Abortion and the Pottery Barn Rule

"You break it. You own it."


This was 1992, the Supreme Court in in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

     "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives … people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

That was then. 

The draft opinion by Samuel Alito does more than reverse Roe v. Wade. It also assumes an opposite economic and social consequences of an unplanned pregnancy on women. "Modern developments," he wrote, address the problems that formerly put women at disadvantage. His opinion stated that women have protections against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, they have "guaranteed" medical leave, and, at least "in many cases," medical care "covered by insurance or government assistance." In oral arguments Amy Coney Barrett posited that "safe haven" laws allowed women to drop off babies after birth, no questions asked, thus ending the burden of care for a child. 

The Mississippi brief in the case under consideration argues that the protections for women “facilitate the ability of women to pursue both career success and a rich family life.” That is the presumption of the Alito brief. After all, America is pro-life. This country takes care of the vulnerable.

If only.

In a different world, this would be a golden opportunity of pro-safety-net Democrats to make the case for more robust protections for the poor and vulnerable.  In that world, the disruption an abortion ban causes the lives of women would create a moral urgency to legislators. You broke it, you own it. A state won't let a woman manage her own reproductive decisions, so the state should do the honorable thing and own up to the pregnancy and its repercussions. The notion of a glorious new supply of abandoned babies eager to be snapped up is a fantasy. Ninety percent of  women who carry a pregnancy to term keep the baby to raise. They have bonded. The Washington Post, citing the U.S. Children's Bureau and Science Direct, reported:

 Every year, there are about 18,000 domestic infant adoptions and about 900,000 abortions. Over the course of their reproductive lives, less than 1 percent of American women will ever relinquish an infant for adoption, whereas around 25 percent will have an abortion. 

Alito's opinion is correct in noting that things have changed in America over the past 50 years, but he is wrong about what changed. It is not that the safety net for poor pregnant women and their babies became so robust. Red-state anti-abortion legislatures do America's worst job of providing a safety net for the poor. They have the highest infant and maternal mortality rates. They have the lowest minimum wage floors.

What changed is the educational and financial role of women. Sixty years ago Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique observed "a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning (that is, a longing) that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States." Women were more generally defined then primarily as adjuncts to men, as child-bearers, not as full-fledged humans with independent lives and careers. Government documents described "head of household" and that was the male. That changed. Women are 60% of matriculated students in higher education. The participation rate of women in the workforce is the same as of men. Fifty years ago American women had three children on average. Now it is 1.7 children. Contraception made that possible. Abortion is a safety net. Women now can control their own reproduction.

Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testified in Senate hearings this week. She said, "One aspect of a satisfying life is being able to feel you have the financial resources to raise a child." She said,

Roe v. Wade and access to reproductive health care, including abortion, helped lead to increased labor force participation. It enabled many women to finish school. That increased their earning potential. It allowed women to plan and balance their families and careers. What we are talking about is whether or not women will have the ability to regulate their reproductive situation in ways that will enable them to plan lives that are fulfilling and satisfying for them.

She is getting criticism for this from conservative South Carolina senator Tim Scott as well as from conservative media. How disgusting that she would mention mere money when precious lives are at stake. But finances are involved, and Justice Alito's opinion notes that. Women terminate a pregnancy for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that they know they simply could not manage another child. They are taking responsibility.

It isn't like the government is going to step in and support her.

[Note: to subscribe to this blog and get it daily in your inbox, go to https://petersage.substack.com The blog is free and always will be.]