Gilead begins: domestic supply of infants

[WarriorNewAgain]

The first thing I thought if when I heard roe v Wade was the impact on and creation of more jobs such as in social work, fostering and care.

The patriarchy exploits and makes money from womens bodies in a variety of ways.

BREAKING: 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.

twitter.com/drgjackbrown/status/1522737305710067715?s=21&t=t5iuUtG2SMD8VJwL4ovx3w

I'd love for someone to come along and fact check this and prove this all wrong. Please.

When they said birthing bodies - they meant it.

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.

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.

That makes me feel physically ill.

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.

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'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.)

Oh god. This is so depressing.

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.”)

What's their definition of women 🤔

Nice try, mrshoho, but you're not going to derail us from opposing the potential loss of Roe v Wade.

It's horrific - too horrific to even imagine. Please let this be able to be stopped!!

Let's not forget that the cost of adopting in the US is huge. Forced birth babies are a financial commodity. Many different organisations and government departments make a lot of money from it, especially if it's through a private agency. I just read that $70,000 for a baby wouldn't be unusual.

That wasn't my intention at all @PerkingFaintly . I was wondering if the 1 million women seeking to adopt included transwomen. Seeing 'domestic supply of infants' fills me with dread.

The issue is these very clean arguments don't reflect RL. So yes, if there are happy, cuddly newborns, which the mums are now happy to give up at birth to loving homes...

But, these are babies who would have been aborted, so less than ideal situations. More babies with; disabilities, addicted mothers, mothers living without antenatal care, mothers living in prostitution, illegal immigration status, abusive places, young mums, older mums, ND or disabled mums, more risks of birth injury or addicted babies and on and on. More babies from closely related people .

The clean arguments also don't take into account that women and girls don't carry in isolation. So many will be forced to keep the baby after birth, because abortion is private but pregnancy is obvious. Those with abusive partners can't give them up, they have to stay.

It's dystopian.

The phrase ‘demand for infants’ is nauseating. Children are not a commodity. Women’s bodies are not a labour pool.

I dislike any rhetoric that tries to conceptualise a ‘right’ to be a parent. There is no such right. What there is, is a right to decide for yourself whether you want to use your body in any particular way, and whether you believe life starts at conception.

As it happens, I do believe the above. But I fully support every other woman’s right to control her own body as well.

I agree with every word of your post, MrsTP.

This is exactly what I mean.,

I can't for the life of me remember the name of the YouTuber who recently interviewed an academic who described how much money is and has been made from womens bodies, going back to the slave trade and how enslaved women were offered as collateral against houses. (I think she sadly went to the shite side of the dsd crap)

Anyway, it was a fascinating description of how woman's bodies make money. Even to how much is made by hospitals from placentas etc.

(The YouTuber went to the shite side not the academic.)

Many parents who want to adopt are pretty specific about the children they want to adopt & to be frank a majority are going to be middle class & probably white. The mothers race, age (very young girls more likely to have smaller premature babies), financial status (deprived with little access to contraception - thanks to cutbacks on that), drug addiction (with all that entails regarding affect on babies), disability (both in the mother & the child) increases the chance of a woman or girl falling pregnant & also cause the resultant baby to be less healthy or disabled. The mother is unlikely to have a healthy pregnancy & have less medical care, checks or a healthy diet this means the baby is less healthy. What this amounts to is that many of these children are unlikely to be adopted. Note - if a child is born with serious health issues in USA it means the parents have a lifetime of very expensive medical bills & that would stop many potential adoptees.
The arrogance of (mostly) males inflicting their beliefs on woman who are often the most vulnerable at their most vulnerable time & at the same time ensuring that the children born of these pregnancy do not have the optimum chance of a healthy & happy life is horrific.
There are women whose abusive relationship means they are trapped into unwilling pregnancy (with a good chance of the child being injured by their mother partner before birth or afterwards)
It makes me so angry.

Protecting the “domestic supply of infants” isn’t a pro-life stance. It’s a pro-commodification of life stance.

Not only that, you also build a slave class, a class that has fewer work choices in order to feed their children. That makes a Nationalistic approach more viable.
(^ I don't fully understand the contextual meaning last sentence?)

From a conversation stemming from a rt.

twitter.com/greenleejw/status/1522965343982993408?s=21&t=zruBvfOXHsZbbgEdmRVgeA

Margaret Atwood comment in the guardian.

I also don't think many realise the potential impact of alcoholism in men on their children, including grandfathers, in terms of affecting cognition, health and FAS.

Ivf outcomes are worse if the father drinks, this is a known factor.

Women are more re likely to want to abort a pregnancy if they've been raped and/or the father is abusive/ an alcoholic / addicted to drugs etc.

I can sadly foresee some children never being adopted and being institutionalised.

Her words are chilling.
Though adoption can be a wonderful thing, and successful, another aspect to consider is that even when babies are adopted shortly after birth they will experience the trauma of separation and this may affect them mentally all their lives.

Some children, for example of a drug addicted or alcoholic mother, or of a less popular race, or born with a disability will not be adopted quickly if at all and they may have even worse outcomes.

Also, stress during pregnancy, which mothers forced to keep a baby under any circumstances are likely to feel, is now known to harm the baby’s mind.

If an expectant mother is strongly stressed over a longer period of time, the risk of the unborn child developing a mental or physical illness later in life such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or cardiovascular disease increases www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170529090530.htm

Adopted children and later poor mental health:
www.verywellmind.com/what-are-the-mental-health-effects-of-being-adopted-5217799

What about the mental health outcome of a baby born to rape: either if they ever find out, or is their mother has to keep a secret from them?

Ditto children conceived through incest, who may also have genetic complications exacerbated.

One thing that drives me crazy with anger is that if a raped girl or woman bravely decides to keep her baby, the father can have parental rights ( even though parents of adopted babies don’t). In many cases the rapist won’t even be convicted so is even more likely to have PR.

‘I can sadly foresee some children never being adopted and being institutionalised.’

Even if they were all adopted by lovely families, then without the option for legal safe abortion that is reproductive slavery.