Counter-Currents
Norma McCorvey (left), who was Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade, with her attorney, Gloria Allred, in front of the Supreme Court in April 1989.
1,799 words
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will soon end Roe v. Wade, the famous 1973 case that made abortion legal throughout the United States. The new decision, revealed in an unprecedented leak from the high court this week, would not ban abortion; it would simply revoke the precedent that prevented states from banning the procedure. Abortion will still be legal for most Americans after the SCOTUS ruling. There’s even a chance the ruling won’t lead to any bans at all.
The most likely scenario is that the ruling codifies the situation that de facto exists across the country. It’s already very difficult to get an abortion in a few deep red states such as Mississippi. For their part, solid blue states like New York allow abortion in the third trimester. America will still be a place where a handful of red states don’t allow abortion while a dozen or so blue states have the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
This one decision has roiled American politics. Conservatives see it as a major victory after 49 years of trying to overturn the precedent, and are gleeful about what may happen next. Liberals see it as a harbinger of The Handmaid’s Tale becoming reality. Both sides are reading more into this decision than what’s likely to happen. Yet, if this is in fact the court’s decision, it will impact the upcoming election. The “if” is important. It’s unclear why the decision was leaked, or who did so. The opinion, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, may not be the majority opinion when the court officially delivers its verdict this summer. It might possibly have been leaked to pressure one of the conservative justices to switch sides. We don’t know. But it’s likely to hold.
A crucial question we should ask is if this is a victory for us. Probably not. It’s not necessarily a defeat for us, either. If you’re a conservative Christian who sees abortion as murder, then yes, it’s a huge victory for you — but it’s not an identitarian issue. If you look at the demographics of who gets an abortion, some identitarians think we need to be pro-abortion. Despite still being the majority in America, whites are in the minority of those who get abortions. Black abortions far outstrip their percentage of the population. This fact is used to argue both for and against the practice. Liberals say it’s racist to deny minorities an abortion, while conservatives say it is black genocide. Each side appeals to the sacred icon of anti-racism to fortify their position.
Identitarians could offer a racialist argument for abortion, but it would likely alienate many of the people we want to reach. Most white conservatives, even the ones who are race conscious, see abortion as baby murder. They don’t care that it affects blacks more than whites and that its abolishment may lead to an even worse demographic situation. They view it as a moral issue, and any pro-abortion argument repulses them. We could spend what little capital we have to persuade them to come to our view, but it would distract from our main issues and make us lose followers in the process. Many nationalists and identitarians are avowedly pro-life as well, so it would inevitably lead to messy infighting within our own circles — not that Right-wing infighting is ever at a low ebb.
It would make tactical sense to proclaim ourselves as pro-life, but abortion isn’t really our issue. Plenty of other groups, much more powerful and respectable than ourselves, dedicate all their time and resources to it. They don’t need us “racists.” We could also potentially alienate some within our ranks, as well as potential converts. There’s no real need for us to get involved as a movement or to have an official stance. It’s best to just assume it’s not our fight and leave it at that. Individuals can of course advocate strongly on the issue in their private capacity, but it’s still not the main concern for nationalists. Most importantly, abortion shouldn’t serve as a litmus test. Our guys can take either side on the issue. It shouldn’t be used as a reason to drum someone out or castigate them as a traitor.
With all that said, we should still take note of this development, as it will impact American politics for years to come. It will further polarize America and inflame political tensions. That’s a good thing for us. But how will it play out in the political sphere?
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
It may turn out to be a dud in the short term. It all depends on how many Republican-controlled state legislatures attempt to enact full bans on abortion. 13 states have trigger laws on the books that will immediately ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. There are other red states that don’t have trigger laws but which would likely ban abortion. One such is Alabama, which passed a full ban in 2019 that was overturned by the courts. Whether these states will actually enforce these trigger laws is another matter. It’s one thing to pass a law when there’s a dim chance it will ever be enforced and it’s not on voters’ minds. It’s quite another to enact it when it will be enforced and weighs heavily on voters’ minds.
There’s a chance this effort may jeopardize Republican prospects in the midterms. At the moment, the GOP looks like it will win back Congress in November, but outrage over abortion bans could alter that in battleground states. It needs to be kept in mind that roughly 60% of Americans believe abortion should remain legal in most cases; 39% say it should be illegal in most cases. Polling regarding heartbeat bills, which restrict abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, show a similar divide among the American public: 55% oppose the laws while 45% support them. But these numbers change dramatically in favor of the legal side when it comes to full bans. Only 14% of Americans say they support Alabama’s full abortion ban, which grants no exceptions even in cases of rape or incest. It’s not even a popular idea in one of the reddest states of the country: Just 31% of Alabamians told pollsters they supported an abortion ban with no exceptions.
There’s more bad news on the polling front, as I covered in a 2019 article:
The bad news for conservatives is that young people are more likely to call themselves pro-choice. 56 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say they are pro-choice. This contradicts the conservative narrative that millennials are the “pro-life generation.” Based on the evidence, millennials may in fact be the pro-choice generation. And a recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute found that 65 percent of young adults (18-29) believe abortion should be legal in most cases. Only 44 percent say it offends their personal values.
Deep red states also boast surprising figures on abortion. The majority of adults in Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma believe abortion should be legal. The only states where strong majorities believe it should be illegal are in the South.
At one time, it wasn’t unusual for some Republican politicians to be openly pro-choice. It was also the common position for Republicans to support exceptions to abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s health. That’s not the situation today. The pro-life movement has insisted that there shall be no exceptions to an abortion ban, and the party has dutifully followed along. Thus, they won’t be content merely with heartbeat bills; they will push for the full bans with no exceptions. That will lead to an interesting battle within the GOP over what to do. Do they bow to the pro-life movement’s demands and risk electoral defeat, or do they try to strike a balance between voters and their pro-life backers? My guess is that they will do the latter. Republicans aren’t wont to risk their political fortunes over abortion. But hey, who knows? Maybe pigs will fly this summer.
There will be those on the Right who insist this court decision is a victory for two different reasons. One is that they take Leftists at their hysteria and claim the decision will serve as a precedent to wipe away other liberal victories. Liberals worry and Right-wingers salivate over the prospect that this decision may set in motion the repealing of Obergefell v. Hodges, which made gay marriage legal throughout the country. Some dreamers even wonder if it could overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions on interracial marriage and school integration.
None of these things are likely to happen. A reversal of Obergefell was a realistic idea immediate after the ruling was made in 2015, but that moment is long gone. The GOP no longer cares about gay marriage. Neither does the Religious Right. Extremely online Right-wingers are the only people to bring it up these days. In order for gay marriage to be overturned, a state would have to challenge the ruling, and it’s doubtful that any state will vote to ban gay marriage in the near future. Pro-lifers sent “LGBT for Life” groups to heckle pro-choice protesters, indicating their fealty to the gay cause. For better or worse, it’s an issue the country has moved on from. The same applies even more strongly to interracial marriage and school integration. Do you expect Clarence Thomas to outlaw his own marriage? These are just fantasies.
The second argument is that striking down abortion is good because the issue is an idol for the Left. This is true, but the arguments used to strike at this idol reinforce other idols. Conservatives are more comfortable being radically pro-life than radically anti-immigration or anti-gay marriage because many of the arguments against abortion fit nicely within modern liberalism: “It’s racist.” “It’s black genocide.” “It’s eugenics.” “It preys on women.” Abortion is attacked for violating the norms of modern liberalism. Tearing it down doesn’t necessarily undermine the regime’s dogmas; it reinforces racial egalitarianism and fealty to anti-racism. Those are more our concern than abortion.
It’s doubtful this decision will shake the regime to its core. Corporations don’t even bother to boycott states that pass heartbeat bills — but they will do so against states that try to reform election laws or honor the Confederate flag. Some idols are more important to the system than others.
Again, abortion is not our fight. Let the mainstream conservatives handle it. If most states keep abortion in place, it will have negligible demographic effects. There’s no chance of a nationwide ban passing, and many of these red states will falter in banning the practice. Much will remain the same in a post-Roe America. We shouldn’t allow it to distract us from the real struggle.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
22 comments
Interesting article. I would like to state my own view on abortion with the caveat that I don’t think it has any chance of success in the US political system. I would like to make abortion illegal for whites but legal for non-whites. In fact, abortion should be subsidized for non-whites, especially blacks. The fewer blacks, the better. I watched Candace Owens on Tucker this morning (I watch it one day late because I live in Europe) criticizing abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and pointing out that there would be so many more blacks if abortion were illegal. She is right and that is why I hold the position on abortion that I hold. To the rejoinder that abortion is murder, I respond that abortion is indeed killing but some kinds of killing are morally justifiable and thus not murder such as killing in self-defense or killing in a just war. We are in a race war and so killing members of the race that are killing us and destroying our civilization is morally justifiable. It is all the more justifiable if we can get the other race to kill themselves or their offspring.
100% agreement. Abortion is not our act of murder (and even concerning ourselves with this topic assumes one is a theist; believes in personal immortality and the moral judgment of God; and considers abortion to be murder). It is allowing our racial enemies to depopulate themselves. I have long argued for abortion-apathy as the correct Hard Right position for Christians, given the totality of demographic realities (ie, of who has abortions, and of who are the present or future enemies of Europeans). For atheists one can imagine that far more aggressive forms of depopulation would be preferred (without God, whence ethics?). We are in a state or period of pre-war, and need to work now to assure our racial kinsmen win when actual war erupts.
Thanks. I do disagree with one thing you say. “Without God, whence Ethics”. I am a former Catholic, present Agnostic. I believe there is a long tradition in the Western tradition of non-believers with Ethics. David Hume is just one example (yes, I am aware of the is/ought distinction but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t personally a very ethical person my your and my standards). I can name more. But I do have a great deal of respect for the great theist philosophers such as Augustine, Aquinas, etc.
A big topic of discussion. I believe that ethical precepts, like logic and math, exist independent of God, but without what I said above (God + soul + divine judgment), ethics are meaningless. They have the character of “Such and such would be wrong in a world with God, but absent God, who cares?” True morality is not mere convention (as I think Hume argued). It involves some level of sacrifice, but such sacrifice is purposeless without a divine schema of reward and punishment.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that I, if I were an atheist, would necessarily become a moral monster. I am by nature both ethical and non-violent (especially as I age; I was a bit rowdier and more aggressive in a personal ‘honor’ sense in my younger days). I could never rape a woman, as that act does not appeal to me. I have no desire to be cruel to others (except thugs and antifa/commies, both of whom I hate). OTOH, if I don’t steal it is because of a) a residual belief in at least the possibility of God/soul/judgment; or, if atheist, b) fear of the law or social disapproval if discovered. There are no ethics in the jungle, and without God, all of existence is jungle. The fact that some atheists are maybe good people simply means they are either misguided, weak, or merely superficial-seemingly ethical. If push came to shove, how would they behave? No God, no (genuine) ethics.
I truly wish I were a Christian and life were more than just this 75 year veil of tears. But so far, I remain an agnostic. I hope God exists and there is an after life and I will see my parents once again, but I think that hope is probably false. If you look at the history of even Western Civ, the Civ that was inspired by Christianity and of course, Greece, Rome and the Enlightenment, it isn’t pretty. Look at all the European Wars of Religion, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. Read or reread Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” to get more details. It is and was a jungle even with God (or rather the widespread belief in God) or without God. And, of course, the Muslims believe in God, too. They just call him by a different name. You wouldn’t want to live in a Muslim society, would you?
You write “It involves some level of sacrifice, but such sacrifice is purposeless without a divine schema of reward and punishment.” “It” refers to true morality. It is not purposeless without a divine schema of reward and punishment. True morality makes a better life for people. Acting according to the Golden Rule which is the same as Kant’s Categorical Imperative makes for a happy community. Atheists who act this way are not weak. They are adults and don’t see a need for “Big Daddy God” looking over them with threats of punishment if they don’t.
I would like to make abortion illegal for whites but compulsory for non-whites
Sorry, going to have to partially disagree with you on this one, Mr. Hampton. Politically-speaking, the abortion issue IS relevant the Dissident Right/White Nationalists/Identitarians. If any kind of “racial divorce” (as Dr. Johnson has written about extensively) occurs within what we understand today as the territory of the United States, it will be absolutely critical for the successor state/nation/government to immediately ban abortion, making performance of the procedure a capital crime for the medical professional who perpetrate it and (in my political view) a caning (yes, like in Singapore) for the women who attempt, or succeed at attempting, to obtain one. Prior to any such “divorce,” I agree, it isn’t really our fight and we should take no position on the matter as it PRESENTLY stands, for the reasons that were mentioned in the article. HOWEVER, in any new ethnostate, for demographic reasons if nothing else (e.g., public morality), abortion must not only be criminalized, but must be a capital offense for the simple fact that birth rates among white must be raised and everything must be done to encourage this. A common sense component of raising the white birthrate in an ethnostate would be general criminalization of abortion. Abortion simply as a method of birth control must not be an option in an ethnostate except in exceptional circumstances, and serious consequences should be levied against those who would violate prohibitions against it; that being said, although blacks tend to have more abortions than whites, that’s still bad for whites demographically since it still means fewer white children in our Historic American Nation. Additionally, a nationwide ban on abortion, for the demographic reasons you yourself describe in the article related to WHO receives the abortions the most, should be a wake-up call to the Dissident Right as to what will happen unless the aforementioned “national divorce” occurs. This is an example in which accelerationism could actually be a good thing. Finally, again as you yourself pointed out, the Dissident Right has nothing to gain but a great deal to lose from either a) taking a pro-choice stance, or b) from at least not acknowledging the need for the practice to be criminalized (exceptions notwithstanding [e.g., rape, incest, etc.]) once a white ethnostate has been established, for the simple fact that, yes, most in our “pond” view the practice as barbaric and murderous, and with good reason. Our stance, as a movement, at the present moment should be, “no official comment.” For many, abortion is, in fact, a CORE identitarian issue, in addition to being a moral or religious one, and, at the present moment, “no official comment” is the best means by which we can avoid infighting.
You’ve failed to address a third argument: that restricting abortion restricts female sexuality, which absolutely benefits us.
This. Right here. In order for European civilization to be successful once again and to flourish, it is IMPERATIVE & CRITICAL that women be under male authority in general in society, and that their sexuality be under male authority in particular.
Women aren’t using abortion as contraception besides some druggies and prostitutes. This is one of many nonsense beliefs about women the incel Right promotes.
You’re first sentence is accurate. But that wasn’t Cynic’s point, which is also correct. Repealing Roe is a step to banning abortion, and banning abortion, as the feminists correctly grasp, is a step to reasserting male control in the West – which in turn is almost certainly necessary to saving the West.
90+% of abortion cases have nothing to do with the mothers health, rape or incest so yes it is absolutely being used as contraception.
In a way you’re correct. The women who get abortions tend to be the most derelict women in society who cannot deal with motherhood. However, women are not having abortions so they can engage in casual sex, which is a common view on the Right.
That sounds more like wishful thinking from a lefty-libertarian perspective then it does a statement of fact. The two scenarios – getting an abortion because not ready for motherhood vs getting abortion because pregnancy is an inconvenience – sound equally plausible.
As far as I know, there aren’t any statistics or surveys on the reasons why women get an abortion, so we’re left to speculate. Your own speculation is just as fanciful as anything from the “incel right”
The state of Florida records the reason for every abortion. The most recent statistics show that 74% of abortions are “elective,” i.e. contraceptive.
See for yourself: https://ahca.myflorida.com/mchq/central_services/training_support/docs/TrimesterByReason_2021.pdf
I remain pro life in the moral sense but have definitely seen the light when it comes to strategic placement of abortion providers. I fully support the ability of any black or mexican or indian to kill their unborn child. Don’t come begging for my tax dollars to pay for it but have at for all I care. Sending this back to the states could actually help to segregate minorities of all kinds further from us since they’ll want the choice to kill freely. Here is an instance where diversity is our strength can be shoved right back at them since there will be a diverse choice of states to consider when deciding where to settle. We can use this as one point in our favor for isolation or ethnocentric regions. It could be a start of an even greater movement to separate.
“Do you expect Clarence Thomas to outlaw his own marriage?”
Like the meme says: Yes.
And if anyone is up for the task it’s our beautiful based black, Justice Thomas.
On a serious note, I wouldn’t discount how much could be done with respect to Obergefell or race related issues. It took a few years for the pro-life movement to get up and running before they became the political force they are now.
I could easily see something similar happening in the future with respect to traditional marriage. DeSantis modestly pushed back at Disney and their rainbow values and the regime lost its mind over it. Trump brought immigration to the forefront in a single election cycle. Some dude named Rufo with a Twitter account basically single-handedly got regular folks to terrorize school boards into dropping the CRT bullshit.
Things are looking up, folks.
People ask me where I stand on abortion. I say, “I have the same position on abortion I have on slavery. I’m pro-choice. I’m personally against having abortions and owning slaves, but if others want to do those things I don’t think I should force my values on them.”
Reversing Roe is a victory against the unlawful exercise of legislative power by the judicial branch. This is a victory in the fight against the court’s self=proclaimed right to conjure up new “rights” out of thin air like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. It’s a great challenge to and victory over judicial over reach.
Blacks make up 13% of the population and produce 35% of the abortions. A clear victory for us, together with their cultural practice of shooting each other in large numbers. I’m very pragmatic on abortion. It may be distasteful, but then so was fire bombing Dresden.
IF ever we have a white nation I will revise my views on abortion, a disgusting practice that cheapens life and corrupts the culture. Now I see abortion as a useful tool against the non-white hordes.
First of all, I believe that ‘so-called leak’ was very well planned and placed just before the nationwide Primaries go into full bloom. It’s the most distractive, and thus destructive, issue in all of American politics, and will consume Middle America’s attention during every state’s primary. All of the vastly-more important issues will be left by the wayside, and at the worst, will allow the current Administration to continue full-bore ahead on their paths in wide-open borders, massive financial mistakes resulting in further inflation, and the continuation of destroying our energy output. And not to mention the ‘atomic bomb waving over our heads from Russia’ And that’s only the tip of the iceberg of problems facing our nation which will be swept off stage left by the hysterical protests on both sides. Don’t tell me that leak was a mistake.
The Supreme Court should announce they are withdrawing from discussion and ruling on this issue until after the November elections. It is the only way to bring this country back to its so-called ‘good-senses’.
Apparently a big pro-choice protest was announced two weeks before the leak. Very suspicious.
This issue of abortion should be of little importance, but social media has been flooded with alleged pro-Whites cheering the overturn of Roe as though it’s a win – it’s not really a win.
We all know negros use abortion services far more than Whites. Just because you see a load of blue haired smelly libs marching in favour of abortion doesn’t mean Whites are the majority clientele – it just means those people had nothing else to do.
So before you ‘praise god’ for saving the babies, ask yourselves how many additional unwanted negro children will make your country a better place to live in.
I almost completely agree with this post, though one can always count on Robert Hampton to deliver us our daily blackpill. In Hampton’s world, why bother to get out of bed? Seriously, I find the psychology of WN blackpillers most interesting. If all is hopeless, what motivates them to pursue their thankless calling? Might as well just party on, dude.
The whole pro-life cause has always struck me as nauseatingly liberal – and it has gotten more so over time. “Reinforcing the dominance of liberal norms of morality and governance” (or however Hampton phrased it) is exactly what the ‘life’ issue does, both in substance and in form. My late father was a serious churchgoing Christian, as is my mother (if I take her, that is). My mother couldn’t care less about abortion; I cannot recall her ever bringing it up. My dad actually thought the pro-lifers were weird to be worrying about this issue when the whole country was “going to the dogs.” He also felt there were a lot of “incompetents” who “shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.” He was not a coercive eugenicist (he was pretty libertarian, albeit personally culturally conservative), but he recognized sociobiological realities. He absolutely agreed that women on welfare should not get greater stipends for having more children, and for the right reasons (“it encourages them to breed more of their kind that we get stuck paying for”).
I have long held that pro-life is basically a cult (or, for the non-religious, a cult within a cult). I used to have occasional interactions with pro-lifers during my years working for the GOP and various candidates. As you might expect, most of these were wonderful people, real salt of the earth (and always white, in my experience). But there was, even 30 years ago, a very pronounced liberal tinge to the way they discussed the issue. I once got annoyed with a bunch of them (as I thought their stridency – opposition to a legal abortion option even in cases of rape – was going to hurt our California Congressional candidate), and when asked my position by one of them, rather ostentatiously said I was “anti-abortion, not pro-life” (if I’d stated my real position – pro-life for whites, pro-choice for nonwhites and white leftists – I would have been booted from the campaign staff, as pro-lifers have since Roe been very important “ground troops” for GOP campaigns; will they continue to be so, post-Roe?). When they asked what the difference was, I explained that pragmatically there was none, but I phrased it the way I did to emphasize that I was a “moral authoritarian” as opposed to someone who passionately cared about individual foeti. I further stated that emphasizing “protecting [unborn] life” instead of upholding moral norms started one down a slippery rhetorical slope whereby one finds it increasingly easier to bypass conservative strictures in the name of “maximizing life”. If one is “pro-life” ahead of all other principles, how can one deny generous welfare benefits to single mothers; expensive [taxpayer-provided] neo- and post-natal care; an ever expanding medical welfare state; or indeed, how can one support capital punishment or the occasional necessities of military power projection and international warfare?
As it turns out, all those left-liberal positions have variously come to be embraced by extensive elements within the prolife community. Calling oneself “anti-abortion”, OTOH, highlights one’s ideological opposition to the allowance of pre-born “infanticide”, as well as one’s upholding of traditional (Western) moral values, without committing oneself to a set of ever-expanding policies which ultimately rob whites, and weaken white and Western power.
Hampton is right that abortion is not our fight, nor is it an important fight. Even among white female abortion clients, how many hail from our more dysgenic elements? I’ve never known a white woman who’d had an abortion (and I’ve asked around a lot, including among strongly pro-choice women who attach no stigma to the practice). Few of the women with whom I’ve discussed the issue admitted to having friends who’d had abortions. I’m not sure what abortion demographics were in the immediate aftermath of Roe (I was in grade school when it came down), but for many decades now abortion has been overwhelmingly a lower class phenomenon (and disproportionately a nonwhite and especially black one, too, as Hampton points out). Indeed, I wonder (without bothering to do my own research, I admit) how many white females obtaining abortions are actually aborting pure white children? A lot of underclass whites (since the 90s, if not earlier) are also miscegenators, and among poor whites who disdain miscegenation, you will find many who are Christians (or plain rustics with traditionalist outlooks) who disdain abortion, too. Does anyone have data on how many pure white children in America are aborted annually? I bet it is a smallish minority of the total number of abortions.
Constitutionally, repealing Roe is the right position. It was blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the states had various policies on this in place at the time of its ratification. If the Framers had wished to make unrestricted abortion on demand a superordinate Federal right, they could have enacted an amendment to the Constitution to that effect at the same time as the others that comprise the Bill of Rights. That they did not leads us necessarily to conclude that they did not consider abortion to be a Constitutional matter; they were content to leave abortion policy to be variously shaped by the several states. Thus, the Roe Court, in claiming that the Framers really intended their Constitution to outlaw any restrictions on abortion access at any level of jurisdiction, is prima facie ludicrous. And reading the case one quickly discovers that, despite its length and enormous mass of (juridically extraneous) historical detail, its author, Justice Blackmun, never actually offers any serious attempt to render the Roe decision a legal opinion rooted in Constitutional reasoning, other than showing it to be in the line of “privacy” cases descending from the already Constitutionally suspect Griswold v. Connecticut. It’s quite amazing, really. This judicial fiat nature of the decision is another reason so many on the Right have opposed it.
Prowhites should stay out of this as much as possible. I think the political effect in the short term will be fairly muted. I have friends desperately worried this leak was designed to gin up support for the Democrats in November, and will be successful in this. I’m guardedly optimistic that most people don’t care that much about abortion (not next to inflation, the economy, and crime, as well as, in the southwest, the border), and that the ones who do are already pretty evenly divided between their respective sides.
I think the longer term effect will be similarly ambivalent, but slightly positive. OTOH, some otherwise desirable abortions might be prevented. However, this will be muted by the facts that Hampton mentioned, that places likely to ban abortion already make obtaining abortions difficult, while people already do travel to more abortion-friendly states (and such abortion-tourism will presumably simply increase). The total number of abortions might not fall that much. OTOH, this might slightly accelerate the ideological sortitioning process across the country. I don’t know how many prolifers will move to abortion banning states for that reason alone. I suspect very few. That’s not the prolife/Christianist mindset. I do, however, foresee a much larger contingent of pro-abortion fanatics fleeing their oppressive “red states”, less because they are desperate to be in pro-choice areas, than general ideological distaste for “moral oppression” and the mentality and culture which produce it.
Progressives like to live with each other, and will go to considerable lengths to do so. I wish Hard Rightists would start behaving similarly (actually they are, so let me say accelerate doing so). The more ideo-geographically divided the nation, the better our shot at the Ethnostate (not to mention saving basic civilized living itself).
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment