I know the DSCC and the DNC will not go against an incumbent Democrat in a primary challenge, and while I don't always agree I do understand the why, but Sinema is so egregious they really need to crater her during her Democratic primary. Just scorch earth her and make her an example of what you can look forward to if you're going to be a problematic fuckstick.
Maybe it would even give Joe Manchin a pause every now and then if he thought there was an actual limit to how difficult he could constantly be to his own party.
She’s like 80 points down from any primary challenger option and has no activist base and the DNC 1. Will not help her and 2. Couldn’t no matter how much they wanted to
She’s probably the most hated senator in their own party in their own state in my lifetime
I know the DSCC and the DNC will not go against an incumbent Democrat in a primary challenge, and while I don't always agree I do understand the why, but Sinema is so egregious they really need to crater her during her Democratic primary. Just scorch earth her and make her an example of what you can look forward to if you're going to be a problematic fuckstick.
Maybe it would even give Joe Manchin a pause every now and then if he thought there was an actual limit to how difficult he could constantly be to his own party.
She’s like 80 points down from any primary challenger option and has no activist base and the DNC 1. Will not help her and 2. Couldn’t no matter how much they wanted to
She’s probably the most hated senator in their own party in their own state in my lifetime
Turns out doing a 10 ten anime betrayals is not a great way to stay popular.
You can credibly threaten Sinema because there are other Democrats who can win Arizona. And either Gallego will crush her.
The problem with threatening with a primary in this instance is that you'd have to be willing to not follow through on the threat if she plays ball, and I don't really see that happening at this point. Not many bridges she hasn't burned at this point.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I keep seeing crap about the Manchin Schumer Bill increasing audits on middle class? I couldn't filter the crap from reality. Anyone have any good takes on it? Went back a few pages and didn't see much.
I keep seeing crap about the Manchin Schumer Bill increasing audits on middle class? I couldn't filter the crap from reality. Anyone have any good takes on it? Went back a few pages and didn't see much.
The bill increases IRS enforcement funding. This is almost certainly going to result in more middle class audits yeah, but that wont be the only effect and tax enforcement is badly underfunded.
I keep seeing crap about the Manchin Schumer Bill increasing audits on middle class? I couldn't filter the crap from reality. Anyone have any good takes on it? Went back a few pages and didn't see much.
It's funding the IRS, which is going to increase audits period.
But the important context that's being left out is that Republicans have gutted the IRS in recent years, which has largely crippled its ability to perform audits. More than that, it's especially crippled its ability to perform audits against anybody who's going to fight them, have really complicated financials, or otherwise be any kind of headache about them. In other words, rich people and businesses.
From 2010 through 2018, for example, audit rates for people earning between $1 million and $5 million, as well as for corporations with $20 billion or more in assets, fell by much more than audit rates for low- and moderate-income families receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit.
So yes, it's going to increase the number of audits just all around and in general, but the brunt of the effect is going to be on large corporations and rich people, audits of which have cratered in the last ten years because of the defunding.
ArcTangent on
+17
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
You can credibly threaten Sinema because there are other Democrats who can win Arizona. And either Gallego will crush her.
I don't think she actually cares about being in the Senate. She flat out lied about her policies and she's a huge asshole in public.
I think she's angling for that Fox News anchor spot.
This is way too much work for her, she wants like a special guest slot if anything
Like Sinema wants money to enjoy her traveling/running/wine sipping lifestyle, though I agree she’s vain enough to think she wants a 3rd party nom
I'm finding it funny you think Fox anchors do work
Hell they just reported that Minneapolis is in shambles while at the backyard of a multi-billionaire that doesn't even live in Minneapolis
I figure the hardest part of their job is living with themselves, and Sinema has already shown to be, if not a sociopath, someone who plays one convincingly well
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In this bill is also, finally, the green light for the IRS to create its own efile app and if it’s worth a shit that would go a ways to obviating the audit concerns
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
Like a woman knows what an abortion is, they don't reach that conclusion willy nilly, and there is zero reason to ever use language that could shame a woman for using a procedure that is legal.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
You want abortions to be rare, fight for better sexual education, but the "rare" qualifier here is already charged with meaning, like Sammich and Preacher noted, if you like the three word slogan, how about "Safe, Legal and Free" ?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
The "weird subtext" is the gooseshit misogynistic canard of "women can't be trusted."
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
And that has done wonders for abortion access in america let me tell you what. Like we can see the history of where this slogan took us.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
You want abortions to be rare, fight for better sexual education, but the "rare" qualifier here is already charged with meaning, like Sammich and Preacher noted, if you like the three word slogan, how about "Safe, Legal and Free" ?
I would imagine having the fewest abortions possible while still providing 100% access to those who need it would be the end-goal, yes.
I don't consider Clintonian-era symbols of progress to be good ones, like DADT, but making abortions fewer in number due to proper care is the right thing to do. Because it's mentally destructive, from all reports I've seen.
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
Agreed - ideological purity is all well and good, but the widest possible support is clearly an advantage to win the fights we need to win.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
Yeah, if you start looking into breakdowns of the numbers on support for abortion, most people fall into the big middle section of "Yes abortion should be legal in a lot but not all cases".
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
It's a word that means nothing if the services exist.
Why is minimizing accidental pregnancy by giving women proper and full access to free care and zero restrictions on abortions as per Roe a bad thing?
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
It's a word that means nothing if the services exist.
Why is minimizing accidental pregnancy by giving women proper and full access to free care and zero restrictions on abortions as per Roe a bad thing?
Its not a word that means nothing. When you say rare you imply again the service being used is bad "how dare you need an abortion they are supposed to be rare! What do you need one for? WHAT WERE YOU DOING?" It's not pedantry its literally how the right wing got to keep chipping away at abortion access.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
No, what has lead to the current state of abortion in america is the right being laser focused on control of the courts in order to achieve their ends and everyone else mostly just not paying attention.
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
It's a word that means nothing if the services exist.
Why is minimizing accidental pregnancy by giving women proper and full access to free care and zero restrictions on abortions as per Roe a bad thing?
Because what you actually say is that you don't trust women.
The "nice" thing about having opponents who are publicly arguing that 10 year old rape victims have to become mothers is that you dont really have to accommodate fence sitters in the same way.
Ideally, nobody would ever need an abortion (free, effective contraception and education etc).
It's harder to get more "rare" than "never".
contraception and education don't do shit for entropic pregnancies, or still births. Abortions aren't always an elective procedure to remove an unwanted pregnancy AND the right wing doesn't make a distinction there most of the time.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Safe, legal, and rare" marked a decades long retreat on abortion rights.
right on cue...
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
You want abortions to be rare, fight for better sexual education, but the "rare" qualifier here is already charged with meaning, like Sammich and Preacher noted, if you like the three word slogan, how about "Safe, Legal and Free" ?
I would imagine having the fewest abortions possible while still providing 100% access to those who need it would be the end-goal, yes.
I don't consider Clintonian-era symbols of progress to be good ones, like DADT, but making abortions fewer in number due to proper care is the right thing to do. Because it's mentally destructive, from all reports I've seen.
I'm sorry but saying "getting an abortion is mentally destructive" as though it's a natural result of getting an abortion, and not a by-product of the pervasive cultural stigma surrounding abortions and those who get them is negligent at best. At its worst (and I'm not saying you are doing this, just pointing out its existence as a tactic) it is deliberately citing the results of systemic failures and injustices as justification for the continuation of those failures and injustices.
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
The phrase "safe, legal, and rare" was coined by Bill Clinton. The left were not the ones demanding concessions. It is the failure of the moderates that got us in this current state.
I mean again me and sammich agree on like this one thing maybe Seattle traffic, but like the way the left has fought for abortion access has lead to its current state in america. Its the picard speech about the borg in first contact, we keep getting pushed back and make concessions and all the while women suffer so moderates can hold their nose about those dirty women needing a health service and now half the freaking country can't get an abortion and they are pushing for the rest.
It's a word that means nothing if the services exist.
Why is minimizing accidental pregnancy by giving women proper and full access to free care and zero restrictions on abortions as per Roe a bad thing?
Its not a word that means nothing. When you say rare you imply again the service being used is bad "how dare you need an abortion they are supposed to be rare! What do you need one for? WHAT WERE YOU DOING?" It's not pedantry its literally how the right wing got to keep chipping away at abortion access.
No, they're not doing it by saying "rare."
They're doing it by proclaiming liberal women are mass murderers and killing billions of kids just like the holocaust.
Republicans of 1982 may have tried doing that, but it wasn't effective until they started tying it to the Evangelical notion of abortions being wrong, or "a heartbeat means God has implanted a soul" or whatever, and then started lying about what actually happened in Planned Parenthood. Oh, and then on top of everything, tied it to racism and the "ghetto queen" stereotype.
I think making sure it's minimized is a net good, i.e. proper preventative care so people can do what the hell they want and get pregnant whenever they want, and then have full control of whether or not they want to keep the baby on top. People have mental issues when dealing with abortion, not all but a lot, and the removal of this by minimizing their chances to get pregnant is not calling for restrictions in abortions. It's giving back to women complete control of their bodies at all times that regressive types in this country like to remove.
Having "rare" be part of the goddamn slogan is championing caveats and restrictions, not access.
Then don't call it rare, call it something else. I don't give a shit and getting hung up on pedantry is meaningless.
But fewer people needing to do it is always better.
Okay, but they need to be freely available for people who want them and we don't want it to be hard to acquire and have a bunch of hoops to jump through.
When we can win a fight about sex education in classrooms and get widespread access to birth control to everybody and teach teenagers about safe sex practices we can worry about making them rare.
Having "rare" be part of the goddamn slogan is championing caveats and restrictions, not access.
Then don't call it rare, call it something else. I don't give a shit and getting hung up on pedantry is meaningless.
But fewer people needing to do it is always better.
Okay, but they need to be freely available for people who want them and we don't want it to be hard to acquire and have a bunch of hoops to jump through.
When we can win a fight about sex education in classrooms and get widespread access to birth control to everybody and teach teenagers about safe sex practices we can worry about making them rare.
Posts
She’s like 80 points down from any primary challenger option and has no activist base and the DNC 1. Will not help her and 2. Couldn’t no matter how much they wanted to
She’s probably the most hated senator in their own party in their own state in my lifetime
Turns out doing a 10 ten anime betrayals is not a great way to stay popular.
The problem with threatening with a primary in this instance is that you'd have to be willing to not follow through on the threat if she plays ball, and I don't really see that happening at this point. Not many bridges she hasn't burned at this point.
I don't think she actually cares about being in the Senate. She flat out lied about her policies and she's a huge asshole in public.
I think she's angling for that Fox News anchor spot.
She's campaigning for the Forward Party's nomination in 2024 and thinks she'll win easily.
This is way too much work for her, she wants like a special guest slot if anything
Like Sinema wants money to enjoy her traveling/running/wine sipping lifestyle, though I agree she’s vain enough to think she wants a 3rd party nom
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
The bill increases IRS enforcement funding. This is almost certainly going to result in more middle class audits yeah, but that wont be the only effect and tax enforcement is badly underfunded.
It's funding the IRS, which is going to increase audits period.
But the important context that's being left out is that Republicans have gutted the IRS in recent years, which has largely crippled its ability to perform audits. More than that, it's especially crippled its ability to perform audits against anybody who's going to fight them, have really complicated financials, or otherwise be any kind of headache about them. In other words, rich people and businesses.
So yes, it's going to increase the number of audits just all around and in general, but the brunt of the effect is going to be on large corporations and rich people, audits of which have cratered in the last ten years because of the defunding.
I'm finding it funny you think Fox anchors do work
Hell they just reported that Minneapolis is in shambles while at the backyard of a multi-billionaire that doesn't even live in Minneapolis
I figure the hardest part of their job is living with themselves, and Sinema has already shown to be, if not a sociopath, someone who plays one convincingly well
I actually agree with Styro here, Rare means you agree the procedure has some kind of moral judgement that women shouldn't do it and that's none of your fucking business and we should never have used that terminology.
Like no one cares if someone gets gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy. No one is like "safe legal and rare" to knee surgeries. So fuck off with implying an abortions frequency is any of your business.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Rarely-needed" then. Abortions are not trivial biological events like plucking out a splinter.
I don't see why we need to acquiesce on their frequency beyond implying "women shouldn't do these things" an abortion is a procedure to remove something unwanted like plucking a splinter. Its again none of anyones business why a woman is doing it.
Like a woman knows what an abortion is, they don't reach that conclusion willy nilly, and there is zero reason to ever use language that could shame a woman for using a procedure that is legal.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's a concession to the moderates who are uncomfortable with it but acknowledge the necessity. If it broadens support for the legislation I think it's worth the weird subtext.
You want abortions to be rare, fight for better sexual education, but the "rare" qualifier here is already charged with meaning, like Sammich and Preacher noted, if you like the three word slogan, how about "Safe, Legal and Free" ?
The "weird subtext" is the gooseshit misogynistic canard of "women can't be trusted."
And that has done wonders for abortion access in america let me tell you what. Like we can see the history of where this slogan took us.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I would imagine having the fewest abortions possible while still providing 100% access to those who need it would be the end-goal, yes.
I don't consider Clintonian-era symbols of progress to be good ones, like DADT, but making abortions fewer in number due to proper care is the right thing to do. Because it's mentally destructive, from all reports I've seen.
Agreed - ideological purity is all well and good, but the widest possible support is clearly an advantage to win the fights we need to win.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah, if you start looking into breakdowns of the numbers on support for abortion, most people fall into the big middle section of "Yes abortion should be legal in a lot but not all cases".
Here's an example of this:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
Then don't call it rare, call it something else. I don't give a shit and getting hung up on pedantry is meaningless.
But fewer people needing to do it is always better.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's a word that means nothing if the services exist.
Why is minimizing accidental pregnancy by giving women proper and full access to free care and zero restrictions on abortions as per Roe a bad thing?
Its not a word that means nothing. When you say rare you imply again the service being used is bad "how dare you need an abortion they are supposed to be rare! What do you need one for? WHAT WERE YOU DOING?" It's not pedantry its literally how the right wing got to keep chipping away at abortion access.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, what has lead to the current state of abortion in america is the right being laser focused on control of the courts in order to achieve their ends and everyone else mostly just not paying attention.
It's harder to get more "rare" than "never".
Because what you actually say is that you don't trust women.
contraception and education don't do shit for entropic pregnancies, or still births. Abortions aren't always an elective procedure to remove an unwanted pregnancy AND the right wing doesn't make a distinction there most of the time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm sorry but saying "getting an abortion is mentally destructive" as though it's a natural result of getting an abortion, and not a by-product of the pervasive cultural stigma surrounding abortions and those who get them is negligent at best. At its worst (and I'm not saying you are doing this, just pointing out its existence as a tactic) it is deliberately citing the results of systemic failures and injustices as justification for the continuation of those failures and injustices.
The phrase "safe, legal, and rare" was coined by Bill Clinton. The left were not the ones demanding concessions. It is the failure of the moderates that got us in this current state.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No, they're not doing it by saying "rare."
They're doing it by proclaiming liberal women are mass murderers and killing billions of kids just like the holocaust.
Republicans of 1982 may have tried doing that, but it wasn't effective until they started tying it to the Evangelical notion of abortions being wrong, or "a heartbeat means God has implanted a soul" or whatever, and then started lying about what actually happened in Planned Parenthood. Oh, and then on top of everything, tied it to racism and the "ghetto queen" stereotype.
I think making sure it's minimized is a net good, i.e. proper preventative care so people can do what the hell they want and get pregnant whenever they want, and then have full control of whether or not they want to keep the baby on top. People have mental issues when dealing with abortion, not all but a lot, and the removal of this by minimizing their chances to get pregnant is not calling for restrictions in abortions. It's giving back to women complete control of their bodies at all times that regressive types in this country like to remove.
Okay, but they need to be freely available for people who want them and we don't want it to be hard to acquire and have a bunch of hoops to jump through.
When we can win a fight about sex education in classrooms and get widespread access to birth control to everybody and teach teenagers about safe sex practices we can worry about making them rare.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
That's fair enough.