Skip to content

Umm, yes?

South and Flyover County ban, coasts and NorthEast don’t. And given that’s largely what the majorities are in those places then why not?

52 thoughts on “Umm, yes?”

  1. I don’t expect many outright bans, but those states will surely bring in limitations along the lines of the Texas bill.

  2. Perhaps demonstrations along the lines of Black Lives Matter?

    Of course I understand that a disproportionate number of abortions are blacks, but consistency is the weakness of small minds.

  3. The original is “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. The use of “foolish” means that the statement becomes close to a tautology. You could as well say ‘A sage consistency is the settled habit of fine minds’.

    Talking of “minds” in the context of hysterical US views on abortion law is perhaps unwise anyway.

    Personally I am rather an admirer of the US Constitution so I view Wade-Roe as an abomination. No doubt some states will enact their own abominations but that’s rather the point of a federal system – that the states be free to do so.

  4. I’ve not been following this as I live in the UK and despite the Royal College of Midwives views on the possibility of a man being a “birthing person”, I’m never personally going to need an abortion.

    Presumably if your state bans abortions yet you need/want one you could just travel to a neighboring state? Isn’t it that simple?

  5. @AndyF
    I believe that some states were proposing to make travelling to another state of an abortion illegal too.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset


    The argument goes, or will go if it hasn’t already been made, that the poor can’t afford to travel and as blacks are disproportionately poor it’s racist to strike it down.

  7. Dennis, Your Guide To The USA

    Actually, there aren’t any state proposing making interstate travel for an abortion illegal.

    The closest one can come to that is this: Some Republican legislators in the state of Missouri have floated the idea of passing a law allowing MO residents the right to sue any out-of-state person, business or organization that assists MO residents in getting an abortion.

    To date no legislation has been written.

  8. I expect that the cost of travelling interstate in the USA is lower than the cost of travelling from NI to ENG.
    There is a comedy crime in the USA of ‘travelling while black’. If a police officer looks hard enough and finds the cash you’re carrying for the abortion or a fault on the car, I’m guessing that they could stop you continuing your journey to a less restrictive state.

  9. “Actually, there aren’t any state proposing making interstate travel for an abortion illegal.”

    And surely such a ban would be unconstitutional under the inter-state commerce clause.

  10. Michael Malice has been saying that “we are entering uncharted territory,” as elected politicians (not appointed judges) will finally have to make decisions about when life begins, and deal with the consequences in November. That is, they’ll have to do their jobs and be held accountable.

    Yes, some states might ban or strictly limit abortions. That’s the cool thing about having the choice between 50 states. That said, though I find abortion morally disgusting, I also don’t like the idea of the government making these kinds of decisions about private matters. That includes vaccine and mask mandates.

    If you want an idea of the general nationwide opinion on abortion, the best possible compromise would likely be to keep abortion legal (keep the government out of your business) up until the third trimester, but also completely defund Planned Parenthood and all other programs providing the procedure (no taxpayer funding), and also reserve the right of companies to choose whether they will donate their own resources to those organizations. States would also have the right to require parental consent or notification, and heartbeat ultrasounds if they wish.

    This would be, on paper, a good example of combining personal freedoms and personal responsibility, with the third trimester ban reflecting the sentiment of most Americans, with religious affiliation or not. Whether such a policy would work in practice, however, is a different story. We have so many irresponsible baby mamas and baby daddies that some Americans have advocated for sterilization.

  11. @Dennis: wouldn’t such a law be unconstitutional under the clause on interstate commerce? Because that falls under the purview of Congress, doesn’t it?

  12. Banning abortions is a fantasy like banning drugs or booze; all that is banned is legal provision… and in its place a profitable, illegal industry is handed over to organised crime.

    I recall the motivation to legalise and regulate abortion in the UK was the back-street abortion trade with its horrific consequences.

  13. Ah, jgh beat me to it. Great minds, etc.

    Anyway, what would amuse me would be if a state were to declare that the American Revolution had been a great mistake and that it would therefore immediately adopt the Law of England and Wales on abortion.

  14. @Boganboy

    It’s true that Black Lives Matter will be involved in a number of pro-abortion demonstrations, but it will mostly be the white female members, and people “of color” who are paid or rewarded for agreeing with the white members. Similar to the way that the only Latino proponents of using the term “LatinX” are those who work in DEI consulting or a woke Human Resources department.

    Majority of black Americans hold somewhat conservative or right-of-center views on culture, even if they vote Democrat. More and more of them are also waking up to the fact that Planned Parenthood preys on predominately black communities and engages in the same kind of bigotry of low expectations as the “voting rights” crowd. There’s a viral video from a few years ago of Ami Horowitz interviewing overprivileged white university students, who believe that black people are somehow incapable of getting a photo ID from the DMV or even using the internet. He then interviewed actual black people in Harlem and showed them the footage. Hilarious stuff.

    Also important for people to know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a racist with a devotion to eugenics. Leftists should be happy to admit that, because they love to expose systemic racism, right?

  15. The notion that the poor cannot travel is an odd one given that people have been traveling going back to the days when walking was the only means. Then mules and horses, covered wagons, and old Tin Lizzies during the dust bowl.

    The issue of states’ rights is fraught with controversy. The Democrats believe in a strong central government and think that states’ rights is just an excuse to get off the Rez. The Republicans ostensibly believe more in local control (until you elect one of the bastards and they begin to see the merits of imposing their will nationally). However, as the country’s population has migrated from the north to the west and south (huge numbers of blacks have moved south in recent decades, )the west and south have gained political power vis-a-vis the north.

    Some of the more liberal states, such as California, are now arguing for the merits of states’ rights. There’s a lot of pride expressed in that they expect to become the abortion center of the US. It used to be said that as California goes so goes the nation, but the nation is moving rapidly away from California.

  16. dearieme
    May 4, 2022 at 2:03 pm
    @Dennis: wouldn’t such a law be unconstitutional under the clause on interstate commerce? Because that falls under the purview of Congress, doesn’t it?

    USA has freedom of movement of its citizens, it isn’t legally possible to ban interstate travel any more than to ban travel from England to Scotland.

    As for banning travel for abortion, how exactly could that be policed?

  17. aoidjffoadjf. Watching minority support for the Democrats is like watching someone in an abusive relationship. You wonder how long they’ll remain in it, but apparently they figure the Dems really do love them. Meanwhile, blacks have been moving out of blue states to southern states in droves over the past few decades, which probably suits most blue state Democrats just fine, though they do wave their fists and yell that those southern rednecks better treat them right.

  18. @TD

    Even in times of slavery, African-Americans used the Underground Railroad to find freedom. Anyone in a first-world country can scrounge up enough money for a bus ticket, even if it takes a day or two of panhandling. No excuses for staying in a state with laws you don’t like. Unless you live in Hawaii.

    But the issue of state’s rights is deeper than merely federal vs. local control. The average democrat doesn’t even think of state’s rights in those terms. That’s because they link it to…you guessed it…racism. It is true that a number of confederate soldiers advocated for state’s rights during the Civil War in order to promote both secession and the institution of slavery. And now the entire concept is guilty by association. Basically, if Robert E. Lee had wiped his ass once or twice, the Left would ban clean arses. The reality is, state’s rights can be beneficial to the causes of the Left or the Right, depending on the issue.

    California has the right to be as batshit insane as they wish, but they are in deep trouble. High crime rates, high taxes and rents, homelessness crisis, otherworldly levels of frivolous regulation, unequal and morally reprehensible application of the law, and a plunging economy. The most highly populated state in the country is turning into the next Michigan. One side of my family spent the past 50 years living in Riverside, CA. The last of them recently moved to Arizona. That’s how bad it’s gotten.

    As for minority support for the Democratic Party, my ethnic group historically included in this phenomenon, people are slowly but surely waking up. When Biden was…installed…into the White House, the one silver lining I felt could come of this was that Americans are now seeing a side-by-side comparison between Trump and Biden (who is basically trying to re-create the empty Obama nostalgia). For any democrat who isn’t brain-dead, Biden isn’t even good enough to be the lesser of two evils in 2024. A lot of them will either support a third-party candidate, write in another democrat, or simply stay home. We’ve already seen minorities switch to the GOP over the past few years. There aren’t any conservatives switching to the Dems. The only ones who have are those who were already voting for democrats, or those in the media and political class whose opinions are bought and paid for. People like Chris Wallace, Bill Kristol and The Lincoln Project. Fun fact, a founding member was caught sexting with boys as young as 14, and the other founders knew about it. To this day, you can play a game of “how many times does The Lincoln Project include creepy sexual innuendo in their tweets.”

    If you look at candidly honest conversations among black Americans who have jobs and stable families, the vast majority of them are not into the woke politics or public education system. They’ve accepted that politicians on both sides have said awkward, inappropriate and racist things throughout history, and that Biden is one of the worst offenders. More and more are finding out about the problems Biden says need to be solved, which he caused himself. He was even against Roe v. Wade as a senator. So, at the end of the day, they tend to respect Trump’s honesty and results. Black Americans themselves will tell you that one of the biggest sources of racism today is from their own community. There is a social pressure against being a “sell-out” and any deviation from their litmus test is grounds for shunning you as a black white supremacist. Clayton Bigsby, basically. That’s what happened with Dr. Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas. Was just hanging out with a black republican a few nights ago (he wasn’t the only one at the event, though). His father is a pediatrician who immigrated here from Haiti. Instead of being hailed as an example of the American Dream and triumph over adversity, he would likely be harassed, targeted and threatened with violence if he were 1/10 as vocal as the BLM rioters. That’s motivation for leaving the Left if I ever saw it.

  19. “it isn’t legally possible to ban interstate travel any more than to ban travel from England to Scotland.”

    That’d be the same UK that banned people from moving between all its various regional governmental zones at various points throughout the covid ‘crisis’ then?

  20. Jim, that was the mini-parliaments taking the piss. The UK govt should have stomped on it. It should have been challenged in court by anyone refused a border crossing. Was anyone ever so treated? An absolute refusal, not just an awkward conversation with jockinese plod?

  21. I recall the motivation to legalise and regulate abortion in the UK was the back-street abortion trade

    That was the excuse, not the motivation. They don’t actually give a fuck about prole girls, if they did they wouldn’t turn a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs.

    Allegedly, to prevent a relatively tiny number of illegal abortions we’ve ended up with millions of legal abortions. The outcome we achieved was the motivation all along.

  22. “the back-street abortion trade with its horrific consequences”: the pro-abortion lobby used to cite figures for deaths from illegal abortions. Apparently they selected figures gathered from the period before antibiotics were available.

    I suppose the abortion law that resulted was an improvement over the previous blanket ban Was it a universal ban? I’m too young to remember.

    But I’m always uncomfortable when evidence is cited that is basically lies. About the only anecdote I remember from the time was that there were people who would recite some dreadful account of a pregnant woman’s circumstances and then demand to know whether you’d have allowed her an abortion. If you said “yes” they’d tell you that you’d just approved of the abortion of Beethoven. That Beethoven story was purest piffle. Lies on both sides, then, much like Russia/Ukraine.

  23. So arguing the legality of crossing state lines to have an abortion might be the next big issue. And yet……

    Chinese (west coast) and south/central American (southern border) third trimester women flood freely across national borders, never mind state lines, to legally* drop anchors.

    It’s a funny old country.

    * legally as in “well SCOTUS certainly isn’t going to risk looking at what the 14th amendment actually said”.

  24. “The first references to abortion in English law appeared in the 13th Century. The law followed Church teaching that abortion was acceptable until ‘quickening’, which, it was believed, was when the soul entered the foetus. The legal situation remained like this for centuries.” Then various changes until …

    “1861: The Offences Against the Person Act: performing an abortion or trying to self-abort carried a sentence of life imprisonment.”

    “1929: Infant Life Preservation Act: this created a new crime of killing a viable foetus (at that time fixed at 28 weeks) in all cases except when the woman’s life was at risk.” Then more fannying around until …

    “1967: The Abortion Act (sponsored by David Steel, MP) became law, legalising abortion under certain conditions”

    “In 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act … lowered the legal time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, which is the currently accepted point of viability.”


    The most interesting remark in the WKPD article is ‘Later, [meaning after the Reformation] under Scottish common law, abortion was defined as a criminal offence unless performed for “reputable medical reasons”, a definition sufficiently broad as to essentially preclude prosecution.’ (And this was Scots Law until 1967!!)

    Another writer: “Due to these fundamental differences in legal governance, the wording of the Act and the Act’s reliance on English statute, the Scottish legal position remains entirely distinct from that of England and Wales at present.
    … the law may be interpreted very differently in Scotland than in England and, prima facie, it appears that two of the best known hallmarks of the 1967 Act – the 24 week term limit (introduced by amendments made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) and the two- physician requirement – may be subverted by applying the still-operational Scottish common law.”

    I conclude that historically Abortion Law in Great Britain has been all over the shop.

  25. I believe the idea that judges are impartial arbiters of the law was given up on long ago by most people, though judges still try to keep the notion alive. Now that the cat is out of the bag and the the pressure is ratcheting up, it will be interesting to see if some justices on the court cave?

  26. aodjfaoidfjioajf

    The overturning of Roe v. Wade will be a great demonstration of why lawmaking must be left solely to Congress. You know, the legislative branch.

    If one wants a return to abortion on-demand and without apology at the federal level, then the best bet is through a constitutional amendment (a bit of a hassle, to put it lightly) or perhaps an executive order (this may or may not be allowed for this kind of policy).

    The most realistic solution is to leave issues not enumerated in the Constitution to the States (10th Amendment). Not saying it’s right or wrong, but it’s the strategy most in line with how our government is supposed to work.

    The Left is usually quick to pounce on the idea that these issues would be decided by the masses, as the majority of voters in, say, Mississippi will not be very comfortable legalizing abortion. Of course, this fear of majority rule is in stark contrast with the Left’s obsession with “defending democracy.” They keep using that word. I don’t think it means what they think it means.

    The idea of men having a say in the issue, or of women’s voices being drowned out by republicans, holds no weight. Many women are against abortion and many men are for it. Women make up roughly 50% of the electorate, meaning that it’s clearly a philosophical/theological issue. Even an atheist depending solely on medical research may still conclude that abortion is unjustified murder. The definition of life and bodily autonomy may never be fully settled in this case, so the worst possible solution is to have a one-size-fits-all policy affecting all 130 million Americans. Sometimes you just have to do a better job at proving your argument and persuading the public. Leftists will hopefully start to understand, even under a liberal president, why giving the federal government this much power is a huge mistake.

    When you give Washington, D.C. more of your tax dollars, you give them the power to decide how that money is spent and where. When you give the government the authority to grant you rights, rather than defend the rights you are born with, you give them the authority to take those rights away. Centralized government is not a limitless list of demands, and federal funding is not a blank check. That’s why these activists are in such a state of shock. They’re learning all of this for the first time.


    The Scottish case continued:

    “Another notable issue with the common law position was the fact that, because access to abortion was determined by the opinions of individual physicians, abortion was readily available in some parts of the country, such as Aberdeen, yet very difficult to obtain in other parts of the country such as Glasgow”

    Stone the crows! Abortion available in Scots-dominated city but not in Irish-dominated city. Who’d a thunk it? But tell me, if the medieval Roman church approved of abortion up to “quickening” why do modern Roman Catholics oppose it? Can God have changed his mind? The old flibbertigibbet!

  28. But tell me, if the medieval Roman church approved of abortion up to “quickening” why do modern Roman Catholics oppose it? Can God have changed his mind?

    The Catholic Church has never “approved” of abortion, and arguments over the quickening (based on Artstotle’s ideas on when the soul begins) were about whether abortion was legally murder or merely a wicked abomination.

  29. @Steve: then you’ll have a link showing that you are right and that “Church teaching that abortion was acceptable until ‘quickening’” is wrong?

  30. I believe the idea that judges are impartial arbiters of the law was given up on long ago by most people . . .

    Indeed, it was never considered in the US system; judges are usually politically appointed or elected. There’s lots of democratic oversight there.

  31. I have to agree in general with aoidjffoadjf. If this goes through, California is going to be free to pass whatever abortion laws it wants – I assume allowing termination up to age 5, or 99 if subject votes Republican – but existing fecund parents are voting with their feet.

    Anecdata: In our not-too-big street in the Bay Area, *three* families are moving to North TX in the next 3 months. They are all the families with 3+ kids. Those staying are single child, or have grown up kids. The movers have all seen the writing on the wall. Public (state) school enrollment is plummeting, and school districts are steadily closing schools in response. (See e.g. Oakland, San Jose).

    Only way California re-grows population is through southern border immigration – but those immigrants are generally *very* Catholic. How is that going to play out? Damifino.

  32. from:

    “In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male foetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female foetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church”

    So effectively 80-90 days since you couldn’t know which sex the foetus was in advance. And then zero. And then, and then, … What next, I wonder? Anyway, from its founding in 1054, the Roman Catholic Church has tolerated early abortion for most of its history.

    In other words it’s not God who is a flibbertigibbet but the Popes. Infallibly strange chaps, the Popes.

    “[Ensoulment] was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the child move for the first time in her womb. It indicated a separate consciousness. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined it took place at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks. That is the current legal limit for abortion in the UK. It was Catholic Church teaching until 1869.”

    That’s from –

    See also

  33. Dennis, Tiresome Denizen of Central Ohio

    Picked up a printer in Tennessee as a client late last year. He had just moved his entire family and his printing business to TN from California. That’s himself, his wife, his three children (all college age, unenrolled from CA colleges and enrolled in TN colleges) and his business. All because CA just got to be more of a pain in the ass than it was worth.

    I’ve seen some CA license plates around these parts as well. When the house next door went up for sale it had at least two couples who were recent CA transplants make offers.

  34. It’s funny seeing the Canadian Left hand waving over this and it has no bearing on Canada
    The Canadian Supreme Court in their version of roe vWade found that abortion was not a constitutional, so the exact opposite and what the US is now proposing

  35. This is a subject I’d rarely touch. I haven’t got kids & never wanted any. So I don’t think I’m qualified to have an opinion.
    I just read this article on Spiked by Ann Furedi who opposes the repeal of R-W

    When contraception fails, or we fail to use it effectively, abortion is a safe way to reset our bodies to ‘not pregnant’ and reboot our lives.
    Now that stunned even me.
    Let’s try rerunning it.
    When we’ve married a woman & the marriage has failed or we just got tired of her, murder is the best way to reset ourselves to ‘not married’ & reboot our lives
    Or maybe I could grow to like the idea.

  36. Come to think of it, since the repeal of R-W is likely to result in time limits on abortion rather than complete banning, maybe I should be thinking inn the same way.
    OK in the first trimester when the honeymoon’s over & you’re having second thoughts?
    Or reverse the time factor.
    At the 40th trimester, when they’re starting to droop, she’s cat meat.
    It’s worth thinking about…

  37. So, Miss Furedi, if you want access to legal abortion, vote to legislate for access to legal abortion.

  38. BiS,

    When your own tax dollars are funding it, you are very much qualified to have an opinion. That’s one big part of the issue in the U.S. There are many people, men especially, in your same position who would say “go bananas with the abortions” if Planned Parenthood were funded through private donations at the individual or even corporate level. As a matter of consistency, I try to maintain that view on anything else the government decides to invest in fund with my money.

  39. Spiked provides a regular platform for crazy cat lady, Wendy Kaminer, whose rantings are reminiscent of a middle aged Titania McGrath.

    It looks like she has a friend.

  40. aoidjffoadjf, when I read Furedi’s rant, I could see why you emphasised the tax question. Her main argument seems to be we should be taxed and taxed and taxed to provide all the money she wants. But it is utterly immoral that we should have any say in how she spends it.

    BiS, must admit I dither and waver about abortion. As I put it when someone asked me years ago, I’d certainly nuke a city or turn a flamethrower on a mob if I thought that desirable, so I see no reason to deny women a similar privilege. But I must admit I don’t like the idea of killing kids.

    I think it’s grandfather syndrome. All that white hair simply means I’m at that stage in my life when I should laugh when young Oscar climbs over the edge of the lounge and pinches my glasses case while I’m reading. And I do.

  41. The “horrific consequences of the back-street abortion trade” definitely needs a citation.

    The horrific consequences of the legal abortion trade are known and uncontested. So it doesn’t look as though you actually have a point.

  42. Will any bans on abortion enacted by individual US States include things such as the morning after pill? Is that considered abortion or not?

  43. @Jim

    In the U.S., the morning after pill doesn’t seem to be much of an issue outside the Catholic Church. And even then, American Catholics aren’t in full agreement (see Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi).

    The only time I’ve heard about legal battles surrounding the pill is when it comes to mandating employers or taxpayers to handle the cost. I think the Hobby Lobby case is the most high-profile example. As I said in an earlier post, there are a lot of Americans who would stay out of women’s business if they didn’t have to pay or take responsibility for it.

    The more I think about it, if I ran Planned Parenthood, I’d focus a lot more on providing hysterectomies than abortions. Much less moral pushback and would only need one of them. If you don’t want to have kids anyway, and either option is a medical procedure, what’s stopping you? Would also be easier to convince charities, corporations and health insurance companies to pay for them, maybe even taxpayers. If the Left is willing to promote “gender affirming surgery” for minors, then this should at least be considered as well, no?

    Of course, then Planned Parenthood would receive less revenue from selling body parts on the market. So, you know, weigh your options.

  44. @TD

    I don’t think many claim that the poor cannot travel – just that it is impractical. In parts of the USA workers have few rights and little holiday, so for a poor person who might have to have two jobs, taking the time to travel to another state for an abortion might cost them one or both jobs, as well as the expense of travel, and possibly further expenses such as childcare if they already have children.

    @bloke in spain – “When we’ve married a woman & the marriage has failed or we just got tired of her, murder is the best way to reset ourselves to ‘not married’ & reboot our lives”

    Apart from the obvious fact that the way to terminate a marriage is through divorce. Maybe in the distant future it will be possible to remove the implanted egg from one woman and safely move it to another. Then we can have a debate over whether abortion should be replaced with such a procedure.

  45. Ms Furedi runs one of the big abortion charities (Pregnancy Advisory Services?). Follow the money.

  46. @Charles

    If someone is responsible enough to hold down two jobs, both of which they care about to the extent of not taking off too much time, and also responsible enough to consider childcare needs when absent from the home, I’m struggling to see how they can be irresponsible enough to have sex (or even have the time to do so) without protection when they are not interested in having children. I also don’t see how someone that responsible would have a hard time paying for the morning after pill. It’s about $50 at CVS. Even when money is tight, a hustling single mother will spend that amount to keep the situation from getting even more dire. After-school specials and advocacy groups don’t always provide the most accurate picture of society.

    There are also options between raising an unwanted child and abortion. It’s okay to disagree, but at least don’t leave out a whole bunch of details in an effort to discredit the opposition.

  47. @aoidjffoadjf
    It’s not that they care about the jobs so much – it’s that in some parts of America employment is “at will” meaning that you can be fired for no reasonable reason – such as wanting time off at short notice to get an abortion. Places which ban abortion are highly likely to also ban morning after pills, so they’re not a solution to avoiding travel.

    I’m not addressing lots of things because I am solely addressing the point about travelling for an abortion. And I don’t think I need to discredit the opposition anyway – they do a perfectly fine job themselves.

  48. @Charles

    Not sure how much time you’ve spent in America, but people here who have kids, an absent baby-daddy, enough financial problems to need two jobs, and still decide to have unprotected sex usually don’t care about losing their jobs. They usually don’t care about securing a babysitter either, and would likely bring their previous children with them to the clinic to hang out in the waiting room. People exhibiting that kind of irresponsible pattern of behavior will do what they have to do and either beg for their job back or find temporary housing at a shelter until they find another one. To be frank, most of these situations in the U.S. involve someone who has no job whatsoever. The majority of these people and their children live entirely off of welfare and food stamps. Substance abuse is a common issue, and the father is either nowhere to be found or incarcerated.

    Even if someone is worried about losing their job, they know it’s an even bigger financial burden to have the child and end up with another mouth to feed. In communities where abortion/unwanted pregnancies are prevalent, there is a completely different culture than what you can fathom. Our country’s welfare system is designed in such a way that there are people who actually have kids for the sole purpose of collecting government assistance. Sixty years ago, when this social experiment started, President Johnson was naive enough to think this was a good way to help impoverished Americans, mainly those in the black community. Instead, he created an incentive for these families to dismantle and think of their children as commodities. Sixty years later, even black Americans are starting to wake up to what government dependence has done. In 1960, 78% of black children were raised in two-parent households. By 1990, 66% of black children were being raised by a single parent. This is why people aren’t buying the “Green New Deal” or “Build Back Better” bullshit from the Democrats anymore. The 60-year trial was long enough.

    Of course, this also became a trend in other ethnic groups with a similar socioeconomic background. Vast majority of these women, whether through social conditioning or through a character flaw, simply aren’t any more responsible than the men who abandoned them. It’s sad and very unfortunate, but it’s what’s happening here.

    Years ago I worked part-time with a number of guys who grew up in such households in Harlem. They simply had to leave the house at 18 and figure out how to survive on their own. They would skip meals in the winter when their work shifts dwindled, so they could still make rent. Their mothers were abusive alcoholics and their fathers were in prison or dead. These coworkers of mine used condoms, because they learned from their parents’ mistakes.

    To say these women are deciding not to travel or move because they are trying not to get in trouble at work, is like saying San Francisco is seeing an uptick in smash-and-grab robberies because teenagers are stealing loaves of bread for their families. If they were responsible enough to worry about repercussions like that, they likely wouldn’t be in the predicament of needing an abortion in the first place. Especially after they already have a few children to take care of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *