"As I wrote last week, I think the Dobbs decision was a good one, but I’m not sure that Republicans will like where it leads. Ultimately, I don’t think it will change things very much, especially when the prevalence of pharmaceutical abortions is taken into account. Dobbs may be a decision that, even though it was five decades in the making, came too late to keep up with advances in technology."
The thing I'm keeping my eyes on is how this accelerates The Big Sort[1], where we see outcomes such as SpaceX in Boca Chica TX or Austin's video game development industry finding it difficult to hire and recruit educated staff that are generally pretty pro-choice, especially women engineers. A lot of hay has been made about enterprises relocating to Texas for the freer economic and political climate - I wonder how many HR folks are evaluating how to unwind those plans. Red States may be wise to not go zealously after local citizens engaging abortion tourism in Blue States or employers offering abortion-related benefits, as that may be the last thread keeping any number of enterprises within its borders and paying its taxes.
Interesting days ahead!
I'm also keeping an eye on the contraceptive "rights" that will be brought up in a future term. For all the impact that Roe had, it wasn't a particularly novel case when it came to Constitutional innovations. The vast bulk of Row was built on Griswold, and for everyone whose last name doesn't rhyme with Scalito, Roe inherited the weak legal justification from Griswold, which is certainly in danger of being sent back to the States as well. (CTRL-F: "Griswold" in Constitution.txt. 0 matches found.)
Back in the day we had homes for unwed mothers. One was located close to my high school and my school class basically adopted them. It was laid out like a nursing home where the kids (and they were all most all fellow teens), got their own room and were fed and talked to and taken care of. The security was brutal because sometime some mad boyfriend would show up demanding to see his girlfriend and Bruno would make short work of him. This was at a time that assault wasn't such a big deal.
It was funded by some sect of the Lutheran Church. We provided Christmas, Birthdays, sometime food from the local stores who donated, and company. In some regards it was like a college dorm at the time. Some girls kept their babies and some didn't. They put them up for adoption. Hopefully they all found good homes. The girls that kept the babes either had supportive parents or didn't. For the didn't we (my class) brought baby stuff for them which was a pretty small amount of help. This was before you got welfare for children. These girls were mostly not high school grads and their futures grim.
I do think a return to Unwed Homes is something to consider. It would be somewhat a different clientele now because society has gone diving down the tubes but some kind of shelter on a long term basis for non drug addicted is something to think about. You would really need to separate the druggies from the nons.
I always enjoy your reads David, even if i don't always agree. I would take exception to one comment about "not thinking it will change things much." Probably not for you, how about for that 16 year old who finds herself pregnant? Let's say she lives with her single mom and they live day to day just getting by. No health insurance but now she will need to carry to term and the liabilities and costs crushes them further. The impact will indeed change her life, clearly more than yours.
My friends at the Bulwark have been positively brilliant on their takes since the decision came down. I won't recant all of their writings, but most of them were pro-life and have been amazingly objective about what this will do; how bad it could become. They also saw no value in rubbing the decision in anyone's face, as at least one writer here elected to do.
The overall commentary was spot on. The Red states are the most likely to be unwilling to offer the support needed to those being forced to carry to term. The stats mentioned in one of the articles included a summary of more abortions are done on Latino and African American women. The question simply became, how will those red state legislators help the minority population get through these difficult times?
Even more on point was, if they really gave a rat's ass, they would have been working to that end all along. The reality is, they are more concerned about punishing potential violators than they are about providing safety nets to help them. If they didn't care before, why start caring now?
You know the answer better than i. I don't claim to be some righteous Christian. I freely admit to being a sinner, less than perfect and hoping my God is forgiving. I have no interest in judging others, well maybe trump, but i hate con artists and scammers.
My best guess is this decision will tip the scales back to the left. It will become a rallying cry. As i said to my wife, they need to stop marching in the streets and start signing up voters. They need to become more focused on the right message, not the optics of crazed people trying to get even. The idea anyone would want to stop birth control or morning after pills, or ban gay marriages is powerful and motivating beyond imagination. Thank you justice Thomas, good to know you are listening to Ginny and the rest of the maga/q-anon crowd.
I have virtually no skin in the game, soon to be 74, no kids and none planned. That said, the idea this country should fall that far backward is unfathomable to me. Apparently my God is different from others. In the end, i will leave it up to him/her to decide right from wrong, just or unjust. Sadly, the arrogance of the former president has rubbed off on too many who have bought into his narcissistic sense of self-importance.
That’s just it. With advances in pharmaceutical abortions, I don’t think the girl in your hypothetical example is going to be without options. I’ll bet that there will be a thriving trade in these pills in red states along with abortion charities that will fund and deliver women to clinics in other states.
I hope you are right David, i truly do. Sometimes we get caught up in how easy things are, and for many of us who have enjoyed a better way of life than others, it is. I've never lived in poverty, always had a family who was there for me, had good schooling and seldom went without. For far too many, they haven't been that fortunate.
Hopefully those celebrating the demise of Roe will become focused on looking to insure the less fortunate will have the safety nets they will need to help them cope, to get by. So far, it looks more like those red state are looking to screw everything down tight to protect the unborn, while caring little about those carrying them. After all, that's what good, God fearing Christians should be doing (my bad, becoming judgemental, sorry). We'll see eh?
Short answer is yes. But it is elusive. Not a race with a finish line, but a state earned and earned again. No doubt we are in turbulent times. Hard times.
As the article says: the debate about where human life starts is something science can't solely determine - and it is likely something that, barring some massive cultural shift, will remain an issue amongst the populace.
Because of this, it is likely best that abortion remain legal and efforts are put towards reducing demand. Prohibition does not eliminate demand: it just drives it to the black market.
But the debate is important: where human life begins means where murder begins. It should be a bright line, not an issue of "demand." I understand the urge to compare this to the illegal drug market, but does anyone argue over-the-counter fentanyl is a good idea as long as the dose is low? It's not a good analogy, because abortion is a permanent act which has no recovery, only regret or sorrow.
But that's just the issue: if there's no agreement on the bright-line from a scientific point-of-view, and we can't agree as a civil point-of-view on one, then it likely needs to be something other than the most restrictive - and if anything lean more towards the permissive.
I'd follow the Israeli model, and what was our model for the most part: permissive to a point, then strict. What that point is is a matter of debate: viability, likely development of human brain function, something else?
"As I wrote last week, I think the Dobbs decision was a good one, but I’m not sure that Republicans will like where it leads. Ultimately, I don’t think it will change things very much, especially when the prevalence of pharmaceutical abortions is taken into account. Dobbs may be a decision that, even though it was five decades in the making, came too late to keep up with advances in technology."
The thing I'm keeping my eyes on is how this accelerates The Big Sort[1], where we see outcomes such as SpaceX in Boca Chica TX or Austin's video game development industry finding it difficult to hire and recruit educated staff that are generally pretty pro-choice, especially women engineers. A lot of hay has been made about enterprises relocating to Texas for the freer economic and political climate - I wonder how many HR folks are evaluating how to unwind those plans. Red States may be wise to not go zealously after local citizens engaging abortion tourism in Blue States or employers offering abortion-related benefits, as that may be the last thread keeping any number of enterprises within its borders and paying its taxes.
Interesting days ahead!
I'm also keeping an eye on the contraceptive "rights" that will be brought up in a future term. For all the impact that Roe had, it wasn't a particularly novel case when it came to Constitutional innovations. The vast bulk of Row was built on Griswold, and for everyone whose last name doesn't rhyme with Scalito, Roe inherited the weak legal justification from Griswold, which is certainly in danger of being sent back to the States as well. (CTRL-F: "Griswold" in Constitution.txt. 0 matches found.)
[1] https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-big-sort-continues-with-trump-as-a-driving-force/
Interesting
Back in the day we had homes for unwed mothers. One was located close to my high school and my school class basically adopted them. It was laid out like a nursing home where the kids (and they were all most all fellow teens), got their own room and were fed and talked to and taken care of. The security was brutal because sometime some mad boyfriend would show up demanding to see his girlfriend and Bruno would make short work of him. This was at a time that assault wasn't such a big deal.
It was funded by some sect of the Lutheran Church. We provided Christmas, Birthdays, sometime food from the local stores who donated, and company. In some regards it was like a college dorm at the time. Some girls kept their babies and some didn't. They put them up for adoption. Hopefully they all found good homes. The girls that kept the babes either had supportive parents or didn't. For the didn't we (my class) brought baby stuff for them which was a pretty small amount of help. This was before you got welfare for children. These girls were mostly not high school grads and their futures grim.
I do think a return to Unwed Homes is something to consider. It would be somewhat a different clientele now because society has gone diving down the tubes but some kind of shelter on a long term basis for non drug addicted is something to think about. You would really need to separate the druggies from the nons.
I always enjoy your reads David, even if i don't always agree. I would take exception to one comment about "not thinking it will change things much." Probably not for you, how about for that 16 year old who finds herself pregnant? Let's say she lives with her single mom and they live day to day just getting by. No health insurance but now she will need to carry to term and the liabilities and costs crushes them further. The impact will indeed change her life, clearly more than yours.
My friends at the Bulwark have been positively brilliant on their takes since the decision came down. I won't recant all of their writings, but most of them were pro-life and have been amazingly objective about what this will do; how bad it could become. They also saw no value in rubbing the decision in anyone's face, as at least one writer here elected to do.
The overall commentary was spot on. The Red states are the most likely to be unwilling to offer the support needed to those being forced to carry to term. The stats mentioned in one of the articles included a summary of more abortions are done on Latino and African American women. The question simply became, how will those red state legislators help the minority population get through these difficult times?
Even more on point was, if they really gave a rat's ass, they would have been working to that end all along. The reality is, they are more concerned about punishing potential violators than they are about providing safety nets to help them. If they didn't care before, why start caring now?
You know the answer better than i. I don't claim to be some righteous Christian. I freely admit to being a sinner, less than perfect and hoping my God is forgiving. I have no interest in judging others, well maybe trump, but i hate con artists and scammers.
My best guess is this decision will tip the scales back to the left. It will become a rallying cry. As i said to my wife, they need to stop marching in the streets and start signing up voters. They need to become more focused on the right message, not the optics of crazed people trying to get even. The idea anyone would want to stop birth control or morning after pills, or ban gay marriages is powerful and motivating beyond imagination. Thank you justice Thomas, good to know you are listening to Ginny and the rest of the maga/q-anon crowd.
I have virtually no skin in the game, soon to be 74, no kids and none planned. That said, the idea this country should fall that far backward is unfathomable to me. Apparently my God is different from others. In the end, i will leave it up to him/her to decide right from wrong, just or unjust. Sadly, the arrogance of the former president has rubbed off on too many who have bought into his narcissistic sense of self-importance.
That’s just it. With advances in pharmaceutical abortions, I don’t think the girl in your hypothetical example is going to be without options. I’ll bet that there will be a thriving trade in these pills in red states along with abortion charities that will fund and deliver women to clinics in other states.
I hope you are right David, i truly do. Sometimes we get caught up in how easy things are, and for many of us who have enjoyed a better way of life than others, it is. I've never lived in poverty, always had a family who was there for me, had good schooling and seldom went without. For far too many, they haven't been that fortunate.
Hopefully those celebrating the demise of Roe will become focused on looking to insure the less fortunate will have the safety nets they will need to help them cope, to get by. So far, it looks more like those red state are looking to screw everything down tight to protect the unborn, while caring little about those carrying them. After all, that's what good, God fearing Christians should be doing (my bad, becoming judgemental, sorry). We'll see eh?
It is possible to strike a balance between protecting the not yet born and uplifting woman in need.
Is there ever such a thing as balance these days Jay?
Short answer is yes. But it is elusive. Not a race with a finish line, but a state earned and earned again. No doubt we are in turbulent times. Hard times.
Something I learned yesterday: the Roaring Twenties were so named because they were turbulent times. Seems we're back again.
Limiting/banning abortion and cutting social services is gonna lead to a lot of unnecessary pain: https://www.yahoo.com/news/help-care-texas-post-roe-121815219.html
Very interesting response by Israel: https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-loosens-abortion-regulations-response-174738368.html
David Frum's Atlantic article on the similarities between Prohibition and abortion are worth a read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/abortion-roe-prolife-movement-prohibition/661402/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/human-life-begins-politics-not-231807850.html
The human brain wave point appeals to me a lot, I have to say.
As the article says: the debate about where human life starts is something science can't solely determine - and it is likely something that, barring some massive cultural shift, will remain an issue amongst the populace.
Because of this, it is likely best that abortion remain legal and efforts are put towards reducing demand. Prohibition does not eliminate demand: it just drives it to the black market.
But the debate is important: where human life begins means where murder begins. It should be a bright line, not an issue of "demand." I understand the urge to compare this to the illegal drug market, but does anyone argue over-the-counter fentanyl is a good idea as long as the dose is low? It's not a good analogy, because abortion is a permanent act which has no recovery, only regret or sorrow.
But that's just the issue: if there's no agreement on the bright-line from a scientific point-of-view, and we can't agree as a civil point-of-view on one, then it likely needs to be something other than the most restrictive - and if anything lean more towards the permissive.
I'd follow the Israeli model, and what was our model for the most part: permissive to a point, then strict. What that point is is a matter of debate: viability, likely development of human brain function, something else?