Former Vice President Mike Pence said abortions in the case of nonviable pregnancies should be banned, taking a hard stance on abortion policy, which has proven to be a point of emphasis in his cam…
Former Vice President Mike Pence has taken a hard stance on abortion, saying that abortions should be banned even in cases of nonviable pregnancies. Pence is the only GOP presidential candidate to publicly support a national abortion ban at six weeks. Medical experts have criticized Pence’s pledge, noting that forcing women to carry nonviable pregnancies to term carries unnecessary health risks and can be psychologically traumatic for the women involved. Despite this, Pence has made restricting abortion rights a key part of his campaign platform. Pence currently has around 7% support among GOP candidates in presidential polls.
It’s entirely bullshit as well. They know it’s bullshit because the IRS doesn’t see a fetus as legally a person. 🤔hmm, so when it comes to collecting money, not a person but when it comes to restricting the rights of a fully alive human being, a fetus is totally a person. I see, I see. The inconsistency of our laws is outstanding. I bet if you asked any anti-abortion tool they’d try to justify the IRS rather than saying “Oh that should change too!” Some bullshit like “Well the fetus isn’t really costing you money yet!” (Bullshit, being pregnant is expensive and difficult and prevents people from working.) or “We can’t just give tax cuts to people who are only pregnant, what if they give the baby up for adoption.” (Still costs them money to be pregnant and our federal laws acknowledge that with maternity leave.) Then they’d probably attack maternity leave. Saying we should get rid of that too.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
deleted by creator
I’d argue it’s worse. Courts are going all in on one specific (possibility minority? Anyone got the numbers on this?) supernatural belief.
Plenty of religions cough and the bible cough believe life starts with the first breath.
It’s entirely bullshit as well. They know it’s bullshit because the IRS doesn’t see a fetus as legally a person. 🤔hmm, so when it comes to collecting money, not a person but when it comes to restricting the rights of a fully alive human being, a fetus is totally a person. I see, I see. The inconsistency of our laws is outstanding. I bet if you asked any anti-abortion tool they’d try to justify the IRS rather than saying “Oh that should change too!” Some bullshit like “Well the fetus isn’t really costing you money yet!” (Bullshit, being pregnant is expensive and difficult and prevents people from working.) or “We can’t just give tax cuts to people who are only pregnant, what if they give the baby up for adoption.” (Still costs them money to be pregnant and our federal laws acknowledge that with maternity leave.) Then they’d probably attack maternity leave. Saying we should get rid of that too.