There is one thing I believe in in politics, and it's something not a lot of people really pay attention to, but always ends up being very important. I believed, for example, that Russia's invasion of Ukraine would galvanize NATO (which it did), and, I believe, with the impending reversal of Roe v Wade, that there will be unintended consequences of outlawing abortion.
I am extremely pro-abortion, for reasons that go above and beyond that the government must not litigate what happens inside a person's body, and that a woman does not exist merely at the pleasure of the state. Those arguments are good, but there are also severe and widespread consequences for society when abortion is outlawed.
Most people will look to Gilead in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale as an example of what is bearing down upon us in the United States right now, and, while that is very accurate, there is yet an example from fairly recent history that can be drawn upon.
In 1966, the Soviet-era dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu (pronounced, according to Wikipedia, "chow-Shesk-oo") wanted to increase the birth rate in his country, so he banned both abortion and birth control (something which Republicans in states they control are considering). Yeah, it worked for a little while....until it didn't. By December, 1989 (when he was violently overthrown), there were tens of thousands, by official count, of women who had died, and 170,000 malnourished children who were found in abandoned orphanages. What had ensued was a massive humanitarian disaster in which women became terrified of sex amidst a horror of abandonment and death from both childbirth and unsafe abortions.
Right now, as we await the SCOTUS decision (and hope it is also different from Alito's screed), Republican-controlled states are legislating abortion restrictions as fast and hard as possible, almost competing with one another to see who can be the most draconian.
So what might we expect as women are now compelled by law against their will to give birth?
The Washington Post ran an article yesterday about an antiabortion activist who hoped that, with Roe gone, state governments might increase funding for maternity support, childcare, and education. Unfortunately, that's not how this is going to work, as this activist seems to be realizing. Do you remember when, during the pandemic, hospitals were overflowing with COVID patients and nurses were short staffed and the quality of care tanked? This is going to be like that, only with babies. To make matters worse, the states looking to ban abortion, like Mississippi and Alabama, are not among the highest-ranked states for childcare or education, maternity leave policies, or any other kind of social support that these new babies and their mothers might require when mom is denied an abortion (and very possibly prosecuted for trying to get one!). Making matters much worse for the mother, even before she has to worry about financial devastation, is the fact that, in the United States, it is safer to get an abortion than it is to give birth than it is to have an abortion. If you overwhelm hospitals with people who need care, be they women forced by the state to give birth or COVID patients, quality of care is going to decrease as the demand for care increases. Antiabortion states already have significantly poorer healthcare outcomes, and their infrastructure has not recovered from the pandemic.
What is going to happen to all these newborns who overcrowd schools and hospitals? Those lucky enough to end up in orphanages will face neglect and abuse as states cut funding for those programs. Texas, in fact, has child sexual abusers working in its foster care system. All the children who don't end up in orphanages will become street urchins. Oh, and, by the way, what's happening with all the COVID orphans? Has anyone checked on them lately?
What happens to mom? Women will be systematically pushed out of the workforce as they are forced to raise children. Childcare will be impossible to find. Pushing women out of the workforce might be the true goal of these policies, as the Right is motivated to restore male supremacy. On the other hand, the pandemic had already pushed many women out of the workforce simply because childcare was no longer available during that time. Another possible goal might be to destroy sexual liberation for women, which is indeed much closer to a theocratic program and one of the major tenets of Margaret Atwood's novel. It also fits in with the laws and declarations proposed by states such as Louisiana and Missouri, which seek to guarantee full personhood at the "moment of fertilization", giving the state the motive to annihilate the rights of a citizen in favor of her ova. [Aside] As some have rightly pointed out, it is strangely still not possible to list an embryo as a dependent on her taxes. Curious.
Sixty percent of Americans believe that Roe v Wade should remain, and, as we are learning since Alito's disaster of an opinion (a Puritan lawyer who condemned women to death for witchcraft in the 17th century is going to be your authority on women's issues? Are you for real? When was the last time your family invited you over for Thanksgiving dinner? It must be more than a decade ago...), the only other fair and equitable solution possible is 100% legalization. The antiabortion states will not be able to prevent women from crossing state lines (though they are trying), and it would be unconscionable to repeat Ceausescu's calamity. Of course, the antiabortion believers insist their right, but how many dead women and neglected children would it take to convince them otherwise? How high does the mountain of corpses need to rise before they relent (and repent)? If our experience with COVID is any indication, the answer will probably be: A lot.
