Gilead begins: domestic supply of infants

@tabbycatstripy · 08/05/2022 16:05
BubblegumIceLollies

I believe life begins at conception.

I respect your view though I personally believe life begins then but the more human element is more a just a potential at that stage.

I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind answering, if you would be a pacifist in the event of a war?

Also, would you think all life of what ever kind is sacred as having been made equally by God/other?

BubblegumIceLollies

I believe life begins at conception.

I read something about that elsewhere, without references, and assumed it was one of those paranoid conspiracy theories.

Then I saw this... FFS!

When you consider the misery and suffering caused by the Magdalen Laundries in Ireland, this whole thing is just horrific.

Obviously women's bodies and bodily autonomy don't feature at all in that summary of arguments anti-abortionists arguments.

Absolutely, nor does it consider the impact on those children removed at birth. Children removed at birth experience trauma in the removal, before we consider their pre-birth experience which we now know can have life long impacts eg drug use, alcoholism use, lack of ante natal care, trauma while in the womb (eg domestic violence). And of course children of women of colour, children with disabilities etc are much less likely to be adopted.

It also doesn’t consider the long term consequences for the woman who has continued an unwanted pregnancy, with all that entails, given birth to a child who is them adopted, and the potential for the child to seek out their birth family in future. It’s literally never over for her.

Evan if we could guarantee every child a safe, loving home it still doesn’t justify forced pregnancy and child birth.

Although believe what above?

This.
It's great there aren't enough babies for adopters, because it should be a last resort.
It is not a trade.

The domestic supply of infants is such an inverted homage to Swift's Modest Proposal that I still am not wholly convinced that it can have been used in ignorance.

The draft opinion’s core argument for overturning Roe and Casey is based on a stare decisis 5 factor analysis (starting on p39). Please note I am paraphrasing their arguments. This is not my opinion, in fact I think it’s a load of stinking bullshit, but in the interest of know thine enemy, here it is, their justification:

• Nature of the court’s error- the above decisions reflect a misinterpretation of the US Constitution. The Court therefore usurped the power of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves to the People and the democratic process.

• The quality of reasoning- Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred the right to an abortion, but failed to ground it in the text of the Constitution, history or precedent. Casey pointedly refrained from endorsing any of Roe’s reasoning but instead replaced the Roe trimester framework with an arbitrary “undue burden” test. Both resembled the work of legislature and the court made little effort to explain how they could be deduced from the Constitution. They also ignored the consensus of State abortion laws existing at the time. The decision to make viability the line where a States interest becomes compelling was also flawed and ignored concepts of personhood and sentience.

• Workability- An important factor in determining whether a precedent should be overruled is whether or not it is workable in practice- that is whether it can be understood and applied in a consistent manner. Casey’s “undue burden” is subjective and thus not workable. Huge burdens are clearly substantial and trivial ones are not but between these two extremes is a wide grey area. In addition to ambiguity, the rule requires the impact on women be considered but in order to determine whether a regulation is an undue burden on women, the court needs to look at which set of women it has in mind (financial resources, family and work obligations, desire for an abortion, psychological and emotional disposition, etc) and how many women in this set would find the burden to be substantial.

• Effect on other areas of law- Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines. No legal rule or doctrine is safe from being overruled by the court when it happens to be applied to the State regulation of abortions. The courts abortion cases have diluted the strict standards for facial constitutional challenges, ignored the courts third-party standing doctrine, disregarded standard res judicatory principles, flouted rules on the severability of unconstitutional provisions, etc.

• Reliance interests- Traditional reliance interests arise “when advance planning of great precision is most obviously a necessity”. These do not apply because getting an abortion is an unplanned activity and reproductive planning could be immediately used if States were to ban abortions. Our court recognises only concrete forms of reliance, not intangible reliance such as the effect of an abortion right on society and in particular on the lives of women because both sides have made impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effect of an abortion right on women. The court has neither the authority or expertise to adjudicate those disputes. Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies and allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process. Women are not without electoral or political power. The percentage of women who vote is higher than that of men.
• Having shown that the traditional stare decisis factors do not weigh in favour of retaining Roe and Casey, the final argument is that the American people would lost faith in the court if it made a decision based not on legal principles but due to social and political pressures. There is a special danger that the public will perceive a decision as having been made for unprincipled reasons when we overturn watershed rulings such as Roe. A decision overruling Roe would be viewed as caving to political pressure, but a decision upholding it would be viewed as caving to societal pressure. We cannot exceed our Constitutional authority or allow concerns about the publics reaction to influence our decision. In this case, 26 States have requested in writing that we overrule Roe and Casey and return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives.

I don't know about the timing. This has been on the cards since the Republicans fast-tracked Coney Barrett onto the Court in the dying days of their presidency – and indeed was the motivation when McConnell stonewalled the appointment of Merrick Garland for months back in 2016.

So it may just be when they got round to it.

But the stink raised by this has made me pay more attention to the adoption industry in the US. I was already aware that there were issues.

Eg, this is something that needs to be looked at more closely, and indeed the Polish authorities are investigating:

Ex-WA far-right Rep. in Poland with Ukrainian kids
apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-washington-adoption-international-adoption-31461361ab59338dad21dd0dccbf62df
“I asked him (Shea) many times, ‘What are you going to do with these children?’ and he told me that it’s not my business,’” Weronika Ziarnicka, an aide to the town’s mayor, said.

The timing is interesting, with Ukraine and its surrogacy industry now off limits.

I thought exactly this but was worried about sounding like conspiracy theorist

The timing is interesting, with Ukraine and its surrogacy industry now off limits.

I actually just wrote a post about this. That quote is from a footnote (on page 34 of the draft) supporting the phrase that "a woman who puts her new-born up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home". The draft is not saying the US needs a 'domestic supply of infants', it is saying that because there is a lack of infants up for adoption (aka a lack of a 'domestic supply of infants'), a woman who puts her child up for adoption (as opposed to having an abortion), should not worry about whether or not the child will be adopted.

The American foster care system is notorious for how badly children can be cared for/abused, as there just isn't a strong enough desire to look after unwanted children properly. With the likely increase in the number of children in the care system, due to parents being unwilling or unable to look after them, this is only going to get worse.

This is the flimsy justification for what is in effect enforced, unpaid surrogacy. Pregnancy costs are now covered (I thought not 100%), women mostly get a smidge of maternity leave, it’s no longer illegal for desperate women to anonymously hand over their baby and the icing on the cake, babies get adopted so no worries there . These poor women. And poor babies. Women’s rights are going back decades.

@Discovereads
Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt - that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term - giving children up for adoption.

Is pretty much a gross misrepresentation of what the brief really says. To the extent, the tweet is fake news imho.

You know, doing the fact check as the OP asked for . Have you followed the draft to read that section? It starts on page 30.

No, I hadn’t read it all but will. Thank you very much for explaining, and also for the fact check.

There are not more people wanting to adopt than there are children to adopt.
There ARE more married couples wanting to adopt healthy Caucasian infants than there are infants to adopt. I adopted three children as a single parent and had to go international in order to get toddlers.
Two of my children - now grown and married - are seeking to adopt. The Hague Convention made international adoption impossible unless you are Angelina Jolie. The waiting list for healthy children under are four in eleven years. However, if you are willing to adopt mentally or physically handicapped children the waiting time is less than one year. Whether they admit it or not, criminalizing abortion is going to help adoptive couples.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol8krO5SSdc Dr Suzanne Forbes Vierling on how men make money from the bodies of women. Can never be unheard.

@ScrollingLeaves
Yes the reasons of Americans in favour of restricting abortion are ridiculously overstated fluff. You are quite right that maternity leave is abysmal and most women are not even eligible for the 12 weeks unpaid leave in the FMLA.

I was posting the context of the draft to show that the tweet in the OP stating
In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt - that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term - giving children up for adoption.

Is pretty much a gross misrepresentation of what the brief really says. To the extent, the tweet is fake news imho.

You know, doing the fact check as the OP asked for . Have you followed the draft to read that section? It starts on page 30.

WildCoasts · 07/05/2022 23:49
I know someone who has adopted three very disabled children, will full knowledge of their disabilities. I would consider a child with a disability.

They and you are good people.

The problem is that there are more disabled children whom no one has wanted to adopt than there are people like your friend.

I should think that in the US it would be especially difficult to take on the care of a disabled child because of the massive health care costs. (Unless there is some scheme for the state to pay in these cases. Is there one?)

Discovereads · 07/05/2022 23:24
From footnote 46 posted

“They note that the attitudes about pregnancy of unmarried women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy; that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases(43);”

Paid leave for pregnancy and childbirth in the US is almost non existent compared to ours: it is for very a short time indeed.

Then the baby has to be put in a very expensive nursery a few months after birth if the mother is going to be able to work.

I have a relative who had a baby there last year and was shocked. She is in a relatively privileged socio economic group and had been in her very good job 10 years. She only had 4 months with her baby before having to return to work, and that was not all paid for at all.

This below is 2015 so may be somewhat out of date but gives an indication of the US attitude of not really supporting pregnancy and childbirth adequately:
www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/united-states-maternity-leave-facts

40 percent of women don’t qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which grants 12 weeks of protected job leave, unpaid, at the federal level.

Only 12 percent of women in the private sector have access to any sort of paid maternity leave.

There is no federal paid maternity leave — it’s left to the states to figure out.

25 percent of women are forced to return to work within 2 weeks of giving birth to support their families.

I know someone who has adopted three very disabled children, will full knowledge of their disabilities. I would consider a child with a disability.

No, disabled newborns don't get adopted. It is a regular occurrence that commissioning people refuse to take disabled newborns, who are genetically their own flesh and blood, and instead leave them with the gestational mother.

If people will do that, they're not going to take home an unrelated disabled baby. They'll just wait for the next baby to be placed for adoption, that doesn't look as if he or she will be disabled