SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

We want to help the women because they were going to end fertilization, which is where, when the IVF, where women go to the clinics and they get help in having a baby, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. And we’re for it a 100%. They tried to say that they weren’t for it. They actually weren’t for it and aren’t for it as much as us, but women see that

Donald Trump? Or someone having a stroke?

You decide!

Also, if anyone can actually understand what this word salad means let me know.

Spoilers: He's talking about IVF, and as noted Republicans have unintentionally opposed it nationally. The Republican Study Committee 2025 budget backed the "life at conception" idea that would make IVF legally impossible to continue. As it was in Alabama until they explicitly changed the laws around it.

[Karreck]

Remember that Alabama Republican who gave that cringey what-is-wrong-with-your-kitchen rebuttal to the State of the Union? She's back in the news again! This time, she wanted to create a database of pregnant women.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...regnant-people

Katie Britt, the Republican US senator from Alabama best known for delivering a widely ridiculed State of the Union speech in March, marked the run-up to Mother’s Day on Sunday by introducing a bill to create a federal database to collect data on pregnant people.

The More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (Moms) act proposes to establish an online government database called “pregnancy.gov” listing resources related to pregnancy, including information about adoption agencies and pregnancy care providers, except for those that provide abortion-related services.
Texas man seeks to have ex-partner investigated for out-of-state abortion
Read more

The bill specifically forbids any entity that “performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions” from being listed in the database, which would in effect eliminate swaths of OB-GYN services and sexual health clinics across the country.

The website would direct users to enter their personal data and contact information, and although Britt’s communications director said the site would not collect data on pregnant people, page three of the bill states that users can “take an assessment through the website and provide consent to use the user’s contact information” which government officials may use “to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users on additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review”.

Britt introduced the legislation on Thursday alongside two co-sponsors: fellow Republican senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

In a statement, Britt said the bill was proof that “you can absolutely be pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family at the same time”, adding that the legislation “advances a comprehensive culture of life” for mothers and children to “live their American Dreams”.

Critics have noted that the database of “pregnancy support centers” would provide misleading information in an effort to dissuade women from seeking abortions. Axios noted that the bill would also provide grants to anti-abortion non-profit organizations.

The state of Alabama, which Britt represents, already has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. After the US supreme court eliminated federal abortion rights by overturning Roe v Wade in 2022, the state banned abortion except in cases where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

Britt’s party is in the minority in the US Senate and has only a slim majority in the House. Her bill would need to be approved in both chambers and then be signed by Democratic president Joe Biden to become law, giving her proposal virtually no chance of making meaningful progress in the legislative process as-is.

The speech Britt gave to rebut Biden’s State of the Union was panned by both parties after she invoked a story about child rape that she implied had resulted from the president’s handling of immigration at the US’s southern border. The abuse actually occurred years earlier in Mexico while a Republican was president, George W Bush.

Britt’s delivery – which oscillated between smiling and sounding as if she were on the verge of tears – was also a target of ridicule, though she defended her performance.

Sure, she claims this is about providing (limited) support to pregnant women, but Republicans really seem hellbent on tracking women like cattle.

[DarkTZeratul]

Sure, she claims this is about providing (limited) support to pregnant women, but Republicans really seem hellbent on tracking women like cattle.

Funny how "Create a database to ensure gun owners have been properly trained" is a gateway to a fascist coup that takes away everyone's guns, but "Create a database of pregnant women" is totally cool and has no possible negative implications whatsoever.

[Gestopft]

Funny how "Create a database to ensure gun owners have been properly trained" is a gateway to a fascist coup that takes away everyone's guns, but "Create a database of pregnant women" is totally cool and has no possible negative implications whatsoever.

Are you suggesting that the GoP cares more about the rights of guns than of women!?

[Edge-]

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...s-after-dobbs/

Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a national right to abortion, a majority of Americans continue to express support for abortion access.

About six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This share has grown 4 percentage points since 2021 – the year prior to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe.

Republicans keep losing public support on this topic as more of the public sees the extremism of the Republican position, and the consequences that girls and women in Republican controlled states are forced to endure as the Republican controlled Legislatures refuse to take any action in response to shocking and horrifying reports of unnecessary risk and suffering.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ubstances-list

Louisiana may soon become the first state in the country to pass a bill adding two common abortion pills to the state’s list of controlled dangerous substances, leading individuals who are caught with the drugs and lack authorization to potentially face years in prison.

Like the rest of the US deep south, Louisiana already bans almost all abortions. But recently, when a house committee in the Republican-controlled legislature debated a bill to ban people from performing abortions on people without their consent, lawmakers added an amendment to reclassify mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs typically used in medication abortions, as Schedule IV drugs.

Under that amendment, a woman who obtains the drugs “for her own consumption” would not face penalties, but anyone who possesses them without a prescription or outside of normal medical practice could. In Louisiana, people who possess Schedule IV drugs can face up to five years in prison, while people who produce, distribute or intend to distribute such drugs can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. They can also face thousands of dollars in fines.

The bill would address a growing frustration among anti-abortion activists: the persistent flow of abortion pills into states with abortion bans, thanks to suppliers who operate outside of the US healthcare system and who use the internet and mail to help people looking to evade abortion bans.

Republicans will seemingly never end their crusade against women having bodily autonomy.

[Mayhem]

Republicans will seemingly never end their crusade against women having bodily autonomy.

Of course not, these damn conscious male-ribs should do what they are being told and that's it!

/s kind of

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elect...ctions-policy/

(Archive link) - https://archive.is/FNHFD

What's this? The leader of the Republican party refusing to answer questions on whether he'd support states banning birth control and other contraceptives while promising a big, beautiful, comprehensive plan in some weeks?

Remember: Republicans weren't ever going to go after contraceptives because there's no third party involved! Except that they keep talking about it and their party leader isn't ruling it out in the slightest.

Reminder: Republicans continue their fairly overt attack on womens and the steady march of the power over the government over their reproductive system.

[Deus Mortis]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...142850973.html
Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead.

“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal, wrote for the court.

“Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech,” Sotomayor added.

The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only leaned on insurance companies to part ways with the gun lobby but threatened enforcement actions against those firms if they failed to comply.

At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups. Vullo tried to wave off the significance of the meeting, arguing in part that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific.

Vullo, who served in Democratic former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration, said her enforcement targeted an insurance product that is illegal in New York: third-party policies sold through the NRA that cover personal injury and criminal defense costs following the use of a firearm. Critics dubbed the policies “murder insurance.”

The decision will provide some clarity to government regulators — both liberal and conservative — about how far they may go to pressure private companies that do business with controversial advocacy groups.

“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” William A. Brewer III, a lawyer for the association, said in a statement. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy.”

An attorney for Vullo said they were “disappointed by the court’s decision” but noted that a lower court that previously sided with her on a different legal basis may ultimately reaffirm that decision.

“Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights,” the attorney, Neal Katyal, said in a statement. “Ms. Vullo enforced the insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities, and industry letters such as those issued by Ms. Vullo are routine and important tools regulators use to inform and advise the entities they oversee about risks.”

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned two separate concurrences in which they said they agreed with the court’s decision.

In her six-page concurrence, Jackson stressed that cases like the one at hand turn heavily on the facts that give rise to the controversy.

“Whether and how government coercion of a third party might violate another party’s First Amendment rights will depend on the facts of the case,” she wrote. “Different circumstances — who is being coerced to do what, and why — may implicate different First Amendment inquiries.”

[unfilteredJW]

Guns have more rights than women, duh.

I get why you posted that here.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/u...smid=url-share

Gift link for anyone who wants to read at the source but -

Republican candidates in all eight of the country’s most competitive Senate races have changed their approach on the issue of abortion, softening their rhetoric, shifting their positions and, in at least one case, embracing policies championed by Democrats.

From Michigan to Maryland, Republicans are trying to repackage their views to defang an issue that has hurt their party at the ballot box since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights. While the pivot is endemic across races in swing states, the most striking shifts have come from candidates who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate just two years ago in their home states, with abortion views that sounded very different.

When Bernie Moreno, a Republican businessman, ran for a Senate seat in Ohio in 2022, he described his views as “absolute pro-life, no exceptions.”

“Life begins at conception” and “abortion is the murder of an innocent baby,” he said on social media.

He has since softened his position. In March, he said he supported a 15-week national abortion ban. But his spokeswoman also says it’s an issue that “should be primarily decided at the state level” and that he backs “reasonable exceptions.”

In 2022, David McCormick, a Republican businessman running for Senate in Pennsylvania, touted his staunch commitment to opposing abortion. Asked at a Republican primary debate that April if he would support exceptions to abortion bans if Roe v. Wade was overturned, he said he believed in exceptions in the “very rare instances” when a woman’s life was at risk.

Now, as he makes his second bid for the Senate, he has urged Americans to “find common ground.” Language saying “life begins at conception” has disappeared from his website, which now notes that abortion is legal in the state until 24 weeks — the federal standard under Roe. And a campaign spokesman told CNN in April that Mr. McCormick “inadvertently left out” exceptions for rape and incest from his debate answer two years earlier.

Those kinds of shifts mark the latest effort by Republican candidates to reconcile their party’s decades-old opposition to abortion rights with the changed political reality of an issue that has helped power Democrats to electoral victory since the fall of Roe.

Before the 2022 midterms, Senator Lindsey Graham tried to rally Republicans around a 15-week federal abortion ban, arguing that voters would embrace what some in his party framed as a “reasonable” limit. But the position became a cudgel for Democrats in key races and cost Republicans seats, with losses in swing states including Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, many Republicans are adopting former President Donald J. Trump’s position of leaving the issue to the states.

“They’re iterating,” said Angela Kuefler, a Democratic pollster who is involved with Senate races in Florida and Arizona. “They’re aware of what a massive liability their position has been in the last couple elections since the fall of Roe.”

Some of the candidates have staked out positions that seem at odds, describing themselves as “pro-life” but also supportive of their own state’s abortion laws, which legalize the procedure in almost all cases.

National Republicans say that their position is clear and that it is Democrats who are trying to overcome their weak poll numbers on the economy, inflation and controlling the border by focusing the Senate races on abortion rights.

“Republican Senate candidates have clearly stated their opposition to a national abortion ban, as well as their support for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother,” said Tate Mitchell, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate Republican campaign arm. “We plan to aggressively combat Democrat attempts to demagogue this issue.”

A handful of Democrats, too, have shifted their position on abortion in recent years.

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the incumbent Democrat who is trying to fend off Mr. McCormick, voted in 2018 to advance a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and frequently referred to himself as a “pro-life Democrat.” But after the 2022 leak of the draft Supreme Court decision that would end Roe, he joined the efforts to codify its protections into law.

“No senator has made a more radical change to his position on abortion than Bob Casey Jr.,” said Elizabeth Gregory, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCormick. “His extreme stance is out of step with Pennsylvania.”

But Mr. Casey is an outlier in his party, which placed abortion rights at the center of its 2024 messaging. Nearly all Democrats support legalizing abortion at the federal level and generally do not back restrictions on the procedure, such as the number of weeks in pregnancy, saying the decision should be left to women and their doctors.

It’s a position that’s been embraced by one Republican running in a deep blue state. Larry Hogan, the former governor of Maryland and a moderate Republican who is running for Senate, recently said he, too, would vote to codify Roe — an embrace of a new position that came just days after he won his primary. He also said he would vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s Constitution, a measure that will be on the ballot in November.

Asked by The New York Times how he would describe his view on abortion, Mr. Hogan said, “Given the definition of what I’m supporting — women’s rights to make their own decision — I would say that’s pro-choice.”

The other Republican Senate campaigns declined to make their candidates available for interviews on the topic. Some did not reply to general requests about the issue.

None of the other candidates have gone quite as far on abortion as Mr. Hogan. But several have backed away from more strident anti-abortion positions they’ve previously supported in public office.

Former Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the front-runner in the Michigan Senate Republican primary, cosponsored multiple anti-abortion measures in the House, including bills granting constitutional rights to zygotes at conception. But now he says that, as a senator, he wouldn’t support federal proposals that would undo the protections Michigan voters have put into place to keep abortion legal until 24 weeks.

“The people of Michigan spoke in a loud voice in 2022 and this is a settled issue in our state,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement. “I will take no position as their voice in Washington that is at odds with the rights guaranteed by voters in the Michigan Constitution.”

And in Wisconsin, Eric Hovde, a Republican Senate candidate who in 2012 told reporters he was “totally opposed” to abortion, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, now says women have a “right to make a choice” early in a pregnancy.

“Eric Hovde can’t hide from the fact that he supports an abortion ban and thinks politicians like him should be in charge of women’s health care,” his Democratic opponent, Senator Tammy Baldwin, said in a statement.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, urged anti-abortion candidates to “go on offense” to expose their opponents’ “extremism.”

“We know what doesn’t win elections: the ‘ostrich strategy’ of burying one’s head in the sand and hoping this issue goes away,” she said in a statement.

Abortion remains one of only a few issues where Democrats, who are struggling to combat poor ratings on the economy, foreign policy and immigration, have a political advantage. Some Republican strategists doubt the issue will have the same resonance in 2024 as it did in the past two election cycles, when abortion rights energized a coalition of liberal, independent and even some moderate Republican women behind Democratic candidates.

A series of polls in battleground states by The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer found that abortion ranked below the economy and immigration when voters were asked what issue was most important in determining their vote.

However, 11 percent of battleground state voters — and 17 percent of women — ranked it as their most important issue, which suggests there is still a core of voters deeply activated around the issue.

With a wave of abortion referendums expected to appear on ballots in states across the country, Democrats believe the issue will remain central for voters in the fall. They’ve spent significant time and money reminding voters of Republicans’ past support for abortion restrictions and bans, blanketing airwaves with the records of their opponents. More than a quarter of their ads in the first four months of the year focused on the issue.

“On record and on video, Republican Senate candidates have made clear they back harsh restrictions on abortion and oppose women’s right to make their own health care decisions,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Republican candidates know their agenda is unpopular, and their pathetic attempt to hide their position just reinforces why voters don’t trust them.”

In recent weeks, much of the Democratic effort has been focused on Arizona, where party officials and their allies have spent millions boosting a ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. The issue emerged as a political flashpoint this month when lawmakers repealed a near-total ban on abortions but enforced a 15-week ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Over the past two years, Kari Lake, the Republican now running for Senate, has appeared to be on all sides of Arizona’s abortion legislation.

She praised the state’s 1864 abortion law that banned nearly all abortions in the state when she was running for governor in 2022, calling it a “great law.” She also said she would sign a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

But last month, when the state’s Supreme Court reinstated the 1864 law, she denounced it as “out of step” with Arizonans and personally called Republicans in the statehouse to say she supported repealing it. In a video, she said she opposed federal funds on abortion as well as federal bans.

Not every Republican’s shift has been drastic. Some candidates, Ms. Kuefler said, have simply quietly shifted their tone, eschewing graphic discussions about abortion in favor of warmer language.

Tim Sheehy, a Republican running for Senate in Montana, accused Democrats of “murdering our unborn children” on a local radio show in 2023, before he announced his bid. Earlier this year, he described himself as backing “common-sense protections” on the procedure, said he believed further restrictions should be left to the states and said he supported exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

In 2022, Sam Brown, the Republican front-runner in the Senate primary in Nevada, was named chairman of his state’s branch of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. The announcement of his appointment said one of the group’s aims was “protecting life.”

But as a candidate for Senate, he sat for an emotional interview in which his wife, Amy Brown, told the story of her own abortion. In that interview, he said he respected a Nevada state law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and opposes a federal ban on the procedure.

“Amy and I have spoken extensively about this topic and believe, first and foremost, that mothers who are facing an unplanned pregnancy deserve the utmost compassion and understanding,” Mr. Brown said in a statement, in which he called himself “pro-life” but supportive of exceptions. “Like President Trump, I believe the issue is now correctly left at the state level and applaud his leadership.”

Great reminder why people should not believe or trust Republican candidates and their newly more moderate positions on this topic because damnit their "deeply held belief" on the topic previously was so extreme it ended up being politically unpopular and a liability to their elections!

Anyways, can we make the flip-flop the official shoe of the Republican party? It does fit oh so well!

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ons-rcna154896

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to the state's abortion ban — a response to a lawsuit filed last year by a group of women who had serious pregnancy complications.

The ruling from the nine justices, who are all Republicans, was unanimous.

Five women brought the lawsuit in March 2023, saying they were denied abortions even when issues arose during their pregnancies that endangered their lives. The case grew to include 20 women and two doctors.

The plaintiffs had not sought to repeal the ban, but rather to force clarification and transparency as to the precise circumstances in which exceptions are allowed. They also wanted doctors to be allowed more discretion to intervene when medical complications arise in pregnancy.

The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, said she was outraged by Friday's ruling on behalf of all the plaintiffs who, she said, “the Court deemed not sick enough.”

“Every day, people in Texas are being told that they have no options,” Zurawski said in a statement. “It’s sickening and wrong. Our Courts should acknowledge all of our suffering and vindicate our fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy. We should not need to beg elected officials for our right to control our own bodies.”

Another plaintiff, Samantha Casiano, whose fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, also expressed anger and disappointment.

“I was told my baby would not survive, but I was forced to continue my pregnancy and give birth anyway, then watch her pass away hours later,” she said in a statement. “I don’t know how the court could hear what I went through and choose to do nothing ... I am embarrassed to be a Texan because of these inhumane laws.”

Texas law prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Doctors who violate it can lose their medical licenses, face up to 99 years in prison or incur fines of at least $100,000. Critics of the ban, which is among the most restrictive in the U.S., have said it does not provide enough guidance about which exceptions are allowed.

Friday’s ruling did, however, offer a new sliver of clarity. The ruling affirms that a preterm premature rupture of membranes — when the amniotic sac breaks before 37 weeks of pregnancy — can warrant an abortion because it results in infection.

But, the decision says Texas law "plainly does not permit abortion based solely on a diagnosis that an unborn child has an abnormal condition, even a life-limiting one."

The ruling also says Texas' abortion ban does not mandate that a woman's death be imminent for a doctor to perform an abortion due to a life-threatening complication, and that a doctor’s judgment can be reasonable even if not all physicians agree with it.

“For physicians who violate the abortion ban, the state would need to prove that no reasonable position would have concluded that the patient was eligible for the exception,” Molly Duane, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said on a call with reporters after the decision was issued. Duane is a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy organization representing the plaintiffs.

Republicans continue to make it clear that girls and women suffering through pregnancy complications cannot and will not be able to receive the treatment they may need until they are literally on death's doorstep, potentially actually risking their lives while also increasing the chance that those girls and women will not be able to safely conceive again.

Just a reminder that at almost every opportunity, Republicans have either chosen to not take action or chosen to specifically reinforce the status quo and ignore the stories of shocking abject suffering from many of these women.

The Republican party's war on women continues, especially in Texas.

[bbakyu]

This thread has inspired me to vote Republican the next go around.

[diller]

This thread has inspired me to vote Republican the next go around.

Great, a new troll.


Infracted.

[bbakyu]

Great, a new troll.

I'm not exactly new, I've been around for almost a year.


Infracted.

[diller]

I'm not exactly new, I've been around for almost a year.

My bad, old troll found the off-topic forums.

[bbakyu]

My bad, old troll found the off-topic forums.

Like they say where I'm from, it's all good in the hood.

[s_bushido]

So who got banned recently and needed to drag their shitposting sock out of the drawer?

[Polgara]

So who got banned recently and needed to drag their shitposting sock out of the drawer?

Not sure but they all seem to share the same crusty sock.

[Adamas102]

This thread has inspired me to vote Republican the next go around.

Based on your very limited post history I’m pretty sure everyone would have rightly surmised that you’ve always voted Republican. Not sure why you’ve decided to drag your ignorance into this thread as well, though.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...03aNAA2w8uM-hU

Share link, but another great example of just how disastrous the Republican party, especially Republican men with apparently zero understanding of womens reproductive systems works, are for girls and women.

In Missouri, state Rep. Tara Peters said she was shocked when the bill she co-sponsored to allow women to pick up a year’s worth of birth-control pills hit a wall of opposition from fellow Republicans, some of whom she said privately accused her of promoting a “Trojan horse” bill to access abortion drugs. Despite the fact that birth-control pills do not cause abortions, the bill died.

“It was Republican men,” Peters said. “It surprises me that the ones that know nothing about those types of things are the ones that are making the decisions.”

She noted that even after she attempted to educate them, a faction continued to spread misinformation equating the pill with abortion. She warned that could have political costs for the Republican Party.

“What better year to pass this legislation than an election year to show that we are making women a priority?” said Peters, echoing an argument made by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Kelley Packer, a Republican former state representative in Idaho who served as vice chairwoman of the House Health and Welfare Committee, and two other Republican women formed the Idaho Contraceptive Education Network in December to protect access to birth control by combating misinformation that conflates contraception with abortion. Their primary target: legislators who do not understand the science behind how contraception works.

“We want to make sure that policymakers are making sound decisions based on facts,” Packer said.

Many Americans do not understand the difference between abortion pills, which end a pregnancy, and emergency contraception, which prevents it. Nearly three-quarters of Americans incorrectly think that emergency contraceptive pills can end a pregnancy in its early stages, according to a 2023 poll by KFF, a nonprofit focused on national health issues.

Antiabortion groups are stepping in to fill that knowledge gap with misinformation.

The Idaho Family Policy Center, an influential conservative Christian think tank, is recommending that state lawmakers ban access to emergency contraception and IUDs, which the group mislabels as “abortifacients” in a January policy paper outlining next steps “now that we’ve successfully eliminated elective abortion.”

“We’re not opposed to all types of birth control or family planning. We’re simply saying that state policy should be consistent and recognize the rights of all preborn children once fertilization has occurred and a new life has been created,” said Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center.

Republicans and conservative groups simply oppose any reproductive healthcare that may include contraception or abortion services, despite contraception having nothing at all to do with abortions.

It's a toxic, disastrous mixture of knowing liars, propagandists, and misinformation spreaders in the anti-abortion camp joining forces with elected Republican men who think the G-spot has to do with gravity and are still searching for the clitoris after having a few children with their wives.