Basically, have the anti-abortion movement be weaker in the U.S. and have anti-abortion views be less common among the American population. Bonus points if this happens AND the Roe v. Wade case is decided as it was in OTL.
Weaker Anti-Abortion Movement in the US
- Thread starter alchemist223
- Start date
Either (1) Evangelicals (and other conservative Protestants) don't make common cause with conservative Catholics over the issue of abortion.
Or (2) the religious right never gets into bed with the Republican Party (or alternatively with the Democratic Party)/never becomes a big enough caucus for either party to really bother pandering to.
Or (2) the religious right never gets into bed with the Republican Party (or alternatively with the Democratic Party)/never becomes a big enough caucus for either party to really bother pandering to.
The irony is as I understand it is that for the first few years after RvW the Evangelicals and other protestant denominations in the US supported the decision.
I think someone here on this site noted the union was a result of like private school segregation or something back with President Carter and that if a GOP president did it (and probably would), it’d likely butterfly away the union.
Regarding religious reactionaryism, it could be that it ends up not political viable or undergoes its own schisms for one reason or another.
This is just self-serving balderdash. Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and Conservative religious figures of every denomination are obviously going to see each other as natural allies and support eachother's causes once sectarian feelings fade not withstanding actual religious conviction. This isn't Northern Ireland and it isn't the 1630s. If there is a weaker "anti-abortion" movement, its almost certainly because the issue hasn't come up, which means the United States is poorer and in such a state people are more concerned with basic necessities such as, "can I afford to not starve" or "how can I browbeat my business class to industrialize the country faster" than anything like a modern culture war.
Last edited:
Roe V. Wade's ruling is just as sweeping as OTL but is simply based on the 10th amendment instead of creating what's percieved to be a new "right". This means there's no reason for libertarians or more constitutionally-minded/small government conservatives to back the social conservatives. This means weaker anti-abortion movement in blue/purple states along with making remaining antichoice people a ibt more open to compromise.
Something socio-cultural so that they are indeed safe, legal, and rare, the last part included.
America's abortion rate per 1,000 women is twice that of the Netherlands or Italy.
America's abortion rate per 1,000 women is twice that of the Netherlands or Italy.
OTL is if anything a wank for the movement because of how uh badly timed Roe V. Wade was. Move it 5 or 10 years to have many areas allowing at least early on and you'd have a much weaker antichoice movement.
Which is no doubt due the US's poor track-record in sex-ed in high-schools.
Honestly, the easiest way is to have Ford beat Carter—remember, Carter was supported by many evangelical conservatives in 1976 who voted for Reagan 4 years later. The Ford wing of the GOP—more moderate, including on abortion—would likely have been predominant, particularly if Reagan loses badly to a Democrat in 1980, which is very possible. Let’s say you get Ford as POTUS from 74-81 followed by a Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown from 81-89; the conservative wing of the GOP is likely to be discredited, and the socially conservative Democrats won’t have national appeal.
The Irish Taoiseach was railroaded recently by a bunch of American based bloggers and news sites.
He made a comment saying the he wished there would be less abortions while in an interview about potential steps reducing barriers to abortion (in patricular there is an investigation about removing a 3 day waiting period for abortion).
The American right criticised him for lying (talking about want less abortion while talking about making abortion easier) while the American left criticised him for wanting less abortions as abortions are every woman's right.
I think everyone on all sides of debate should agree that less abortions are a good thing but the talking heads always find something to criticise.
If everyone would step back and admit that less abortion is a good thing it would be appreciated.
If they want less abortions then better and affordable access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex-ed is needed.
The thing is, comprehensive sex ed means it'd be harder for various Established Authority Figures to literally groom kids since having real sex ed means these kids could go "wait a second". Not singling out any specific religious or ideological group, just pointing out a common factor in places that lack sex ed or have it be uh lacking.
Partially that, though abortion rates do not strongly correlate on progressive-conservative state lines so school curriculum isn't the sole determinate by any means.
Another factor is the excessively casual attitudes towards sex that are also prevalent in America. The whole "condoms are lame and consequences are for people who aren't me" sort of mindset.
Last edited:
Don't have the evangelical schools tax exempt status taken away because of their segregationist policies and the evangelical movement doesn't jump on the abortion issue. That or move the timing of it later so they jump on gay rights instead, while being weaker because their reactionary positions are too well known. Alternately have the FBI go hard after the pro life movement after 93 when they started to openly use violence, having the leaders of the movement arrested for incitement to violence and conspiracy to commit terrorism might have a chilling effect, especially if they can't use the lone wolf defense and argue that their movement in inherently peaceful. Having the makers of the silent scream all convicted for fraud would be a good thing, alternately having Bernard Nathanson stripped of his medical license for malpractice might work. Another way would be having Norma McCorvey convicted for tax fraud because she didn't declare the income she received to become an anti abortion activist. Another avenue to explore would be Mildred Jefferson being successfully sued for libel, slander, and violating the constitutional rights of Kenneth Edelin for her participation in his 1975 trial, as well as being stripped of her medical license.
What if Ford is the one who takes away their tax exemption after winning 1976?
Honestly the party which does it doesn't really matter. It was a combination of the loss of income, cynical political manipulation by the leadership, and needing a rallying cry now that their old one was thoroughly dead. They adopted a catholic issue they had been on the other side of and ran with it, (cynically i tend to think of them running off to the bank with it but thats just my opinion not a fact) for the political milage they could get out of it. If Ford is the one who shuts them down its not going to matter that much, the pacs and leadership are going to still rent seek for political power and probably end up in the republican coalition, because they have the most to offer there. The democrats are too diverse, and their new coalition is going to parts that are virulently against know segregationists as well as parts which despise their new stance, Nixon's southern strategy having an effect, which means less political power is available. The republicans on the other hand needed a populist plank in their platform, and so would be end up being more accommodating.
I mean, proper sex ed would be supposed to contest that attitude.