Ah yes, the Supreme Court made some rulings the writer disagrees with, therefore they are murderers. and here’s a totally non biased science based analysis for why that is.
The people writing these gems don’t understand that this kind of analysis turns off more people than it convinces.
The article and the studies are as partisan as the title suggests. For example, someone who is pro-life and supports the Dobbs decision would point out the number of lives of unborn children saved due to abortion bans. The article and underlying studies ignore that.
Even if you consider fetuses to be people, which I don't, it doesn't take away from the number of people killed by abortion bans. If you save two people by killing one, you have still killed one person.
I think most Democrats today recognize that was a mistake. The passage of the Respect for Marriage Act last year indicates that they have probably learned from that mistake.
The estimate of less abortions evidently is not viewed as a positive. It's not highlighted in the conclusion. It's not mentioned against estimated deaths.
9 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 33.0 ms ] threadThe people writing these gems don’t understand that this kind of analysis turns off more people than it convinces.
I mean, if you can live in the past and blame Trump, why not live in the past and blame Obama?
It is easy to codify Roe v Wade and get it past SCOTUS...start asking your elected Democrats why they won't do it
This kind of writing isn’t fooling anyone anymore. They need to try harder.
The estimate of less abortions evidently is not viewed as a positive. It's not highlighted in the conclusion. It's not mentioned against estimated deaths.