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


Hair color and a developmental disorder (and how that intersects with ableism) aren’t really comparable, man.

Plus, you know, I’ve been talking about prenatal tests.


I’m imagining a society that valued blond hair/devalued brown hair enough that women who were trying to have children were aborting fetuses because they had brown hair. I’m having trouble imagining that being a good place for brown-haired people to live (not because of the abortions).


They are pro-birth and that’s it. After the child is born, they don’t care in the least.

Pro-life my ass.


Its why I find “fetus worshiper” is so appropriate. Their only concern for life is of the “innocent life” of a fetus and not of its mother or when it is born.

Whenever one of these people try to describe their POV, they take special note of “innocent life” because they consider the life of the mother to be worthless. Slutshaming is inherent to their views. Slutshaming is essential to the self-styled moral superiority which somehow justifies deciding for women issues which are best described as “none of their goddamn business”.

Its all bullshit. It doesn’t matter how moral and upright you think you are, there are certain things which will never be one’s goddamn business.


Excuse me but this boat has sailed. Somehow people forget that in 2003 Congress very happily passed and the government has enforced the completely anti-competitive idea that Medicare Part D can’t aggregate its own demand for pharmaceuticals to negotiate with Big Pharma for lower prices.

To my knowledge, very few have pushed the point of how against the “free market” this idea is. Reminds me of what happened when the original Populists aggregated their own credit to negotiate with the banks, the grain elevators, and the railroads and were told to take a hike. Incidentally, that forced the Populists into electoral politics and, eventually, being absorbed into the Democratic Party politics as usual within a decade or so.

Just a little warning about recent and more distant history.


Not that I truly think this is a viable solution, but Indiana has a Safe Haven law. So… wards of the state?

Edit to clarify: I think this would be a horrible solution to a horrible problem, I do not advocate this at all, I am just envisioning it as a dystopian possibility.

The solution is to trust women with the care of their bodies.


The law is also a major violation of HIPAA. At no point is the government privy to the personal medical records of women undergoing prenatal tests, nor are doctors obligated to give them either in the normal course of events. In order to enforce such a ban, they would need major violations of doctor/patient privilege.

A viable solution is for the government to stay out of the personal and intimate affairs of women and their wombs.


My god, what incredibly bad luck, after all those other GOP strategies ended up establishing precedent for massive, corrupt regulation and ten the anti-abortion strategy has to go and do it too?!?


Well said.

Plus these are the same people who if you say ‘better sex ed and access to contraceptives will reduce abortions’ to, will freak out about that.


I used a terrible example, but I’m trying to highlight the difference between eugenics and selective abortion. Maybe I don’t understand those differences well enough.

What I can say is that raising even the healthiest child is an enormous undertaking, and I wouldn’t deny any woman the right to hold off on giving birth.

I can’t make that decision for her, and she can decide based on timing, partner support, fetal health, or something she can’t or won’t explain to me.


Their position would be more credible if they have a damn about kids post-birth.

They don’t support health care, education, religious freedom, peace, or freedom from discrimination for that (potential) child in life, so why again do they need it to be born?


I’m sorry for what seems now like an insensitive comparison.

I thought eugenics was the imposition of reproductive restrictions on the living, and thought my example could highlight the difference between that and a potential mother’s freedom to choose the timing and conditions of beginning her 20+ year commitment to raising a human.


To punish the sluty slut who may have sluttily enjoyed that slutty sex. Double punishment points if she wasn’t married to the sperm maker at the time of conception.


Why do those evil sluts target the tender innocence of men?


I 100% agree with you, The “eugenics program” is an emergent property of a society that informs these choices. Individuals are not eugenicists (well, presumably at least a few are, people are awful).


My new favorite swear!

closed #37

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.