Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Let’s be clear on what that implies: it means all women travelling Interstate would have to prove at a state border that they’re not pregnant. Which means proving with what?
Some form of proof you have an IUD or contraceptive? They’re planning on banning that too.
Some kind of medical document, emitted less than x days ago by a doctor?
And since that would be insanely difficult to obtain, it essentially means women would be banned from interstate travel.
If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance’s could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.
It’s just that based on prior arguments I’ve had, they’re just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It’s partly that they’re advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.
Let’s be clear on what that implies: it means all women travelling Interstate would have to prove at a state border that they’re not pregnant. Which means proving with what?
Some form of proof you have an IUD or contraceptive? They’re planning on banning that too.
Some kind of medical document, emitted less than x days ago by a doctor?
And since that would be insanely difficult to obtain, it essentially means women would be banned from interstate travel.
Welcome to Gilead, blessed be the fucking fruit.
If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance’s could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.
It would be considered a feature, not a bug, if women could not travel without the permission of men.
Yeah, that’s true.
It’s just that based on prior arguments I’ve had, they’re just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It’s partly that they’re advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.