Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!

[Marge_Innavera]

I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

But inevitably, there will still be abortions. If they're outlawed outright, or if the Protectors Of Womanhood succeed in making them increasingly difficult to get, that might combine with the depressed economy to put a new twist on illegal abortions.

We've had over three decades now of legal abortions, and any compulsory-pregnancy advocate could tell you the exact number of abortions down to the nanosecond.  Now, these weren't do-it-yourself procedures for the most part, though herbal abortions with tansy, pennyroyal and cohosh have been used for centuries.  No, they were done in clinical settings, most of them early-term abortions. That means many, many people, not only doctors but nurses and medical assistants, who have experience in doing them, unlike the years before Roe v Wade.  So abortion might become part of the underground economy, with some women having them who might never have considered it before.  Financial difficulty can be a powerful game-changer.

[milomorris]

My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

All three of those things are operating.

1. Everybody's doing it, so it becomes "normal." Therefore if you aren't doing it, you're not "normal." That's a form of peer pressure.

2. Grandma did it. Mama did it. So I can do it too. That's a generational cycle that is hard--though not impossible--to break.

3. They had a baby, so now they think they're "grown." That's the trophy-baby phenomenon.

[Marge_Innavera]

If the women are abstaining, the men are abstaining too by definition.

         

That's one's worthy of Mel Brooks.

[milomorris]

       

That's one's worthy of Mel Brooks.

So if the women abstained, who would the men have sex with??

[serious crayons]

I have to disagree with that. While there is a "trophy baby" phenomenon at work in poor communities, a disproportionate number of abortions are babies of poor, minority mothers.

According to Guttmacher, “The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008.” As you might expect, the profile of the abortion patient is disproportionately poor, as well as disproportionately Black or Latina.

That's interesting. Note, though, that the proportion has changed in just the past decade; traditionally the majority of abortion recipients were NOT poor. Here are some statistics from an anti-abortion website. Judging from your post, looks like these are accurate but outdated:

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

I'm sure that there is a wide enough range among the anti-abortion set that there would be some support for embryonic termination on that side, even if that support was luke-warm.

Yes indeed. I think a lot of Americans are somewhere in the middle on abortion, and this kind of thing would appeal to them. There will remain, though, an anti-choice contingent who will not be satisfied.
 

There could be incentives for kids who's parents agree to allowing them to attend. There could be an extra .5 point uplift to the kid's GPA, or maybe free admission to an SAT prep class. Only the most fire-breathing fundamentalists are going to pass that up.

That sounds pretty easily struck down, just by your explanation alone. If people want to abstain for religious reasons, and if abstaining places their children at an academic disadvantage, I can't imagine a court holding that up as constitutional.

Again, I have to disagree. The anti-abortionists that I come in contact with are well aware of the coat hanger days. They just think that their alternatives will make a return to those days unnecessary. They're not stupid, they're just hopeful...maybe foolishly hopeful, but hopeful nonetheless.

I don't see how your position contradicts mine. I said that abortionists think that prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days. You say antiabortionists think that because of "their alternatives," prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days.

[serious crayons]

So if the women abstained, who would the men have sex with??

Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?

That might make (female) prostitution a growth industry. ...

Or sodomy. ...

[milomorris]

That's interesting. Note, though, that the proportion has changed in just the past decade; traditionally the majority of abortion recipients were NOT poor. Here are some statistics from an anti-abortion website. Judging from your post, looks like these are accurate but outdated:

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?

There will remain, though, an anti-choice contingent who will not be satisfied.

No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.
 

That sounds pretty easily struck down, just by your explanation alone. If people want to abstain for religious reasons, and if abstaining places their children at an academic disadvantage, I can't imagine a court holding that up as constitutional.

I don't know about that.

1. Not all parents will abstain for religious reasons. And then too, there will be kids who simply skip class even if their parents grant them permission. Plus those who fail the class. Now I'm clearly modifying here: if the academic incentive were tied to passing the class, as opposed to just taking it, that would not necessarily be a matter of purely religious discrimination.

2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.    

I don't see how your position contradicts mine. I said that abortionists think that prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days. You say antiabortionists think that because of "their alternatives," prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days.

You're right. We're really saying the same thing. I just threw in a qualifier.

[milomorris]

Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?

Technically speaking, the 10% of women who do not abstain would be available to all the men, so no. What I'm saying is that in the moment, when the woman says "no" the guy has no recourse. So he'll be abstaining until he can find a woman who will say "yes."

[serious crayons]

Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?

Good question. The report referred to in the story you posted offers some speculative possibilities, but they weren't very convincing.

No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.

True.

2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.

I think in the post Clarence Darrow world, the difference between science findings that fundies don't like, and sex ed, might be that if you're going to teach science, it doesn't make sense not to teach what the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to have happened. Whereas sex education has not traditionally been the responsibility of schools; many parents would argue that it should be taught in the home, and certainly can be.