Jimmy Kimmel opened by weighing in on the national shortage of baby formula, which has left many parents scrambling for solutions. “I don’t know – I’m sure the ivermectin and bleach people could figure this out for us,” Kimmel quipped. “Just mix you up some Gatorade and some baby powder, throw in some breakfast sausage and it blends it up real good, the baby should be fine."
He made sure to point out, however, the utter hypocrisy of our right-wing Supreme Court majority forcing women to have babies in times of massive economic insecurity. You know, like a freaking shortage of baby formula! But hey, it's all about worshipping the fetus and hating the actual child for these Taliban Republicans.
Or as Kimmel noted: “There’s never been a better time for the Supreme Court to force women to have more kids than right now!"
After a leaked SCOTUS draft opinion revealed the conservative court majority's intention to do what every person of sound mind knew they would do in ending abortion rights, believers in choice became incensed and immediately started protesting. Late Show host Stephen Colbert was none too pleased with the leaked opinion.
“So congratulations, ladies,” Colbert told his viewers. “Decisions about what you can do with your body are now being made by four old dudes and a woman who thinks The Handmaid’s Tale is a rom-com.”
Colbert directed most of his ire at Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). Perpetually duped by far-right-wing SCOTUS nominees and their Christian Taliban agenda, Collins voted to confirm Trump-nominated justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.She stupidly said at the time she didn’t believe either would overturn the landmark abortion case. This lady really needs to have a sign above her flashing the words "Not getting it."
Washington (AFP) - Almost half of Americans morally opposed to abortion would help a friend or family member with arrangements to get one, and a majority would offer emotional support, a new study said Friday.
The authors of the paper, which appeared in the journal Science Advances, wrote the finding showed that people are willing to cross ideological and partisan lines to help others in their personal networks, something they referred to as "discordant benevolence."
"At first blush, these people may appear as hypocrites. They are not," said Sarah Cowan, a sociologist at New York University and the lead author of the article, in a statement.
"They are at a moral crossroads, pulled by their opposition to abortion and by their inclination to support people they care about."
The study was drawn from surveys and interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and comes after Texas passed a law allowing residents of the state to sue others who "aided or abetted" abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy.
The Supreme Court could soon roll back decades of precedent by ruling abortion is not a constitutional right. The issue is deeply contentious and divides the public along political lines between Democrats and Republicans.
The new study was based on survey responses from more than 1,574 people, and separately 74 in-depth interviews.
Of those morally opposed, 76 percent said they would offer emotional support —- compared to 96 percent of those who are not morally opposed, or whose view depended on circumstances.
But the type of support varied greatly, reflecting the social meaning of money and the view that spending money is a means to enact one's values, the authors said.
Just six percent of those morally opposed would directly help a friend or relative pay for the procedure, compared to the 45 percent who said they would help with ancillary costs.
Among those not morally opposed, 54 percent would help pay for the procedure, which typically costs $500 in the first trimester.
Moral conflict
Social scientists have long been interested in what explains helpful behavior.
Factors are thought to range from the act of kindness causing a person to feel good about themselves, to a sense of duty to their kinship networks and expectation of reciprocity in future.
But the authors said scenarios where rendering help placed the helper in a moral conflict were less studied.
Based on their in-depth interviews, they found people who were willing to help despite their inner opposition relied on three main rationalizations.
The first was "commiseration," or reasoning that people are worthy of care despite their imperfections in an imperfect world.
The second was "exemption" -- carving out an exception for their loved ones in particular, while the third was "discretion," -- the idea that what is right or wrong is inherently personal, not universal.
"If it were my sister...I would want to talk to her to make sure she's thinking about every possible thing," said Ryan, a person interviewed in the survey.
"But if, ultimately, she's like 'No, (Ryan), I can handle this,' then, 'Ok, do what you gotta do,' you know? But it's just because you love someone."
New Hampshire has long had a history of supporting abortion rights, but that's changed. Now, clinics that provide abortion in the state are being denied funding, and Republican Gov. Chris Sununu — who claimed to be "pro-choice" when he ran for re-election in 2018 — signed into law the first abortion ban in the state's history last month.
The move to undermine funding for clinics that provide abortions began last year, when New Hampshire's Executive Council, which must approve all state contracts, added an audit provision for clinics that receive money from the state's family planning program. The council alleged, despite much evidence proving otherwise, that state funds were being used for abortions at places like Planned Parenthood, which is illegal in New Hampshire.
There was no question the imposition of an audit provision was designed to delay — or strip — funding to the clinics. The timing of the audit provision requirement ensured that clinics would not receive money before the start of the next fiscal year. At the time, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services warned the Republican-controlled Executive Council that non-abortion care like breast cancer screenings would be severely disrupted by cutting off these funds.
Even though all the clinics have undergone audit proceedings, the Executive Council denied them funding in September, December, and again earlier this week.
In September, while the audits were still in process, the Council refused to approve contracts for clinics despite the state's Health and Human Services Commissioner, Lori Shibinette, saying all state providers were in compliance and none of them used public funds for abortions.
In December, the audits were complete and confirmed no commingling of funds. Indeed, Shibinette explained to the Council that the audit found the state "doesn't even pay enough to fund their regular family planning," much less subsidizing any abortion services. However, the audits did find other minor financial issues, but nothing related to using government funds for abortion.
The clinics then addressed these audit issues and corrected all problems, which the state confirmed. Still, it didn't matter. Earlier this week, the Executive Council voted yet again to deny funding. David Wheeler, who has led the charge against funding the clinics, said there wasn't enough evidence that state money wasn't being used to fund abortions even with an audit. When Shibinette asked Wheeler and the other Republicans on the Executive Council what information would be sufficient to satisfy them, they had no answer.
As Republicans on the Executive Council strangle clinic funding, other anti-choice Republicans in the state have rammed through new laws that restrict access to abortion. Republicans attached the abortion bills to the state budget, which required Sununu to agree to the bills or veto the entire budget mid-pandemic.
As of Jan. 1, 2022, the state has its first gestational ban ever, which bars abortions after 24 weeks and has no exceptions for the pregnant person's health.
Now, providers who perform an abortion after the 24-week mark could face both civil and criminal penalties, including being charged with a felony. If married to the mother, a father can also obtain monetary damages if the pregnant person has an abortion after 24 weeks.
There's also an ultrasound requirement. If people seek abortions in the early stages of their pregnancies, ultrasounds are internal, not external. This means pregnant people have to undergo vaginal penetration with a camera and, if they are uninsured, pay around $400 for the process.
Republicans, who control both legislative chambers in the state, aren't stopping with a 24-week abortion ban or an ultrasound requirement. They've drafted new bills, including a so-called "heartbeat" ban, which functions as a six-week ban on abortion. Another law Republicans are pushing would allow biological fathers to ask a court to prohibit their partners from having abortions.
What all this shows is that abortion access is precarious even in states where there has been a historic commitment to ensuring that abortions remain legal and accessible. If abortion opponents continue to control New Hampshire's Legislature and governorship, the state will likely pass even more laws restricting access.
