The real reason Roe vs. Wade will never get overturned

Chew Toy McCoy

Site Champ
Aug 15, 2020
371
611
I heard this theory recently. It’s such a hot button platform staple for Republicans that they wouldn’t want it to go away. It’s one of the few remaining “party of” statements they can make with any semblance of integrity. The pro fetus appearance holds a lot of voter value for them. But if Trump gets a second term I’m sure he’ll smash that one into the dirt too, along with all the other traditional Republican values he pisses on.
 

lizkat

Site Champ
Aug 15, 2020
443
898
Catskill Mountains
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Site Champ
Aug 15, 2020
371
611
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?
I have a more simplistic view of it. Aside from possible religious reasons, I don’t think the average politician gives a shit either way. It's all about show for their constituents, and that issue is a big one for some single issue voters. I think it’s probably more the constituents that have the viewpoints you mentioned that are the driving factor. Obviously another big single issue voter issue is gun control. That and reproductive rights will gladly be put in center stage in an election campaign, but I’m willing to bet more times than not a lot less energy is put into either of those things once the person is in office.

I think these issues also take passionate center stage from politicians because neither effects Capitalism. So they can just go at it with each other and nobody’s really losing large sums of money over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

Scepticalscribe

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 12, 2020
541
777
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?
Terrific post, and I agree with every single syllable.

In my experience, most of those who class themselves as "pro-life" - or, pro the foetus (naturally, at the expense of the mother), have very little interest in that selfsame foetus once it has been born.

Then, it is the mother's problem, and instead, she is berated for her "lack of responsibility" in getting pregnant in the first place.

Their stance would be a great deal more logical, not to mention compassionate, if they sought to support the women who give birth, with the provision of state financial supports, healthcare, maternity leave, and so on; but, they don't.

This is not about protecting the foetus; this is about controlling, condemning - and punishing - women who are sexually active, especially if they are sexually active outside of the structure of the "formal" family, people such as single mothers, divorcees, and so on. The recent attempts to roll back access to terminations for children - and others - who have been raped, tells its own story.

As @lizkat points out, if they were truly serious about ensuring that abortion is not something that desperate women reach for, safe, affordable and reliable birth control, contraception, would be made readily available and easily accessed.

But the very fact that those who seek to deny access to abortion, also seek to deny women access to safe, affordable and reliable birth control makes abundantly clear that this is not about abortion, but about punishing and condemning and controlling women for daring to think (or dream) that they can attempt to exercise a degree of autonomy in their sex lives, and hope to do so without negative consequences, a happy state of affairs which has been the lot of men since the dawn of recorded time.
 
Last edited:
  • Lovely
Reactions: lizkat and Alli

thekev

Power User
Aug 15, 2020
51
82
Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.
I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.

I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.

We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother.

I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.

That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lizkat

lizkat

Site Champ
Aug 15, 2020
443
898
Catskill Mountains
I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.

I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.

We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother.

I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.

That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.
You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical: what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant. I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.
 

Scepticalscribe

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 12, 2020
541
777
You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical: what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant. I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.
Agree completely.

My mother - who had been raised as a Catholic - used to joke that if men could get pregnant, contraception and abortion would have been sacraments, not sins.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Alli and lizkat

PearsonX

Site Champ
Aug 25, 2020
312
387
What amazes me about the GOP is this:
they are against abortion, but back policies that actually increase them:

"Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S"
Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

One major thing we cannot talk enough about:
the primary cause of women not achieving their education potential is teen pregnancy.

Wanna make your nation smarter? Educate the women. Wanna make it twice as smart? Start actually listening to them.