Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ned-parenthood

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

"The net result is people without means can't afford contraception"

Please tell me, who can't afford condoms? I keep hearing of all these people who can't afford birth control, and it makes no sense.

"the burden on taxpayers goes up"

If it means keeping babies alive, raise my taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This would be a brilliant idea.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.60e1575f446c

Sure, just like Bill Clinton nominated Robert Bork after he was elected, right?

Why not just suggest that all Republicans who win elections at any level, step down and hand the office over to the democrat? Would that make you happy?

If elections have consequences when Obama wins, then elections have consequences when Trump wins.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

Perhaps you have not noticed. Not all states act the way Spence thinks they should or would. And states can't print money. They have tighter budgetary restrictions. And its amazing how most people are able to do things like having less children or "afford" contraceptives when there is no sugar daddy paying for it.

And abortion and the burden or joy of having children are individual and state by state concerns. They are not, constitutionally, federal concerns.

I asked you a few times before if you believe states are necessary. If it would be better, more efficient, if we dissolved state governments, state sovereignty, and have only one unitary state, the so-called federal government. We could even do away with the Constitution, which limits the central government, and have the all powerful government which can do whatever is required to make life good and comfortable for us all.

Care to give an opinion on that question?