other impoverished nations with foreign adoption programs. (I know the Russian and Chinese programs are all but stopped. But I use the prior existence of them to illustrate my hypothesis.)

The passage also shows brutal judicial incompetence. The moron is so desperate for rationales to eliminate abortion (i.e., allow the state to make it illegal) that he's invoking absurd and cartoonish examples that show his truly low level of maturity and sub-par intelligence.

Also, this line of reasoning smacks of eugenics.

You just know this passage will be removed from the final version of the ruling.

[meadowlander]

49. Or capitalism gone mad.

I suspect you wouldn't find Neanderthals conceptualising "a domestic supply of infants".

Primitive cultures either generally had a stronger ethos of community responsibility for all the children or else kids who couldn't be looked after were exposed (or worst case eaten).

We've needed thousands of years to "evolve" to a stage where we can see people purely as products to satisfy the needs of other richer people.

[Joinfortmill]

28. What the unholy f*ck?

[Lonestarblue]

30. Evidently, running adoption agencies is a lucrative business.

And those in the religious right who run such agencies need a steady supply of perfect white babies to sell to adoptive parents. Thousands of children are languishing in foster care, often in horrendous conditions, in this country because no one will adopt them. Where are all these fine Christian parents looking to adopt children? My God, this Alito document is beyond disgusting!

[housecat]

31. follow the money

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. It doesn't feel like The Handmaid's Tale..

It was the fucking central point of the book.

[WinstonSmith4740]

34. So-o-o-o, if I read this right...

People were "desperate" to adopt a child, but only if it was less than a month old. I mean, children older than that don't need a family right?d And, sorry but can't shake the feeling that they left out "white" in the description of what children people were looking to adopt.

[Emile]

39. Is there a shortage of kids now to adopt?

[LeftInTX]

40. Yes. Single mothers keep their kids now!

Abortion is not a factor
Contraception might be.
But only 1% of mothers give up their kids for adoption.

In 1965 3.1% of white newborns were born out of wedlock
In 2018 15% of white newborns were born out of wedlock

The Answer: No More Shotgun Marriages
In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”

Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: “If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn’t no choice. So I married her.”

[Emile]

41. I'm glad I asked that question. Thanks for that information.

[meadowlander]

47. There's a longstanding shortage of healthy white babies

for people whose parental ambitions are confined to only those criteria.

That's why there was so much demand for babies from Eastern Europe and Russia before Putin shut down the supply lines in retaliation for sanctions.

[Voltaire2]

56. Also the standards are lower.

You basically just pay a broker and get a white baby.

[Ilsa]

44. Turning newborns into a commodity. Capitalism gone bonkers. nt

[Karma13612]

50. So basically,

Women are expected to solve the “baby supply chain issue”??

Oh my dog…..

[eppur_se_muova]

51. The Fatherland must be kept strong ! More bodies ! More bodies ! nt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

[littlemissmartypants]

52. It's not enough to take control of the bodies of potential mothers.

They want to place ownership over the babies as well. Evil power grabbing over others is their forté. Their minds are just that twisted.

❤

[Irish_Dem]

54. GOP sees babies as property to be bought and sold.

So much for "respect for life."

[Voltaire2]

55. Straight out Nazi shit.

[CousinIT]

57. Democratic adverts should say:

"The MAGA crowd and their dishonest justices, chosen by the Federalist Society to join the Supreme Court, consider America's women & girls to be breeding stock, utility machinery that they intend to reduce to pumping out babies often against their will. This is reproductive slavery and strips America's girls and women of bodily autonomy and human rights."