Republicans offer a positive move on abortion

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

It's only a positive if it is passed and if it will actually work, otherwise there is no knowing as to it's efficacy, but we can already see in Georgia it's a confusing mess.

lol, this is what I mean. You are defeated before you even try.
I'll try this. I'll totally ignore you, and believe that this is a step in the right direction, and if it totally fails, they I'll know you were right. See, I feel better already.

I am looking at Georgia's problems with this, it's not working. Ball of confusion.

originally posted by: Hecate666
I don't like that if you agree mostly with one political side, that you have to agree to everything.
I'm a bit of a freer spirit than that and have to say, shame on everyone who condemns an adult woman to have a child against her will.

That argument only appears to stand up in the case of a woman being raped.

Bet even then, murdering an innocent baby because an evil man committed rape is not the answer, making that man the woman's debt-slave for the next 20 years would be the best solution.

In all other cases, the woman chose to have sex, therefore is subject to all of the potential consequences therefrom. There are ways to lower the risk if she wants to, but that is another choice she must make.

Sorry, I know this pisses many people off, but that is just reality.

It's the same as forcing people to have an mRNA injection against their will.

Nopesy, not even close.

Being pregnant isn't just getting bigger, it's 9 month of hell for some,

It also doesn't just happen spontaneously either.

some die because of complications

All life is a risk.

and then an unwanted human will end up in the foster system, growing up into a criminal.

Maybe... maybe not.

Sometimes Nature aborts all by itself.
What ya gonna do about THAT?

What... do you think anyone actually believes a woman should be held accountable for an act of God?

Seriously?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

It's only a positive if it is passed and if it will actually work, otherwise there is no knowing as to it's efficacy, but we can already see in Georgia it's a confusing mess.

lol, this is what I mean. You are defeated before you even try.
I'll try this. I'll totally ignore you, and believe that this is a step in the right direction, and if it totally fails, they I'll know you were right. See, I feel better already.

I am looking at Georgia's problems with this, it's not working. Ball of confusion.

here you go sport.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

It's only a positive if it is passed and if it will actually work, otherwise there is no knowing as to it's efficacy, but we can already see in Georgia it's a confusing mess.

lol, this is what I mean. You are defeated before you even try.
I'll try this. I'll totally ignore you, and believe that this is a step in the right direction, and if it totally fails, they I'll know you were right. See, I feel better already.

I am looking at Georgia's problems with this, it's not working. Ball of confusion.

here you go sport.

Just saying it's not enough and it's not yet proven to be effective in helping women avoid forcing to abort. They need to do more, a lot more.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

It's only a positive if it is passed and if it will actually work, otherwise there is no knowing as to it's efficacy, but we can already see in Georgia it's a confusing mess.

lol, this is what I mean. You are defeated before you even try.
I'll try this. I'll totally ignore you, and believe that this is a step in the right direction, and if it totally fails, they I'll know you were right. See, I feel better already.

I am looking at Georgia's problems with this, it's not working. Ball of confusion.

here you go sport.

Just saying it's not enough and it's not yet proven to be effective in helping women avoid forcing to abort. They need to do more, a lot more.

not according to you, any effort they try will fail. Just look at Georgia.

You should just argue with yourself. It would be fun to watch. You DERP well.

a reply to: quintessentone

If the women put in half the effort that you want everyone else to put in they wouldn't be pregnant to begin with.

a reply to: network dude

changing regulations, enacting new laws, something that is the order of the day in normal democracies. but american politics nowadays is all propaganda porn. at least here on ats. it's never about substantive issues, proposals on how to improve social structures, infrastructure, economic progress, unemployment. it's about drag queens, pedophilia and laptops. these republican proposals sound reasonable but i really have no idea about the regularities in the usa. that's what politicians are elected for, to seek reasonable solutions, to build consensus. and (in the real world) most of them take this task seriously.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: quintessentone

I like that non-answer.

You are against a measure that would help mothers. And your reason is politics. Disgusting.

when all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I'm not alone in seeing this as a half measure, half assed attempt at what? Political positioning? If it even passes.

My God, the blindness you have is astounding. When the Dem's had control of everything, they did exactly jack sh!t about abortion, every time. Right now, this very minute, the R's are trying to offer something positive about this to turn the focus off of the SCOTUS ruling. So the point is, when it comes to politicians, yes, everything is political. The Dems could have fixed all this, but choose to keep it as a wedge issue, and it falls in with all the other wedge issues nobody wants to fix, as they serve much better as political cudgels. This is basic politics 101, you really need to learn a bit before you post much more.

Talking about reading more before you post, here ya go.

www.cbpp.org...

wouldn't low income or no income families already be getting Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP benefits along with other benefits to the poor? If you gave me the option for a $2000 tax credit for free medical for everyone, I'd be all over the free medical. That sh!t's expensive. The one's getting it are getting a massive benefit. But if you feel they should continue getting more, suggest that, as this bill has only been proposed. it's not a law yet.

Yes, some programs but with these child poverty numbers, it sure looks like they don't get much or it doesn't make a dent.

Cash assistance, allowances, rental and housing support, SNAP/TANF benefits, unemployment, and other inclusive economic programs provide crucial reinforcements. As we advocate for these supports, we must also take a longer view to more deeply enact systemic and structural change that will allow our children to thrive.

Systemic racism ingrained into our American institutions has been a historical roadblock perpetuating child poverty. Current statistics indicate the ongoing effectiveness of the roadblocks in pushing the American Dream of economic mobility further out of reach, especially for Black and Brown children (see Table 2).

Among the 74 million children living in the United States, 11 million live in poverty.
One in six children under 5 (3 million children) were poor, the highest rate of any age group.
The pandemic forced children already in poverty even deeper into poverty. Almost half (47%) of all children living in poverty live in severe or extreme poverty, a number which rose from 4.5 million before the pandemic to 5.5 million in 2021.
The South, home to 47% of children in our country who live in poverty, experiences the highest child poverty rates with 1 in 5 children living in poverty.
9 million children faced hunger and food insecurity.
4 million children lived without health insurance.

www.childrensdefense.org...

wow, there is no hope at all. may as well kill them. relish the win! you earned it! the prize? dead babies. congrats.

Remember this?

" See, when you start with "all" it implies you aren't very good at thinking."

LOL, I don't think you understand this at all. (see, I used the word "all", but I don't think it means what you think it means) Let me know if I need to "mansplain" it to you. I'm good with that today.

Good, explain it...and use every Qanon insult you have memorized if it will make you happy. "mansplain" indeed.

Perhaps take a little time off and relax; we all get triggered from time to time.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: quintessentone

I like that non-answer.

You are against a measure that would help mothers. And your reason is politics. Disgusting.

when all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I'm not alone in seeing this as a half measure, half assed attempt at what? Political positioning? If it even passes.

My God, the blindness you have is astounding. When the Dem's had control of everything, they did exactly jack sh!t about abortion, every time. Right now, this very minute, the R's are trying to offer something positive about this to turn the focus off of the SCOTUS ruling. So the point is, when it comes to politicians, yes, everything is political. The Dems could have fixed all this, but choose to keep it as a wedge issue, and it falls in with all the other wedge issues nobody wants to fix, as they serve much better as political cudgels. This is basic politics 101, you really need to learn a bit before you post much more.

Talking about reading more before you post, here ya go.

www.cbpp.org...

wouldn't low income or no income families already be getting Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP benefits along with other benefits to the poor? If you gave me the option for a $2000 tax credit for free medical for everyone, I'd be all over the free medical. That sh!t's expensive. The one's getting it are getting a massive benefit. But if you feel they should continue getting more, suggest that, as this bill has only been proposed. it's not a law yet.

Yes, some programs but with these child poverty numbers, it sure looks like they don't get much or it doesn't make a dent.

Cash assistance, allowances, rental and housing support, SNAP/TANF benefits, unemployment, and other inclusive economic programs provide crucial reinforcements. As we advocate for these supports, we must also take a longer view to more deeply enact systemic and structural change that will allow our children to thrive.

Systemic racism ingrained into our American institutions has been a historical roadblock perpetuating child poverty. Current statistics indicate the ongoing effectiveness of the roadblocks in pushing the American Dream of economic mobility further out of reach, especially for Black and Brown children (see Table 2).

Among the 74 million children living in the United States, 11 million live in poverty.
One in six children under 5 (3 million children) were poor, the highest rate of any age group.
The pandemic forced children already in poverty even deeper into poverty. Almost half (47%) of all children living in poverty live in severe or extreme poverty, a number which rose from 4.5 million before the pandemic to 5.5 million in 2021.
The South, home to 47% of children in our country who live in poverty, experiences the highest child poverty rates with 1 in 5 children living in poverty.
9 million children faced hunger and food insecurity.
4 million children lived without health insurance.

www.childrensdefense.org...

wow, there is no hope at all. may as well kill them. relish the win! you earned it! the prize? dead babies. congrats.

Remember this?

" See, when you start with "all" it implies you aren't very good at thinking."

LOL, I don't think you understand this at all. (see, I used the word "all", but I don't think it means what you think it means) Let me know if I need to "mansplain" it to you. I'm good with that today.

Good, explain it...and use every Qanon insult you have memorized if it will make you happy. "mansplain" indeed.

LOL, when all you are smart enough to hold is a hammer, everything is a nail. I don't Q, but I bet you do.

See, using ALL can be different depending on where it's at in the sentence.

All democrats are stupid. (that's a generalization, and likely not accurate, though reading this site would make it hard to rebut that)
Democrats aren't all that smart. (used in that context, it diminishes the hostility a bit, but still conveys the same tone)

Some democrats aren't all that smart. (yet another use of "all", but wildly accurate, as opposed to the other examples)

I hope this helps, you sure sound like you need it.

originally posted by: network dude
www.foxnews.com...

Republicans are mounting their own effort at an expanded child tax credit that includes applying the credit to fetuses in the womb.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, is leading a package of bills in the House called the Providing For Life Act, an ambitious attempt at overhauling the federal government’s family care system.

Hinson told Fox News Digital her legislation "charts the policy course for a culture of life in America."

The article describes the tax layout and provides extra tax credit for the unborn, as well as one when the child is born. There is also monetary assistance for 3 months of leave after the birth by way of social security advance.

This doesn't solve the overall problem by any means, but it sure does kill one of the dems arguments about how the R's don't care about the baby or the mother once the child is born. This offers some hope for a young mother to have a choice and may save some lives. It's hard to comprehend the flip side of this, but the reason I brought it here, was to find out what that might look like.

So tell me why this isn't a good thing.

Eh, some of it I like (having more frequent review of baby foods), some of it is 'meh, okay' (Community Members for Moms Act... which sounds nice until some of the religious organizations turn out to be Muslim or Santaria) and some of it is Republicans Looking At A Problem And Making A Decision Without Finding Out More.

A good example of this is "Expanded Tax Relief for Adoptive Parents" -- which is supposed to encourage low and middle income adoptions. A tax break on the adoption fees is nice, but honestly POOR PEOPLE AREN'T USUALLY LOOKING TO ADOPT MORE KIDS. So who does it benefit? Nobody, really, but it looks good on paper.

Ditto the "Pregnant Students Act." Sounds great on paper. What it does is urges colleges to make more resources known to pregnant and new parent students (hint: they already do. Student simply has to ask Student Life office or go to the library) and provides resources for "keep the baby, Faith" rather than on a "preventing unwanted pregnancies" focus which would be seminars, expanded health services at the health center, and making free condoms as well as sex ed books and booklets available.

And the "new parents act" allows you to use up to 3 months of your Social Security to finance staying home. Apparently the writers of this didn't actually look at how much social security one gets, which varies (I can tell you that I don't get the maximum amount) Social security site $3k/month is about $18/hour, which won't get you much in some areas. And three months off the job may be enough for them to find ways to terminate you.

And they're proposing a $100,000,000 package of grants to help workforce training for "non-custodial parents) That works out to about $2 million per state. The amount of custody child care support owed annyally is well over 32 billion dollars. Most parents (over half) don't receive any money -- and it's NOT for lack of income in many cases. So Republicans are assuming that deadbeat parents are just "not making enough money" instead of looking at the real factors there.

Many of the proposals include religious organizations. I know they're thinking of Christian churches, but I wonder how they will feel when they discover that the Church of Satan also counts - and by constitutional rights, they can't discriminate in favor or against any one religion... which includes Satanism and many other faiths.

So... interesting but ... not exactly a real reform.



Source - Rubio's announcement of the bill

a reply to: quintessentone

Sure! Something always left to be done. Every .org on this planet wants more $

Will anyone ever say, welp, we pretty much solved the issue, lets fold up and go home now that Nirvana is in place? Nope.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: quintessentone

The only thing I've seen the Left fighting for is the right to kill the kid so you don't have to worry about all that inconvenient stuff like breast feeding or changing diapers.

Where's the money for women's mental illness, post-partum depression, financial aid if their child gets very ill or if they get very ill, addiction etc. It's just okay to let women birth and rear children when they are suffering mental illness, addiction or are in a violent relationship?

It’s called a job. JFC you ppl live in another dimension.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Even it brings down the cost of insurance for everyone?

Maybe I was wrong, are the lefties in favor of this also?

originally posted by: quintessentone
Inflation is what forces mom and dad out to work, because one paycheck doesn't cut it any more,

It isn't just inflation, but yeah, it plays a big role....

I'll just amend what I said earlier that it isn't just the dems, many of the R's fully support the anti-business anti-family polices that prevent wages from rising right along with inflation to maintain parity.

That is because inflation is big governments best friend and secret weapon, the hidden tax that most people are oblivious to.

it has nothing to do with feminism. It would be out of necessity.

I didn't say that feminism was the cause, I merely pointed out that they try to shame women who choose to be stay at home Moms - are you denying that?

Experts advise starting babies on adequate complementary foods at six months along with a supplement of breastmilk or formula for the next two years.

Which experts? I can see your experts and raise you 10 more.

I start my babies on fatty red meat as early as they want it. At 8 months they love gnawinig on the bone from a nice big bone-in ribeye.

Mom can express milk and give it to whoever the childcare provider is, while she can resume her work life, if desired. Keyword: desired (by mom).

My wife couldn't. She tried. For months. Breast pump and all. Zero milk. For reasons I won't go into here.

To my original point, three months is not enough time and if you see what's happening with this same program in Georgia it's a confusing mess for everyone involved.

It isn't enough time, so Mom needs to take the time, and Dad needs to make sure she can.

maybe she should make better decisions? stop putting a womans bad decisions on the rest of us . its your body right? so dont ask the government for money when you spread your legs with no protection.

if you are to mentally ill to properly take care of a child then we dont give you money .. we take your child and let someone else raise them

if you are an addict then stop and get help instead of #ing for drugs without protection and getting pregnant

if yo are in a violent relationship get on protection until you can get out

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
Which all end up with no access to the aid they need, so they say.

Which is the point of the barriers, hoops and red tape.

Which is why government provided assistance is the absolute worst way to provide anything to people who need it.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: tanstaafl

Even it brings down the cost of insurance for everyone?

I'll say it again: no one has a Right to demand that someone else pay for their health care, even if it cures cancer and all crime in the world forever.

originally posted by: SamColt

originally posted by: knoxie

And to think of all the severely handicapped children that will be born.

Well you seem to be doing ok so why not them?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Uhmmm. That's kinda how insurance works.