Why do all these authoritarian-misogynist policy manifestoes keep getting endorsed by JD Vance?

Here’s what Peter Thiel’s Uber coordinator was up to when Amy Chua and the New York Times editorial board was trying to sell him as a Reasonable, Thinking Person’s Conservative Who Is A Rust Belt Working Class Whisperer:

Years before he became the Republican vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance endorsed a little-noticed 2017 report by the Heritage Foundation that proposed a sweeping conservative agenda to restrict sexual and reproductive freedoms and remake American families.

In a series of 29 separate essays, conservative commentators, policy experts, community leaders and Christian clergy members opposed the spread of in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments, describing those treatments as harmful to women. They praised the rapidly expanding number of state laws restricting abortion rights and access, saying that the procedure should become “unthinkable” in America. And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work.

Mr. Vance, then known as the author of a best-selling memoir, became a champion of the project. He wrote the introduction and praised the volume as “admirable,” and was the keynote speaker at the public release of the report at Heritage’s offices in Washington.

The report was released just months after Donald J. Trump became president, as social conservatives were laying the foundation for an aggressive agenda restricting sexual freedom and reproductive rights. Those policies became a hallmark of the Trump administration and Mr. Vance’s political career.

The total opposition to reproductive freedom in general and the reproductive freedom of women in particular is no surprise even as it’s appalling, but given that Vance is now being sold as a “populist” let’s go back to this:

And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work.

I’m beginning to become skeptical of the idea that the American anti-abortion lobby is going to lead a post-Dobbs march to social democracy. Over to you, Ross!

At the same time the pro-life movement’s many critics regard it as not merely conservative but as an embodiment of reaction at its worst — punitive and cruel and patriarchal, piling burdens on poor women and doing nothing to relieve them, putting unborn life ahead of the lives and health of women while pretending to hold them equal.

Hell, you don’t even have to ask the anti-abortion movement’s many critics, just look at what the anti-abortion movement itself proposes and then does in office.