Anonymous wrote:The Democrats have a plan of affirmatively furthering fair housing, AFFH, that is aimed at putting up housing projects in the suburbs. That might be one way for Republicans to get votes from independent suburban women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

Incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves, soon gas powered cars, airline travel, and meat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

Incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves, soon gas powered cars, airline travel, and meat.

Anonymous wrote:
1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

No one actually supports denying abortions when the mother’s life is at serious risk, unlike insurance companies that routinely deny lifesaving procedures due to lack of coverage. If you looked at the numbers of actual resulting deaths, the latter would be exponentially higher.

Actual state legislatures have written laws that support this. You people have no idea what has been going on.

+1 but whatever. I’m sure getting their candidate to a potluck will make up for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

No one actually supports denying abortions when the mother’s life is at serious risk, unlike insurance companies that routinely deny lifesaving procedures due to lack of coverage. If you looked at the numbers of actual resulting deaths, the latter would be exponentially higher.

Actual state legislatures have written laws that support this. You people have no idea what has been going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

No one actually supports denying abortions when the mother’s life is at serious risk, unlike insurance companies that routinely deny lifesaving procedures due to lack of coverage. If you looked at the numbers of actual resulting deaths, the latter would be exponentially higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of “Independent suburban women” rank abortion as their only voting criteria?

I expect for most of us it is not the only criteria, but it is the minimum criteria for consideration. If you can’t tell me that you (and your party’s plank) fully support women’s ability to make medical decisions about our own bodies, including the choice of abortion, it’s thank you, next.

Once you pass that hurdle (shouldn’t even be a hurdle) then I am interested in hearing what else you have to say. At that point I am not as interested in knowing that you spend time with your own family as I am about whether you have an understanding and practical ideas (ideally backed by previous actions that you have taken to good effect) on how to address issues facing all of us.

It’s laughable how many DCUM women seem to think they speak for mainstream America or that their votes are even a blip on the radar for the leading republican candidates.

Np. Here’s the thing. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else. BUT, women across America (I’m not sure who you consider “mainstream”) are more similar than different. We don’t want to be mansplained, we don’t want to be harassed at work (whether we’re fat, skinny, beautiful, old, whatever), if we’re mothers, we want our kids to be treated fairly, we want to be appreciated for all the free work we do (housework, childcare, eldercare, arranging the office party, chaperoning the school trip), we want to feel safe (walking streets at night, in bars, filling up a car, in a doctor’s office, on a sports team). And much else.

I absolutely agree with all of the above. However I would ardently disagree with the idea that those values are inconsistent with a pro-life stance or that the Democratic Party is inherently more respectful of women.

Ok. But you are likely to be on the losing side of a national election because the majority clearly values the protections we had in roe, feels completely disrespected with having their rights stripped away and intends to vote accordingly.

Fair enough. I’m skeptical that you have the level of national support you believe, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

You’re clearly not paying attention.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/

1. Disapproval with the overturning of roe doesn’t necessarily translate into it being the key voting issue for a majority of the US population in the coming election

2. Polling results aren’t always accurate

1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

2. Don't need polling. Look at recent actual votes in actual elections.

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.