630
Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.
(www.propublica.org)
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
630 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4814 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see many other liberals interpret this sort of policy as hypocritical (and therefore as evidence that conservatives have some sort of hidden motive) but don't think that it is. There's no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high. IMO conservatives generally believe exactly what they say that they believe: abortion is morally wrong and people aren't entitled to government assistance.
Sure but they are wrong. People are entitled to government assistance. That is why we pay taxes in the first place. If our government can’t be relied on to help their citizens when they are in need then they can’t have my fucking money. They can’t have it both ways.
Yes, it is hypocritical. Why? Because the life of the fetus is their argument. How in the world do you care about the life of fetus, but turn around and say fuck them if the parents are struggling?
Apparently they are unaware of how high the infant mortality rate is in the US vs elsewhere.. They're unaware how high maternal mortality rates in the US are vs other countries.
Because I'm sure if they knew these facts, which were true before Roe v Wade was overturned and women had access to abortion and other options, these "pro-life" folks would certainly be concerned about the life of mother and child and take action to ensure adequate pre- and post-natal support for both.
Surely they were merely ignorant of these facts (that I found in two minutes) and just didn't think to check for any of this before yanking this support, right? They must instinctively know how much is too much. I'm sure it's not because they think only certain people deserve support by way of affording it. Because, gosh, that* would be truly ghastly. And they're nothing if not moral and upstanding protectors of all life equally, right?
I mean why would they even consider death rates anyway. Who could ever foresee that less support could cause health problems including death? Surely only God himself could've anticipated such a thing.
They don't GAF about anything they say they care about. It's all about putting "those people", which includes women, in their place.
But we (and they) know that reducing government support for pregnant women increases the number of abortions.
So they profess to wanting to "save lives" by ending abortions, while doing something that increases rhe number of abortions.
How exactly is that not hypocrasy?
It's not hypocrisy in the same way that the Pope's opposition to both birth control and abortion isn't hypocrisy: the ends don't justify the means. I assume you think of government support for pregnant women as a good thing, but a lot of conservatives appear to disagree with you. To them, abortion is bad, government "handouts" are bad, and even if abortion is worse than handouts, doing a bad thing to prevent an even worse thing is wrong.
Dude,
Then conservatives should stop crying about population decline or how people aren’t having kids