Yesterday, National Review published my article about a local ordinance in West Hollywood, Calif., that recognizes multi-partner relationships (such as a so-called throuple) and extends certain legal protections to members of registered polyamorous partnerships. I noted that nobody could have seen this coming, except for all the conservatives who predicted pre-Obergefell that this exact thing would happen if the legal definition of “marriage” were expanded to encompass same-sex couples. Those who warned about the looming legitimization of polyamory and polygamy were accused of committing the “slippery slope” fallacy.

Since writing that article, I’ve been thinking about other examples where conservatives were dismissed for “slippery slope” arguments — but time has since proved that their assessments were correct: Abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, the sexual revolution (particularly the birth-control pill), gender ideology, mass immigration, and gun regulation all come to mind as policy areas or cultural phenomenons where we’ve seen the exact outcomes that progressives insisted would never happen. I dunno . . . maybe we should consider removing “slippery slope” from the list of logical fallacies? (“But Abigail, next you’ll be saying we need to remove straw mans and ad hominems from the list, too. . . .”)

Anyway, I want to earnestly pose the question to everyone: What are some examples of when conservatives, broadly construed, actually did commit a slippery slope fallacy? Put alternatively, when have conservatives incorrectly predicted the downstream social and legal consequences of a particular policy change? You can leave responses in the comment section (on our brand new website!), or email me at aanthony@nationalreview.com.