This is an assertion that we can test

The US is a terrible place to be a poor woman: exceptional among nations belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in having zero national entitlement to maternity pay, it has no universal healthcare, the highest rates of maternal mortality of any wealthy nation and barely any support with the costs of childcare.

Which way does the migration flow go? Do people walk from Texas to Guatemala for a better life? Float on inner tubes to Cuba? Flee Manhattan for Mogadishu?

No, they don’t? Then the assertion is full of shit, isn’t it?

26 thoughts on “This is an assertion that we can test”

  1. They don’t even move to Canada, Australia, or Europe in any significant numbers for such a horrible, horrible country;)

  2. As for the high costs of child raising – we suffered demographic collapse *later* than Europe did even though we’ve been much richer for longer.

  3. “They don’t even move to Canada, Australia, or Europe in any significant numbers for such a horrible, horrible country;)”

    Those being places that really don’t let poor people from rich countries get in does make it a little tricky. And it’s not as if Australian and European women are jumping in bathtubs hoping to join the undocumented ranks of the American Dream either. It’s almost like they’re all kinda stuck where they are and the host’s point is dogshit because what is being said is that America has a poor setup compared to other rich countries, and as there is nothing remotely close to a free movement of poor people between comparable countries, for economic, social and geographical reasons, migration flows from even shittier neighbouring countries are not an especially useful signal in this regard.

  4. “Women must be allowed to defend abortion as a sex-based right”

    But they can? The only difference now is that they have to do it at state level instead of at federal level…
    But there is literally nothing stopping them from arguing their case at the relevant legislative institutions, protected in their right to do so by the US constitution..

  5. “ America is a federation. These things are the realm of the States, not the federation.”

    Well that was true, then wasn’t, and is now true again. The status at any given time didn’t stop people from arguing for the other. As much as I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion, my read on this whole thing is that Roe was an unconvincing stretch, trying to put something there that just doesn’t fit. So, in itself, and with regret at the consequences, I can’t say the court was wrong to overturn it. Having a system of rights that is slave to what a bunch of chaps write down centuries ago is, it turns out, not without issues.

    Which doesn’t absolve the court from charges of being profoundly politicised, activist, and happy to pick and choose between methods of interpreting the constitution in order to get the outcome the bench of the day desires, a bench that is transparently manipulated by whichever party holds power. Sure.. the founding fathers didn’t intend a right to abort… they didn’t consider it at all. But nor did they consider had multi-billion dollar corporations would have a right to free speech subject to materially lower curtailment than the free speech of individual citizens.. yet the Supreme Court saw fit to say that they did…and states can do nothing about it. So spare us the constitutional matter-of-factness. It’s a win, but nobody comes out of this looking good.

  6. For generations, US liberals relied on the Roe v Wade ruling to support sex-based rights. Last week’s reversal shows how misguided they were

    Relying on an infamously dodgy Supreme Court decision that falsely claimed the United States Constitution guarantees a right to abortion was a mistake then.

    in 1973, the feminist magazine Ms. published a graphic photo of a dead 27-year-old woman kneeling over, surrounded by bloody towels. Her name was Gerri Santoro and she died alone in a motel room during a botched abortion in 1964, a mother to two young daughters who had left her violently abusive husband.

    63 million Americans have died in utero as a result of Roe v Wade, many of them extremely grisly late term executions that would be illegal in Britain and Europe, but they rarely get magazine covers.

    It is a dramatic rollback of women’s rights

    If you think women should have a right to kill their own children, sure. If you think human beings of either sex don’t have a right to snuff out babby’s life on the ground of convenience, abortion restrictions are a dramatic improvement in human rights. “Pro-choice” (and we know what choice they’re pro) is as intellectually dishonest as it is morally abominable.

    The only effective and safe way to reduce abortion is to expand access to contraception, something Republicans have impeded under Trump.

    See what I mean? They’d like you to believe that rubber johnnies and the Pill are somehow hard to get in the United States, because they’re compulsive liars.

    It has been estimated that maternal mortality will increase by 20% in places with a ban.

    It has been estimated that this figure is 100% lying cuntybollocks.

    While there remain huge issues of abortion access in Northern Ireland, there are limited parallels to be drawn with most of the UK, where we are lucky that abortion is a settled, non-partisan issue and there is no significant religious minority opposed to abortion rights

    Lol, we’ll see.

  7. ‘The only effective and safe way to reduce abortion is to expand access to contraception, something Republicans have impeded under Trump’.

    Demonstrably untrue. Look up who it is that is blocking oral contraceptives OTC. Hint – it’s not Republicans. It’s the party that gets significant campaign contributions from the likes of Planned Parenthood and the American Medical Association, which stand to lose financially if the prescription requirement is removed.

  8. Having a system of rights that is slave to what a bunch of chaps write down centuries ago is, it turns out, not without issues.

    The system isn’t slave. The constitution contains the provision for its revision, which includes the method of that provision. If there is enough support the constitution can be changed to say anything.

  9. @PJF… yeah.. it can be changed. Under the rules set by, *checks notes* the chaps who wrote it all down centuries ago.

    There is a reason American politicians put their energy into appointing judges who will rule that the constitution says what they want it to say, as opposed to proposing amendments so that it actually does say it.

  10. Under the rules set by, *checks notes* the chaps who wrote it all down centuries ago.

    That the constitution can be, and has been, changed shows that the system is not “slave to what a bunch of chaps write [sic] down centuries ago”.

    Like I said, if you have the popular support you can change it now so that it can be subsequently changed by the day-to-day whims of the panellists on The View. If I could isolate your universe from mine, I’d actually like to see that.

  11. ‘And it’s not as if Australian and European women are jumping in bathtubs hoping to join the undocumented ranks of the American Dream either’

    No, they’re getting legitamate green cards. Even if your whole metric is where do people from rich countries migrate too its the USA that’s winning.

    But your metric is a lie anyway, as Mexico is in fact an OECD nation, and there is no shortage of women fleeing it for the US, maternity leave be dammed. The hosts criticism is correct as it stands.

  12. A great pastime we have in the U.S. is asking liberals, “Why are you begging to let so many illegal immigrants into such a racist, patriarchal, violent, fascist police-state of a country?”

  13. Mx Marple
    June 27, 2022 at 7:16 am

    ‘America’s setup’ is now merely what all those other countries have been doing all along.

    And Alabama is still richer per Capita than Germany.

    And it’s Canadians moving to America for work *and even healthcare*, not the other way around.

  14. “Mx Marple
    June 27, 2022 at 1:12 pm
    @PJF… yeah.. it can be changed. Under the rules set by, *checks notes* the chaps who wrote it all down centuries ago.”

    That’s the complaint? That those people (it’s very rude for you to assume their gender) had the foresight to put in a way to modify the rules – including a way to .modify the rules about modifying the rules?

    This just seems like whining that you can’t just dictate your desires onto 300 million *diverse* people.

  15. @Steve – “63 million Americans have died in utero as a result of Roe v Wade”

    None of them were Americans. You’re not an American until you’re born. Before that, your parents might renounce American citizenship and your mother could travel so that you were born outside the USA, so citizenship depends on your circumstances at the moment of birth.

  16. “63 million Americans have died in the US in utero as a result of Roe v Wade”

    It doesn’t really reduce the force of Steve’s argument much, does it.

  17. It doesn’t really reduce the force of Steve’s argument much, does it.

    That particular pendantry doesn’t, but the high likelihood that most of those abortions would have taken place regardless of R v W might do so.

    It’s almost certain that many other states, especially the populous ones, would have followed the four that had already abolished their abortion prohibition before 1973. Likewise now, most states will retain their pre-Dobbs abortion provisions.

  18. In just about every measure, homicides, math scores, health outcomes, years of school, etc., etc. if the feral inner city class is removed the US is ranked among the top 5 % or so. No other Western country has the large underclass refusing to participate that bedevils the US.

  19. Except for France. And the UK (our criminals shoot each other – they don’t get to run rape gangs with the police looking the other way). And Germany.

  20. @Chris Miller – “It doesn’t really reduce the force of Steve’s argument much, does it.”

    It does rather. If someone is so ignorant of the discussion topic that they make such a fundamental error, nothing that they say on that topic can be trusted.

  21. “fundamental error” ROFL. If you’re reduced to nit-picking pedantry, it’s you who has lost the argument. Or you never had an argument in the first place.

  22. @Chris MIller

    Well, if you don’t like that argument, consider that the 63 million is about twice the number of immigrants during that period (1973-2020 is about 30 million). Given that those who oppose abortion usually also are the types to complain vigorously that the immigration must be strictly controlled due to the country being overcrowded, why would they want so many extra people?

  23. @Boganboy

    So they’re the sort of deluded racists that think that a woman living in America makes her babies different to babies born to women who has not lived in America, or have only lived there briefly? (e.g. Mary Anne MacLeod moved to the USA in 1930 and gave birth to a boy in 1946 that I’m sure the racists would agree is “their sort of people”). I wouldn’t be surprised as racism is so irrational.

Leave a Reply

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