Actually, I don't think it is. Some states are making creative legislation that's trying to abolish all abortion in a way to circumvent Roe v. Wade, you know basically making it so onerous that no one fits the criteria to be a Dr at a clinic or can legally be a patient there.
Circling back to the SCOTUS nominee, Gorsuch, and the question of RvW. (who I can't stand for a myriad of reasons but nothing to do with Roe v. Wade as I agree with him). He answered it perfectly, it's the rule of law now, it's precedent. Basically, shut the freak up and accept it. But no they can't do that.
So no I don't really agree about the corporate devils advocate argument, because it's not both ways, it's one way. I am sorry but if you let the religious right dictate social policy this country will be in the freaking stone age inside of 20 years.
BTW, I honestly don't give three shits about PP, I care about women that can properly get an abortion by a real Dr and not some midwife armed with a wire hanger. (yeah the last part is hyperbole but you get the point). Also if something rustles the jimmies of the religious right, I am for it......I hate those fuckers with a passion.
Here is the logic: If I as someone who's pro-choice doesn't believe in the federal funding of abortion (which I never said, I'm just not in favor of a corrupt entity like PP being the one to get those dollars), I'm a tool of the religious right.
My counter is, if Badger believes in corporate welfare, then he's just a tool for all the fat cats and 1 percenters in this country.
Essentially, the logic is well if you aren't 100 percent in lockstep on this issue, really you're unwittingly just a tool for a side that you'd otherwise be in stark contrast too, and I'm going to label you as such. I just don't agree with that at all. I can absolutely believe that PP is a corrupt entity that needs to get shitcanned ASAP, and not be a "tool for the religious right."
I'm not sure if you've all noticed, but the religious right is dying anyway. The religious right is Glenn Beck, it's Ben Sasse, it's never Trump conservatives for the most part who either bent the knee after Trump threw them a bone with Pence, or like Beck, continue to just fade into absolute irrelevance, while the only act that did anything on their rinky dink site moves to the bright lights of Fox. (And for the record I find Tomi annoying as excrement, but I get a big kick out of people who have to put on full blast how annoying she is then sharing absolute drivel from Keith freaking Olbermann.) But the religious right is becoming increasingly more irrelevant. Why else do you think that hatchet-job on Milo was perpetrated by members of said group? It wasn't liberals that tried to smear him, and its simply because no one under the age of 50 has any use for them, and the new mark of conservatism won't come from Christian traditionalism but libertarian principles. Their grasp isn't slipping, it's completely loosened.
As far as states making creative legislation, it's not a concern for me because the bills that are truly whacked out (ones demanding by the inch zone requirements, unreasonable and unusual demands for drs etc.) , are usually shut down by the judiciary the second a whacked out governor tries to sign them into law. And if some of that legislation that is considered creative includes bills banning abortions after 20 weeks, or imposing at least SOME standards like Kermit Gosnell didn't exist, then freak it. If you really want me to take all the emotional elements out of it, fine, it's still a medical procedure and a potentially dangerous one at that. How does that not bare regulation, and this is coming from someone opposed to an over-intrusive government whenever and wherever possible?
Out of curiosity, why the hatred for Gorsuch? The funny part was after his Roe answer was that neither side was deterred into either painting him as the next Scalia for better or worse.
As soon as we invade another country or crash the housing market because of pro-choice billionaires let me know. Until then I don't think it's a specific problem we need to focus on.
Since dcm still probably isn't getting it, I'll reiterate: until abortion rights are protected in every state, it's not unreasonable for the federal government to back the largest organization fighting for it.
The entire platform of the guy you voted for was that corporate welfare and the 1 percent are the cause of all of the societal ills of this country.
I'd agree with your second statement if abortion rights weren't so vague a term. I'll just say this, my definition of abortion rights and PP's definition of abortion rights are definitely in contrast to each other. But then, this is what I'm talking about when people don't want to adhere to Roe. They're just as guilty as the Mike Huckadouche's of the world.
It's not unreasonable for the political party that's in the majority in every conceivable way to want to cut the funding of an entity that has a 100 percent donation output to the opposition.
