Thread by @Brainy1986

@HouseDemocrats @SenateDems @ewarren @BernieSanders @amyklobuchar Rather than RELIGIOUS argument re: abortion—we need a BUDGET argument. FORCING WOMEN to bear children INCREASES POOR PEOPLE and leads to GREATER TAXES on STATE Taxpayer. @MSNBC @washingtonpost @CNNPolitics

https://twitter.com/brainy1986/status/1653082643842449430

How? Absent fathers & women UNABLE to feed/clothe/care for babies = KIDS IN FOSTER CARE, or KIDS living at below poverty level. MEDICAID, Housing, Food subsidies REQUIRED. States OPTING to increase population in foster care: MUST SHOULDER THE EXPENSE: WITHOUT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

Example: Texas. 50K abortions in 2021. Now banned. WHAT is the 2023 budget for their HOUSING/MEDICAID/FOOD? Foster care? Adjust number for adopted (5K) = 45K
30K ALREADY in foster care = 75K in care. By 2nd year? 120K. By 3rd year? 165K. Welcome to the FEARED welfare State.

In Federal budget: FACTOR IN INFLUX of the average number of prohibited abortions in States. MAKE IT KNOWN that price hikes in MEDICAID, Housing, Foster Care are DRIVEN by STATE’s ban on abortion. Perhaps PROPOSE LEGISLATION to DENY FEDERAL AID to STATES CHOOSING this increase.

Republicans think “STICKING IT TO THE WOMAN” as absentee fathers do—is a WINNING strategy. It is NOT. It will be prohibitively expensive for STATES to house/feed/clothe/medically care for—impoverished women/“orphaned” kids in foster care. Adoption rate? Barely reduces numbers.

This BUDGET discussion on whether CAN AFFORD A BABY is typically done by Mother &/or Father. STATES now assuming this role—so STATE Governments MUST HAVE this CONVERSATION.

What IS the INCREASE in taxes going to be? Do ALL taxpayers have to pay it: or just Christians?

Religious zealots WANT MORE CHILDREN? Then they should ADOPT them: regardless of age/race/health. Or, PAY TAXES to support impoverished WOMAN or FOSTER CARE. Rather than having FOUR of own biological children: adopt FORCED babies. Not the right color? @RepMassie @RepBoebert

Oh…violates the First Amendment: religious freedom to have as many children as they like/can afford? Tough. They aren’t concerned about violating religious freedom of ALL women in FORCING WOMEN TO GIVE BIRTH TO carry—even die—in producing UNSUSTAINABLE children.

Oh…violates 14th Amendment? A “one child” policy (like China’s) would violate the right to LIFE? To LIBERTY? To PROPERTY? No it wouldn’t. Supreme Court determined 14th Amendment, Section 1, doesn’t enable CHOICE in size of family. If ZERO is not allowed—why is FOUR? Six? Or 8?

14th Amendment, Section 2, states “whole males over 21” earn representation. Added AFTER Civil War so Southern STATES would recognize the black man as included in “person/citizen” ID’d in Section 1. Didn’t work. 15th, 19th & 26th—amended 14th: meant black & female & 18.

So it is w/ 14th Amendment, Section 1. Must be amended to EXPLICITLY DEFINE “person/citizens” entitled to rights in Section 1. IF it doesn’t protect the citizens from STATES determining size one’s family: then what prevents them from deciding “one child only” like China’s?

Republicans ignoring REALITY of poverty/expense of raising children MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. If these STATES want more kids: THEIR taxpayers must PAY the (sometimes lifetime) EXPENSES.

Each House/Senate pro-Life Republican SHOULD INFORM THEIR VOTERs.
@SenateGOP @HouseGOP

P.s. DENYING A WOMAN’S RIGHT in 14th Amendment, Section 1, IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO REPUBLICANS.
Let’s see if they’re WILLING TO ACCEPT PAYING for THAT choice. Pass the Equal Rights Amendment to amend Section 1 of 14th Amendment.
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho #EqualRightsAmendment