"A federal [statutory] guarantee should stick neither with Roe’s argumentative faultiness — dubiously grounded in a right to privacy rather than women’s equality — nor its narrow protections. A new federal abortion right could ensure that it is a funded entitlement for the poor women who most need it."
Writes history and law professor Samuel Moyn, in "Counting on the Supreme Court to uphold key rights was always a mistake/Liberals are re-learning the lesson that only democratically enacted rights are reliable" (WaPo).
Why does Moyn say that poor women "most need" the right to abortion? Maybe that's just awkwardly written, and he only means poor women are most in need of financial assistance, but all women equally need access to abortion. He says he wants the statutory abortion right to be premised on equality, then turns around and says "poor women... most need it." There's an unpleasant whiff of a suggestion that poor people overbreed.
Moyn speaks of poor people earlier in the piece:
[I]n the abortion rights successor case Maher v. Roe (1977) — which said women on Medicaid were not entitled to financial support for abortions — and so many other domains, the court has never afforded constitutional protection to the poor, who most need rights of all kinds.
He really does seem to want to say that poor women need abortion rights more than other women do. I'd like to see that argument fleshed out. Perhaps it's simply that poor people have more interactions with the government, and constitutional rights are a defense against government. But the federal government has not been paying for abortions. The constitutional right women are (apparently) about to lose is the right to choose to have an abortion. Why would a poor woman need that more than a non-poor women?
Posts
92 comments:
Your rights don’t require my money to pay for them. But if we are going down that path I’d like someone to buy me a newspaper publisher, a tv news network and an AK.
The constitutional right women are (apparently) about to lose is the right to choose to have an abortion. Why would a poor woman need that more than a non-poor women?
I don't know... let's ask Margaret Sanger...
By "poor people", he means Black Americans. Planned Parenthood concentrates their abortion parlors in Black neighborhoods to fulfill Margret Sanger's wish to reduce the number of the undesired races.
"dubiously grounded in a right to privacy"
Now they tell us. Of course, there is nothing "private" about abortion, and "privacy" was itself a judicial invention.
"rather than women’s equality"
So women and men are equally entitled to decide whether to have an abortion? Or, as in usual feministspeak, does "equality" here mean that women get to have special rights because they are special?
"Why does Moyn say that poor women "most need" the right to abortion?"
As RBG told us long ago, you wouldn't want too many of the wrong people.
"There's an unpleasant whiff of a suggestion that poor people overbreed."
Why unpleasant? It was always the prime progressive rationale. Once you favor an absolute right to abortion, anytime, for anyone, what do you care about motives?
"Why would a poor woman need that more than a non-poor women?"
Besides the breeding argument, the further prog step is that a "right" comes with an entitlement--i.e., $$. Which poor women need more, and which can be endlessly exploited for prog political purposes.
"Liberals are re-learning the lesson that only democratically enacted rights are reliable." What does that even mean? Roe v Wade has lasted fifty years. Does he imagine that whatever they can pass in Congress or state legislatures will last a tenth that long?
And - Bill of Rights. Was that "democratically enacted"? I thought it was put in the Constitution to place it out of the range of democratic choice.
Nobody is going to take your blessed abortions away from you. There will be many states that you will still be able to kill your baby right up to the time of birth. I wish people worried about taking responsibility for their actions instead of crying about their rights to murder.
"There's an unpleasant whiff of a suggestion that poor people overbreed."
He means "black people," but he cannot say "black people" or the jig would be up. So he uses the "code word."
Jewish, I note. Very similar statement was made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg about the undesirability of having too many black people.
>Ann Althouse said...
There's an unpleasant whiff of a suggestion that poor people overbreed.<
Sorry you find it unpleasant but it is not a suggestion - it is a fact borne out by statistics. (Though I rather imagine that you will provide your definition of "overbreed" that makes your statement "work".)
Basically everything he says needs more careful thinking. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ambitious. When you need to win a vote is the last time you should be aiming for the moon. Ambitious is really the wring word anyway, since, in this excerpt at least, he is not aiming for abortion until the child goes off to school as some activists want. He merely wants people who need help exercising their rights to get that help—which is an altogether different argument.
A federal [statutory] guarantee should stick neither with Roe’s argumentative faultiness — dubiously grounded in a right to privacy rather than women’s equality — nor its narrow protections. A new federal abortion right could ensure that it is a funded entitlement for the poor women who most need it.
But wouldn't such a guarantee run afoul of exactly the same fundamental problem as Roe — the federal government acting in a realm that properly belongs to the states?
"But the federal government has not been paying for abortions."
"Planned Parenthood receives funding from several sources. About 41 percent of its funding comes in the form of federal government reimbursements and grants through programs such as Medicaid and Title X, according the Department of Health and Human Services."
Poor women make better victims in any narrative.
Like gun control laws abortion rights have been explicitly expressed in anti-minority terms from the start. Until the evil Republican president won the civil war and freed the slaves not one state had enacted restrictions on firearms. Ruth Ginsberg said it out loud more than once. This is one tiny clue as to why the woke frenzy primarily is eating its own.
Well, I think his premise that abortion rights must be protected through political means, and not judicial fiat is on target. This should be how we work for all of our laws. We don't want our judges making laws, nor is that their in their area of oversight. That's why we have legislatures and why we vote for those legislators.
I think the upcoming expected decision from the Supreme Court would push us back to that missed first step. 50 times in 50 states.
And, yes, it does sound like he's making the argument that the poor are also too dumb, too childlike, to helpless to make these decisions for themselves. Obviously, there are people of all means who fall into that category. But yes, his comments- from what I can read- seem to indicate his desire for a special class of abortion receiver. Not just women. But poor women. And, if I can be allowed to read his mind...poor Black women. After all, he's a Yale Law Professor. A special level of progressive thinker who can be relied on to count short the abilities of Black people. I've just made a giant leap and accused this man, who I don't know in the least, of peddling real prejudice under the guise of 'liberalism'. And I feel pretty good about it.
That's an interesting headline: Counting on the Supreme Court to guarantee key rights was a mistake.
Didn't the Burger Supreme Court make abortion a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade?
Now the Roberts Supreme Court is reconsidering Harry Blackmun's reasoning about auras and penumbrations that created that constitutional right.
Do people who write about these issues for a living have any historical context or logical reasoning ability or are they no different than the cheesy politicians they cover?
Why is this such a puzzle? The elites have always believed it's better to never have been born than to be born poor. You know, limit the number of useless eaters we don't want too many of, and all that.
Why he is saying is what the Dems have been saying since the 1920s. We don’t want too many poors. How can we control their population so that we can use them as a voting block to maintain power but not be shorted by their dependence on our grift money?
He really does seem to want to say that poor women need abortion rights more than other women do. I'd like to see that argument fleshed out.
The modern abortion movement is really just an extension of the 1900's Eugenics movement.
To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.
"Why does Moyn say that poor women "most need" the right to abortion?"
He's suggesting a "funded entitlement" for abortions. His "need it most" references the entitlement part of that proposal. This might have been edited to soften the rather startling proposal. He wants me to have to pay to kill somebody else's baby?
Fuck you, Buddy.
"Once we accept that abortion rights must be protected through political means, rather than judicial fiat, there is no reason not to be ambitious."
He seems to largely abandon the concept of minority rights when he confronts the possibility of being the man in control.
Also, his presumption about the true will of the majority on abortion is bubble thinking.
Any abortion proposals which totally disregard the new life developing in the Mother, as Moyn's do, is unacceptable. A little morbid in fact.
Once again, fuck this guy.
The left has long held that blacks shouldn't reproduce. Margaret "Neo-Nazi" Sanger's "Negro "Project," anyone? They just keep in to themselves most of the time.
But it slips out once in a while, such as the time Ruth (the "Master") Bader Ginsburg said: "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."
Should we pass a law requiring the federal government to purchase weapons for poor people? That seems like a dumb idea.
. The constitutional right women are (apparently) about to lose is the right to choose to have an abortion
Wasn't a minute; you - a con law professor - actually believe that's what overturning Roe will do? You were not dumb enough to believe that, do you were being disingenuous.
Not surprised., by the way
He means "black people," but he cannot say "black people" or the jig would be up.
I saw what you did there.
One could go back to the original abortion advocate, Margaret Sanger. She knew what she wanted. Then you could consult the lefty academics who say that "incarceration" was not responsible for the decrease in crime after 1990. It was abortion. And you know who was being aborted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the pro-abortion left wants to see happen. They just won't talk about it.
"The court has never afforded constitutional protection to the poor, who most need rights of all kinds."
I would assume Professor Moyn would include 2nd Amendment rights in this list.
It is imperative to protect [elective] abortion rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
That said, a woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. #HateLovesAbortion
"There's an unpleasant whiff of a suggestion that poor people overbreed." Isn't this perfectly in line with Margaret Sanger's vision, and the vision of the early 20th century progressives?
Rabel is 100% correct. Poor women are most ,"in need" of the *funded entitlement*. If you think anyone "needs" it
Why would a poor woman need that more than a non-poor women?
If you read online conversations where people are wrestling with a specific decision to have or not have abortions, I feel like the answer is obvious: the decision to abort is in many cases first and foremost an economic decision, even if couched in the delicate language of "personal autonomy" or whatever. Poor women need it most because (1) children are expensive and (2) pregnancy can limit your earning potential or knock you out of the workforce entirely for a number of months which could be catastrophic if you're close to the Micawber line. Maybe he's being paternalistic and condescending, but I think he's hitting closer to the reality of abortion in the US than people who are conceptualising abortion at the abstract level of privacy or bodily autonomy.
In 2005, the Guttmacher Institute found that 73% of women who decided to abort chose abortion because they "could not afford a baby now," just behind the 74% who said it was because it would "interfere with [her] education, work or ability to care for dependents." Financial limitations are a major factor in the overwhelming majority of abortions, and those are absolutely going to hit the poor a lot harder than the rich.
This is an issue, among many, that belong to the states. Public health is for the states. Gun laws are another. Education (delete the Dept ed) also.
Interesting statistic is that middle class woman get pregnant less and abort more of their pregnancies compared to poor women poor women get pregnant more often and have more children. I interpret it as the liberal assumption that poor women would be happy to have more abortions and less children, an assumption that it would be good for society too, liberals are also proponents of the abortion reducing crime hypothesis.
I however think poor women have less abortions not because of access but because they only have them out of desperation and nessecity, meanwhile middle class woman have something to gain from delayed motherhood, poor woman have something to lose either way if they can't feed their family. When you are poor your children are the best most valuable possession you have, another reason poor women have more children.
When life is hard your baby smiling at you during bathtime is the only bright spot in your life, so poor women don't have the same associations that a baby will stop them from bettering their life because poor people know and have first hand experience that gettinf out of poverty and social mpbility is almost impossible anyways.
Where as middle class woman don't want to be dowbwardly mobile and delaying motherhood vis a vis abortion will award them material benefit much much more than it would a poor woman.
Some would say the solution is more equality starting with funded abortion access for the poor, I'd say its not guaranteed that this would lower the number of pregnancies it might just increase amounts of abortions poor woman have but not decrease child per woman. To me that would be needless, poor woman need food and opportunities, middle class feminists project their needs onto the poor.
"I'd like to see that argument fleshed out."
What he's saying is that butchers don't work for free, Althouse. Having a guy in a white coat take special-purpose stainless steel forceps, with toothed gripping extensions, stick them up your twat, and rip your child's arms and legs off, before crushing her skull and harvesting her organs, is not cheap. He's not some altruistic volunteer. He wants cash. Moolah! Gelt! Know what I mean, Sister? It's true, there are "medical researchers" who will purchase some parts of your baby, for use in experiments they hope will make them insanely wealthy. But there aren't enough of them to pay the butcher's bill. So until Bill Gates can convinces us all to eat dead babies, someone is going to have to pay the butcher to crush and dismember the helpless children of the poor.
That fleshy enough for you?
The argument that abortion should be made legal as a matter of women's equality seems like a stretch. Women need a legal right to abortion to be to be equal to men because . . . why? Because men can't become pregnant? You only need an abortion when you are pregnant. The proposed federal law Moyn praises (Women's Healthcare Protection Act) only mentioned "women" in its title, the rest of it referred to pregnant people.
Moyn wants the abortion decided at the federal level by congress. The federal government is the least democratic level of American government. It has no constitutional mandate to do things like guarantee every pregnant woman access to abortion. The natural level of government to do this is the state level.
If congress can pass a law making abortion legal in all of the fifty states, then congress can pass a law making abortion illegal in all of the fifty states.
I believe a significant number of pro-Abortion rights people always have been motivated at least in part by a desire to lessen the number of poor and minority children. I assume Ann knows this (although I doubt it is Ann's pro-abortion rights motivation), so she seems overly sensitive to this unimpressive and little known professor's poor writing. He likely had no idea that he was saying it.
I may have missed a full past explanation by Ann of her pro-abortion rights stance, but whenever I have seen her post about it, she never seems to address the key issue of justification for killing the baby. I assume she just feels the woman's right to avoid the burdens of pregnancy and a child are greater than the baby's right to live. I have always thought that was a weak argument, but I wish more pro-abortion rights people would be honest about that being the basis for their pro-abortion rights position.
The SCOTUS rulings always have been nonsense as a matter of constitutional law. I think it needs to be a matter of legislation, although the D's have themselves in this box where they cannot be anything but extreme left wing/no restrictions. The justices sure made a huge mess of the issue and, if there is some type of God waiting for us at the end of life, they must have been in for a rough time. I have sometimes thought about how Blackman, Douglas and others might have felt as they saw the end was near. I guess like most of us they rationalized their behavior, but they must have died with some level of fear.
Why would poor women need abortion more? To keep them from breeding too much. It is a classist solution to the overpopulation problem of "way too many of the wrong types."
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution posted a grapht just this morning showing the TFR vs income for the last year (Total Fertility Rate). Spoiler, it U shaped. But as many point out in his comments, the higher incomes have low sample sizes. What would the left side of the curve look like if abortion was less readily available?
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/06/recent-tfr-by-income.html
"The total fertility rate of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if: 1. she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates through her lifetime 2. she were to live from birth until the end of her reproductive life."
Another who confuses rights and wants.
Why does Moyn say that poor women "most need" the right to abortion?
You KNOW Why.. Democrats want Abortion... Democrats want to Abort Black Babies..
Because democrats are democrats; if they Can't OWN Blacks, they want them Dead
Well, they weren't wrong.
Applies wherever.
Sebastian said...
"rather than women’s equality"
So women and men are equally entitled to decide whether to have an abortion?
Or, as in usual feministspeak, does "equality" here mean that women get to have special rights because they are special?
************
Here's the deal:
Now that men can decide to be women, cis-women and trans-women {aka FUBAR} men need equal protection.
It's not that trans-women can physically undergo an abortion----he/she cannot carry a fetus---it's enough that he/she have the "right" to one.
See how easy it is?
Right there in the subheadline: "Liberals are re-learning the lesson that only democratically enacted rights are reliable."
Gosh. All this time I thought the Peoples' rights were endowed by our Creator and bailed by the People to the Government.
If Moyn was trying to sabotage any abortion legislation he couldn't devise a better way.
Gay wedding cakes baked by conscripted reactionaries should be federally funded too.
When he talks about a "right to abortion", I think he means it like a right to breath. You don't have to ask anyone's permission and you don't have to pay anything or go out of your way. When he talks about guaranteeing a right to abortion, he means the government funds your's and makes sure there are providers nearby. The less money you have, the more that matters.
"Why would a poor woman need that more than a non-poor women?"
It's not the poor women who need it, it's the Dems who rule the poor women. If too many poor babies grow up and vote, it might be over for the power brokers.
Abortion is the key policy for perpetuating Leftist governance of American cities, in two ways. One, having more poor people would mean Leftist policies become much, much more expensive and, ultimately, unsustainable. And two, fewer poor people = fewer victims to complain about it.
"but all women equally need access to abortion"
A lot of misspeak in that one. Not "need," but "want."
Why does Moyn say that poor women "most need" the right to abortion?
Because he/she is a eugenicist. Like Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist. ANY generation of the poor, the unfit, is enough. They, like those 75-plus Japanese, "need" the right to exterminate.
In the Supremacy Clause, most are unaware that USSC opinions are NOT listed.
I believe a significant number of pro-Abortion rights people always have been motivated at least in part by a desire to lessen the number of poor and minority children. I assume Ann knows this (although I doubt it is Ann's pro-abortion rights motivation), so she seems overly sensitive to this unimpressive and little known professor's poor writing. He likely had no idea that he was saying it.
I may have missed a full past explanation by Ann of her pro-abortion rights stance, but whenever I have seen her post about it, she never seems to address the key issue of justification for killing the baby. I assume she just feels the woman's right to avoid the burdens of pregnancy and a child are greater than the baby's right to live. I have always thought that was a weak argument, but I wish more pro-abortion rights people would be honest about that being the basis for their pro-abortion rights position.
The SCOTUS rulings always have been nonsense as a matter of constitutional law. I think it needs to be a matter of legislation, although the D's have themselves in this box where they cannot be anything but extreme left wing/no restrictions. The justices sure made a huge mess of the issue and, if there is some type of God waiting for us at the end of life, they must have been in for a rough time. I have sometimes thought about how Blackman, Douglas and others might have felt as they saw the end was near. I guess like most of us they rationalized their behavior, but they must have died with some level of fear.
What is the "need" for abortion?
No woman needs an abortion, except perhaps to save her life.
What is a woman?
This is why I often comment before reading other people's comments. And once again we see that there is some benefit to the hated moderation. So many people independently coming to the same conclusions.
I don't know if Moyn meant Black folks specifically, but he clearly means the poor in the sense of being of a lower undesirable class, in addition to the premise that children are inherently a burden that "the poor" should be relieved of. He doesn't say that there should be more and better attempts to create the conditions for the poor to become the not-poor, or to implement policies so that a woman does not think she necessarily needs to choose between school/career and a living child. No. He just opts for the one choice -- the ONLY choice -- that the pro-aborts insist upon: elimination of the "burden" of the "punishment" of a child.
Maybe the 'poor' woman is poor because she doesn't make responsible decisions. Including her sex life.
Chicken. Egg.
I think he assumes abortion will remain available in some states but poor women cannot afford interstate travel to get an abortion.
The author seems to believe that abortion on demand would be a popular piece of legislation. Not. Such legislation would never pass in Congress. It is destined to be a state issue.
Professor poindexter: Let's be ambitious.
Democratically created laws: Hold my beer.
Perhaps it's simply that poor people have more interactions with the government, and constitutional rights are a defense against government.
Sorry, buy YOU (and *i*) might see it that way, but to today's democrats, Constitutional rights are a Payment FROM the government
Right to health care
Right to a "living wage"
Right to housing
Right to gender reassignment surgery
etc; now, just add on Right to Planned Parenthood, and you'll be on their page
Women don't need abortion. There is just a subset of women who see no reason not to use it to get rid of an inconvenience, and if they can get other people to pay for it, it just makes it an easier choice. There are so many ways to refrain from becoming pregnant, one has to wonder how killing over 60 million unborn children ever became acceptable to anyone. Now that the Supreme Court appears to have come to its senses, let's reassess what the word "need" means.
The 1st Amendment doesn't fund computers or websites much less broadcast news stations for people who can't afford it.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't fund firearms for those who can't afford them.
Why would an abortion right be a funded entitlement for people who can't afford it?
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
"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."
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
A new federal abortion right could ensure that it is a funded entitlement for the poor women who most need it."
- Samuel Moyn (Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School)
"...they had better do it [die], and decrease the surplus population.”
- Ebenezer Scrooge
Legislation can change whenever control of government changes. If you want to make it a durable right, write an amendment to the constitution.
This is best left to the states. Out of national politics would be a blessing.
"A federal [statutory] guarantee should stick neither with Roe’s argumentative faultiness — dubiously grounded in a right to privacy rather than women’s equality — nor its narrow protections. A new federal abortion right could ensure that it is a funded entitlement for the poor women who most need it."
You can't have a federal guarantee until you establish that it's one of the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
Since you can't, this exploration is done.
And let's be honest here: You're more likely to see a Federal ban on 2nd trimester abortions when the mother's life isn't at risk, than you are to see a Federal law protecting 3rd Trimester abortions
Once we accept that abortion rights must be protected through political means, rather than judicial fiat
Wasn't this all resolved in Genesis:22 ???
“All women should have equal access to abortions.”
All woman have equal access to abortions.
Can all women afford it? Is the definition of equal, monetary?
Why do poor women need abortions more? B/c kids are such a liability to the wallet. And poor people are sustained by the government these days. Poor women cotton on- have multiple children (for the benes)raise them up w/ themselves as role models.
The circle of life.
And yes- I’m cynical as hell today- Father’s Day! Happy Father’s Day to all the Dads here.
Children are a gift.
And so are Fathers.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
By "poor people", he means Black Americans.
Yep, and unsaid but assumed by the left, poor people are too stupid to use birth control.
I expect the morning after pill to be easily available online from same pharmacies distributing viagra and other drugs. Will be a staple in the home medicine cabinet.
Readering lights on my own opinion: Abortion will remain available in a large number of states -- in some of them, literally through birth -- but if you are (say) in TX and hundreds of miles from the border with any other state, it might be prohibitively expensive for a poor woman to travel out-of-state, especially if the states adjoining her own have 72-hr waiting periods or some such. For such people (who aren't all Black, though many are), the cost of a cute little week's vacation, in lost wages, travel, and lodging, might well be prohibitive.
But the many, many people here who mention Sanger, eugenics, RBG's "people we don't want to have too many of." &c. are also right. A remarkable number of people hopped on the Paul Ehrlich train and have never gotten off. And they do, in fact, want there to be fewer Black infants, however unlikely they are to say so.
What he's really talking about is codifying a "right" to perform abortions.
Duh. Every thing is more free and easy with money. Well off women whom want abortions will not be deterred by their local yokal rules. Poor woman don't have that luxury.
I think to focus on the Prof's faulty and equally messy reasoning of Roe, misses the issue.
If Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, how does Federal legislature get a say? Like voting law, they could only hide behind constitutional notions of some protection of the people by an overreaching Government.
My Suggestion to Republicans. In less than 2 years, they will hold majorities and should pass Abortion laws. Just so the left can attempt to get SCOTUS involved to declare the Federal legislation lacks jurisdiction. That would be some intriguing precedent.
To ask the question is to answer it.
Abortion, along with birth control and sterilization, was originally championed by those who though their inferiors shouldn't breed. The poors were always among the inferiors.
when did 'right' = handout aka help with bootstrap [by Sonia?]
does the word have one meaning in different academic fields and disciplines?
“… He really does seem to want to say that poor women need abortion rights more than other women do. I'd like to see that argument fleshed out.”
“Fleshed out?” In the context of a close reading of…abortion rights?
Yuck. A most infelicitous choice of words.
Also, only poor women take more than 15 weeks to decide whether or not to get an abortion.
when did 'right' = handout aka help with bootstrap [by Sonia?]
does the word have one and same meaning in different academic fields and disciplines?
I expect the morning after pill to be easily available online from same pharmacies distributing viagra and other drugs. Will be a staple in the home medicine cabinet.
=========
does the post-coiturs pill also work pre-coitus?
e.g. take aspirin and drink water before imbibation of alcohol to avoid hang-over
If I'm paying for abortions, I'd like conditions.
First abortion is on the house.
Then you get free birth control.
The second abortion is also on the house, but you will be sterilized the same day.
Deal?
It seems to reek of the reason Sanger gave for abortions and birth control. I have a very unpleasant reaction to his words. I come from a poor family, born in the depression, and have six siblings. My mother was actually asked as a "joke" "are you catholic or careless?" Her reply to these "jokes" was "the world needs people like my children." And she was definitely not Catholic.
Perhaps I am taking this a little too personally, but when I consider how many of the aborted babies are black or from other people of color, I consider it genocide of the minority in the US. I just find his words offensive. Choice is one thing, persuasion is another and that is one thing free, or government paid, abortions would be, persuasion.
“… He really does seem to want to say that poor women need abortion rights more than other women do. I'd like to see that argument fleshed out.”
I’d like to see the child fleshed out.
Allowed to grow in utero, allowed to enter this world and breathe.
Equality is our human intrinsic worth.
Our very soul.
@Balfegor: “In 2005, the Guttmacher Institute found that 73% of women who decided to abort chose abortion because they "could not afford a baby now," just behind the 74% who said it was because it would "interfere with [her] education, work or ability to care for dependents." Financial limitations are a major factor in the overwhelming majority of abortions, and those are absolutely going to hit the poor a lot harder than the rich.”
So, 147% of abortions are indistinguishable from murders of convenience.
Doesn’t sound so wonderful put that way, does it?
In Africa WHO has asked donors to set up primary health care centers rather than reproductive "health" centers, It seems the Africans wondered why freshly packaged contraceptives were passed out for free in shiny new clinics while primary health care clinics passed out dusty medicines with outdated labels in the few open venues. But the women of the Congressional Black Caucus are far too clever and educated to ask the same questions on behalf of their less well-off sisters.
And on Father's Day, let's not forget the men who cannot do anything for their children - can't save their lives, can't get them educated, can't talk to their sons about good jobs in manufacturing. Aren't trusted to handle welfare checks for their own family. Once I thought Obama would make things better for them though he made things hard for prolifers. Well, his beach house is on a better beach than Patrice Cullors' and it's bigger. So he's been a good father to his own two. And the others? He's worked like Margaret Sanger to make sure a poor, black father can get his kids aborted at low cost.
Jupiter @ 12:43 pm nails it!
As with euthanasia, so with abortion. Saying that you have the right to government-provided termination of a life, your own or your baby's, will eventually mean saying that you have an obligation to do so. The taxpayers are providing the opportunity at no cost to you, why not take advantage of it?
All this talk about "the poor." For most people, your grandparents (or maybe your great-grandparents) were "the poor," so talking about them as if they were some wholly alien group seems a little strange to me.
A whole lot of people would be willing to go to jail before paying for abortions.
A federal statutory guarantee means that a poor woman in a state that does not allow abortion will not have to find the funds to travel to a state that allows the procedure. It doesn’t mean African American — this equal affects poor white women.
Well off women whom want abortions will not be deterred by their local yokal rules. Poor woman don't have that luxury.
Poor women have access to birth control pills. The Republicans in Congress have been trying for years to make BCP over the counter drugs. Democrats fight this every time.
Why would a poor woman need that more than a rich woman?
Because abortion is, and always has been, a project meant to help eradicate those the eugencists and racists and class crusaders find undesirable, before the inconvenience of actual birth and the need then to commit genocide against them.
From the article, “but all women equally need access to abortion.”
This statement is absurd, non fertile women have no need for abortions at all.
Were we not told that the Hyde amendment does not allow government spending on abortion? How can we be spending on abortions at the federal level now.
There is no way to permanently establish a right, even free speech in the first amendment could be revoked by a new amendment or a new constitutional convention.
States need to pass anti ghoul laws where no body parts can be sold to anyone nor donated to a group that gives donations to abortion providers.
This is the kind of reparations I can get behind.
The cost of all those poor black dysfunctional children to society is a thousand times the cost of nipping the problem in the bud.
"dubiously grounded in a right to privacy rather than women’s equality"
Seems transphobic to suggest that pregnancy and womanhood are related, WaPo. Do better.
It's no accident that Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist. The Left, as a whole in today's America, believe that the planet is overpopulated and that the people they consider to be lesser need to not breed as much. Many of them are just truly horrible people, who mistakenly believe they are good people.
The over-educated twit does not understand the USSC we have right now. If abortion is a matter reserved to the States, which seems to be the position of a majority of Justices right now, then it is a matter for the States, and a federal law would just be thrown out and back to the individual States it would go. Me, I would consider this to be right and proper, even though it leaves California and a lot of other states with taxpayer paid abortion on demand. Because it is properly a matter for the States. I would love for the USSC to send a lot of things back to the individual States. It just might save the Union.
Post a Comment