|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens.
just as I said, we can't expect sense from people. ah, the damage caused to the world due to people's wrong and unjustified beliefs.
|
On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions.
Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause.
|
On December 06 2017 09:57 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
If it wasn't abortion, Republicans would find another reason to not vote for Jones. My bet would be immigration. Yup. It's how the whole anti-choice (I refuse to call it pro-life until the whole platform starts actually being pro-life as opposed to just pro- birth) movement got started in the first place. Political division and a convenient single issue voter-creation drive. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=0(The article details the start of the association of the anti-choice movement with the political right in the US) EDIT: This article likely came up in this very thread I'm sure, so apologies, but it seems salient to the discussion.
You might as well call pro-choicers pro-death given how disfavored adoption services are presented and advocated.
|
On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right?  ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons.
Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process?
You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right?
|
On December 06 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right? ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons. Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process? You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right?
So lets say a Republican took this position, are there Republicans that would vote for a candidate that votes for something that allows abortion on the condition that it improves adoption or would republicans by and large opt for a candidate that wholly opposed abortion and would never make such a compromise?
I think you could get 2-3 Republicans in the senate on board max. So this would only be able to pass with full Democratic support and virtually no Republican support essentially making the Republicans that signed it RINO's.
For someone that's well aware of the terribleness of the Republican party I find it odd you present this idea without any irony.
|
Abortion is a wedge issue that gets Republicans elected. They will never compromise on it. They will alway promise to "end abortions" because it drives people to the polls.
Also Danglars proposal is hilarious. Democrats would jump at that. Late term abortions are not that popular and restrictions would be acceptabled. But again, why kill the golden goose?
|
On December 06 2017 10:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right? ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons. Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process? You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right? So lets say a Republican took this position, are there Republicans that would vote for a candidate that votes for something that allows abortion on the condition that it improves adoption or would republicans by and large opt for a candidate that wholly opposed abortion and would never make such a compromise? I think you could get 2-3 Republicans in the senate on board max. So this would only be able to pass with full Democratic support and virtually no Republican support essentially making the Republicans that signed it RINO's. For someone that's well aware of the terribleness of the Republican party I find it odd you present this idea without any irony.
It's a hypothetical trade off I'd support if you put me at a bargaining table. There's a lot I would do to save more baby's lives. It doesn't have a prayer of being a serious policy compromise in today's Congress, nor would it make sense to campaign on. If Roe vs Wade were overturned and it turned back to a state issue, I could see something close to it seeing the light of day.
|
On December 06 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 10:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right? ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons. Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process? You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right? So lets say a Republican took this position, are there Republicans that would vote for a candidate that votes for something that allows abortion on the condition that it improves adoption or would republicans by and large opt for a candidate that wholly opposed abortion and would never make such a compromise? I think you could get 2-3 Republicans in the senate on board max. So this would only be able to pass with full Democratic support and virtually no Republican support essentially making the Republicans that signed it RINO's. For someone that's well aware of the terribleness of the Republican party I find it odd you present this idea without any irony. It's a hypothetical trade off I'd support if you put me at a bargaining table. There's a lot I would do to save more baby's lives. It doesn't have a prayer of being a serious policy compromise in today's Congress, nor would it make sense to campaign on. If Roe vs Wade were overturned and it turned back to a state issue, I could see something close to it seeing the light of day.
So the opposition to your proposal isn't from Democrats, it's from Republicans then.
|
On December 06 2017 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 10:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right? ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons. Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process? You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right? So lets say a Republican took this position, are there Republicans that would vote for a candidate that votes for something that allows abortion on the condition that it improves adoption or would republicans by and large opt for a candidate that wholly opposed abortion and would never make such a compromise? I think you could get 2-3 Republicans in the senate on board max. So this would only be able to pass with full Democratic support and virtually no Republican support essentially making the Republicans that signed it RINO's. For someone that's well aware of the terribleness of the Republican party I find it odd you present this idea without any irony. It's a hypothetical trade off I'd support if you put me at a bargaining table. There's a lot I would do to save more baby's lives. It doesn't have a prayer of being a serious policy compromise in today's Congress, nor would it make sense to campaign on. If Roe vs Wade were overturned and it turned back to a state issue, I could see something close to it seeing the light of day. So the opposition to your proposal isn't from Democrats, it's from Republicans then.
lol hypotheticals aren't proposals
|
The opposition is from Republicans. Democrats would jump at a deal like that.
|
At this point even if Abortion is murder the Democrats are still the morally superior choice
|
On December 06 2017 10:53 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/maddow/status/938182640527663105Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 10:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:52 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world. It's a heartening thing that it has survived so long, and the country's current citizens are less directly made to kill the country's future citizens. I assume then that Moore (and his ilk who are better at putting on nice suites in the literal and figurative sense) will be extending this heartening protection to the already born with healthcare programs like CHIP, right? ... No they bloody well won't so stop pretending this argument is about life. EDIT: Mildened language because of reasons. Increased welfare spending would be a welcome compromise, if I can assume you'll support more restrictions on abortion. How about the new standards of fetal viability and streamlining of the adoption process? You know all the entitlement programs for low-income families of small children, right? So lets say a Republican took this position, are there Republicans that would vote for a candidate that votes for something that allows abortion on the condition that it improves adoption or would republicans by and large opt for a candidate that wholly opposed abortion and would never make such a compromise? I think you could get 2-3 Republicans in the senate on board max. So this would only be able to pass with full Democratic support and virtually no Republican support essentially making the Republicans that signed it RINO's. For someone that's well aware of the terribleness of the Republican party I find it odd you present this idea without any irony. It's a hypothetical trade off I'd support if you put me at a bargaining table. There's a lot I would do to save more baby's lives. It doesn't have a prayer of being a serious policy compromise in today's Congress, nor would it make sense to campaign on. If Roe vs Wade were overturned and it turned back to a state issue, I could see something close to it seeing the light of day. So the opposition to your proposal isn't from Democrats, it's from Republicans then. lol hypotheticals aren't proposals
Call it what you want, the point being that Republicans would be the party in opposition to it and advancing it is something a RINO would do. So the reality is that Republicans want to take actions that dramatically increase the number of unwanted children (abortion restrictions), but don't want to expand/create legislation and provide adequate care for those unwanted children. Which your hypothetical displays rather than refutes.
|
On December 06 2017 09:57 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
If it wasn't abortion, Republicans would find another reason to not vote for Jones. My bet would be immigration. Yup. It's how the whole anti-choice (I refuse to call it pro-life until the whole platform starts actually being pro-life as opposed to just pro- birth) movement got started in the first place. Political division and a convenient single issue voter-creation drive. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=0(The article details the start of the association of the anti-choice movement with the political right in the US) EDIT: This article likely came up in this very thread I'm sure, so apologies, but it seems salient to the discussion.
Rather than calling it pro-choice and anti-choice/pro-life/whatever, I prefer to phrase it as pro-freedom and anti-freedom.
Hey Danglars, why are you so against freedom? 
|
On December 06 2017 11:24 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:57 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 06 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
If it wasn't abortion, Republicans would find another reason to not vote for Jones. My bet would be immigration. Yup. It's how the whole anti-choice (I refuse to call it pro-life until the whole platform starts actually being pro-life as opposed to just pro- birth) movement got started in the first place. Political division and a convenient single issue voter-creation drive. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=0(The article details the start of the association of the anti-choice movement with the political right in the US) EDIT: This article likely came up in this very thread I'm sure, so apologies, but it seems salient to the discussion. Rather than calling it pro-choice and anti-choice/pro-life/whatever, I prefer to phrase it as pro-freedom and anti-freedom. Hey Danglars, why are you so against freedom?
Lets give a little of it to unborn babies! Yeah!
|
Making abortion illegal won't save them. But it might kill the mothers.
|
On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause.
Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry.
|
On December 06 2017 11:30 Plansix wrote:
Making abortion illegal won't save them. But it might kill the mothers.
It's ok, cons are only pro life as far as the baby coming out of the mother is concerned, what happens to the baby once it's born, or to the mother is none of their concern. In fact, if the woman's body didn't want to die from giving birth it would've rejected death, just like if a woman is truly raped her body will reject getting pregnant.
|
On December 06 2017 11:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause. Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry.
The largest abortion provider in the US will always get flak. Other organizations not so dedicated to aborting babies can offer contraceptives and better counseling. They even turn away expecting mothers wanting ultrasounds. It’s been clear from the beginning that they affirm only one choice.
|
Other organizations are dedicated to preventing sex, not preventing abortions.
|
United States43221 Posts
On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause.
I was a little confused by the "bil" because the UK runs the NHS on 100bil so I was wondering how the hell Planned Parenthood could even spend that money.
They, of course, can't and don't. You're out by a factor of 1,000. It's mil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
