Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women DO pay for abortions themselves. And waiting periods are only intended to make having an abortion more of a burden. The longer a working woman has to take off from work, the harder it is for her.
Who do you think pays for abortions?
People have to pay for abortions, but you and others keep wanting public funds to support various parts of the process like free transportation.
Probably should just get rid of jury duty while we are at it, can't have working woman missing a couple days of work to perform a constitutionally mandated process.
Thanks for adding an additional four weeks to the House bill we are discussing. That four weeks makes a profound difference in terms of viability. And the emotion-laded, "executing an innocent person" rhetoric doesn't make you sound like someone who wants abortion to remain legal. It isn't easily available, though. That's one thing you should realize right now. Abortion isn't easily available. There is hardship involved.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not pro choice. Try to live with it.
Women DO pay for abortions themselves. And waiting periods are only intended to make having an abortion more of a burden. The longer a working woman has to take off from work, the harder it is for her.
Who do you think pays for abortions?
My insurance company at the time paid for the vast majority of it.
People have to pay for abortions, but you and others keep wanting public funds to support various parts of the process like free transportation.
Probably should just get rid of jury duty while we are at it, can't have working woman missing a couple days of work to perform a constitutionally mandated process.
When did I ever say anything about public funds for free transportation? Um, never.
As for jury duty, I do think that the hardship a person, any person, incurs in order to serve should be considered. I know of one case where a woman had three young children at home. She had no one to take care of them except for herself. Her husband was a long-haul truck driver. Her family lived thousands of miles away. They didn't have money for daycare. The judge refused to excuse her, but I think the judge was wrong.
When did I ever say anything about public funds for free transportation? Um, never.
As for jury duty, I do think that the hardship a person, any person, incurs in order to serve should be considered. I know of one case where a woman had three young children at home. She had no one to take care of them except for herself. Her husband was a long-haul truck driver. Her family lived thousands of miles away. They didn't have money for daycare. The judge refused to excuse her, but I think the judge was wrong.
Then what are you talking about when you want to "make it more accessible" Do you want to promote uber in rural areas? Force doctors and hospitals to do procedures against their will and beliefs? How do we make it "more accessible" without using tax payer dollars to do that?
All states allow for a juror to postpone their jury service for a period of time, the women in your example should have rescheduled to a time her husband is home. Even the court near me provides free childcare to jurors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
