Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Actually, what it shows is that if a woman is responsible with birth control, only one in 1000 will get pregnant, and of that number, only a very few can't afford to go to a blue state for an abortion. At worst, this will be a state-by-state decision. It's not as if abortion will ever be outlawed nationwide.

PP, no longer able to perform abortions in some states, could just divert that money for "abortion trips" to a neighboring state. Plus, they'd get lots of contributions from liberals. Anyone who wants an abortion could still get one, even if it required an overnight in a motel. Stop with the sky-is-falling hysteria.

Besides,it won't ever come to that. Maybe a dozen of the deep red states will outlaw, but all "soft" red and swing states will continue to allow it. And that's a worst case situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

And I see another liberal has no way to debate, other than to launch a personal insult at the suggestion or pitching in $10 to help poor people get abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

And you’ve maxed out your contribution to the insufferable a-hole fund.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

I don't think its a simplistic view. I feel like we have the same view. IE, overturning Roe will make it a very bad world for Republicans. I just think they'll realize it before going through with it, and you think they won't.

Because they won't fight Trump's court pick. So Roe is dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

I don't think its a simplistic view. I feel like we have the same view. IE, overturning Roe will make it a very bad world for Republicans. I just think they'll realize it before going through with it, and you think they won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

This is an unfortunately simplistuc view. The next Trump justice will almost certsinly vote to outright overturn or make Roe meaningless. That is when it will get rough for Republicans and women who need abortions.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Republicans will nominate someone that wants to overturn Roe. I know that sounds silly because they're acting like lunatics right now but actually getting Roe overturned would be a living nightmare for conservatives. When you look at teh actual stats like 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And like 30 of that 80 think it should be legal under any circumstance.

It is one thing to campaign on being pro-life when it really doesn't matter. It will be another thing entirely if abortion becomes the campaign topic du jour. I don't think most male Republicans want to be talking about women's reproductive rights at all. They don't want to come out as pro choice and alienate their base but they don't want to come out as ardently pro life and alienate the middle. When it doesn't matter they can add in a pro life talking point and be done with it and everyone will just accept R's are pro life. But if you are voting and thinking this might actually matter on women's rights? Everything changes IMO.

It would be very bad for Republicans to overturn Roe in the long run. I bet there are quite of a few of them that aren't nearly as pro life as they claim to be that would like nothing more than to have this issue go back to what it was last week, an undercurrent of anger that everyone thinks is relatively settled.

Anonymous wrote:Wait. I thought the pill was covered under Obamacare. So right there, 99.9% of all unwanted pregnancies are preventable. So now we are talking about 1 out of 1000 of all pregnancies. Let's say half of them live in a state where it's outlawed, so now one out of 2,000 need to take a bus to a blue state. Now let's say that half of them are too poor for a $50 bus ticket, so we are down to one out of 4,000 pregnancies. Now let's say that she can't get ten of her poor friends and family members to pitch in $4 or $5 each, so we are down to one out of 8,000 pregnancies represented by someone who honestly can't come up with $50.

So if each DCUM liberal, and it seems there are 5,000 of them (at least) contributes $10 to the "poor oerson's abortion bus fund," the will be a fund of $50,000. Now let's add in the other liberal cities, like LA and NY. If million of the UMC in NY does the same, that's $10 million! Add in LA, and another $10 million. So now we have an abortion bus fund of 20,0050,000! That would cover 400,000 bus rides, all from the one in 8,000 pregnancies where the person can't afford a ticket.

All it will take is for 2 million liberals, out of the 50 or so million we have, to pitch in $10. Someone should start a fund. Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:women should stop having sex with these men period. For fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Full stop. NO action so long as they want to control any woman's body. They get NO woman's body.