29 Comments
User's avatar
Dr Jen | Syringa Wellness's avatar

i wonder if they will require injections to access "abortion care"

Expand full comment
Ellen's avatar

Maybe for women. But "pregnant people" will be a Special Protected Group. More than one way to bring a new child into the family, says Apple. Of course that's true ... there's adoption .. but can't talk about that as potential alternative to abortion. But I have a feeling they meant other ways ... like birthing persons and chest feeding ...

Expand full comment
YYR's avatar

They won't even need to ask.

Expand full comment
Bandit's avatar

From some of the states keeping the abortion reality, it wouldn't surprise me.

Expand full comment
INGRID C DURDEN's avatar

Sounds like all of that will be sorely needed. Many people will get ill from the jabs, including children, if they can get any. Abortions? might not be needed anymore !

Expand full comment
Life In The Gaps's avatar

I’m not even an economist, but limiting the number of potential future customers sounds like a bad business plan to me.

Expand full comment
Lucy's avatar

Just a conspiracy idea…could Roe vs Wade be a convenient cover-up for the infertility issue that will be occurring secondary to the Covid jab?

Expand full comment
Vxi7's avatar

How would that work?

Expand full comment
jacquelyn sauriol's avatar

They be laughin hard in the back room on this one...we kill you, you kill you, and you demand it, great.

Expand full comment
GadflyBytes's avatar

Get real, except for Apple, most major corporations donate heavily to both Republicans and Democrats, while they launch huge PR campaigns to ape supporting progressive causes. They don’t give a shit about minority or women’s rights. They want to make money and retain/attract talent that cares about this, while also getting the economic benefits of supporting Republicans.

Expand full comment
YYR's avatar

I, too, am an economist, and I hope these ghouls reconsider relocating to red states. Rumor is Nike is moving to Atlanta. Fingers crossed that changes.

Expand full comment
maisyrusselswart's avatar

Find liberation in a cubicle today! Terminate that little ball and chain and get your very own boss!!

Expand full comment
Dawn K's avatar

Not sure if I'm using the right choice of words to ask this, but if a couple is vaxxed and they find out that the baby is seriously deformed, then they have to have the baby and can't abort the pregnancy? I can't remember the source of a video I saw not too long ago, but a nurse was talking about the increase in deformities since the vax and that most of these babies won't live. Isn't it wrong to make the mother carry a deformed baby to term?

Expand full comment
Jestre's avatar

To play devil's advocate, I am guessing most people with deformities are happy they weren't aborted. I don't know the morality of it either way though.

Expand full comment
GadflyBytes's avatar

Absolutely it is wrong. Read any account of a woman having to do this. Imagine being forced to carry a corpse to term, as you would if it were stillborn.

Expand full comment
BRaa's avatar

This post is quite cryptic. Are you claiming that this move is motivated by a desire to encourage termination of pregnancy for economic gain? Because while I am defiantly no a fan of big anything ,be it pharma or tech, I don’t believe that their choices are always 100% premeditated evil. Could their motivation simply be to provide support for womens reproductive choices? And perhaps this is performative or otherwise strategically motivated but it could be targeted at supporting women rather than wanting to kill babies. But maybe I am missing you point?

Expand full comment
Jestre's avatar

Absolutely, it could be entirely about them supporting women's reproductive choices, which is why they would not consider it 100% premeditated evil. They might consider it a good that happens to have an economic benefit. But I am certain they have crunched the numbers. Same reason woke politics don't make their way into their supply chain. For a company like Apple, it's more cost effective to make phones in places with policies that go directly against everything they claim to hold dear (as an example that makes me believe they care more about economics than wokenomics)

Expand full comment
BRaa's avatar

I see. And I definitely know they crunch the numbers and know how to pander to their market. I’m just weary of any arguments which divide the “left” and “right”. I use quotes because as far as I can see these words don’t mean a thing anymore. I came to be in “the fringe” because body sovereignty is the hill I will die upon. Since the big Row va Wade blow up in the US (I am Canadian) I have had to face existing as a fringe within a fringe because many who are anti vaccine coercion don’t support body sovereignty for women when it comes to pregnancy. I got cringy when I read the original post because it had the potential to be divisive and it’s the last thing we need. Thanks for your explaination and indeed for this Substack where I can still be myself without being attacked or canceled. Take care.

Expand full comment
Jestre's avatar

I avoid the words right and left like the plague. I don't think people should be typecast into having a common set of views or values. I'm pretty agnostic on Roe v. Wade since I'm also Canadian. This is more of a statement about these corporations pretending to take the moral high ground.

Expand full comment
BRaa's avatar

Oh 100%. Make the following lyrics loop inside my brain....

https://youtu.be/y7im5LT09a0

pretending to take the moral high ground is such a manipulative bs move.

Expand full comment
Formerly_Known_As_Someone's avatar

Companies offer benefits to attract and keep employees. As it’s a common service it would benefit both. They offer fertility treatments too. It’s costly to have a lot of turnover and people quitting, esp. in this labor shortage (much of it caused by vax mandates).

Expand full comment
Jestre's avatar

Absolutely. I don't disagree at all.

Expand full comment
Formerly_Known_As_Someone's avatar

hi i didn’t mean to sound lecturey. the whole “attracting employees” thing is historically why we have employer health care here, and not something else that’s more reliable … i agree they save money with single childless people, plus abortion perks for “pregnant people” are now just another virtue signal they can flash. it’s a rough day here for those of us who are bodily autonomy all the way!

Expand full comment
YYR's avatar

More reliable? Like?

Expand full comment
Formerly_Known_As_Someone's avatar

something you could get and keep if you don’t have a regular, full-time staff job. doesn’t so much matter what. single payer if they don’t try to use it to force vaccines. or just affordable care or affordable catastrophic plans. so many people have no coverage at all.

Expand full comment
Rascal Nick Of's avatar

The Oligarch's. They just love them some good old fashioned baby-killin'.

Expand full comment
Bandit's avatar

Hmmmm, sounds like you've been reading gatito bueno quite a bit. 🤔🤨 😉😊😋

Expand full comment
Kurt Arner's avatar

It was never about economics. It has always been about making public demonstrations of fealty to our new ‘woke’ overlords.

Expand full comment
Rick (from Texas)'s avatar

a day or two away for an abortion vs a few months away for maternity leave...what incentives indeed 🤔🤔🤔🤷‍♂️

Expand full comment