Column: Restart the baby supply chain

Rex Huppke
·3 min read
2
Babies, like the ones pictured here during the Preschool Story Time Peter Cottontail Day event at The Society of the Four Arts, have become a factor in the ongoing debate over the end of Roe v. Wade. .
Babies, like the ones pictured here during the Preschool Story Time Peter Cottontail Day event at The Society of the Four Arts, have become a factor in the ongoing debate over the end of Roe v. Wade. .

Like most wholesome Americans, I’m deeply concerned about our domestic supply of infants. I went shopping for one and couldn’t find a single store that sells them. Clearly, something needs to be done, and it appears the U.S. Supreme Court is on the case.

The recent leaked draft opinion, showing a majority of Supreme Court justices are poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, included a reference to a 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that said, based on data from 2002, “The domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.” Talk about a supply chain issue.

Concern about infant availability clearly factors into the high court’s thinking, particularly when Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she doesn’t see how “pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden” because adoption is an option.

Now I know the folks who disagree with this argument will claim that, as of 2020, there were more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States but that’s just a rumor based on facts from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Have you been at home and had the sudden urge to add another baby to your family, only to realize you can’t just run to the store and pick one up? Of course you have. The Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade may not be good enough to solve the infant supply problem but a number of Republican lawmakers are gearing up to help.

Last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told USA TODAY, “it’s possible” his party would pursue a national ban on abortion, if Roe were overturned.

While I appreciate this forward-thinking step to maximize America’s baby production, more can be done. I’m surprised the deeply moral Republicans angling to erase women’s reproductive rights have been silent on banning online pornography. In an infant-crisis situation, the last thing we need are seeds getting spilled.

It’s equally clear that sex should be banned, unless it’s of the baby-producing variety. This can be done through a simple process of forcing all men to lock their penises in steel boxes. To have sex, a couple would procure a copulation license from the state, at which time a key to the steel box would be released and the couple could then engage in procreative intercourse under the watchful eye of a government-appointed monitor and a small but enthusiastic group of “fertility cheerleaders.”

What other options are there? Continue as we have since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and, rather than taking rights away from women in acts of draconian misogyny, actually find ways to better support mothers and ensure that children have access to the best food, education and medicine available? Hah! It’s almost too ridiculous to imagine.

Let’s get out there, turn the clocks back 50 years and get the shelves stocked with infants, folks. This is America. Unfortunately.

Rex Huppke is a columnist for USA TODAY.

This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Roe V. Wade leak highlights the need for more procreation and babies