Gilead begins: domestic supply of infants

Oh god. This is so depressing.

I'm working from the leaked draught here: www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft#document/p35/a2102422

(To the best of my knowledge that copy of the draught is the real thing: please do correct the thread if you find it isn't.)

To repost...

The original context is an academic CDC paper "Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt by Women 18–44 Years of Age in the United States 16 (Aug. 2008)". (This is the link in the Supreme Court draught, but it leads to "resource not available": www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a-keystate.htm#adoption )

But now the Supreme Court draught states: "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home."

And to justify that cites the CDC paper's sentence: (“[N]early 1 milion women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., the were in demand for a child) whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or withig the the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”)

That part of the draught is supposedly summarising the arguments of anti-abortion protestors.

So the draughters could claim it's not them choosing to highlight these arguments, they're merely summarising.

However the argument, no matter who proposes it, is obviously mince. Because the number of infants needing homes when abortion is legal, is not the same as the number of infants needing homes when it isn't...

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

I've tracked down some of the material, and explained it best I can here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4396017-Big-Bird-may-be-innocent-but-who-can-vouch-for-Elmo?page=32&reply=117101547

It's still not OK, but the language did originate in a different context.

That makes me feel physically ill.

I've not read the leaked draft.

Is your second screenshot the only mention of this point? Because, to be fair, that doesn't actually say that abortion should be banned so that there is a supply of children, it just says that there are more people looking to adopt than there are children. It could be making the point that if banning abortion leads to more children being put up for adoption, that wouldn't lead to lots of children being without parents because currently there are more people looking to adopt than there are children. So it could just be a counter to the criticism of "what about the increase in children who will be put up for adoption if abortion is banned."

To be very clear, I am extremely pro-choice, and am horrified at what is happening. I had an abortion a couple of years ago and the idea of making women carry babies to meet the needs to prospective adoptive parents is horrific. I just want to clarify the full context of the comments.

I feel sick to my stomach with what’s happening in the US. You’re right. Gilead is becoming a real possibility. I am devastated for the women being impacted by this.

When they said birthing bodies - they meant it.