Ohio is the latest flashpoint in the nation’s ongoing battle over abortion access since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure last year.
The amount of people that move simply for abortion laws is miniscule. It’s such a small part of the lives of even the people that opt for abortions, that it is of little consideration.
Marijuana on the other hand, might actually have an effect on the population because drugs are a major part of a lot of peoples lives.
Ask 100 people what their reasons for moving to a specific place are, I can almost guarantee none of them will mention abortion laws. Not that they aren’t important, but abortions are relatively uncommon among the population so most people don’t even think about them
I mean, it’s a large part of the reason I want out of Texas so badly. I have never been pregnant, nor do I ever plan to be. And I have an IUD. But I don’t want my money funding a place like Texas. I don’t want my money funding any place that’s anti-woman/anti-minority/anti-LGBTQ+/anti-immigration.
I want my tax dollars and the money I spend in the local economy to go to treating human beings like human beings. Robust social programs and the like.
Tbf tho, you did say miniscule, and I can only speak for myself and my husband - so literally no one. It’s just…politics can absolutely influence where a person wants to move to if they have the capabilities of making said move.
Just give it a few more years, and your IUD will be against the law. If people aren’t wisened up or awake yet, that’ll kick em in the arse and trigger more flight to other states.
That’s exactly what I’m worried about in places like Texas/FL/MS/MO/etc etc. I’m also mid 30s so pretty damn close to being considered a “geriatric pregnancy” if I ever were to get pregnant. Hopefully that would be enough to get left alone and no one looking into me.
However, my heart is broken for all the young women who are born here, or who end up here through life’s circumstances and have no choice for their own bodies. I found out about that high school in South Texas for specifically pregnant teen girls, and I was so fucking distraught over it (well I still am). The “pregnancy crisis” centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation. Ugh, it’s so fucking much here.
Then Bexar county voting down Prop A (which would have decriminalized abortion in San Antonio) earlier this year, and I just kinda gave up on this state.
Seems pretty crazy to me that so much was bundled into 1 prop? I imagine there’s a reason that was the case, but that really makes it easy to fight it on other grounds instead of on each individual issue. They didn’t explicitly vote down abortion, they voted down all those things.
Maybe there’s still some hope for other states if Ohio’s single purpose measure passed?
American politics relies on fat attatched to other legislation. It’s the reason nothing ever gets passed anymore. There’s a million riders and if someone is unhappy with the unrelated, but still on the bill/prop, measure, they’ll still vote no.
This isn’t legislation though, it’s a proposal from the population.
For whatever reason they grouped things together.
Maybe they didn’t think they could get enough signatories to get the crime stuff through and thought abortion and weed would draw enough voters for the other stuff?
Maybe there’s some weird law in Texas that made them do that?
Whatever the reason, what Ohio did was right. 2 separate things.
You’re worried about something only supported by a fringe group (some conservative Catholics) and legal for your entire lifetime. Keep in mind that the only opposition that the general pro-life movement has is towards abortifacients, of which IUDs are not.
Just because something is vaguely similar doesn’t mean that it is necessarily affected by a policy. Banning slavery, doesn’t mean that you can’t make your children do chores.
“The 'pregnancy crisis’s centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation”
Everyone is legally allowed to spread misinformation.
Maybe your heart wouldn’t be so broken if your head wasn’t so broken. But who am I kidding, you likely don’t actually care about this to any actionable degree, just typed out a response since the topic was broached.
Is there evidence for this? People move primarily for job, education opportunities and existing family. Local laws don’t really factor in that much, again unless you are participating in activity that your daily life revolves around, like drugs or maybe guns if you are a real freak about them.
Look at the demographics. Red States have a lot of Red Voters moving in, but not a lot of blue voters. Blue states have a lot of Blue and Red voters coming in. This doesn’t only deal with abortion, but it’s a major concern.
Anecdotally, anyone Gen Z who isn’t a raging magat I know refuses to move to states such as texas due to the regressive abortion laws. Watch the next few years as big tech finds ways to move out of those states as they can’t attract talent.
Ex. Austin is a great city for tech. I could likely make the same salary I do in Seattle, at a lower CoL. However, due to the political climate of texas, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of living there.
You realise industries built up around a workforce? It’s why you have complexes of related companies in regions because they poach each other’s workforces. They don’t just build a multi-million/billion dollar facility and hope that their workforce materialises out of thin air.
Tech companies like any high-skill field, built up around universities that produce the talent. Unless you think UT-Austin is suddenly going to stop producing students, why do you think that tech companies are going to abandon all their investment?
“Look at the demographics”
Why don’t you read the US Census inflow and outflow of populations between the states? (I don’t have the software to read it on my phone rn, but I seriously doubt it supports your argument, as far as I know low COL states are attracting everyone from high COL states. The low COL states are due to low market demand from being rural and just happen to be Republican).
If it were really true that “red states” only import “red voters”, then how come cities in “red” states become increasingly “blue” over time? Keep in mind that the majority of the population even in relatively rural states is in cities. If they were really just importing Republican voters, then one would expect the voting patterns to stay the same. Anecdotally, basically every state in the West Coast and the adjoining states have been flooded with Democratic voting Californians driven out by COL in the past several decades.
Tech companies went to texas for tax breaks, not because of local talent. People move for jobs. They also provided relocation stipends when they opened those offices. They literally did exactly what you say is impossible. They brought the people so they could have a workforce.
Low COL states are primarily destinations, but blue ones are more so than red ones. People leaving blue states tend to either be red voters or blue voters moving to other blue states.
Urban counties almost always vote blue, as they tend to have more diverse populations. They’ll continue to do so as new voters join, as young people tend to overwhelmingly vote blue.
Blue voters aren’t moving to the Alabamas, Oklahomas, Iowas etc. they’re moving into what would be considered purple states at best. (And yes, texas is closer to a purple state than a red one now).
While not the only reason, my partner and I moved to WA from a red state so that my partner would feel safe. I also know other people that did the same. So your first point is at least slightly incorrect, if not completely. Do you have a uterus that certain state governments want control over? If not, maybe you shouldn’t speak on this.
I know literally hundreds of women were this is not the case. The fact that I can only find them on a web forum that specifically selects for people that have your viewpoint (a far-left {no you’re not mainstream Americans no matter how much you want to believe it} website with a post that specifically targets people interested in abortion), is pretty strong evidence of how little it factors in.
More than half of young women are making living and work decisions based on abortion access. 44% are thinking of moving or have moved to a state where abortion is protected. 10% have already declined jobs in states where abortion would be illegal. Oh, and 57% of women and 48% of men said their companies and leaders weren’t doing enough to ensure abortion access.
Which has led to some towns having no obgyn clinics at all.
In short, the data sharply disagrees with your survey of the hundreds of women you know. Perhaps you should consider that the people you know aren’t terribly representative of the US as a whole, and you’re drawing terribly incorrect conclusions because of it. I think Ohio, the latest in a long list of Blue and Red states keeping abortion legal, suggests you’re completely incorrect on mainstream Americans. A commanding majority from Kansas to Ohio to Kentucky want to live somewhere where abortion is legal.
The only question left is if you’re going to continue to plug your ears or if you’re actually going to accept that being against abortion puts you outside of mainstream Americans. I’m strongly suspect it’s the former, so I’ll preemptively wish you a pleasant time in finding out just how wrong you are. Repeatedly.
The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.
Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it’s primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.
FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it’s rarely what uneducated journalists think.
I love that you brought up formal education regarding stats; you must be an expert since you kept track of the opinions and personal thoughts of “hundreds of women” you know.
You’ve been told of personal experiences, and you’ve also been given multiple studies above. Are you really so insecure that you cannot be wrong even when presented with clear, cut and dry evidence? Is that insecurity what’s causing you to belittle the pain and turmoil that women in red states experience every day?
I find it very interesting that you had no problem seeing the logic behind MJ legalization, but when women came into the picture you suddenly weren’t so sure.
By the way, your “I know literally hundreds of women” line has still got it. Makes me giggle every time I read it.
It’s simply a matter of selecting relevant statistics.
“Belittle the pain and turmoil”
Bit melodramatic aren’t we? People experience “pain and turmoil”, regardless of what state they live in. I love how pro-choice people have to portray abortion restrictions as modern-day Auschwitz, because they solely want to permit the active killing of human beings for any reason. That’s all this entire conversation is about, it’s not about accuracy it’s about the fact that it doesn’t endorse the narrative that abortion is critical to women’s lives. That’s the only reason anyone here has a problem with it.
“Makes me giggle everytime”
If you haven’t held personal conversations with hundreds of people in your lifetime, you’re just socially inept. This isn’t a difficult task, and nowhere did I claim this happened simultaneously. I was merely referencing the fact that out of hundreds of people I’ve interacted with, only a handful referenced marijuana laws (basically just hardcore potheads) and zero abortion laws as the primary reasons for moving. I even threw in gun laws, even though I’ve never actually known someone who primarily moved because of them.
Then where are your statistics? Besides, at the point where it is legal anywhere in the states to get an abortion, is before the infant has gained awareness, so it isn’t killing a human being, it is killing a being that isn’t alive yet. Also, abortion is quite critical to woman’s lives, it can in fact be a matter of life and death, or the ability to afford a home, or food, or it could be the matter of rape where the woman had no choice at all in the matter, and might even be a child.
The point about your line being funny, is about the way you put it, not it being strange to happen.
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
You cannot claim to know personal opinions of hundreds of women, this is exactly why you shouldn’t speak on this subject. There’s a term for this, called Dunbar’s number. You can only really be friends with a max of around 150 people. So, are you really going to say that of all of your friends, they’re all women (or at least 101 of them, to meet your hundreds mark), and you’ve talked to them (and listened) about their feelings around abortion? You asked each person if they would feel safer in a state with abortion rights and access as opposed to one without?
Right now, it seems that you’re not a woman and you’re putting words into “hundreds” of their mouths. Exactly what right leaning people love to do.
“You cannot claim to know the opinions of hundreds of women… Dunbar’s number”
Destroyed by a weakly defined social science term, that bears little application to the topic. One can easily exceed Dunbar’s number over a period of time spanning decades. If I ask hundreds of women privately their reason for moving, laws, specifically ones about abortion are going to play very little role. The primary reasons for moving are economic and familial, you know things that actually effect day-to-day life.
Additionally if the opinions of multiple women contradicted mine (as a woman), would I really have a logical basis for asserting that my opinion is representative of the group of women?
“right-leaning”
You’re confusing criticism of a circle-jerk of unfounded nonsense as being right-leaning. If that’s the case then why don’t you want to be right-leaning?
That’s a lot of words to say you know nothing about what women actually care about. You seem to have latched onto Dunbar’s number and not the fact that you’re putting words in women’s mouths. Also, I highly doubt you’ve exceeded Dunbar’s number, ever. I’m sure that you speaking for women (when you aren’t one, clearly) really makes them feel safe enough for them to all share their most vulnerable thoughts with you.
Also, you originally claimed that people care about MJ because they use it in their daily lives. Do you really think that access to reproductive healthcare is not a daily thought for many women?
marijuana is and has always been effectively legal. think of how many people you know that smoke every day. how many of them have actually been busted? the laws against marijuana were never about stopping people from smoking marijuana. they’re about making something tons of people do illegal so that they can:
investigate, harass and disrupt inconvenient people whenever they want to for suspicion of doing something the majority of people do
tack on additional charges and jailtime in order to funnel more profits to private prisons and the major orgs that contract out prison slave labor
“Marijuana is and has already been effectively legal”
Absolutely. The war on drugs failed, not because of abuses of police or that it’s impossible to ban products. But because Americans love drugs and has always culturally permitted it’s use. The reason why countries like Singapore don’t have drug problems is cultural suppression, in addition to draconian laws.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant conspiracism. Prison labor and private facilities comprise zilch to the US economy (billions sounds large until you realize that the US economy is on the order of 20 trillion), infact many people are released specifically because it is cheaper.
Marijuana use additionally increased with cultural acceptance, it wasn’t illegalised when it would actually have been an effective way to hassle innocents.
The amount of people that move simply for abortion laws is miniscule. It’s such a small part of the lives of even the people that opt for abortions, that it is of little consideration.
Marijuana on the other hand, might actually have an effect on the population because drugs are a major part of a lot of peoples lives.
Yes having your privacy and autonomy taken away, such a small part of a person’s life. Insignificant!
What are laws if not violations of autonomy and privacy?
Intelligent people actually recognise that this is not a useful distinction between prohibiting abortion and any other action.
So why can’t you?
deleted by creator
Ask 100 people what their reasons for moving to a specific place are, I can almost guarantee none of them will mention abortion laws. Not that they aren’t important, but abortions are relatively uncommon among the population so most people don’t even think about them
I mean, it’s a large part of the reason I want out of Texas so badly. I have never been pregnant, nor do I ever plan to be. And I have an IUD. But I don’t want my money funding a place like Texas. I don’t want my money funding any place that’s anti-woman/anti-minority/anti-LGBTQ+/anti-immigration.
I want my tax dollars and the money I spend in the local economy to go to treating human beings like human beings. Robust social programs and the like.
Tbf tho, you did say miniscule, and I can only speak for myself and my husband - so literally no one. It’s just…politics can absolutely influence where a person wants to move to if they have the capabilities of making said move.
Just give it a few more years, and your IUD will be against the law. If people aren’t wisened up or awake yet, that’ll kick em in the arse and trigger more flight to other states.
That’s exactly what I’m worried about in places like Texas/FL/MS/MO/etc etc. I’m also mid 30s so pretty damn close to being considered a “geriatric pregnancy” if I ever were to get pregnant. Hopefully that would be enough to get left alone and no one looking into me.
However, my heart is broken for all the young women who are born here, or who end up here through life’s circumstances and have no choice for their own bodies. I found out about that high school in South Texas for specifically pregnant teen girls, and I was so fucking distraught over it (well I still am). The “pregnancy crisis” centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation. Ugh, it’s so fucking much here.
Then Bexar county voting down Prop A (which would have decriminalized abortion in San Antonio) earlier this year, and I just kinda gave up on this state.
Seems pretty crazy to me that so much was bundled into 1 prop? I imagine there’s a reason that was the case, but that really makes it easy to fight it on other grounds instead of on each individual issue. They didn’t explicitly vote down abortion, they voted down all those things.
Maybe there’s still some hope for other states if Ohio’s single purpose measure passed?
American politics relies on fat attatched to other legislation. It’s the reason nothing ever gets passed anymore. There’s a million riders and if someone is unhappy with the unrelated, but still on the bill/prop, measure, they’ll still vote no.
This isn’t legislation though, it’s a proposal from the population.
For whatever reason they grouped things together.
Maybe they didn’t think they could get enough signatories to get the crime stuff through and thought abortion and weed would draw enough voters for the other stuff?
Maybe there’s some weird law in Texas that made them do that?
Whatever the reason, what Ohio did was right. 2 separate things.
“That’s exactly what I’m worried about”
You’re worried about something only supported by a fringe group (some conservative Catholics) and legal for your entire lifetime. Keep in mind that the only opposition that the general pro-life movement has is towards abortifacients, of which IUDs are not.
Just because something is vaguely similar doesn’t mean that it is necessarily affected by a policy. Banning slavery, doesn’t mean that you can’t make your children do chores.
“The 'pregnancy crisis’s centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation” Everyone is legally allowed to spread misinformation.
Maybe your heart wouldn’t be so broken if your head wasn’t so broken. But who am I kidding, you likely don’t actually care about this to any actionable degree, just typed out a response since the topic was broached.
It may not be the sole reason to move somewhere, but it’s often an explicit reason NOT to move somewhere
Is there evidence for this? People move primarily for job, education opportunities and existing family. Local laws don’t really factor in that much, again unless you are participating in activity that your daily life revolves around, like drugs or maybe guns if you are a real freak about them.
Look at the demographics. Red States have a lot of Red Voters moving in, but not a lot of blue voters. Blue states have a lot of Blue and Red voters coming in. This doesn’t only deal with abortion, but it’s a major concern.
Anecdotally, anyone Gen Z who isn’t a raging magat I know refuses to move to states such as texas due to the regressive abortion laws. Watch the next few years as big tech finds ways to move out of those states as they can’t attract talent.
Ex. Austin is a great city for tech. I could likely make the same salary I do in Seattle, at a lower CoL. However, due to the political climate of texas, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of living there.
“As they can’t attract talent”
You realise industries built up around a workforce? It’s why you have complexes of related companies in regions because they poach each other’s workforces. They don’t just build a multi-million/billion dollar facility and hope that their workforce materialises out of thin air.
Tech companies like any high-skill field, built up around universities that produce the talent. Unless you think UT-Austin is suddenly going to stop producing students, why do you think that tech companies are going to abandon all their investment?
“Look at the demographics”
Why don’t you read the US Census inflow and outflow of populations between the states? (I don’t have the software to read it on my phone rn, but I seriously doubt it supports your argument, as far as I know low COL states are attracting everyone from high COL states. The low COL states are due to low market demand from being rural and just happen to be Republican).
If it were really true that “red states” only import “red voters”, then how come cities in “red” states become increasingly “blue” over time? Keep in mind that the majority of the population even in relatively rural states is in cities. If they were really just importing Republican voters, then one would expect the voting patterns to stay the same. Anecdotally, basically every state in the West Coast and the adjoining states have been flooded with Democratic voting Californians driven out by COL in the past several decades.
Tech companies went to texas for tax breaks, not because of local talent. People move for jobs. They also provided relocation stipends when they opened those offices. They literally did exactly what you say is impossible. They brought the people so they could have a workforce.
Low COL states are primarily destinations, but blue ones are more so than red ones. People leaving blue states tend to either be red voters or blue voters moving to other blue states.
Urban counties almost always vote blue, as they tend to have more diverse populations. They’ll continue to do so as new voters join, as young people tend to overwhelmingly vote blue.
Blue voters aren’t moving to the Alabamas, Oklahomas, Iowas etc. they’re moving into what would be considered purple states at best. (And yes, texas is closer to a purple state than a red one now).
While not the only reason, my partner and I moved to WA from a red state so that my partner would feel safe. I also know other people that did the same. So your first point is at least slightly incorrect, if not completely. Do you have a uterus that certain state governments want control over? If not, maybe you shouldn’t speak on this.
I know literally hundreds of women were this is not the case. The fact that I can only find them on a web forum that specifically selects for people that have your viewpoint (a far-left {no you’re not mainstream Americans no matter how much you want to believe it} website with a post that specifically targets people interested in abortion), is pretty strong evidence of how little it factors in.
https://fortune.com/2023/08/09/healthcare-reproductive-rights-male-employees-companies-abortion-access-job-application-polarization-workplace/
+8% in interest for a company if they offer abortion access.
https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/23/employer-benefits-state-abortion-laws-young-women-employees/
More than half of young women are making living and work decisions based on abortion access. 44% are thinking of moving or have moved to a state where abortion is protected. 10% have already declined jobs in states where abortion would be illegal. Oh, and 57% of women and 48% of men said their companies and leaders weren’t doing enough to ensure abortion access.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/
10.5% drop in applications.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/22/abortion-idaho-women-rights-healthcare
Which has led to some towns having no obgyn clinics at all.
In short, the data sharply disagrees with your survey of the hundreds of women you know. Perhaps you should consider that the people you know aren’t terribly representative of the US as a whole, and you’re drawing terribly incorrect conclusions because of it. I think Ohio, the latest in a long list of Blue and Red states keeping abortion legal, suggests you’re completely incorrect on mainstream Americans. A commanding majority from Kansas to Ohio to Kentucky want to live somewhere where abortion is legal.
The only question left is if you’re going to continue to plug your ears or if you’re actually going to accept that being against abortion puts you outside of mainstream Americans. I’m strongly suspect it’s the former, so I’ll preemptively wish you a pleasant time in finding out just how wrong you are. Repeatedly.
The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.
Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it’s primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.
FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it’s rarely what uneducated journalists think.
I love that you brought up formal education regarding stats; you must be an expert since you kept track of the opinions and personal thoughts of “hundreds of women” you know.
You’ve been told of personal experiences, and you’ve also been given multiple studies above. Are you really so insecure that you cannot be wrong even when presented with clear, cut and dry evidence? Is that insecurity what’s causing you to belittle the pain and turmoil that women in red states experience every day?
I find it very interesting that you had no problem seeing the logic behind MJ legalization, but when women came into the picture you suddenly weren’t so sure.
By the way, your “I know literally hundreds of women” line has still got it. Makes me giggle every time I read it.
It’s simply a matter of selecting relevant statistics.
“Belittle the pain and turmoil”
Bit melodramatic aren’t we? People experience “pain and turmoil”, regardless of what state they live in. I love how pro-choice people have to portray abortion restrictions as modern-day Auschwitz, because they solely want to permit the active killing of human beings for any reason. That’s all this entire conversation is about, it’s not about accuracy it’s about the fact that it doesn’t endorse the narrative that abortion is critical to women’s lives. That’s the only reason anyone here has a problem with it.
“Makes me giggle everytime”
If you haven’t held personal conversations with hundreds of people in your lifetime, you’re just socially inept. This isn’t a difficult task, and nowhere did I claim this happened simultaneously. I was merely referencing the fact that out of hundreds of people I’ve interacted with, only a handful referenced marijuana laws (basically just hardcore potheads) and zero abortion laws as the primary reasons for moving. I even threw in gun laws, even though I’ve never actually known someone who primarily moved because of them.
Then where are your statistics? Besides, at the point where it is legal anywhere in the states to get an abortion, is before the infant has gained awareness, so it isn’t killing a human being, it is killing a being that isn’t alive yet. Also, abortion is quite critical to woman’s lives, it can in fact be a matter of life and death, or the ability to afford a home, or food, or it could be the matter of rape where the woman had no choice at all in the matter, and might even be a child. The point about your line being funny, is about the way you put it, not it being strange to happen.
“It is killing a being that isn’t alive yet”
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
The lead drinking mug was a bad idea bud
It’s called pewter dipshit. If you’re going to try to insult someone it helps to not look the bigger moron.
Ah, so you don’t have a uterus. Got it!
You cannot claim to know personal opinions of hundreds of women, this is exactly why you shouldn’t speak on this subject. There’s a term for this, called Dunbar’s number. You can only really be friends with a max of around 150 people. So, are you really going to say that of all of your friends, they’re all women (or at least 101 of them, to meet your hundreds mark), and you’ve talked to them (and listened) about their feelings around abortion? You asked each person if they would feel safer in a state with abortion rights and access as opposed to one without?
Right now, it seems that you’re not a woman and you’re putting words into “hundreds” of their mouths. Exactly what right leaning people love to do.
“You cannot claim to know the opinions of hundreds of women… Dunbar’s number”
Destroyed by a weakly defined social science term, that bears little application to the topic. One can easily exceed Dunbar’s number over a period of time spanning decades. If I ask hundreds of women privately their reason for moving, laws, specifically ones about abortion are going to play very little role. The primary reasons for moving are economic and familial, you know things that actually effect day-to-day life.
Additionally if the opinions of multiple women contradicted mine (as a woman), would I really have a logical basis for asserting that my opinion is representative of the group of women?
“right-leaning” You’re confusing criticism of a circle-jerk of unfounded nonsense as being right-leaning. If that’s the case then why don’t you want to be right-leaning?
That’s a lot of words to say you know nothing about what women actually care about. You seem to have latched onto Dunbar’s number and not the fact that you’re putting words in women’s mouths. Also, I highly doubt you’ve exceeded Dunbar’s number, ever. I’m sure that you speaking for women (when you aren’t one, clearly) really makes them feel safe enough for them to all share their most vulnerable thoughts with you.
Also, you originally claimed that people care about MJ because they use it in their daily lives. Do you really think that access to reproductive healthcare is not a daily thought for many women?
marijuana is and has always been effectively legal. think of how many people you know that smoke every day. how many of them have actually been busted? the laws against marijuana were never about stopping people from smoking marijuana. they’re about making something tons of people do illegal so that they can:
investigate, harass and disrupt inconvenient people whenever they want to for suspicion of doing something the majority of people do
tack on additional charges and jailtime in order to funnel more profits to private prisons and the major orgs that contract out prison slave labor
“Marijuana is and has already been effectively legal”
Absolutely. The war on drugs failed, not because of abuses of police or that it’s impossible to ban products. But because Americans love drugs and has always culturally permitted it’s use. The reason why countries like Singapore don’t have drug problems is cultural suppression, in addition to draconian laws.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant conspiracism. Prison labor and private facilities comprise zilch to the US economy (billions sounds large until you realize that the US economy is on the order of 20 trillion), infact many people are released specifically because it is cheaper.
Marijuana use additionally increased with cultural acceptance, it wasn’t illegalised when it would actually have been an effective way to hassle innocents.