Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Women's Rights & Issues
Related: About this forumThe Horrifying Implications of Alito's Most Alarming Footnote
A domestic supply of infants is exactly what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to abolish.
One of the most arresting lines in Justice Samuel Alitos 98-page draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade is a footnote that didnt really surface until the weekend. A throwaway footnote on page 34 of the draft cites data from the CDC showing that in 2002, nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children, whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent. In response to the outrage and some misinformation, the conservative legal industrial complex went to great lengths to downplay it as a trivial footnote in a draft opinion; that Alito was citing the CDC and not himself; and that the note appears in a roundup of people are saying type arguments against abortion.
True. But the footnote reflects something profoundly wrong with the new ethos of care arguments advanced by Republicans who want to emphasize compassion instead of cruelty after the Dobbs fallout. Footnote 46, quantifying the supply/demand mismatch of babies, follows directly on another footnote in the opinion approvingly citing the logic raised at oral argument in December by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who mused that there is no meaningful hardship in conscripting women to remain pregnant and deliver babies in 2022 because safe haven laws allow them to drop those unwanted babies off at the fire station for other parents to adopt.
Second only to the creeping chatter of state birth control bans, the speedy pivot to celebrating forced birth and adoption is chilling. Its chilling not just because it discounts the extortionate emotional and financial costs of childbirth and the increased medical risks of forced childbirth. Its chilling because it lifts us out of a discussion about privacy and bodily autonomy and into a regime in which babies are a commodity and pregnant people are vessels in which to incubate them. If this sounds like a familiar, albeit noxious, economic concept its because it is.
The economics of chattel slavery itself reflects a long sordid history of using womens bodies to incubate babies for the benefit of others, and its no exaggeration to say that the Fourteenth Amendments guarantees of substantive due process much derided by Republicans and Alito was an effort to put an end that practice. References to safe havens and the depleted domestic supply of adoptable babies are terrifying because this is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment sought to curtail.
True. But the footnote reflects something profoundly wrong with the new ethos of care arguments advanced by Republicans who want to emphasize compassion instead of cruelty after the Dobbs fallout. Footnote 46, quantifying the supply/demand mismatch of babies, follows directly on another footnote in the opinion approvingly citing the logic raised at oral argument in December by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who mused that there is no meaningful hardship in conscripting women to remain pregnant and deliver babies in 2022 because safe haven laws allow them to drop those unwanted babies off at the fire station for other parents to adopt.
Second only to the creeping chatter of state birth control bans, the speedy pivot to celebrating forced birth and adoption is chilling. Its chilling not just because it discounts the extortionate emotional and financial costs of childbirth and the increased medical risks of forced childbirth. Its chilling because it lifts us out of a discussion about privacy and bodily autonomy and into a regime in which babies are a commodity and pregnant people are vessels in which to incubate them. If this sounds like a familiar, albeit noxious, economic concept its because it is.
The economics of chattel slavery itself reflects a long sordid history of using womens bodies to incubate babies for the benefit of others, and its no exaggeration to say that the Fourteenth Amendments guarantees of substantive due process much derided by Republicans and Alito was an effort to put an end that practice. References to safe havens and the depleted domestic supply of adoptable babies are terrifying because this is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment sought to curtail.
Read the rest here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/the-alarming-implications-of-alitos-domestic-supply-of-infants-footnote.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1082 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Horrifying Implications of Alito's Most Alarming Footnote (Original Post)
ShazzieB
May 2022
OP
niyad
(119,939 posts)1. Horrifying indeed. And yet, the brain-washed, and the totally deluded, will just go
on agreeing with willingly accepting their chains, thinking that those chains are meant fir others.
underpants
(186,668 posts)2. This thing is like a wild manifesto
He also cited a judge from the 13th century.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016322266