Arkansas A.G. Rutledge: Instead of Underwriting Abortions, Companies Should Use the Money to Promote

I will never go to that sporting goods store again. Because that is the sort of — we are at a record high inflation, we [have] so many challenges, and here we are, providing stipends for women to go get an abortion as opposed to allowing them the opportunity to perhaps pay for someone to adopt that child. Why not allow that woman to carry that child to term and there are so many families out there that are looking to adopt, why don’t we put those sort of funds toward adoption and to give that life the chance to live?”








read more: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/06/28/arkansas-a-g-rutledge-instead-of-underwriting-abortions-companies-should-use-the-money-to-promote-adoption/









That is what should happen. More money toward supporting the woman who keeps her child. More money to support adoption options. Those are much more productive uses of the money than paying employees to go out of state to execute their child

 

Adoption is the best option for those unable or unwilling to support their own child.

 

So encourage your Senator to do the right thing and create bills that funnel money to adoption centers, single mothers, paid leave of absence for giving birth.

Who am I kidding? Rightists will just let Women struggle with this while they are forced to be incubators for their State.

 

How long are the waiting list for adoption.

Welfare already compensates single mothers with children accordingly..

Incubators, lmao And even Wal mart has PAID six month maternity leave for both Mothers and Fathers!

 

Thanks for proving the rightists don't care for the babies and women. That was quick!

 

The article is about private employers and their employees, not government

 

Another rightists who really doesn't care about the babies or women. Rightists just care about control.

Sad

 

Well I was going for you clearly haven't a grasp or concept on this subject.. Oh, thanks for proving my point

 

WTF are you talking about. The decision actually gives a voice back to the people. It's now more Democratic than ever as people in each state can vote to what they want as policy on the issue. States can still abort babies 24/7 if they so chose. However, now the people can vote on how abortion should be handled. If you don't like a states abortion laws, vote to have it changed. Democracy 101!

Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.” That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s.
No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction. → RBG

Even RBG knew that this ruling was damaging as it focused on right to privacy rather than equal protection. It was doomed to be overturned as it was adjudicated incorrectly.

 

Wow, the state officials in Arkansas sure are fond of sticking their noses into other people's private business.

Here's a crazy idea, since it was the state of Arkansas that banned abortion, not those companies, maybe AG Rutledge can put his money where his mouth is, or maybe get the state to put its money where his mouth is. What private businesses do with their money is none of his business.

 

She thought it should be based on equal protection? Why, because men can get pregnant?

Woke jokes aside, that seems quite stretch on RBG's part - arguably no less a stretch than the privacy argument in Roe.

Methinks it should have been based on the right to self-proprietorship, which the SCOTUS affirmed in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891):

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person..."

And if you want history and tradition, see what the Englishman in my signature asserted....

 

Wow, the Biden Administration sure seems to want to stick their noses in other people's private business...Vaccine mandates, 'ya know.

 

Yup, they're are all about violating people's right to self-proprietorship, and don't forget that many of them, including Biden, were in the administration that violated that same right with its infamous individual mandate.

So, what's the point of your deflection - two wrongs make a right? You mistakenly thought I support Vax Nazism? All the Above?

 

But he simply pointed something out. I for one will personally boycott all businesses that pay to help with abortion but not adoption too and ask others to do likewise.

 

Who besides you isn't for federal government sticking their noses in private affairs?? Why single out Arkansas?

 

That is what should happen. More money toward supporting the woman who keeps her child. More money to support adoption options. Those are much more productive uses of the money than paying employees to go out of state to execute their child. You were saying?

 

Another lefty who won’t stay on topic and only wants to launch ad hominem personal attacks….

 

They can decide for themself what the best option is.

 

So you want to cancel anyone who doesn’t follow your personal beliefs?

 

Nobody went to jail for not getting vaccinated

 

Every libertarian and small/limited government conservative in this country?

Because that state's AG is the subject of this thread.

Now I've got a question for you (or anyone else) - since when did Republicans and "conservatives" start promoting Klaus Schwab's neo-fascist "stakeholder capitalist" view that corporations should be tools of the State?

 

And yet the left encourage confusing children about the sexuality..

Man the hypocrisy is over the top these day!

 

Yes, and so did I.

Nevertheless, those companies aren't responsible for AG Rutledge's actions, so they're not responsible for pushing her social conservative agenda. She's responsible for that, and if she doesn't put her money where her mouth is she's a sanctimonious hypocrite.

That's your right, and those corporations will have to take responsibility for their own actions. Does that mean you should you be pushing their "pro-choice" agenda?

Of course not, and I would be an ass to suggest you should...

 

Another righty who thinks it's ok to force a woman to carry her rapist's fetus for nine months with no consideration of the
mother's mental health during those 9 months. Congratulations, you just proved you are every bit a Democrat when it
comes to individual rights.

 

State legislatures are more gerrymandered than federal districts.

The Koch Bros started buying state legislatures to gerrymander about 20 years ago....that plan paid off.....