You know that is not correct because you know that Sec. 1409(c) which is the section at issue here was amended in 1988 by Pub. L. 100-525, Sec. 9(r)(2), which substituted "after December 23, 1952" for "on or after the effective date of this chapter" and which is the language on which we are focused.
The issue is what (c) said before amendment and to what periods it is applicable.
The court said no substantive change. If you took the time to check rather than attempting to keep to an error in interpretation, the effective date of the CHAPTER can be found the notes to section 1101. It reads as follows:
Effective Date
Section 407 of act June 27, 1952, provided that: “Except as provided in subsection (k) of section 401 [former section 1106 (k) of this title], this Act [this chapter] shall take effect at 12:01 ante meridian United States Eastern Standard Time on the one hundred eightieth day immediately following the date of its enactment [June 27, 1952].”
When I do the math I get the original effective date of the Chapter as December 24, 1952. Last time I checked, December 24, 1952 is AFTER December 23, 1952 which is what the original language was change to when it was when amended in 1988.
You see a substantive change by making the date determinable by the statute itself when the change doesn't change the actual effective date of 1409 (c) and the SC doesn't see that as a substantive change.
The case clearly tells us what the changes were regarding unwed mothers from the first law through 1988. Those reading this thread also can see clearly that you are holding to an error and this would raise questions regarding your other interpretations.