Based on a previous thread about a weaker pro-life movement, I'm making one about a weaker pro-choice movement. Basically, how do we get Americans to generally oppose abortion rights? I know this is pretty hard post-creation of the pill, so bonus points if you can make abortion as restricted in the entirety of the US as in Poland, more bonus points if you can make a Human Life Amendment, enshrining that life begins at conception, pass.
AHC: Weaker Pro-Abortion Movement in the US
- Thread starter Nelson Mikeson
- Start date
This is OTL, lol.
The antichoicers have kept rolling 6s since 1973 and prochoicers have been WAY too cautious given public opinion broadly being on their side. If you want "OTL but worse", move Roe to 1968 or even 1965 as a replacement for Griswold.
The antichoicers have kept rolling 6s since 1973 and prochoicers have been WAY too cautious given public opinion broadly being on their side. If you want "OTL but worse", move Roe to 1968 or even 1965 as a replacement for Griswold.
I meant pro-abortion voices being more limited and having less popular support, as well as a Human Life Constitutional Amendment and popular support for abortion restrictions.
No Roe-V. -Wade. Bob Casey and his wing get speaking time at the 1992 DNC. Jimmy Carter keeps closer ties with the Evangelical Right, leading to both sides of the debates in both parties. Stronger Northeastern Republicans on a federal level. Stronger Western and Southern Dems.
If you want as powerful of an antichoice movement as OTL you'd need to have OTL's combination of abortion legalization by the SC hapening 5-10 years too early and a democrat party that decided to try appealing to suburban conservatives in the 80s to 00s by "moderating" on it. Making it MORE powerful? Like I said earlier you can boost it by moving *Roe to 1965/1968 but those would be relatively marginal boosts. Sure, you'd get a stronger Backlash but that just means the roe-equivelant goes away in the 2010s and by now the antichoice movement would be dealnig with fallout of having to lvie with it.
If you want a more viable anti-abortion movement? Maybe have Reagan not nominate originalists. This means Roe is kept intact with Casey with Dobbs getting a Casey-style outcome. Essentially you'd have the pre-2022 situation of OTL but strenghened a bit as more cynical cons/moderates figure they wouldn't actually have to live with it. Also, you'd have significantly less pressure to encourage prochoice politicians with it being under a bit less danger. This wouild get you a louder, more visible anti-abortion movement. This would get you a boost of 5-10 points to antichoice numbers in polls with LARPier reps probably talking about a "human life" amendment even if that uh goesnowhere.
kholieken
Banned
Pro-choice movement is deeply connected with feminism and women rights, so American that hostile to woman would qualify. Perhaps US with mandatory conscription that tied to votes ?? POD could be semi-failure of 1776 rebellion, causing prolonged struggle between british and american ?
Ironically? Follow old RBG's wished upin path:
Roe v. Wade isn't ruled on, or is ruled the other direction. Abortion remains at the state level.
The US - with the proliferation of both the ultrasound, cheap birth control and maybe a few other advances, Abortion in the US settles where it did in Europe.
Outright bans on anything past week 12-16, and anything before needs to be approved either out of medical nessesity or after psychological counseling and speaking with social workers.
Roe v. Wade isn't ruled on, or is ruled the other direction. Abortion remains at the state level.
The US - with the proliferation of both the ultrasound, cheap birth control and maybe a few other advances, Abortion in the US settles where it did in Europe.
Outright bans on anything past week 12-16, and anything before needs to be approved either out of medical nessesity or after psychological counseling and speaking with social workers.
Prevent medical practices and technology from evolving, leading abortions to be risky and deadly for women. This would create outrage and lead to popular support for banning the procedure.
Too early POD, the earliest POD must be after the popularization of the pill.
No current politicians involved, I want to focus on historical trends that would take their full shape in the '90s at most.
Going for a bit of an unorthodox position; retain the New Deal Coalition, and have it end up subsuming the Evangelical movement instead of the GOP, leading to a more conservative but still economically center-left/populist Democratic Party that's heavily influenced by Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism.
I would wager that most Americans - let's say 80% - really don't care one way or the other about abortion as an issue, and only really have opinions on it because it's become a proxy war between the two parties. Therefore, I would guess that many, if not most, Democrats vote for that party not due to their support for abortion, but rather because they have traditionally been perceived as the party of the working class in opposition to the Republicans, who have been perceived as the party of the business elite. If the Democrats were pro-life and the Republicans were pro-choice, I suspect that support for abortion would become tainted as something associated with the interests of the elite, especially if they lean more into economic considerations for abortion, whereas the Democrats would be viewed as the party for working families, not only working to restrict abortion but also ensuring that Americans have the means to support families. In more recent years, this dynamic could even lead to opposition to abortion being considered a major cause for social justice, with this already being an OTL talking point among pro-life Democrats and various Christian democratic movements. This more populist move could in turn give the pro-life movement even more of a boost than IOTL, and potentially even lead to legislation like a Human Life Amendment being passed.
I would wager that most Americans - let's say 80% - really don't care one way or the other about abortion as an issue, and only really have opinions on it because it's become a proxy war between the two parties. Therefore, I would guess that many, if not most, Democrats vote for that party not due to their support for abortion, but rather because they have traditionally been perceived as the party of the working class in opposition to the Republicans, who have been perceived as the party of the business elite. If the Democrats were pro-life and the Republicans were pro-choice, I suspect that support for abortion would become tainted as something associated with the interests of the elite, especially if they lean more into economic considerations for abortion, whereas the Democrats would be viewed as the party for working families, not only working to restrict abortion but also ensuring that Americans have the means to support families. In more recent years, this dynamic could even lead to opposition to abortion being considered a major cause for social justice, with this already being an OTL talking point among pro-life Democrats and various Christian democratic movements. This more populist move could in turn give the pro-life movement even more of a boost than IOTL, and potentially even lead to legislation like a Human Life Amendment being passed.
iddt3
Donor
That's an interesting idea, limiting abortion might be more sustainable with a stronger social safety net. We've seen some vague impulses in that direction from the GOP, but it's impaired by the general lack of anything resembling a coherent ideology over there now.
The biggest problem with that sort of ideology developing in the GOP is the coalition between conservatives and libertarians, with the latter preventing much economic interventionism from taking hold in right-wing circles. If you can get the right to eschew the libertarians and big business in favor of a more Christian democratic or national conservative platform (i.e. Poland or Hungary) then you might be able to get a similar result for the pro-life movement as restrictions on abortion are paired with other pro-natalist policies, but it also depends on just how extensive of a welfare state this alternate GOP would be willing to embrace, as well as a suitable POD for the Republicans to develop in such a direction.
The problem with the GOP kicking out the libertarians and big business is that there'd be no segment of the elite left to serve as their patrons, though that's a conversation that belongs in PolChat.
Maybe if noblesse oblige became popular with the elite, pushing them toward a more high tory/one-nation tory stance rather than libertarianism? No idea how to achieve that though.
Yeah, they could have a similar evolution to the Canadian and British Torries. Both have strong libertarian factions, but are generally lead by one-nation moderates.
Inflammatory language aside, the Supreme Court creating some of the most expansive abortion rights on Earth at a time when the vast majority opposed it is not rolling a 6, lol.
Given that
1) 50%+ of the US population are women
2) US is a federal state, where abortion (as well as healthcare etc) is decided on state level
3) abortion already was on the way to become legalised (4 states had unconditional abortion, 13 if the womans health was in danger, rape/incest or if the foetus was damaged - only one state forbade abortion)
the challenge above is extremly difficult to make. Women does want a second possibility - which was shown in the US midterm elections 2022 and the Kansas referendum. In both cases a lot of publicly pro-life women must have voted pro-choice, and they would have voted similarly in state elections 1974 onwards.
Also, the counterculture/post Watergate distrust of public figures would have played a part. All these PRO-LIFE (sorry, total mistake) men that before Roe vs Wade paid to give their wifes/mistresses/daughters (more or less legal) abortions would have been revealed, damaging the pro-life movement.
Poland is a totally different context. Unless the US by 1820 was divided by Mexico, Canada and Russia the comparison is defect.
Last edited:
Maybe something like banned abortion and contraception covered by the health insurance?
iddt3
Donor
You need to cover the consequences as well, no contraception is 100%, and people make mistakes.