In Post-Roe World, These Conservatives Embrace a New Kind of Welfare

[Mac-7]

It's hard for me not to see this as a step in the right direction.
At the very least, it's a refreshing change from the attitude of concern for the fetus right up until it's born..and then vilification as welfare baby and an attitude of, that's the parent's problem once the baby is born~

However, a person's absolute right to sovereignty over their bodies requires the right to terminate pregnancy, at least in the early stages. No matter how morally repugnant one might find it. We should give free rein to the 'morning-after' pill and early intervention, as well as free contraception.

But I cannot find helping parents, especially poor ones, to be a bad thing.

I bet that there are many indeed on the Right, who do.

You keep referring to parents as plural

But the biggest supporter of abortion are single party girls who sleep around

 

[wamose]

‘Sending cash to parents, with few strings attached. Expanding Medicaid. Providing child care subsidies to families earning six figures.

The ideas may sound like part of a progressive platform. But they are from an influential group of conservative intellectuals with a direct line to elected politicians. They hope to represent the future of a post-Trump Republican Party — if only, they say, their fellow travelers would abandon Reaganomics once and for all.

These conservatives generally oppose abortion rights. They’re eager to promote marriage, worried about the nation’s declining fertility rate and often resist the trans rights movement.

But they also acknowledge that with abortion now illegal or tightly restricted in half the states, more babies will be born to parents struggling to pay for the basics — rent, health care, groceries and child care — when prices are high and child care slots scarce.

“A full-spectrum family policy has to be about encouraging and supporting people in getting married and starting families,” said Oren Cass, executive director of the American Compass think tank. “It has to be pro-life, but also supportive of those families as they are trying to raise kids in an economic environment where that has become a lot harder to do.”

The idea of spending heavily on family benefits remains an outlier within the Republican Party, which only recently rejected Democrats’ attempts to extend pandemic-era child tax credits.

But a number of conservative members of Congress have embraced new benefits for parents, including Mr. Cass’s former boss, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, as well as the senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and J.D. Vance of Ohio.’

In Post-Roe World, These Conservatives Embrace a New Kind of Welfare (Published 2023)

Some conservative thinkers are pushing Republicans to move on from Reagan-era family policy and send cash to families. A few lawmakers are listening.

www.nytimes.com

Conservatives wouldn’t have this problem, of course, if they were just consistent with rightist dogma, in this case small government/less government: respecting the privacy and reproductive rights of women.

But here we see where conservatives are not only advocates of big government/more government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, they’re also advocating for big government/more government to promote public assistance and welfare programs.

The idea was to leave abortions to the states. The feds should butt-out completely.

 

[AMart]

Only for married couples. Not for bastard baby rearing.

 

[pknopp]

“It has to be pro-life, but also supportive of those families as they are trying to raise kids in an economic environment where that has become a lot harder to do.”

No, this has long been hard to do for many. I have long said that those who say they are pro-life have to understand that being pro-life extends beyond the day a child is born and I would be happy to more get on board here but I'm afraid what we are going to see is a carve out to help those they want helped as opposed to all.

Not married? Your kid can starve.

We will see.

 

[initforme]

Some crazies think we aren't having enough babies. They are wrong. Those same crazies think it's young peoes duties to get married and have babies. They are wrong.
People should have kids if they want to. There should be no encouragement by society for having kids. If one aspires to focus on other things that is to be applauded.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I have long said that those who say they are pro-life have to understand that being pro-life extends beyond the day a child is born

Yes, you have, but as this is an incorrect thing to say, please stop saying it.

It is already illegal to commit any and all aggressive homicide against born humans. Very, very illegal. That is what the right to life entails.

It does not entail whatever else you are on about.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, you have, but as this is an incorrect thing to say, please stop saying it.

It is already illegal to commit any and all aggressive homicide against born humans. Very, very illegal. That is what the right to life entails.

I am pro-life and I disagree.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Some crazies think we aren't having enough babies. They are wrong. Those same crazies think it's young peoes duties to get married and have babies. They are wrong.
People should have kids if they want to. There should be no encouragement by society for having kids. If one aspires to focus on other things that is to be applauded.

When there is no one there to take care of you when you’re old then you can blame yourself.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I am pro-life

“Press X to doubt.”

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and I disagree.

Your disagreement with reality is noted and utterly irrelevant.

Murder of the born is already illegal.

The right to life does not entitle anyone to food at taxpayer expense and it never will.

 

[pknopp]

“Press X to doubt.”

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Your disagreement with reality is noted and utterly irrelevant.

Murder of the born is already illegal.

The right to life does not entitle anyone to food at taxpayer expense and it never will.

I disagree.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I disagree.

Which statement of fact are you in error about, then?

That murder of the born is currently illegal,

or

that the natural human right to life doesn’t mandate socialist bullshit?

In either case, your statement is just error, not even valid as an opinion - it’s like disagreeing with math or gravity or thermodynamics.

 

[pknopp]

Which statement of fact are you in error about, then?

That murder of the born is currently illegal,

I've never discussed that nor is it relevant to anything I've said. It's just an attempt to deflect. So be it.

or

that the natural human right to life doesn’t mandate socialist bullshit?

In either case, your statement is just error, not even valid as an opinion - it’s like disagreeing with math or gravity or thermodynamics.

To be pro-life to me does not end the moment a child leaves the womb. You fully understand what I am saying.

 

[Flash]

‘Sending cash to parents, with few strings attached. Expanding Medicaid. Providing child care subsidies to families earning six figures.

The ideas may sound like part of a progressive platform. But they are from an influential group of conservative intellectuals with a direct line to elected politicians. They hope to represent the future of a post-Trump Republican Party — if only, they say, their fellow travelers would abandon Reaganomics once and for all.

These conservatives generally oppose abortion rights. They’re eager to promote marriage, worried about the nation’s declining fertility rate and often resist the trans rights movement.

But they also acknowledge that with abortion now illegal or tightly restricted in half the states, more babies will be born to parents struggling to pay for the basics — rent, health care, groceries and child care — when prices are high and child care slots scarce.

“A full-spectrum family policy has to be about encouraging and supporting people in getting married and starting families,” said Oren Cass, executive director of the American Compass think tank. “It has to be pro-life, but also supportive of those families as they are trying to raise kids in an economic environment where that has become a lot harder to do.”

The idea of spending heavily on family benefits remains an outlier within the Republican Party, which only recently rejected Democrats’ attempts to extend pandemic-era child tax credits.

But a number of conservative members of Congress have embraced new benefits for parents, including Mr. Cass’s former boss, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, as well as the senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and J.D. Vance of Ohio.’

In Post-Roe World, These Conservatives Embrace a New Kind of Welfare (Published 2023)

Some conservative thinkers are pushing Republicans to move on from Reagan-era family policy and send cash to families. A few lawmakers are listening.

www.nytimes.com

Conservatives wouldn’t have this problem, of course, if they were just consistent with rightist dogma, in this case small government/less government: respecting the privacy and reproductive rights of women.

But here we see where conservatives are not only advocates of big government/more government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, they’re also advocating for big government/more government to promote public assistance and welfare programs.

They ain't Conservatives. They are what we normally call RINOs.

We real Conservatives demand the elimination of ALL welfare, grants, subsidies, entitlements and bailouts

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I've never discussed that nor is it relevant to anything I've said. It's just an attempt to deflect. So be it.

It’s not a deflection, it’s the valid point that destroys the stupid pretense you are forwarding.

To be pro-life to me does not end the moment a child leaves the womb.

Me neither. That’s why we have laws against aggressive homicide for born folks. We already do this. Mission accomplished. Now stop pretending it isn’t.

 

[busybee01]

Hey dumbass? If an abortion is even possible, that means that ship has sailed, they’re a mother; they have a kid.

That private personal life bullshit you’re on about is whether or not they want to be a mother of a dead kid that they had killed.


That isn’t a concern here. Banning abortion doesn’t come at the expense of “individual liberty” at all, moron. You never had the right to attack and kill other innocent human beings, and since you think you did, we know you’re a psychopath.

It is not a innocent human being. You are the psychopath.

 

[busybee01]

They ain't Conservatives. They are what we normally call RINOs.

We real Conservatives demand the elimination of ALL welfare, grants, subsidies, entitlements and bailouts

You are the RINOs. You are not real conservatives.

 

[busybee01]

Legal abortion is a human rights abuse.
Socialist programs are a human rights abuse.

Moral folks have to oppose both.

You are the one who is immoral. You are the ones who abuse human rights.

 

[Flash]

You are the RINOs. You are not real conservatives.

My god you are a fucking idiot.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It is not a innocent human being. You are the psychopath.

Objectively false. You are deluded beyond belief.

 

[initforme]

A big drop in birth rate would be good for getting rid of abortion. Of course some of you kooks will cry about that too.