Is it true there’s generally no statute of limitations on murder?
I want to try to prepare for the fury I’m going to feel when this next “logical” step is taken.
Interesting article. Just another indication that the GOP is becoming more and more focused on cultural conservatism at the expense of economic conservatism.
This is impossible… Don’t they know the whole purpose of the pro-life movement is to PUNISH women and children? How did these lawmakers–and 538–miss that memo?
“We want to make it easier for women to be barefoot, pregnant and unemployed, as they should be.”
Oh absolutely, their deal with the devil for the evangelical votes means that they had to take those cultural issues onboard but now they are stuck with those voters and their pet issues. So the cultural conservatism is now the main issue even if it comes at the expense of economic conservatism. In fairness, for all my life the republicans in congress or the white house only paid lip service to economic conservatism while cutting taxes for the rich and raising deficits. All while funding a huge military.
I know a lot of people have an instinctive distrust of the cultural conservatives who got Roe v Wade overturned, but I have no objection to a pro-life movement that is actually focused on helping people instead of controlling women. More federal laws/funding around maternity leave or help to young mothers is all fine by me, assuming it doesn’t contain any poison pills.
Also dead. Don’t forget dead. All of this is just trying to “nice up” the ongoing assault on women’s healthcare, after all, and they’re still supporting laws that remove every tool we have to treat victims of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and other dangerous non-viable pregnancies. Ultimately that means lots of dead women, and even more permanently damaged in one way or another. It really doesn’t matter what they think they’re doing, that’s the end result. As with so many things, it doesn’t matter what they say when we can see so clearly what they do.
Well, it’s helping ‘people’, if by ‘people’ we mean ‘women who get pregnant then bear and care for infants’. Other women? Not so much. Other children? Nope! So, sure, be glad that some women and infants get some help, but it’s happening because of an agenda to control women, not instead of one.
I’m really not sure what your point is? Not being snarky, I just have no idea what you are trying to say there. Is your thesis that any government help to mothers, in any form, is the action of a controlling agenda that is bad for women?
I’m saying that you’re right that anything that helps women and children in childbearing is a good thing, but you’re probably wrong to say that this particular case isn’t another aspect of trying to control women. I think it pretty obviously is an aspect of that when you look at who they’re talking about helping and who they’re leaving out. They want to help women who are pregnant and bearing children and raising infants, but they don’t want to help anyone else, not poor women who aren’t pregnant, not poor older kids. Just look at where many of those states stand on general Medicaid expansion vs. this carve out. They have a notion of the role of women and they’re legislating so as to push women in that direction, and they’re ignoring and neglecting the women who don’t play along. They have a woman-controlling agenda, and some accidental good is coming from that agenda, along with all the bad.
Sorry, I thought that was clear.
Timex
1835
Be advised, the argument you are making here is akin to one that dogmatic libertarians use to argue against most beneficial things the government does.
I’m not sure that’s true. I think those states should be trying to help everyone, not just pregnant women and infants. Libertarians think they should only be trying to help libertarians.
Timex
1837
No, it’s a pretty standard argument that Libertarians will make, when faced with objectively good things the government is doing that are hard to find fault with, to suggest that even those good things are bad, because they are being used as a mechanism for the government to control the population.
And ultimately, in terms of “they should be helping everyone”, well, different government programs tend to be focused on helping different groups in the population.
Since different people need different kinds of assistance, it’s hard to make effective government programs that just “help people”.
I think you ought to engage with the actual argument I’m making, rather than make vague statements about how it is ‘like’ some other (unspecified) arguments somewhere else. But that’s just me. Carry on.
Timex
1839
Well, you’re saying that this thing which seems to be good from your perspective (helping pregnant people) is bad because doing so is intended to control the population.
But really, we can compare it to the situation where the government doesn’t do this… and I assume you would agree that would be worse.
The fact that the government could do more doesn’t really play into it, because doing this doesn’t preclude them doing more. It seems like we should just agree on the stuff we agree on, and do that.
In this case, the fact that helping some subset of the population isn’t really “controlling” anyone in the population, other than by the government favoring certain behavior (having and raising kids), but again, that is literally an argument that libertarians use to oppose government intervention… that the government should not be favoring specific behaviors by assisting or rewarding those who engage in them.
It’s not even necessarily a wrong perspective. I don’t have kids, I coudl argue that government programs like this are unfair because why should people with kids get help and I don’t?
But, I also recognize that by helping people who have kids raise them into healthy, functional adults, that will benefit me even though I don’t have kids myself, because generally society will be better, and I live in society.
This is not actually what I’m saying. It need not be either good or bad. It can be both. In fact, I said it was both!
I don’t really want to do this nonsense with you. So, carry on, but I’m not going to play. Sorry.
Speaking of which, don’t go into the bathroom anytime soon — I just carried a healthy one to full term.
I’m sure whatever help the magnanimously hand down will also be restricted as much as possible to the right kind of woman. Given that Great Replacement “Theory” is now an article of faith with these people.
this is how you get The Vagenda of Manocide Book 2
This will be quite easy to accomplish in states like Wyoming or Montana or Idaho, where the demographics will produce that outcome without any real effort.
