Maybe they just get those Velcro closures. But who buys them?
Speaking of … one of theKid’s teammates at a fairly-recent sporting display had to have Mom tie this kid’s shoes. Now, this kid was within the same age realm as theKid … too old for diapers, not quite tween … and yet had absolutely no shame in letting Mom handle those laces.
Which begs the question: who cares for the child Mom didn’t want, or just wasn’t prepared for?
Proof pudding anti-choicer brigade cares nothing about the after born, only outrage at the idea that a woman (not a birthing/menstruating person, but Womb-man, pronounced kind of like “debt”) would terminate a pregnancy … usually for convenience, but other times for survival.
Methinks they should just declare that a woman has less value than the contents of her womb.
Just be blunt.
Be honest.
Oh—wait. That would require moral integrity, which is sorely lacking in that sphere.
Not saying that pro-choice folks are any better, but at least they recognize the right to bodily autonomy, and don’t consider women to be vessels first, humans last.
There’s a woman in Ohio who miscarried at 15 weeks, passed the almost-baby along with lots of blood, stool, and other bodily ick into the toilet, which clogged. She cleaned out the clog, left the remnants in a bucket outside near her garage, then went to the hospital.
The nurse helping to treat her called the cops. After losing her pregnancy/baby, she’s now charged with abuse of a corpse, like she robbed a grave and fornicated with the dead body.
The fact that necrophilia is even a word is disturbing. People gonna people.
Way to Hippocratic oath there, sweetheart. Or maybe that only applies to doctors. Anyhoo, overall trust in the medical profession is dropping precipitously … kinda like with the Supremes.
Fun fact: the lawyer that argued for the Supremes’ ruling in Dobbs? The one that started this mess (literal, figurative, and legal)? Once clerked for Clarey Tom. Also, Clarey Tom and his former clerk attended a social event before the Dobbs case was argued before the Supremes … hmmm. No recusal? No conflict there, right? Sigh. Term limits? Anyone? Anyone? [crickets] I digress
And the Texas resident who got a yes then a no to abort what would never become a positive, productive member of society, reduce the likelihood of complications and preserve her fertility? Yah, she had to “flee” to another state to get medical care … like she was a runaway under Art 4, section 2, clause 3. Ahh, ‘Murrica.
The Rethuglicans that inflicted this harm on pregnant women (yes, women) all over the country need to be ashamed of themselves … but oh that’s right they have no shame. {Jeremiah 5:28}
And no courage. They’ll hide behind the laws they passed when confronted about the negative effects. It’s easy to beat up on girls. After all, they’re the only ones seeking abortions in the first place.
Inserting politics into a medical procedure? Yah, see how that’s working out … “leave it to the states” oh—wait it’s back before the Supremes … who started this mess (literal, figurative, and legal) for women to navigate on their own.
Why has no one argued the 13th amendment protects against abortion restrictions?
Being forced to remain pregnant by operation of state law seems to fit the definition of “being held at service or labour” without being convicted of a crime so why are pro-choice lawyers silent on this? Interesting …
Even though Mississippi didn’t vote to ratify until 1995, the 13th Amendment is still the law of the land, at least for now.
Seems that the legal jurisprudence owes a debt to women to get this one right.
But prolly not.
Latest salvo? Get the executive branch to administer away the right not to be pregnant. Nice.