This is a crosspost from Nextdoor.
This is a continuation of a discussion which came up here: https://nextdoor.com/p/Z7CHwBjKhQGk/c/720648891
My claim (in support of Dan Bennett and others, but very much matching my own observations over the past 15+ years) is that the so-called "pro-life" or "right to life" (PL/RtL) movement doesn't seem to care much about what happens to kids after they're born.
Brad asked for evidence, as is proper in a dispute over matters of objective fact.
The problem I am having is that the answer seems to lie in a large aggregation of data -- partly because there is no single point of reference for a political movement (i.e. PL/RtL in this case), and also because representatives of said movement wouldn't want to make their hypocrisy obvious by openly stating their neutrality towards policies they should (logically) support.
It's therefore necessary to make multiple connections from PL/RtL advocacy to representatives (federal and state) and then to the positions those politicians have taken and (especially) how they have voted on relevant bills. This is complicated, and there aren't yet good databases for tracking this information.
There's also the question of what connections to draw towards addressing it. Either I'm trying to prove a negative -- i.e. that PL/RtL advocates have been essentially *silent* around issues of of post-natal life-quality -- or else I need to prove that they have actually *opposed* policies which would help with post-natal QoL.
My time for doing this kind of research is limited (I just spent all morning reorganizing relevant pages on Issuepedia, to see what I already have -- which is not much), but I will see what I can do.
Meanwhile, anyone who can offer objective evidence on this point -- for or against my claim; the truth matters! -- please feel free to post it here.