Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

[Highland Deac]

I think the calculus for most corporations extends beyond employees (who I agree have a big influence) and rests even more with their customer bases. Disney probably more than most consumer brands is going to be inclined to walk a hyper fine line and do it in different ways in different markets as well. What a company sells, to whom and where and with what market share in various locations drives the positions you see them take. A company that sells industrial products to other corporate buyers primarily in geography A generally has a lot less calculus to do than a global consumer product brand like Coca-Cola who has even less calculus to do than a global entertainment brand like Disney.

And those are definitely the two constituencies that drive the vast majority of outside influence on positions companies take on social issues.

That's true, but it seems that the main customer base for most of these large corporations is going to be located in large urban areas that are mostly socially and culturally liberal, and not in rural areas that are less affluent and have fewer young customers who spend the most on their products or services. Also, if GOP legislatures ban not only abortion, but also ban it even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health being in danger, that's something that most polls show at least 80 to 85 percent of Americans don't agree with. Also, on issues like gay rights/gay marriage something like 70% of Americans now support it, and even larger majorities of the under-40 crowd. It would seem like consumer demographics aren't exactly on the side of conservatives on many of these social and cultural issues, especially in the long run.

 

[PhDeac]

DeacMan, Disney World has a specific labor shortage leading to problems throughout the resort due to understaffing. Most of their workforce can just go over to Universal Studios and make a few dollars more an hour. Yes, obviously corporations are worried about their customer base. But you’re contradicting your own points that the public doesn’t want either extreme or silence between extremes on abortion. They want a safe, legal, and accessible abortion through the second trimester and in the third semester in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

 

[DeacMan]

Abortion is a major labor issue (no pun intended). Corporations should have a say about government forcing half their workers to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. Forced pregnancy would result in more time off, more family leave time, and more career disruption.

Even if there isn’t a national ban, corporations face employees needing to travel out of state for what was previously a local outpatient procedure which would require more days off and more disruptions.

Just simple math on abortion demographics debunks this take that corporations will view abortion access as a "major labor issue". For starters, we're talking about an issue that impacts 13 out of every 1000 women. So that's 1.3% of their possible female workforce and around 0.7% of their total possible workforce. Toss in the fact that most women who have an abortion are poor and lack a college degree (which eliminates them from most high profile, difficult to hire jobs) and we're not talking about a population of workers that creates a "major labor issue" at all.

 

[PhDeac]

DeacMan, pregnancy is the issue that impacts corporations, not abortion.

 

[Highland Deac]

DeacMan, pregnancy is the issue that impacts corporations, not abortion.

Not to mention that many states outlawing abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health being in danger is going to impact a lot more than just poor women, or arguing that only "poor women" will care about abortion rights.

 

[PhDeac]

Not to mention that many states outlawing abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health being in danger is going to impact a lot more than just poor women, or arguing that only "poor women" will care about abortion rights.

Maybe DeacMan also has stats that show only the poors use IUDs, Plan B, etc.

 

[DeacMan]

That's true, but it seems that the main customer base for most of these large corporations is going to be located in large urban areas that are mostly socially and culturally liberal, and not in rural areas that are less affluent and have fewer young customers who spend the most on their products or services. Also, if GOP legislatures ban not only abortion, but also ban it even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health being in danger, that's something that most polls show at least 80 to 85 percent of Americans don't agree with. Also, on issues like gay rights/gay marriage something like 70% of Americans now support it, and even larger majorities of the under-40 crowd. It would seem like consumer demographics aren't exactly on the side of conservatives on many of these social and cultural issues, especially in the long run.

I hear you and agree the public absolutely can move some brands - the large, broad consumer facing brands are the ones most apt to be moved. I'm just noting the calculus can differ company to company a bit. Not saying this is the case with the abortion issue, but let's say Company A derives 25% of its revenue from region A of the world and 50% from North America and the cultural import of the issue is way more important in region A than in North America. All that will get baked into their thinking if region A and North America are in very different places on the issue.

 

[DeacMan]

DeacMan, pregnancy is the issue that impacts corporations, not abortion.

You - "ABORTION is a major labor issue".

You about 5 minutes later - "Pregnancy is the issue that impacts corporations, not abortion".

Which is it.

 

[Highland Deac]

I hear you and agree the public absolutely can move some brands - the large, broad consumer facing brands are the ones most apt to be moved. I'm just noting the calculus can differ company to company a bit. Not saying this is the case with the abortion issue, but let's say Company A derives 25% of its revenue from region A of the world and 50% from North America and the cultural import of the issue is way more important in region A than in North America. All that will get baked into their thinking if region A and North America are in very different places on the issue.

Again that's true, but given that some abortion rights are allowed in most nations today (especially more advanced and populous ones) I'm not sure that's going to make that much difference to most corporations.

 

[DeacMan]

Again that's true, but given that some abortion rights are allowed in most nations today (especially more advanced and populous ones) I'm not sure that's going to make that much difference to most corporations.

Agree on the abortion issue looking at the global map of laws - it's a couple years old but I can't imagine there's been any big shift on this. And I suspect in some of these larger nations with restrictive laws (e.g. Brazil) - public opinion may not be aligned with where the law rests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abort...15da237cb380537#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg

 

[PhDeac]

You - "ABORTION is a major labor issue".

You about 5 minutes later - "Pregnancy is the issue that impacts corporations, not abortion".

Which is it.

Without abortion, women are forced into pregnancy and many of the complications that come with it. You’re only citing abortion statistics without understanding that it’s carrying a pregnancy to term which impacts corporations not simply “not abortion.”

Here is my full post explaining how pregnancy impacts corporations.

Abortion is a major labor issue (no pun intended). Corporations should have a say about government forcing half their workers to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. Forced pregnancy would result in more time off, more family leave time, and more career disruption.

Even if there isn’t a national ban, corporations face employees needing to travel out of state for what was previously a local outpatient procedure which would require more days off and more disruptions.

 

[DeacMan]

Thanks for the hyperbolic rhetorical question. Say what you actually mean in the first instance and you can avoid having to pretend you were clear while lashing out that people cannot read your mind. Or is it that you must move the goalposts to avoid having to note you weren't clear in what you intended to say? Regardless your point is still completely vapid as a "major labor issue" (again those are your words). Why? Because the vast majority of women who get pregnant in a given year do not get an abortion for any reason. 2% of pregnancies end in abortion.

Companies are not facing any sort of labor shortage associated with abortions. Companies may elect to speak out on the issue. But it won't be because they're worried about a "major labor issue" arising from the stature of the law.

As for your Disney vs. Universal Studios example, vapid. They'll be subject to the same laws regardless.

And, given so few women have abortions in a given year, the notion companies will have to absorb tons of costs and lost labor time, is also vapid.

The math just isn't there to make your arguments.

 

[PhDeac]

Just because it wasn’t clear to you that I was talking about Highland’s post referencing Disney’s response to “Don’t Say Gay” doesn’t mean it wasn’t clear to everyone else.

Just because it’s not clear to you lack of abortion and forcing women to carry unwanted and difficult pregnancies to term has more of an impact and would be more widespread than just a count of how many people have abortions, doesn’t mean it’s not clear to everyone else. Sometimes I’m appalled how much I have to explain to presumably well-educated knowledgeable people. The short-term and long term ripple effects of a child are far more substantive than the effects of an abortion. An abortion is one woman leaving work after lunch on a Friday. A child is 9 months of potential health complications, doctor’s visits, maternal leave, child care needs, some dude having his wages garnished for child support. Yes, pregnancy impacts corporations more than abortion. I’m just expanding on what I original said and you must not understand.

One more obvious point. Abortions are clearly underreported. So citing abortion statistics as gospel is a really bad tactic.

 

[deaconson]

As mentioned before more than 60% of abortions are women who already have children. This issue also affects men that love the wives, daughters, and mothers in their lives. Very differently to be sure.

Also of note regarding corporations is that there are companies that are now paying benefits for employees that need to travel to access healthcare. This is a small subset of people that are 100% anti abortion and they are absolutely legislating their extreme religious beliefs. Roe was very much bipartisan. This activist court is quite the opposite.

 

[Highland Deac]

As mentioned before more than 60% of abortions are women who already have children. This issue also affects men that love the wives, daughters, and mothers in their lives. Very differently to be sure.

Also of note regarding corporations is that there are companies that are now paying benefits for employees that need to travel to access healthcare. This is a small subset of people that are 100% anti abortion and they are absolutely legislating their extreme religious beliefs. Roe was very much bipartisan. This activist court is quite the opposite.

Yeah, I think one thing some people are missing with overturning Roe is that the Court's original Roe v. Wade decision was done on a 7-2 vote, with both Republican and Democratic justices voting for it. It wasn't a narrowly decided, completely partisan decision like overturning it will be. Not that most conservatives will care, of course.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[wakegrrl]

It's not accurate to say abortion laws were generally what I said. Abortion laws in the US tend to be more liberal in terms of gestational limits than the significant majority of the developed world. And in some states, like Vermont, there are no gestational limits at all. And the pro-life crowd uses these facts to push very hard on Roe and does so in a disingenuous way. They give you the headline but provide none of the nuance. On the flip side the most strident of the pro-choice crowd frames any attack on abortion rights as an assault on women. They don't want to shine a light on the fact that we have abortion laws that are off base with the rest of the developed world precisely bc they've fought very hard to get those laws on the books.

I literally just watched Tapper interview a state Governor and then a Senator on opposite sides of this issue. Neither one framed the discussion to meet the nation where public opinion (which is highly settled rests). The Governor of MS comes from a state with a trigger law that will go into effect automatically and ban almost all abortions if Roe is overturned. He steps up and states abortion laws in the US are out of line with the rest of the developed world. He's largely right. What he of course fails to say is that the trigger law in his state is way out of line with the abortion laws in the developed world (to the other side). It's disingenuous. Then the Senator from MI comes on and again talks in super broad strokes in the other direction in a likewise summary and disingenuous manner. Talks about "codifying" Roe are meaningless unless you discuss what it actually means. The vast majority of Americans don't support laws that allow late term abortions and yet many states have used Roe to create them. Both the GOP and the Dems play to the "base".

There's all this discussion about the "two Americas" when discussing abortion. And yet here we sit with public opinion that has been done a settled for 30 years. You can't get 60+ percent of the public to agree on almost anything. And yet no one when framing this debate does so in a way that reflects actual public opinion. It's insane.

I’m quoting this for later. I have things I want to say in response but dammit, it’s Mother’s Day, I have a cold, and the Canes are losing.

 

[Les Grossman]

Abortions being legal or illegal will have minimal impact on large corporations bottom line, if any at all. Coming out publicly can have a much larger impact. More importantly, though, if employees start protesting or people start demanding action from them, and they acquiesce like in the case of Disney, it only plays right into the GOP’s hands of playing the victim against “woke” politics/corporations.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Abortions being legal or illegal will have minimal impact on large corporations bottom line, if any at all. Coming out publicly can have a much larger impact. More importantly, though, if employees start protesting or people start demanding action from them, and they acquiesce like in the case of Disney, it only plays right into the GOP’s hands of playing the victim against “woke” politics/corporations.

The alternative is that if corporations are silent and do not listen to their employees on issues that are important to them, it’s possible they would lose talent and have trouble recruiting new hires, which would also affect the bottom line.

 

[Les Grossman]

The alternative is that if corporations are silent and do not listen to their employees on issues that are important to them, it’s possible they would lose talent and have trouble recruiting new hires, which would also affect the bottom line.

Oh, I get why Disney did what it did. It was for that exact reason. It certainly wasn’t because they actually cared about the Don’t Say Gay bill. All I’m saying is that I actually think it plays in the Pubs hands. That’s all.