Completely predictable. In fact, I would further state that Perry knew this was the likely outcome, expected it, and could care less. He has his political talking point. He's scored with the "anti-abortionists" that were his target audience. He's cemented his standing with the fundamentalist right-wingers, the minority who he sees as his ticket to the nomination, as they've been here in Texas. The man is a shameless opportunist, who is using this issue for his own ends, not because he ardently believes "the fate of the state and the nation" rides on stripping women of their freedoms under the constitution. Perry is a demagogue of the worst kind, and anyone who buys a tenth part of what he's selling is a damned fool.
I'm not sure what "ideological agenda" the doctors are required to advance under this law. All the law requires is that they describe the child in medically accurate terms and show a picture of the child/allow it's heartbeat if any to be heard. Is the agenda that a fetus has arms, or that it looks a certain way, or has a heartbeat? Unless they are saying that providing medical facts about the baby is advancing an anti-abortion agenda, but surely that is not the case. That would mean that abortionists prey on the ignorance of (at least some) mothers who would otherwise not allow their baby to be killed. Surely this is not something for which we should be fighting.
StupidMoniker posting 101: 1. Knowingly suggest something that others will find rankly stupid or offensive based out of a simplistic standard right wing dogma 2. Self-assuredly feign ignorance/deliberately obtuse-ize yourself as to why people would find the proposition propounded rankly stupid or offensive. Note: it helps to use "" a lot when doing this. 3. Repeat 1-2. Are you like this in real life? Does it work with the ladies/in general? "Your whopper only cost 99 cents! as such you will not mind counting up this smelly sock full of pennies, why would you? Why, that's false advertisement...surely kind sir I can't understand why you'd be upset, you knew what you were getting into!"
I hope you're ready and willing to pay for the education and healthcare of any unwanted babies that result from this
serious as a heart attack. don't put the clamps on abortion and then turn around and gut social services that take care of children (especially the unwanted). that's dangerous and irresponsible, in addition to hypocritical.
He's dizzied and spinning around lost after the haymaker I just delivered. He's completely lost and confused
You sound like you're arguing that Donny is pro-choice because of the cost of social services. Based on what I've gathered from Donny's posting history, he's probably not pro-choice because of that reason. He's calling conservatives out for advocating the cuts to these programs while being against abortion. Conservatives care more about poor babies when they're in the womb than when they're out (or have never been there in the first place), essentially.
Unsurprisingly. It's like he wants to make spaying/neutering pets against the law (if he were Catholic this might be a better example), but doesn't support the SPCA. You can't have it both ways. That creates uber fail. It's not about money (although that's part of it), it's about quality of life, unnecessary suffering, and the societal costs. Those things cannot be measured in nickels and dimes.
lmao at the merry band of backslapping liberal dullards trying to reason amongst themselves Donny failed when he made the lost logic leap and tried to make this about caring for children after birth. Donny -- try harder. You lost. again.
Lost what? What are we arguing? Whether you understand my point/suggestion or not? How can I lose an argument over whether you understand me?
