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.
The Southeast leads the US in growth most years, while California & NY are losing population every year.
True, that will become even more so as we enter an energy crisis and energy-importing states like CA and NY will pay more for oil and natural gas from the middle of the country.
Many of those babies will grow up to be productive citizens whose lives have value and dignity.
It's a shame you see them all as liabilities on a balance sheet.
There are exceptions to everything, but the odds are not on their side. I could list a number of tragic known stories and their backgrounds but there's no need for that. There are indeed exceptions but the mothers with means will still get abortions. Know that.
The poorest mothers without means will be the ones that carry the babies, without medical coverage, without means to raise the child and likely the children will be a cost to the state in the form of welfare, supplemental lunches, charity, Section 8 housing, etc. Many will be given up for adoption either in the hospital, soon after or the resulting Social Services visit.
Completely agree. As long as the consequences are kept within their state, it's their choice. Just make it clear the costs cannot be federalized.
Plenty will be given up for adoption.
Well, you can't entirely do that as you can't prevent people from travelling between states. I'd definitely be onboard with cutting federal welfare programs like food stamps, section 8, and so on though. Or maybe make them performance-based where states that enact effective governance strategies that reduce dependence on public assistance are rewarded while states that encourage public assistance have their bennies reduced. It would be less harsh than just cutting them off entirely.
Well, you can't entirely do that as you can't prevent people from travelling between states. I'd definitely be onboard with cutting federal welfare programs like food stamps, section 8, and so on though. Or maybe make them performance-based where states that enact effective governance strategies that reduce dependence on public assistance are rewarded while states that encourage public assistance have their bennies reduced. It would be less harsh than just cutting them off entirely.
We should cut them off entirely after specified periods as was supposed to be the case with the plan passed during the Gingrich years, signed by Clinton, and we should reinstate that w/o allowing for exceptions on the time period-even during recessions.
Liberal heads exploding is all a fraud. They planned this.
I don’t see what they gain from this. If the decision was coming anyway they’d be better off with it coming later than now. there’s so much corruption in the world of politics that if this was a deliberate leak it’s likely a false story that could have been leaked by a GOPer
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.