when Mitch McConnell is being the reasonable one in any scenario:
i don’t have the bandwidth to adequately translate my processing into a piece right now (with the event tomorrow, we are at full tilt bonkers busy).
but a couple of WTF’s:
1) the definition in the language of the actual title of the bill defines and qualifies “humanhood” by the ability to feel pain.
please, let that sink in.
2) this language (designed to demonstrate the rationale and necessity of graham’s mysogony-as-goverment),
“…(14) Abortion carries significant physical and
psychological risks to the pregnant woman…”
brazenly, though unsurprisingly, misses the much larger truth using the overt gaslighting that we barely even register anymore.
far more risky (in fact, catastrophic) to the physical and psychological well-being of the woman is forced birth.
3) in the linked article Mr Graham says that this ban is in alignment with European countries.
“…telling reporters his proposal will bring the United States in line with most European nations that impose limits on abortion.”
he finishes that statement by saying that he hopes it will become something that is in alignment with what the American people want,
“‘Abortion is not banned in America. It’s left up to the elected officials in America to define the issue,’ he said. ‘States have the ability to do it at the state level, and we have the ability in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose. I have chosen to speak. I have chosen to craft legislation that I think is eminently reasonable in the eyes of the world and I hope the American people.'”
a couple of things. number one, his first claim and apparent belief as to what other major Nations hold as practice is false. see link. number two, it is his only job to represent his constituency. this statement of his about hoping that we might catch up regarding what we as a people believe, stand for, and desire, is irrelevant and serves as proof that he is directly dishonoring his oath.
i dunno. maybe Lindsey doesn’t read the times.