Search Results: cost of abortion

The Vances oppose abortion for religious reasons, but tends not to mix that subject with the birthrate conversation except to say that with all the new restrictions on reproductive choice, it would make sense to do more for young mothers financially.

Rather than religious belief, Musks supporters are motivated by a fear that humanity will not replace itself. They dismiss immigration as a remedy, arguing that it can weaken the culture of the receiving country.

This Musk aligned group, which embraces assisted reproduction, is most visibly identified with Malcolm & Simone Collins, a media-friendly couple with 4 children born through IVF. They favor using genetic selection to pick embryos with desirable characteristics, an approach that Christian groups typically oppose. The Collinses said they recently composed a suite of suggested executive orders and sent them to allies in the White House. They include deregulating child care businesses to bring down the cost, and loosening car seat laws, which can now require buying larger vehicles to accommodate more than two children. Another would create an award for women who have six or more children, versions of which exist in a handful of countries, including France.

An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. Groups like Population Connection worry that the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren’t as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be. And increasing numbers of young people do not want to burden the planet by having children of their own.

Nevertheless, pro-natalists want the administration to establish a commission to elevate and study the subject, as well as to infuse their priorities across the federal government. The Biden administration screened many policies and grant applications for their impact on climate change and racial equity, they point out; the same could be done for procreation.

I posted this question and it got deleted because of the picture.

My girlfriend Donna had an abortion because we had an accidental pregnancy. I was fully supportive due to the fact that neither of us had kids or wanted kids. We agreed no kids=freedom and money.

Recently, it seems like me and Donna are not the same page. She doesn’t want children of her own but wants to play mom to other peoples children, and constantly pushing other peoples children in my face. Trying make to play dad to other people’s kids.

Donna wants me to inconvenience my life for her friend Lacey’s kids. Her friend Lacy has this nightmare child who out of control. Lacy’s daughter breaks stuff, screams nonstop, and not potty trained at the age of 4. This kid is the biggest handful. Yet Donna is always volunteering to babysit this kid whenever we have it planned to spend the day together, and constantly pushing Lacey’s kid in my face. The other day we had an argument because I didn’t want the kid sleeping in our bed. The kid ended staying in our room and ripped one of my sweaters and damaged my Xbox controller 🎮.

I planned a couples road trip for us to drive from Toronto to New York and Donna was gonna bring Lacey’s kid, so I cancelled. I figured there’d be no point in spending this kind of money and time on a trip just to deal with a screaming child. Earlier today Donna had the kid over and she damaged the carpet with glue. Gonna cost lots of money to repair.

I told Donna I’m not dealing with this bullshit anymore. Her response is “if you loved me you’d take care of her”.

Donna talks about adopting Lacey’s daughter, even wants to leave Laceys kids in her will. I don't know if this is grounds for a breakup!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-appeals-abortion-mothers-life-texas_n_6594bd16e4b0f27b6e35b69b
In Texas Case, Federal Appeals Panel Says Emergency Care Abortions Not Required By 1986 Law

The Biden administration cannot use a 1986 emergency care law to require doctors in Texas hospitals to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

It’s one of numerous cases involving abortion restrictions that have played out in state and federal courts after the U. S. Supreme Court ended abortion rights in 2022. The administration issued guidance that year saying hospitals “must” provide abortion services if there’s a risk to the mother’s life, citing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment for anyone who arrives at the emergency room.

Texas state courts have also brought separate cases about when abortion must be allowed there, despite bans on it under most circumstances. The Texas Supreme Court ruled last month against a woman who asked for permission to abort a fetus with a fatal diagnosis. The same court heard arguments in November on behalf of women who were denied abortions despite serious risks to their health if they continued their pregnancies; the justices have not ruled on that case.
Abortion opponents have challenged the emergency care law guidance in multiple jurisdictions. In Texas, the state joined abortion opponents in a lawsuit to stop the guidance from taking effect and won at the district court level. The Biden administration appealed to the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But the appeal was rejected in Tuesday’s ruling by a unanimous three-judge panel.

You can't drive gas cars.

One party rule

Poop in streets

Homeless

Crime getting worse

Criminals don't get Prosecuted

Abortion after birth

Higher Taxes

No water

Open drug use

Fires

Land Slides

Low pay /High cost of living

Too many illegals

Power outages

High Taxes and fees

The more people leave the fewer members in the House of Reps , which is a good thing.