I forgot to say that the thread is based on this article:

"Since the Roe ruling a gynecology clinic in Texas says it has received increased requests for permanent sterilization: 'I sense that they're scared' "

https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-health-clinic-has-increased-requests-for-permanent-sterilization-abortion-2022-6?utm_source=reddit.com

Excerpts:

"After the Women's Health Domain closed Friday evening for the weekend, it received 109 new patient requests, most of which were requesting tubal ligation, or permanent sterilization.

"...Handcock said most requests for tubal ligation were from people in their 20s. Before Friday, he said it was typical for the clinic to receive one to two requests related to this procedure a week..."

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 11:33:20 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-4, Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>
> > Anti-abortionists try to paint abortion rights as racist,
> > because black embryos are likelier to be aborted...of course
> > that means more black women WANT and would be DENIED abortions,
> > and those making the denials are the racists.

> THANK you.
>
> In 2018, at Amy Alkon's now-defunct blog, I posted a link to a Margery Eagan column that mentioned the long anti-abortion standing of white supremacists. (Of course, that doesn't mean the converse is true - and yes, there are plenty of nonwhite anti-abortionists.) Title:
> "Race, not abortion, was the founding issue of the religious right."
>
> You can read the column here:
>
> https://www.proquest.com/bostonglobe/docview/1994037324/C4B77203A7344F0APQ/1?accountid=38363
>
> At least one person thought it was ludicrous to suggest that such people would be anti-abortion - he said something like: "that would be advocating for more black babies!"
>
> Well, first of all, since when are white supremacists in favor of women's rights in general, duh?
>
> And opposing abortion is a great way for politicians to keep poor people poor and easier to control. So white supremacists had to choose between:
>
> 1. allowing black families to become more affluent due to family planning
>
> 2. forcing white families, even poor ones, to have more babies.
>
> I think it's clear why #1 would not be considered acceptable - and why #2 would be considered no big deal.

And I recently found another puzzle piece that would make a lot of sense.

Remember what Rep. Mary Miller said to Trump last month, re the overturn of Roe v. Wade?

“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday."

The following is by columnist Renée Graham, who, for what it's worth, is black and probably over 60 by now.

https://www.proquest.com/bostonglobe/docview/2681657888/E9EF8702B0074528PQ/3?accountid=38363

Near the end:

"Nearly half of Republicans believe at least in part that white people are being intentionally replaced by immigrants. Call it white nationalism, white evangelical Christian theocracy, or plain old white supremacy. But whatever you call it, call it out in no uncertain terms."

(Also, check out, in the column, what Lindsey Graham said years ago - and Matt Schlapp, last month.)

So...IF overturning RvW results in a rise in the birth rate of ALL people living in the U.S., that would give conservatives an excuse to turn legal immigrants away. On the assumption that immigrants are heavily non-white, that would slow down the shrinking of the white percentage in the U.S.

More on that:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

But since a black woman in the U.S. was far more likely to seek an abortion than a white woman, the black population will continue to rise faster in the post-Roe years.

(Which will be another excuse for conservatives to go after almost ANY form of contraception, next!)

Anyway, keeping out non-white immigrants would be another reason for white supremacists to oppose abortion.

Obergefell weakened Loving,overturning Obergefell should strengthen Loving;
but hands off Griswold!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

>
> Bryan said:
> > Of course that would piss off the anti-choicers because
> > they are less about pro-life than about female
> > promiscuity,
>
> I kind of doubt that.
>
> (Mind you, I REALLY hate to say that.)
>
> The reason I'm saying it is that, again, in highly conservative/religious communities, young men and women alike who refuse to find mates AND refuse to become religious or conservative missionaries, tend to get treated very badly even if they don't HAVE sex lives. (Unfortunately, liberals aren't too kind to heterosexual men who refuse to get married either. Liberals tend to forget that if women have the right to stay single and childfree, so do men.)
>
> What's more, if a man and a woman are both over 60 and having a premarital (not adulterous) affair, unless they're well-known as pillars of their church, are the conservative church leaders really likely to "out" them as sinners?
>
> Most of the time, I suspect, the leaders don't really care about those couples. What they ARE opposed to is young people taking control of their own futures by not having babies, whether through abortion, birth control or celibacy.

> Childfree singles often have more money - and they vote. Many people see childfree WOMEN, with their political power, as more terrifying than childfree men - but who knows why. Both have the power to change society greatly, as the childfree Ralph Nader did. (As anyone knows, he's had no shortage of enemies in Big Business.)

Regarding that second-to-last paragraph, I just found this recent article.

"The Childfree are Ungovernable: Why the capitalist ruling class wants you to have as many children as possible."

https://beneaththepavement.substack.com/p/the-childfree-are-ungovernable-capitalism
(it's shortish)

The only quibble I have is with this:

"In short: children — not growing older, as is usually stated — make you more conservative."

Not exactly. Ask any teacher who's ever been blamed for a lazy student's bad grades.