I thought this over a year ago, when the Dobbs decision was first leaked, before it was announced by the Supreme Court. Yesterday, I came across a widely diverse piece in the LINK>Politico Magazine Friday Read where “Thinkers from across the political spectrum reckon with the dramatic and unpredictable ways the country has already changed since the historic Supreme Court decision.” They titled their piece – ‘I Underestimated the Depth of Outrage’: A Year in Post-Roe America.

One piece written by Robin Marty, author of The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America, reads – “. . . the Christian conservative activists and politicians behind our total abortion ban abandoned their pretext that this was ever about anything other than making babies for their families to raise.” It occurs to me that with dwindling numbers of people going to brick and mortar churches, taking the babies of “heathens” (woman who did not remain chaste and conceive in marriage) and indoctrinating them in the faith is one way to increase their numbers.

She notes “. . . we have not seen one single public policy introduced that would help a person avoid pregnancy — no subsidizing of affordable, accessible contraception, no expansion of Medicaid for pregnancy prevention or earlier prenatal care, no additional funding for hospitals, clinics or other medical centers that are feeling the burden of additional pregnant patients needing services.”

“Instead, we saw a Legislature that created more subsidies for adoption and fostering — despite the fact that the foster care system is already underwater. The Legislature couldn’t even muster enough support among themselves to pass tax breaks for the predominantly Christian crisis pregnancy centers that are allegedly supporting mothers during pregnancy. We passed death certificates for stillbirths and “baby boxes” for abandoning newborns (now up to 45 days post-birth instead of just three). We saw an attorney general who argued that pregnant people could be jailed for taking abortion pills — who was then forced to walk back his words. We saw a lawmaker try to codify that same threat into law before his colleagues killed his bill in committee.”

She asks – What (do) the conservatives really want out of an “abortion-free” nation ? It is a place where people are forced into pregnancy, where their personal health and liberty has no relevance, and where the ideal outcome is a live infant by whatever costs. After all, they have plenty of “good” Christian families to raise them.

blogger’s note – I wonder what the real outcome will be ? – more single, unwed, mothers are choosing to keep and parent their own babies. There will be more children raised in poverty and more stressed out mothers trying their best to provide for their families. Maybe the “extra” number of babies they actually get out of this will be less than they thought there would be.

Another one, Abby M. McCloskey (who is a Republican) admits – “I have been disappointed that the rollback of abortion rights in red states — like mine, Texas — hasn’t been met with more robust financial support and protection for mothers and children. I understand that more government support is a turnoff for conservatives, especially in our fiscal environment. But in this case, I believe it’s the wrong place to draw a red line. As someone who values life and believes in the importance of strong families, it is a logical extension of the pro-life argument to protect and value life at all of its stages.”

She notes – One basic way to improve support for families is to provide a baseline level of wage support and job protection if a parent chooses to take time off of work to care for their baby, (which we know is associated with better outcomes for both parents and kids). Lack of job protection and financial insecurity are the leading reasons why (more parents don’t take time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child); few low-wage or hourly employees have paid family leave options from their employers.

She adds that she will be looking with great interest at what GOP presidential candidates propose this next cycle to support families, especially for the women impacted by the end of Roe.

blogger’s note – Of course, if people who can afford to pay for adoptions end up with the “extra” babies, the actual genetic, biological parents won’t need to the government to help them fund the raising of their own children. There are many more points of view in the Politico article at the link above.