In September, Texas enacted the nation's most extreme abortion ban. Two months later, legislators in Ohio are pushing an abortion ban that goes even further. And the bill has significant momentum.
This was predictable when Ohio elected Mike DeWine as governor. There is no question that he will sign this bill if it passes (and it probably will). It’s the type of legislation that makes me embarrassed to be an Ohioan. At least I escaped.
I live in Michigan too. I find that to be true and that's why I'll keep on spreading the truth about all members of the GOP that support the "BIG LIE" and there are way too many of them. Keep up the "good trouble"... I'll do the same.
Infuriating, as usual, but Pfizer's involvement when it manufactures an abortion drug seems puzzling. Maybe it just believes these sponsors of the abortion bill will advance legislation beneficial to them regardless.
This is not a good example of honest reporting and headline writing. I am very much pro-choice; but there are 33 co-sponsors, the contributions date from 1/1/18, the average amount per co-sponsor is a few hundred dollars, the bill banning abortions is being put forward close to four years after donation counting begins, and the corporate donors may likely have been supporting other issues or interests during that interim. It requires a lot deeper analysis of the donation data to be able to determine whether these corporations are intentionally supporting extreme anti-abortion initiatives such as Ohio's current effort.
It's incredibly sad that republicans are hell bent on protecting an unborn fetus over the living and breathing mother. No exceptions for rape or incest are unfathomable provisions and it makes me sick. I sincerely hope the people who wrote and voted for this evil legislation get their comeuppance.
Both TX & OH are setting up scenarios of women being killed by back-alley abortions, murdered by rapists & incestuous men who impregnate & by vigilantes. No company backing the supporters can call themselves champions for women.
How does OH proposed law stand against R v W as it may be hanging by a thread but it still stands?!
Suppose every woman at the moment she realizes she is pregnant she must name the father, who must immediately start carrying her on his health insurance or pay for her to get her own incl paying for the child, start paying child support so that she can get all of the things she needs such as a bigger place to live to accommodate a child. He must start paying into a 529 savings for the child’s future education, make mother a beneficiary of his insurance, etc.
I will never understand how pregnancy is only a woman’s issue when it requires a man to happen & he gets by unscathed.
Of course implementing any of the above to make a man responsible is yet another situation that will set a woman up for murder by cheating men, pastors, raping uncles, cousins, college boys, & so on.
I do pray this is challenged on the basis of making abortion completely illegal which it’s not & shame on any bobble-headed naive OH woman who votes for these assholes.
I don't know how (or even if) it could be accomplished, but I'd like for some additional context around these donations. I'm not looking to excuse any of these companies for the *impact* of donating to politicians who clearly advance legislation that is counter to either the companies' public positions or - more importantly - the actual rights of the people these companies claim to support or honor.
But, I do think that it is very important for us to understand WHY these companies risk the public embarrassment of being called out on their hypocrisy by donating to candidates that act contrary to the rights of marginalized peoples. What is it that the donating companies really want from these politicians? I mean - maybe it is right there on the surface - they want (for example) to restrict access to abortion. But, I think that more often, the motivation comes from the politician's willingness to champion *other* legislation beneficial to the donor. If we understand that, we may find ourselves positioned to do more to *change* these entities' behavior. In essence, I'm looking for something that's more carrot and less stick.
After all that's happened, I still hold a shred of [naive] optimism.
This was predictable when Ohio elected Mike DeWine as governor. There is no question that he will sign this bill if it passes (and it probably will). It’s the type of legislation that makes me embarrassed to be an Ohioan. At least I escaped.
I live in Michigan too. I find that to be true and that's why I'll keep on spreading the truth about all members of the GOP that support the "BIG LIE" and there are way too many of them. Keep up the "good trouble"... I'll do the same.
Infuriating, as usual, but Pfizer's involvement when it manufactures an abortion drug seems puzzling. Maybe it just believes these sponsors of the abortion bill will advance legislation beneficial to them regardless.
Playing both sides of the field. Great song in the musical "Best Little Whore House in Texas" fits these corporations perfectly.
This is not a good example of honest reporting and headline writing. I am very much pro-choice; but there are 33 co-sponsors, the contributions date from 1/1/18, the average amount per co-sponsor is a few hundred dollars, the bill banning abortions is being put forward close to four years after donation counting begins, and the corporate donors may likely have been supporting other issues or interests during that interim. It requires a lot deeper analysis of the donation data to be able to determine whether these corporations are intentionally supporting extreme anti-abortion initiatives such as Ohio's current effort.
Other issues? This bill is inhumane
It's incredibly sad that republicans are hell bent on protecting an unborn fetus over the living and breathing mother. No exceptions for rape or incest are unfathomable provisions and it makes me sick. I sincerely hope the people who wrote and voted for this evil legislation get their comeuppance.
Both TX & OH are setting up scenarios of women being killed by back-alley abortions, murdered by rapists & incestuous men who impregnate & by vigilantes. No company backing the supporters can call themselves champions for women.
How does OH proposed law stand against R v W as it may be hanging by a thread but it still stands?!
Suppose every woman at the moment she realizes she is pregnant she must name the father, who must immediately start carrying her on his health insurance or pay for her to get her own incl paying for the child, start paying child support so that she can get all of the things she needs such as a bigger place to live to accommodate a child. He must start paying into a 529 savings for the child’s future education, make mother a beneficiary of his insurance, etc.
I will never understand how pregnancy is only a woman’s issue when it requires a man to happen & he gets by unscathed.
Of course implementing any of the above to make a man responsible is yet another situation that will set a woman up for murder by cheating men, pastors, raping uncles, cousins, college boys, & so on.
I do pray this is challenged on the basis of making abortion completely illegal which it’s not & shame on any bobble-headed naive OH woman who votes for these assholes.
This just makes me want to vomit!
Aren't Anthem and United Healthcare nonprofits? How can they make political contributions?
And what a joke if THEY are categorized as non profits
I don't know how (or even if) it could be accomplished, but I'd like for some additional context around these donations. I'm not looking to excuse any of these companies for the *impact* of donating to politicians who clearly advance legislation that is counter to either the companies' public positions or - more importantly - the actual rights of the people these companies claim to support or honor.
But, I do think that it is very important for us to understand WHY these companies risk the public embarrassment of being called out on their hypocrisy by donating to candidates that act contrary to the rights of marginalized peoples. What is it that the donating companies really want from these politicians? I mean - maybe it is right there on the surface - they want (for example) to restrict access to abortion. But, I think that more often, the motivation comes from the politician's willingness to champion *other* legislation beneficial to the donor. If we understand that, we may find ourselves positioned to do more to *change* these entities' behavior. In essence, I'm looking for something that's more carrot and less stick.
After all that's happened, I still hold a shred of [naive] optimism.