Commentary: Are conservatives ready for the results of forcing women to give birth?

So now what.

For nearly 50 years conservatives have used abortion as a driving force in their campaign platforms. The “right to life” groups have used tactics ranging from second rate movies to protests to bombings to foment outrage over a woman’s right to choose. This wedge issue has served conservatives well and the outrage it generated, along with some notable perjury, landed them six seats on the nation’s highest court. Those six justice’s just overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.

In other words, the dog just caught the car.

A litany of states had previously passed “trigger laws” that made abortion illegal the moment Roe was overturned, and more have bills charging forward to outlaw the medical procedure as quickly as possible. In some states there will be no exceptions for rape or incest. In some there will be no exceptions for the health of the mother.

In a very literal sense, many women will be forced to give birth.

And then what.

In recent days conservatives have made many a statement about “consequences.” The consequences of having unprotected sex, or premarital sex. The consequences of what repealing Roe might mean for businesses, for the midterm elections. Privacy and medical freedom. Statements about the consequences of California becoming a haven for women seeking abortions. Conservatives have talked quite a bit about “personal responsibility.”

What I haven’t seen a lot of from conservatives are statements about the consequences of forcing women to give birth. About the consequences of having more children born to children. Of having more children born into poverty. Of children being born into broken homes or being born with birth defects. Of more women dying because of medical complications from pregnancies.

What I haven’t seen are statements from conservatives about their personal responsibility in fixing these issues.

According to the nonprofit Children’s Rights there are 424,000 children in foster care on any given day in this country. That’s slightly more than the total population of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a state with some of the most restrictive abortion legislation. That number, almost by definition, will rise because of this ruling.

How will conservatives address this?

How will conservatives address the rise in child poverty?

How will conservatives address the rise in maternal mortality, a subject that the head of Right to Life of Central California was all too eager to chastise California about in these very pages, while conveniently forgetting that conservatives are the reason the social safety net is always under fire.

Will they provide for the child care?

Will they allow changes in who can adopt? Would they, for example, allow 13-, or 15-, or 19-year-old, unmarried women to adopt children? Currently, were someone of that demographic to apply for adoption, they would be turned down. Were that same person to become pregnant … even as the result of rape or incest … in several states they would be forced to carry to term.

Will conservatives allow fetuses to be claimed as dependents on taxes?

Will they force fathers to pay child support beginning at conception?

Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated he believes the precedents around same-sex marriage and even birth control should be revisited in the same way Roe v. Wade was taken up. Those same precedents are the ones that paved the way for interracial marriage.

Will Justice Thomas, who is himself in an interracial marriage, take personal responsibility and invalidate his own marriage?

It’s a funny thing about consequences and personal responsibility. They apply to everyone; at least they should.

So, what are conservatives responsible for now?

Noha Elbaz of Clovis is a college administrator. Email: noha.elbaz1@gmail.com.