"Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.
“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”"
This reminds me of an essay I recently read which examined disparate impact in the context of medicine, including abortion (note that I'm not saying I agree with this perspective): https://geraldrogue.substack.com/p/medicalization-and-colonization?s=r As well as a white liberal-led system of cultural control, in other words the "successor ideology", though the author doesn't use that term.
(ctrl-F to the section starting "This process of medicalization, and its implementation here in the form of disproportionate racial culling, is naturally intrinsically related to the eugenics movement.")
The framing here makes no sense to me. I’m not “disenfranchised” in my inability to vote on the Bolivian healthcare system, or Japanese transit, or Australian aboriginal rights. I have opinions about these issues, but I’m not a stakeholder, so my enfranchisement isn’t in question.
Similarly, I’m not an American woman.
Why would I expect a vote on an issue that only effects American women? Is the interviewee advocating that we put this issue to a vote by American women, and see how that shakes out?
Disappointed with this interviewee. Right off the bat, he tells a misleading story about the Mississippi law banning abortions past 16 weeks. My understanding is that this law was not a reflection of the “moral intuition” of the lawmakers, but was crafted to test Roe V Wade in court. Indeed, I believe MS has a “trigger law” that will outright ban abortion if Roe is overturned.
Also, I do not find it a “startling fact” that many providers only do first trimester abortions. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. In addition to being rare, second term abortions are often medically complicated and require expertise that many providers don’t have. It’s common to have referral centers for more complex and rare procedures of all kinds. This seems to be a more likely explanation, but the interviewee seemed eager to put words in providers mouths to support the notion that only 1/2 of clinics provide second term abortions because providers refuse to do them, again due to “moral intuition.” Hmmm
Hopefully Wesley asked some probing questions. I didn’t make it past 10 mins b/c I felt like I was being bullshitted and it’s hard to learn anything from a bullshitter.
While I don't agree with Shields' perspective here, I'm glad you interviewed him so listeners can hear from different points of view.
What's interesting is the majority invoking the rationale of racial bias, which is an argument many black conservatives have been making (including Clarence Thomas). From the original Politico article (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473), quoting from page 30 of the PDF:
"Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.
“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”"
This reminds me of an essay I recently read which examined disparate impact in the context of medicine, including abortion (note that I'm not saying I agree with this perspective): https://geraldrogue.substack.com/p/medicalization-and-colonization?s=r As well as a white liberal-led system of cultural control, in other words the "successor ideology", though the author doesn't use that term.
(ctrl-F to the section starting "This process of medicalization, and its implementation here in the form of disproportionate racial culling, is naturally intrinsically related to the eugenics movement.")
The framing here makes no sense to me. I’m not “disenfranchised” in my inability to vote on the Bolivian healthcare system, or Japanese transit, or Australian aboriginal rights. I have opinions about these issues, but I’m not a stakeholder, so my enfranchisement isn’t in question.
Similarly, I’m not an American woman.
Why would I expect a vote on an issue that only effects American women? Is the interviewee advocating that we put this issue to a vote by American women, and see how that shakes out?
Disappointed with this interviewee. Right off the bat, he tells a misleading story about the Mississippi law banning abortions past 16 weeks. My understanding is that this law was not a reflection of the “moral intuition” of the lawmakers, but was crafted to test Roe V Wade in court. Indeed, I believe MS has a “trigger law” that will outright ban abortion if Roe is overturned.
Also, I do not find it a “startling fact” that many providers only do first trimester abortions. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. In addition to being rare, second term abortions are often medically complicated and require expertise that many providers don’t have. It’s common to have referral centers for more complex and rare procedures of all kinds. This seems to be a more likely explanation, but the interviewee seemed eager to put words in providers mouths to support the notion that only 1/2 of clinics provide second term abortions because providers refuse to do them, again due to “moral intuition.” Hmmm
Hopefully Wesley asked some probing questions. I didn’t make it past 10 mins b/c I felt like I was being bullshitted and it’s hard to learn anything from a bullshitter.
Any chance you'll put these on a podcast app/feed for paid subscribers?