I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here's why…
@VeryInsig @WestonDeLong …ultimately I would say he ejaculated irresponsibly since he impregnated someone who only wanted to be pregnant with financial security. Since he apparently couldn’t provide some back up security until he got another job, then he shouldn’t have impregnated her.
@VeryInsig @WestonDeLong If he didn’t know her well enough to know a job loss would be a deal breaker, then that’s another indication he should not have impregnated her and did indeed ejaculate irresponsibly.
@MTnutz @MSUPatriot People who sincerely want to reduce abortion love the thread. Thank you for confirming what the first tweet says: Men have zero interest in stopping abortion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For those of you following the story of my nephew and his wife, finally some good news: They just won their hearing! Our whole family is breathing a huge sigh of relief. I'll share a few more details about the outcome of the hearing in the next tweet.
Though they've been awarded custody, in the short term (3 to 6 months), the parents will still be required to have visits from DCF to observe their parenting. I’m told that full unconditional custody is simply not ever offered in these hearings.
Something you might be interested to know: As soon as the judge ruled against DCF, DCF promptly asked for a gag order against any discussion of the case with the media. But their request for a gag order was denied (except for the actual court records).
Many of you have been following the updates about my nephew and his wife. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) in Boston took their babies (3 mos old and 3 yrs old) in the middle of the night, with no warrant or paperwork. You can catch up here:
I have an update for you: The 72-hour hearing is happening this week. They are told it will begin on Monday or Tuesday. It’s called a 72-hour hearing because it’s supposed to happen within 72 hours of DCF filing the paperwork after separating a family.
If you can’t afford a lawyer, the court appoints one. That lawyer may have little or no experience with DCF, and because the hearing happens so quickly, they won’t have time to prepare. So the chance that parents will lose custody of their children is very high.
Two Saturdays ago I wrote about a nightmare my nephew and his wife are experiencing. Boston DCF (Dept of Children & Families) took their babies (age 3 months and 3.5 years) in the middle of the night. With no warrant. Here's the whole story written up by the mother.
/1
Their children have severe allergies.
/2
She took her 3 month old baby to the emergency room for a high fever.
/3
My extended family has been thrown into a hellish nightmare. My nephew and his wife, who live in Boston, just had their two sons taken from them in the middle of the night by CPS. Their sons are 6 months old, and 3 1/2. A baby and a toddler, the baby still nursing.
Very late on Wednesday night, they took the baby into the emergency room because he had a high fever. In a scan, the hospital staff saw signs of a possible injury from 6 weeks ago, the parents weren’t aware of the injury, so the hospital suspected child abuse. CPS was called.
My nephew and his wife were in shock. They immediately complied with all CPS requests. The baby was seen by his usual pediatrician, who vouched for the parents and confirmed the baby was thriving in this family.
This guy is rightly getting ratioed because he doesn’t know his “secret” is having a wife. Makes me think about how often companies hire men with stay-at-home wives. Based on what he describes, we can see his wife is doing ~70% of the work it takes to keep him thriving. So...
Common sense says that his company should split his paycheck 30/70 and pay 70% directly to the wife. She should get 70% of the retirement benefits directly in her name, and 70% of any other perks or benefits. They should both be on the payroll.
His company is taking a huge risk — they have a CEO whose entire life is built on volunteer, unpaid labor. Can you imagine if this company relied on key internal departments that were run only by volunteers with no paid contracts? What investors would support that kind of risk?
I'm full of anger and rage. But I know there is so much we can do. Here are 10 smart regulations that would prevent gun violence, and that the vast majority of the country would support:
1. A true national background check for all gun sales with a fully funded complete database.
2. Create a legal definition of what responsible gun ownership requires. Are there mandates there?
3. Take a harder look at who has the ‘right’ to own a gun.
4. Make gun owners legally responsible for whatever happens with their gun.
5. Make high-capacity weapons illegal.
6. Require a mandatory 2-month waiting period.
7. Require firearm insurance.
8. Require firearm registration.
9. Provide funding to enforce a lifetime ban on gun ownership for domestic violence or intimate partner violence convictions.