GOP's anti-abortion strategy could establish precedent for massive, corrupt regulation


[Read the post]


A new law in Indiana bans abortions after diagnosis of fetal disabilities

I would like to say the following to the people who thought this was a good idea (those sensitive to profanity should stop reading now)






I’m just remembering, from a few weeks ago, the discussion from Understanding American Authoritarianism, specifically the bit about highly compartmentalized beliefs. In this case, the compartment regarding “abortion” and attitudes towards it has zero crossover or contact with the compartment regarding government regulations and attitudes towards that.

But, really, at the end of the day, if they think that fertilized cells are people but that refugee children (regardless of religion or race) are not, I feel that they should stop pretending that their objections are grounded in Christianity, or anything other than misogyny and xenophobia.


American women have the most heavily regulated vaginas in the world :anguished:


Just make every anti-abortion nut/legislator adopt two unwanted babies with developmental issues.

After that maybe I’ll listen to their bullshit.


Not counting the nonsense going on in “Catholic countries” like Ireland and Brazil. Where they are more than willing to let women die of complications in pregnancies rather than risk performing abortions.

All of the nonsense said by fetus worshipers about being “OK with abortion to save the life of the mother” is bullshit. They are just lying. Because they will look for excuses to say that abortion should not be considered in any given case and make excuses when a woman dies because a life saving abortion was not performed.

The reality is that doctors are usually more in fear for their jobs in such situations than they are in failing to abide by notions of medical necessity. The thing about abortion restrictions are you have a bunch of lawmakers who are deliberately extolling the violation of doctor/patient privacy and professional medical ethics in order to get their way.

These laws also actively encourage women to be hacked up by unsafe practitioners because there are no viable alternatives. Every time I hear a fetus worshiper talk about Kermit Gosnell as being the epitome of abortion rights, I want to kick them in the nuts so hard.


In this case I’m not even sure it’s compartmentalized thinking so much as it is the “small government” and “anti-regulation” positions are outright fiction. Aside from a very small number of hardcore anarchists, no one thinks that laws are bad things, everyone just wants laws to reflect their own values. Religious values small government advocates see abortion laws as an extension of murder laws, and everyone agrees that murder laws are a good idea. And “left-wing” “big government” advocates like me want the government to stop interfering with how people express their sexuality and identify their genders.

I don’t think there any anyone running for any office in the US today who is actually against laws or governments telling people what to do (libertarians included - most of them want governments to enforce contracts between individuals; never mind libertarian candidates who want to bring back prohibition and other nonsense like that).


Unfortunately (or perhaps deservedly), eugenics has become a four letter word. I say “unfortunate”, because any reproductive decision that is informed by knowledge is in effect applied eugenics. Passing laws like this just turns these lawmakers into the very people they hate.


Deservedly. While people should be free to do what they want with their bodies, there’s an argument to be made that our society’s making some disabilities and developmental disorders that aren’t progressive or particularly at risk of childhood mortality (like, say, down’s syndrome and autism) to be worse fates for a child than they really are.

Eugenics is the strategy picked by societies who’d rather stop seeing disabled and ‘abnormal’ people as people than make (really pretty minor) adaptions that’d let those people lead lives about as happy as everyone else. Sure, maybe not as “productive”, but that’s an incredibly overvalued thing in our society.


That’s functionally becoming true in the US as well, though. Some states have made it so impossible to actually get an abortion that, even though the legislators claim that in their sought ban they’d have exceptions for rape victims, etc., underage rape survivors are, in reality, being forced to risk their lives giving birth to their rapists’ children. In the US they can give all lip service they want about when they’d allow abortions because, as you say, it doesn’t matter if there’s a blanket ban or they’ve simply forced all the providers to close with burdensome, arbitrary regulation (or there’s only one in the state that you can’t get to).


Do you have any clue what goes through your mind and heart and gut when you find out there are “anomalies” in the pre-natal testing of your fetus, when you already have at least one high-needs child at home?

Babies are not born in a vacuum. There are a lot of people who are affected – physically, emotionally, financially – if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term when she knows it is not in the best interests of herself and/or her family.


There’s always the difference between politicians’ and their supporters’ ideologies to deal with. The politicians are likely lying about at least half of their supposed interests because they’ve adapted to “supporting” what will get them support from voters (e.g. the Southern Strategy, the War on Drugs, the Silent Majority). The supporters may indeed be unaware of their hypocrisy because they believe what they’re told, mixed in with personal issues that they actually encounter in their everyday lives, and unfortunately, the imported beliefs often reframe the personal issues to coincide with their party’s platform, even against their own interests.

So GOP supporters can be pro-“life” while also for war and the death penalty, and also against healthcare reform, larger social safety nets, free education, and increased sex education/access to birth control (many of which could decrease the demand for abortions). They can be against welfare and yet espouse religious beliefs about taking care of the poor.


Very true. I am keeping my fingers crossed that Justice Kennedy will do the sane thing and uphold Casey v. Planned Parenthood and take out these defacto bans.


Being a hypocrite comes with being anti-abortion. Its not a political position, it is a character flaw.

It is being so overcome with self-righteousness, narcissism and arrogance that you think one has any business getting involved in the intimate and private decisions a woman makes about what is going on in her body.

Eugenics or not, children born with profound disabilities to parents who lack extraordinary means have a nasty habit of being pawned off on the state in foster care. Even from the cold impartiality of “fiscal responsibility” it means the state gets overburdened with a cost they could avoid. Much like the amounts they pay out in public assistance for childcare where access to abortion is burdened.


In @Drew_G’s defense, they began with “people should be free to do what they want with their bodies.” We don’t need to be against abortion to be against the way that some neurological differences and disabilities are viewed by our culture. It’s similar to gender selection abortions. If XX fetuses are being aborted at a very high rate compared to XY fetuses then we might guess something about misogyny in that society; it’s just important to also realize you can’t judge individuals making those decisions for themselves. Well, and also that trying to solve the problem of people not wanting to raise girls by making laws against abortion is beyond stupid.


I’m well aware, thank you. I’m just saying a culture that would rather put women in that situation than provide enough social services that disabled children really aren’t that much of a burden has questionable priorities.

The choice between choosing to focus on preventing autism versus spending money on more special education and social services that could benefit others isn’t made in a vacuum either. Do you have any clue what goes through the mind of an autistic person like me when people talk about prenatal tests for autism and I look at what happened to fetuses with down syndrome when prenatal tests for that became available?


Yes, I can imagine how insulting and saddening that must be, but it’s putting the cart before the horse, blaming a woman for recognizing that she won’t have enough support in raising her kid(s). As @Humbabella put it above:

Using the term “eugenics” (as you did in the post I was replying to) to label that situation is not accurate, and in fact inflammatory.

51% of the population is in the position for at least some of their lives to be affected by this situation. Autism and Down’s are two examples compromising a minority of the cases…there are countless reasons why doctors and/or patients request prenatal testing, and figuring out how to cope with the results is done on an individual basis under great pressure, not months or years later in the polling booth. Supporting education for all, regardless of neuro functioning, has no legitimate connection to the issues of reproductive choice, which is why it’s very possible to be supportive of both simultaneously.


How do you get me blaming women over me saying “Eugenics is badly regarded for a reason”. I’m blaming a wider society that would rather even people with disabilities that don’t impede having a fairly long happy life not be born rather than (gasp!) having to make accommodations for disabled people.




Has anybody proposed limiting the reproductive options of people on the autistic spectrum?

I wouldn’t feel threatened if women started selecting for blond hair in their children, as my brown-haired life would continue unaffected