Gilead is Real - The War on Women and Abortion Part 3

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I think another consideration as to why people don't leave....that's hard for outsiders to really "get" - Many liberals and democrats live in urban areas on the coasts, where their rights are much less curtailed. So these people, who may have the means to leave, are not very affected by these laws. If it started affecting them -they could leave, but they vote that stuff down. As I understand, people on the coasts have more education and thus are more likely to have skills wanted in other countries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_educational_attainment

This is a little old...

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%).  Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.

I did read somewhere or other recently that there are an increasing number of millionaires who are getting 2nd passports or moving away from the US. It's offset by millionaires (many chinese) moving here but it's interesting to note that people who are already here and have the means to leave, are doing so and making plans to do so in greater numbers.

If I were younger I would be very worried about this sort of thing and probably would be considering moving if I could. Right now I'm in a southern state but a large city. I would like to move to a more liberal place but I have a lot of elderly relatives here and no real calling to go anywhere specific. I have moved to 7 or 8 states in my life and it's hard. Even though many things are the same across different states - people are not really that interested in getting to know people outside of their 20s. They have established friends and social circles. I became very depressed the last time I moved away from familiar environs and ended up coming back to my home state just to reset and it's been too hard to leave again. Anyway - just responding that it's insanely complicated. The US is huge and has much variety.

A lot of our current political problems stem from long term issues we can never resolve - electoral college, disproportionate voting rights to low population (usually very conservative states), basically no no real limited on campaign donations and for some reason businesses have as much rights to influence elections as individuals - so for some time now the government has been up for sale to however can put the most money into a campaign. It was 10-20 years ago the supreme court made ruling(s?) on this and since then politics have become a huge money game. Rich people are stacking the deck in favor of themselves to the detriment to all. 

[Smash!]

All of what @WatchingTheTireFireBurn said. If you don’t have the skills to easily find a job in a different state or country it gets even harder. This is why those laws make me so angry: They predominantly affect women with little ability to move elsewhere.

An anecdote about emigrating: A relative of mine visited his home country after living abroad longer than in his country of origin and having built a decent life with children etc. The first thing he told me is that he still misses the four seasons, the green landscape and much more.

Of course there are people, for whom this is easier than others. But moving when the circumstances force you - that has to be hard.

[smittykins]

On 4/12/2024 at 2:23 PM, Xan said:

The birthers want women to stay in their places.  They also want workers and soldiers.  If you don't have women birthing babies, eventually your workers and soldiers numbers drop off. 

“They want live babies so they can have dead soldiers”—George Carlin 

[Ozlsn]

I wasn't really sure where to put this but this article on women choosing to have large families fascinated me, and in some respects provided some illumination into the "pro-life but anti-support" camp.

Spoiler

If you have a liberal friend or relative who still wonders aloud why social conservatives call themselves “pro-life” but don’t support family-friendly government programs, offer them this book’s perspective. Abortion, Pakaluk and her interviewees speculate, has been a contributory factor to the decline in women’s happiness in recent decades because babies (they swear) have an inherent antidepressant magic to them that makes people, especially women, happy. Social programs that offer maternity leave, baby bonuses, and subsidized day care have failed, in countries like Sweden, to enhance fertility rates. “These narratives” of these five-or-more mothers’ lives “sorely challenge family policy prescriptions, particularly pro-natalist policies,” Pakaluk writes. “Cash incentives and tax relief won’t persuade people to give up their lives. People will do that for God, for their families, and for their future children. If you want to find a policy angle to improve the birth rate, expanding the scope for religion in people’s lives is the most viable path. Make it easier for churches and religious communities to run schools, succor families, and aid the needs of human life. Religion is the best family policy.” Who, some liberals asked after the fall of Roe v. Wade, would impose something as big as “having a baby” on a woman? Who would ask a woman to trust that everything—money problems, relationship stress, health issues—will work out, if you just have that baby? This is who.

It fascinates me that these women - predominantly better off, educated, with marriages that are apparently working for them - cannot see that it might not all "just work out". Husbands die. Children are born with or develop medical conditions or disabilities that require long term expensive care. Marriages end when you least expect it. Careers end when you least expect it.

The other part I found really, really amusing was this:

Spoiler

The kids are sad and anxious, they theorize, because kids are growing up in small families and so never learn a sense of duty, responsibility, and belonging. Mothers whose older kids have to take care of babies argue that the tweens and teens have a sense of place, feel “useful.” When they share space, they learn to cooperate. It’s hinted that kids are depressed because they’re in day care and school, where they learn the wrong kind of belonging: attachment to peers and teachers, rather than siblings and parents.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that younger siblings - presumably not subject to the same duty as older siblings, so missing out on that sense of belonging - develop mental illness as a higher rate than older siblings? This theory sounds like a total crock.

Spoiler

In the course of reading along, I imagined any number of parallel books. About kids who grew up as elder siblings in large families, and resented the work they had to do. About women who had many kids, spent years out of the workforce, then had their marriages dissolve and had to navigate the financial fallout. About fathers stressed by the constant work necessary to support such a family. About mothers who wanted more kids but feared they wouldn’t be able to mentally handle it, and didn’t go ahead with it. About families in which the expected “loaf of bread” that’s supposed to come under every kid’s arm when they’re born, according to a Spanish proverb Pakaluk quotes, never materializes, and the happiness of living with so many people in a close group doesn’t compensate for poverty.

Yeah, those books have been and continue to be written. And happiness in families doesn't track with family size.

And as for babies being a natural antidepressant- tell me you know nothing about and have never experienced PPD without telling me. FFS.

[GreyhoundFan]

About damned time:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I’m guessing every house member realized they are up for te-election this year and stripping women of their rights is not a winning look. 

 

[47of74]

A bit of good news today from a Quinnipiac University survey. 

Quote

Support for abortion in all cases also climbed to 34%, a record high, while support for banning abortion in all cases dipped to an all-time low of 5%.

The results are in line with other surveys that show support for abortion in all or most cases has significantly increased over the past decade—from 58% in June 2015 to 71% in March, according to a KFF survey.

Another survey released Wednesday by Bloomberg/Morning Consult suggests voters are more concerned about abortion rights in this year’s election than ever, with more than half of voters in seven swing states, for the first time in the tracking poll’s history, saying the issue is very important to how they’ll vote.

Voters in multiple states will decide in November whether to overturn restrictive abortion laws enacted in multiple Republican-led states in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal, including Florida, where the president campaigned Tuesday in Tampa and blamed former President Donald Trump for the state’s restrictive six-week abortion ban voters will have a chance to overturn in November.