Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, the state’s GOP-led Legislature has disbanded a maternal mortality committee, failed to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage and turned down federal grants for child care.
They claim to be pro-life, but they're really just anti-women and pro-forced-birth.
their namecalling and pointing fingers into others, too often ends up as a projection, while their pro-something claims too often ends up being flat opposite.
Whenever you point a finger, you got three more pointing back at you.
I've said this 1,000 times, and I'll repeat it as often as I need to.
The Left is arguing Human Rights. The Right is arguing Property Rights. Conservative values are very clear that women are not seen as independent individuals, but as property of their fathers and then their husbands. Women are chattel. This mentality permeates and pervades every aspect of Conservative ideology where women are concerned. Men must protect women. Not because it benefits the woman, though they will tell women that they should be grateful for the protection. Men must protect their property, they must protect their investment in that woman. It's important to understand that Conservatives view all non-white, non-male, queer, and non-Conservatives as inherently inferior, requiring their guidance and control to conform to their superior ideology, or extermination if they refuse.
View everything they say and do through that lens, and everything makes perfect sense.
100%. There are plenty of studies showing that supposed "pro-life" sentiment explains little of the left-right difference in abortion support.
A 2014 study analyzed the data of more than 7400 people and found that “perceptions of preborn humanness explained very little of right–left differences in abortion support, and the association between preborn humanness perceptions and abortion opposition was no stronger for those on the political right (vs. left).”4 And a 2022 poll by Pew also found that a third of Americans simultaneously believe that a fetus is a person with rights and that the decision to abort should be up to the woman. This means that the majority of people who believe that life starts at conception (about 59%) still believe that women should have the right to an abortion.10
By contrast, a 2017 study found that sexism accounted for 30% to 70% of the left-right difference in abortion stance even after controlling for other relevant variables.5 An earlier study found that authoritarianism had a significant correlation with an anti-abortion position and aggression towards women,6 and a 2019 study found that right-wing authoritarianism had a significant correlation with anti-abortion stigma both before and after controlling for other variables.7
Perhaps unsurprisingly states that restrict abortions also have worse health outcomes for women and children.
Yup Republican, conservative, neoliberal, and capitalist need women to be brood sows and the young to be poor and uneducated. It's the only way their economic and political systems work.
It's funny you mention brood sows as one of the Idaho legislaters directly compared women's reproduction to that of cows
https://jezebel.com/idaho-lawmaker-i-have-opinions-on-the-womens-health-th-1849984572 To quote him directly:
“I’ve milked a few cows, spent most of my time walking behind lines of cows, so if you want some ideas on repro and the women’s health thing, I have some definite opinions,” Nelsen said, before having a little chuckle to himself.
why is america reverting itself to the dark ages?
Conservatives throughout history adore the dark ages of Europe. That was the peak of their power; the population was uneducated, worshiped the wealthy as kings and queens, and the people were too poor and stupid to do anything about it.
Because the rabid right has been on a campaign for the last 50+ years to regain control and regress the country to a time before the civil rights era and before Roe v Wade. They've followed a multi-pronged attack strategy. They spread propaganda via right wing AM talk radio and then Fox News, and so on. They sidled up to the Christian right wing. They have fought against school funding and fought against teaching science and have dictated a conservative biased curriculum (TX). They have groomed judges and justices and influenced their appointment. They attacked the middle class and funneled that wealth to the ultra rich. They instituted voter suppression and outrageous gerrymandering. And on and on.
Half a century of that and the rest of us are fighting for our democracy and our lives against the rise of the extremist right wing (aka fascism).
Religion and religion mixed with politics, mostly.
It's weird because conservative christians are some of the most evil people I know. It doesn't make sense.
The difference between an atheist and a christian fundamentalist is that the atheist is at least honest about not believing in Christ.
It makes perfect sense. Evangelical Christianity states that you are saved as long as you believe in Jesus. Evil or good, it doesn't matter.
The supreme Court was quoting 12th century English common law in support for the abolition of roe versus Wade, if that tells you anything.
Also they want to "increase the supply of toddlers infants" for the domestic US adoption industry, which was also in Alitos opinion.
And, you know what they say about opinions...
WE NEED MORE BABIES! KEEP THOSE FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN OUT. AMERICAN VALUES AND GOOD CHRISTIAN LIVING ARE ALL WE NEED!!! Sincerely, the hypocritical crazies who prey on fear, hatred and ignorance.
And, you know what they say about opinions…
"Opinions are like assholes- nine of them sit on the Supreme Court, but six of them are on the Supreme Court"?
"We hate the British so much that we'll wage war against them to get our independence!"
"Yeah so we'll use British laws to justify our bigotry..."
They also seem keen to bring back child labor, so maybe they want fodder for that, too. What Carlin called "obedient workers".
Because otherwise people might get silly ideas about equality and the state owing then a decent standard of living.
Cheap soldiers and workstaff coming from the poor and uneducated communities.
Think of education. Back before the Internet and smartphones took off, education was distributed. The most centralization we had was curriculums per state. TV was the closest thing to the Internet, and because it was all we had, it was a huge money maker. There was lots of quality content on there, including educational stuff like Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science Guy... I could go in for a long time.
Once the Internet took over our lives, TV went to hell, and YouTube and social media took over. These were no longer curated or created with the same goals as the TV shows of the 90s. They are random people seeking attention, sucking in people so well that it pulled everyone down into a kind of sludge of stupidity. Instead of attracting people with dinosaurs, exploration to outer space, imagination, etc. they have Mr. Beast and others with their mouths wide open and spending a million dollars at a grocery store.
These are all English videos, so the barrier to entry for the US is very low compared to the rest of the world. They're also American culture, so it resonates with Americans more.
Europe also has far better education systems than the US, so that goes a long way in resisting this kind of stuff.
America is self imploding because of its own narcissism, and the Internet is feeding into that and having a snowball effect. There is no regulation of ideas there.
It's very similar to the dark ages because of someone just makes shit up, like "cure this disease by letting a leech suck some blood out of you" and enough people repeat it without being put in check by a higher authority, then it's adopted as a common belief.
That's the other part of this: politics is usually taboo to discuss with people here, at least many polite people think so. It's a touchy subject, so you're taught to not being up these things with friends or coworkers, which just creates even more of a vacuum.
Reading things like Democracy in Chains shed a lot of light.
“The Bible is clear, and the history of Christendom broadly is clear, that it’s the church’s responsibility to meet the needs of the poor and to ensure that people have the services that they need to live flourishing lives,” Conzatti said.
Besides just the practical craziness of the idea that you have to belong to a church to get social services, I don't think the Bible makes it clear at all that social services are the church's responsibility and not the state's.
The Bible is filled with a lot of contradicting bullshit. Anyone using it to tout some idea can be knocked down with some other passage in it as well.
That's what we call the separation of Church and State!
But Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center and a leading anti-abortion lobbyist, is not bothered by the lack of government support. Pregnancies, births and child care are not the purview of the government, he said, but of families, communities, charities and, most of all, churches.
See? See the pivot there? Look carefully!
Pregnancies, births, and childcare are not the purview of the gov't. ...Except that pregnancy is the purview of the gov't when it comes to the right to terminate an unwanted or unviable pregnancy. It's clear and obvious hypocrisy. from the religious crowd.
If it's all the responsibility of the families and government support is gone, they should not be surprised if people go back to fraternities, sororities and other social organisations of mutual support. You already see that happening with unions who were historically connected to these organizations. Governments don't like those.
fucking newsflash: this has always been about subjugating women.
Exactly.
They're regressive reactionaries. They're reacting to the sexual revolution where women were freed from controlling patriarchal social mores around sex and relationships.
Before The Pill and Roe v Wade, women and their relationships and choice of partners was controlled by men or at least the patriarchy. Fathers guarded women's chastity, peers and society at large enforced social mores with threat of shame, rejection, and ostracism.
The regressives want that all back. Sanctity of life is what many anti-abortionists claim. But you often see anti-abortionists talk about abortion in terms of (their idea of) sexual morality of women and they talk about pregnancy like it is some kind of "pUnIshMeNT fOr SiNniNg". With the double-standard assumed, of course, because of their misogynistic worldview.
It's all about punishing women.
Or the money, they’re a buncha penurious fucks.
Or the money, they’re a buncha penurious fucks.
Banning abortion is rooted in racism.
Turns out you don't have to support new mothers to encourage childbirth if you just ban the alternative. Forced birth without the courtesy of a reach-around.
Of course, that dampens the mood for consensual sex a bit so they'll just need to tone down some laws and look the other way on issues of sex trafficking and xl child brides...
Republicans have become just the absolute worst and condemn things while taking active steps to ensure they happen. Much like abortion. Best way to reduce abortion rates is sex education and birth control, but you can't reduce abortion like that! No, ban birth control, give no support to new mothers, and then act outraged when coat hanger abortions make a big resurgence and blame the women like somehow no one could predict exactly what would happen.
Blame the dead women, you mean.
Roe was passed based on privacy, which is reason enough, imo. People don't need to know other people's business and some dipshit busybody aspiring HOA presidents opinion shouldn't even be in the same conversation as a medical professionals.
Roe passed the court on privacy but Roe passed public opinion because of the many many deaths from back alley alternatives. Roe was about saving women's lives. Conservatives can bemoan the lost fetuses but losing the women is worse. The women cant go on and have other children if they're dead.
My grandmother was taught by her mother. My mother by my grandmother. My sisters were spared this dark legacy thanks to Roe.
I mentioned Roe and privacy one time around my Grandmother. Unbeknownst to me, gran used to protest and I'm supposing, burn her bra's, cuz she went red immediately and set me right. The kind of mad that made my mom admonish me even tho she didn't even hear what I said, it was just THAT tone. Grandma only got that fired up one other time- when I said McCartney was more talented than Lennon, but I'll die on that hill, sorry Gran.
that's what happens when the state is run by religion.
Praise be!
Cruelty is the point.
White Men who view women as property and not human beings.
Red states need young dumb voters. This is how they get them.
It's also how they get more dead mothers, disabled infants, and infants who die shortly after birth
Just like in the days of the founding fathers! Praise be!
To these people, raising an unwanted child in poverty with no support is a just punishment for the high crime of a woman daring to enjoy sex. They are totally willing to sacrifice the child in order to hopefully make that whore's life difficult.
Gee who could've guessed
"Idaho, if you got covid or a baby... go fuck off and die"
Back in the day, I'd get a sim into a room, then replace the door with wall and wait for them to cry about having to pee. Then laugh my ass off when the sim eventually peed on the floor... I can't say what made me think of that.
These politicians are probably a bit older than me, so perhaps they used to get their rocks off with a magnifier and an ant hill.
Idaho said "Uthahoe"!
But in all seriousness this is fuked on all levels...
i've heard nurses acroos the US are getting hit up to deliver babies because so many health professionals are leaving Idurrho.
Shouldn't be too long before we see the 1st red state to criminalize medical providers leaving the state.
What's more likely to happen is they will loosen the rules as to who can be a "medical provider."
For those who don't know, not sure there are many left who don't, but Idaho is a trash state run by neo-Christofascists who routinely force children to die for "religious" reasons, even when it is only a grandparent making a stink. It is not just red, it is so red that the blood of Christ looks as blue as it really is.
The red states keep trying to make what donnie calls "shithole countries", but just internally.
The US has been a rich shithole country for a while now. It started back with Nixon and got supercharged with Reagan.
I see many other liberals interpret this sort of policy as hypocritical (and therefore as evidence that conservatives have some sort of hidden motive) but don't think that it is. There's no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high. IMO conservatives generally believe exactly what they say that they believe: abortion is morally wrong and people aren't entitled to government assistance.
Sure but they are wrong. People are entitled to government assistance. That is why we pay taxes in the first place. If a government can’t be relied on to help their citizens when they are in need then they shouldn’t be taking their fucking money. They can’t have it both ways.
Yes, it is hypocritical. Why? Because the life of the fetus is their argument. How in the world do you care about the life of fetus, but turn around and say fuck them if the parents are struggling?
no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high.
Apparently they are unaware of how high the infant mortality rate is in the US vs elsewhere.. They're unaware how high maternal mortality rates in the US are vs other countries.
Because I'm sure if they knew these facts, which were true before Roe v Wade was overturned and women had access to abortion and other options, these "pro-life" folks would certainly be concerned about the life of mother and child and take action to ensure adequate pre- and post-natal support for both.
Surely they were merely ignorant of these facts (that I found in two minutes) and just didn't think to check for any of this before yanking this support, right? They must instinctively know how much is too much. I'm sure it's not because they think only certain people deserve support by way of affording it. Because, gosh, that* would be truly ghastly. And they're nothing if not moral and upstanding protectors of all life equally, right?
I mean why would they even consider death rates anyway. Who could ever foresee that less support could cause health problems including death? Surely only God himself could've anticipated such a thing.
They don't GAF about anything they say they care about. It's all about putting "those people", which includes women, in their place.
There's no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high.
But we (and they) know that reducing government support for pregnant women increases the number of abortions.
So they profess to wanting to "save lives" by ending abortions, while doing something that increases rhe number of abortions.
How exactly is that not hypocrasy?
It's not hypocrisy in the same way that the Pope's opposition to both birth control and abortion isn't hypocrisy: the ends don't justify the means. I assume you think of government support for pregnant women as a good thing, but a lot of conservatives appear to disagree with you. To them, abortion is bad, government "handouts" are bad, and even if abortion is worse than handouts, doing a bad thing to prevent an even worse thing is wrong.
Dude,
Then conservatives should stop crying about population decline or how people aren’t having kids
