Not The Onion

12324 readers

1440 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

340

Missouri Attorney General argues abortion pill will hurt the state by lowering teen pregnancies (www.stlpr.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21198558

Missouri’s attorney general has renewed a push to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, arguing in a lawsuit filed this month that its availability hurt the state by decreasing teenage pregnancy.

The revised lawsuit was filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, alongside GOP attorneys general in Kansas and Idaho. It asks a judge in Texas to order the Federal Drug Administration to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, one of two medications prescribed to induce chemical abortions.

The trio of attorneys general were forced to refile the litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the original lawsuit after concluding the original plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations — did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 80 points 3 weeks ago (23 children)

I.......what?

I don't even understand what's being argued. Usually I can argue against a stance, because I see their logic and disagree with it.

In this case, I don't even get the logic.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I'm confused how you don't see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost "potential population" from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It's entirely idiotic, but it's not hard to understand?

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

I guess from an ultra-rightwing christian fundamentalist perspective, abused post-pregnancy teens are what you want. They're the easily impregnable (in all senses of the word) future hardline voters.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You phrased that way too tame for how they're thinking about it.

More teen pregnancies = more mouths to feed = poverty = more wage slaves

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Of course, but I'm talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn't seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So he's agreeing to socialism? Or he's openly stating that they would like to manipulate the country by brutally oppressing the people in their state...

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

He's admitting to brutally oppressing people. Unfortunately, there are enough hateful/stupid people in the (heavily gerrymandered) key voting districts, it doesn't matter.

[–] yuknowhokat@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

So, to restate your point hopefully in a way that I understand it better, he wants more population to suck money from the federal government but doesn't give a living s*** about helping his constituents.

load more comments (18 replies)