Most of my views that go against the grain here come from my mom’s side of the family.
While I don’t agree with huge chunks of the ideology, I also don’t know how to react when they are boiled down to cartoons that don’t represent who they really are.
The strengths of how they live are not represented in these conversations.
No TRUE fundamentalist misogynist patriarchy!
I mean this is a problem that cuts across all of politics. Some of the worst “Trumper moron assholes” will also, like, help a neighbor in need once in a while. People aren’t just one thing, it’s why you should attack bad ideas instead. A pro-life extremist is just a person whose ideas about abortion are bad because they are pro-life to the extent that their views don’t hold up to reasoned scrutiny.
For the purposes of this conversation, it’s someone who is trying to ban Plan B.
I think FCP is gonna want a definition of “trying”
Someone posted a poll of Christians a few months ago and these were two of the questions…
Is Jesus Christ the son of god? 60% yes
Is abortion murder? 90% yes
Can someone find that poll for me? Need to keep it handy.
Little known fact - Protestants are taught that Jesus is God’s nephew.
What is the actual dispute here? If it’s just theological nittery, then I don’t know that it is that informative.
Evangelicals are cultural conservatives. They are very susceptible to messaging about wanting to preserve the social order. However, even they have their limits. In the 1970s, evangelical leaders were concerned about the inability to protect segregation. While many white evangelicals can be racist, they had come far enough to not be comfortable with explicitly racist Jim Crow laws.
Unable to argue openly for desegregation as a threat to the (white) American way of life, evangelical leaders searched for another issue.
The Equal Rights Amendment passed Congress in 1972 and was sent to the states for ratification. Evangelical leaders could push this as a threat to the traditional nuclear family and the feminists who supported the ERA also generally supported abortion rights. They found that they could mobilize evangelical voters by pushing abortion as an issue. They got a lot of credit for pushing Ronald Reagan to the nomination and then to the White House.
What changed is that their leaders decided to push abortion. This lead to a sincere opposition to abortion on the part of their masses. Liberals like to think that Republican voters don’t really care about abortion and, yes, they are hypocrites who often would be willing to get abortions if it might inconvenience them personally, but the truth is that a lot of conservatives genuinely care about the issue because they’ve been trained to do so for decades. They may be unable to articulate a consistent ideological explanation for why they think abortion should be illegal, but they actually do want it to be illegal for reasons other than owning the libs. It makes instinctive sense to them. The strength of conservative Republicanism is that you don’t have to be a deep thinker to know what the basic position is; it all makes sense as an internally consistent set of ideas so that it is predictable as to how you’re supposed to think.
(Not that owning the libs isn’t part of it. In some alternate timeline where they status quo on race and gender are maintained, evangelicals are strong supporters of abortion rights to own the Papists.)
I would argue that one reason is that preparing for a family makes it more likely that you will be a good parent. So they see abortion used for birth control as an easy out which is an affront to the work and sacrifices that they have made.
I still don’t understand this. Preparing for a family makes you a good parent, so they want someone who is unprepared to have a kid and be a bad parent?
The remedy for the “affront” is for someone to have a baby that they don’t want? I’m sure that unwanted kid is glad they get to be a punishment to someone.
Why would you assume an unprepared parent = bad parent?
I thought that is what you said:
You can substitute “someone who is more likely to be a bad parent” if that helps.
Not every kid ends up this way. Using your logic I wouldn’t even exist since my Dad fits it to a tee. It’s honestly pretty fucking offensive that you would even assume this.
Since I’m somehow the only person who feels this way the easy button is for me not to discuss it.
I’m not assuming anything, dude. This is what you are saying. At least that is what it sounds like to me. Feel free to clarify.
Since I’m somehow the only person itf who feels this way, the easy button is for me not to discuss it.
Texas teens will now need their parents’ permission to get birth control at federally funded clinics, following a court ruling late last month.
These clinics, funded through a program called Title X, provide free, confidential contraception to anyone regardless of age, income or immigration status; before this ruling, Title X was one of the only ways teens in Texas could obtain birth control without parental consent.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in December that the program violates parents’ rights and state and federal law. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has asked the court to reconsider that decision.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling threatens the entire Title X program, which was created during the Nixon administration to provide family planning services to low-income women. While Title X clinics should “encourage family participation … to the extent practicable,” federal regulations forbid them from requiring parental consent or notifying parents that a minor has received services.
Kacsmaryk, a religious liberty lawyer before he was appointed to the bench in 2019, ruled that Texas parents have a right under state law to be notified that their children are receiving contraception. His ruling “holds unlawful” and “sets aside” the confidentiality clause.
The case was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who masterminded the state’s ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell is representing Alexander Deanda, a father of three daughters.
Deanda is raising his daughters “in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” according to the complaint.
Neither Deanda nor his daughters have sought services at a Title X clinic, per the complaint. But Kacsmaryk ruled that the program violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”
I do like the pipeline that religious conservatives have here where they don’t have to show any actual harm just some vague imaginary harm and the religious conservative judge will issue some bullshit injunction that could potentially threaten entire swaths of American life, at least temporarily.
My guess is that parental consent for birth control easily polls above 50%.
Maybe. I was more annoyed by the absolute lack of needing to go through the motions when it comes to the conservative legal movement. To get a ruling on the opposite you absolutely would need to have a minor attempt to procure birth control and be denied and then get a lawyer because no conservative judge is going to issue an injunction for a liberal cause based on them just imagining their lifestyle being harmed, they’re going to have to have concrete harm.
Sir this is a Republic.