Louisiana state Rep. John Bel Edwards soundly defeated David Vitter in yesterday’s gubernatorial election. Not only that, but in his concession speech, Vitter announced that he won’t seek reelection to the U.S. Senate next year. In other words, David Vitter is finished as a consequential politician, done in mainly by an eight year old prostitution scandal, but also by the immense unpopularity of the sitting Republican governor Bobby Jindal.
The Democratic Party is encouraged to see a flicker of life in the Deep South, although progressives need to keep things in perspective.
From the start of his run, Edwards knew any chance of victory hinged on distinguishing himself from the prevailing image of Democrats among voters. In meetings with small groups in rural parishes, he touted his opposition to abortion and strong support for gun ownership.
The devil is in the details when it comes to opposing abortion and supporting gun ownership. What kinds of bills would be radical enough that Edwards would veto them? Is there a different line than there would be for a Republican governor?
In some ways, it’s already a defeat if Democratic candidates feel that they need to concede the Republican position on these two very important issues in order to get a hearing on other policies. And there’s a price they have to pay when their party is more divided on issues than the Republicans. It waters down the message.
On the other hand, more than anything else, it was the Democrats’ ability to unite around one candidate while the Republicans were slugging it out in a nasty primary that brought them success. “Edwards” is a big name in Louisiana politics, but John Bel Edwards’s clan is not related to former Governor Edwin Edwards. In a pre-election analysis, The Daily Beast‘s Jason Berry did a comprehensive examination of the new Edwards family power in the Bayou State. Here’s part of that:
It also helps Edwards, 49, that his brother, Daniel, 47, is Tangipahoa Parish sheriff—a fourth-generation sheriff in a sprawling family of lawyers, politicians, and law enforcement officials with deep Louisiana roots.
Tangipahoa is a heavily rural civil parish whose seat, the town of Amite (population 4,141) is 82 miles north of New Orleans. Edwards’s law firm is in Amite; he lives in nearby Roseland (population 1,165). For much of the last century, the parish, which is 30 percent African-American, was known as “Bloody Tangipahoa,” with a history of lawlessness that included a gruesome chapter involving the Ku Klux Klan. That stigma changed under Sheriff Frank Edwards, John Bel’s father.
“Frank Edwards was one of the first sheriffs that hired blacks,” says Donald Bell, the African-American pastor of New Life Outreach Ministries in the town of Hammond.
“Frank was balanced. Everybody loved him. John Bel had good training from his daddy. I was close to Frank. He lived and died politics. If Frank told you, ‘Jerry can’t beat John,’ you could bet that Jerry wasn’t gonna beat John. And Frank would give you two, three reasons why. He was a good Catholic guy. They were committed, just like John Bel—he doesn’t miss Mass. John Bel is a people person, down to earth, what you see is what you get.”
According to Pastor Bell, Edwards has always gotten along well with the local NAACP, and he actually won a state House seat that had been drawn up to be held by a black politician. This ability to bridge the racial divide helps explain how he managed to avoid any Democratic challengers in the primary. And, of course, it was his father who paved the way.
With the endorsement of state law enforcement organizations, his strong record at West Point and as an Airborne Ranger, his family’s good reputation for piety and positive race relations, and an opponent who was best known for paying prostitutes to dress him in a diaper, it would probably be a mistake to see this election result as some kind of bellwether for anything.
The Democrats simply had a much better candidate.
They also didn’t have Bobby Jindal hanging around their neck like an anvil. Like all Louisiana Republicans these days, Vitter tried to destroy his opponent by tying him to President Obama, but this tactic was neutralized by Edwards’ efforts to tie Vitter to Jindal. This left Vitter dependent on social issues, like guns and abortion, but there weren’t any meaningful distinctions between the two candidates on those issues, and there wasn’t much question which candidate had the better record for being a good family man.
And, so, we got a result that is surprising but really was foreseeable if you drilled down into the specifics of the race.
As for what happens now, the The Times-Picayune believes that Gov.-Elect Edwards will bring Medicaid expansion to the state and that teachers unions will have more influence. Edwards will try to deliver on a campaign promise to double funding for higher education, but Jindal has left the state’s finances a mess, and he’ll need to work with a legislature dominated by Republicans.
The Democrat has promised to govern from the middle and is expected to appoint Democrats and Republicans alike to cabinet positions. For example, [Republican Lt. Governor Jay] Dardenne is likely on a short list to fill a high-profile position in the Edwards administration.
Edwards may have to govern in a bipartisan manner, not just by choice. The governor-elect has a serious budget crisis on his hands, and will need a two-thirds vote of the GOP-controlled Legislature for many of his proposals to fix Louisiana’s finances.
“I think that the Legislature and executive branch should cooperate fully,” said Senate President John Alario, R-Westwego, who is likely to remain atop the state senate in 2016.
But not everyone is excited to see Edwards head up the executive office. The Democrat makes many of the state’s leading business groups nervous. Edwards has not been supportive of the school choice movement, including charter schools and the state voucher program. Business leaders also believe he is more inclined to roll back their tax credits and incentive programs to fix the state’s budget problems than a Republican would be.
Edwards will have to find an enormous amount of money somewhere to shore up the state’s finances. Louisiana is wrestling with a $500 million shortfall in its current budget cycle and a projected $1 billion budget gap in the next fiscal year.
I’m no expert on Louisiana’s legislature, so I don’t know whether Medicaid expansion will get done or not. I do know that Edwards will have four years to rebuild the Democratic Party and that a lot of people will get experience working in his administration.
Above all, I’m just glad to see David Vitter go. I never liked that man.
Good Riddance!
As the woman that claimed Vitter had a diaper sexual fetish has recanted her story, we on the left should drop it. For a “good, Christian family man, Vitter’s patronage of prostitutes is sufficient to discredit him.
A bruising primary contest (I know it’s a jungle primary in LA but it’s close enough) is not a guaranteed killer. It may not even be much of a factor in general elections. DEM pearl clutchers were confused and concerned about Edwards running such an incredibly hard-hitting (one of the best ever IMHO) while he was leading in the polls. What Edwards and/or his team know about GOP candidates in LA is that to beat them, they have to be stomped on through election day. Allow them any wiggle room and they can slither their way to a win.
While I’m pleased that Vitter won’t be much around anymore (won’t be Louisiana’s Brownback), Edwards is only a tiny step forward or a tiny step back to Mary Landreiu as a Senator.
Who paid her to recant or threatened her?
Actually, guns and abortions aside, Edwards leans towards acceptable Democratic policy. He has promised to protect the environment, not block gay marriage, expand medicaid, etc. I think he’s as good as we’re going to get for awhile in the deep south.
I think he’s as good as we’re going to get for awhile in the deep south.
True. But that “awhile” has now been since 1932 and been a negative/regressive force in US politics and legislation the whole time.
When have southerners ever changed except by force? Its the only thing they understand.
It’s the only thing anyone understands. Did reason free Germany from the Nazis? Arguably they could have all used Ghandian passive resistance.
Godwin alert.
Anyhow, you’re not wrong but southerners are too stupid or stubborn to understand the threat if force at several removes like most of the rest of us. They actually have to feel it.
Blue dogs cannot hurry fast enough to give away the reproductive safety of women. And realistically, how many gun bills do you think the lege would ever send him?
Exactly, I’m not clear that he would put his muscle into further eroding Planned Parenthood services or abortion rights in general. I mean, it’s pretty bad in LA as it is. And he’s not going to have to weigh in on any gun bills any time soon. Meantime, well over 200.000 people are going to get increased access to healthcare.
Expanding Medicaid eligibility as the ACA allows will expand reproductive safety. Edwards may not want to come clean about that, but that will be the result of the policy he ran on. It’s likely that conservatives ran ads pointing out this outcome from Medicaid expasion, but Edwards won anyway.
Most of the damage is done through state laws.
The decision whether or not to expand Medicaid eligibility is one of the most important State decisions that impact reproductive health access. That said, I understand what you’re saying re. the State laws which place preposterous conditions on facilities which provide abortion services. The SCOTUS will be considering one of the more unreasonably restrictive State laws in this area. I hope we get a good decision from them, but it’ll be close and I’m not counting on it.
OT
I saw on the news today that a poll had Mitt Romney crushing Trump in NH. That is, if Mitt were on the ballot. Not sure what to make of that but it suggests to me that Trump is winning by default in a field of repulsive losers who can only communicate with the base of the base.
suggests to me that Trump is winning by default in a field of repulsive losers who can only communicate with the base of the base.
Weren’t McCain, Romney, and Dole also default candidates?
Yep, and the base is sick of it. Trump is giving them the big slabs of red meat they want, and the Republican Congress has failed to impeach The Muslim Usurper or eviscerate his legislative accomplishments.
So no more vegetables, it’s a steady diet of meat that the base will have. It’s been amusing to watch Christie try to resuscitate his asphyxiating campaign by calling Obama a terrorist-enabling asshole. Chris, you’re not doing it right. Repeat after Trump: We need another Operation Wetback. Now that’s speaking to the base!
Actually no, I think they were more “coalition” candidates compared to Trump, at least within the Republican party. I guess what I’m saying is that the fact that Trump is the consistent leader doesn’t necessarily mean Trump is terribly popular, even for Republican primary voters. It may just mean that the party is such a disaster that a vulture like Trump can make a good meal of it.
There’s an echo chamber quality to the right which must always be kept in mind. Think of how a few dozen tea-party protesters could get national airplay. This isn’t about Trump per se, but I think the national media tends to massively exaggerate the degree to which far-right concerns are passionately held by the nation at large.
Of course, being the nominee would do a lot to legitimize Trump (or Cruz, or Carson) for the nation as a whole. But the Republican party has so completely rejected anything even approaching a “coalition” approach, even within the party itself, that it would be quite an experiment to have an out and proud extremist as the nominee. It would be a massive gamble. But it increasingly looks like there is no alternative and that actually there is some kind of fever on the right which will not break before a real extremist gets to run (and probably not after either).
While this GOP primary electoral cycle looks to be somewhat unique that may be more a function of the number of candidates and that the “crazies” dominate again. The latter waxes and wanes. When on the down curve, the party nominates Ike, Ford, GWHB, Dole (who was the 1988 extremist), and Romney (a freaking one-term governor with no real qualifications other than not making the Party look unhinged as they lost). When its on the rise, they nominated Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan (and the party elites were tearing their hair out in search of someone less extreme.) GWB was the “perfect” GOP candidate because the crazies loved him and daddy brought along a good chunk of the elites. GWB then destroyed the party thoroughly enough that it didn’t matter who they nominated in ’08 and was a wane election year for the crazies. That had shifted by 2012 (why Pawlenty and Huntsman were out so quickly), but the crazies divided and weren’t much invested in any of those candidates; thus, leaving the default nominee.
Fair on topic here, since we’re talking about ways to win enough elections to get better policies from States around the nation whose white electorates have largely abandoned the Party of Obama, this piece from BooMan’s other main gig:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_11/poor_white_resentment_of_welfa058732.php
“In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process.”
Some of the statements from those who are doing better and have moved into the Republican camp display a type of overwhelming self-regard that we don’t talk about much:
“These are voters like Pamela Dougherty, a 43-year-old nurse I encountered at a restaurant across from a Walmart in Marshalltown, Iowa, where she’d come to hear Rick Santorum, the conservative former Pennsylvania senator with a working-class pitch, just before the 2012 Iowa caucuses. In a lengthy conversation, Ms. Dougherty talked candidly about how she had benefited from government support. After having her first child as a teenager, marrying young and divorcing, Ms. Dougherty had faced bleak prospects. But she had gotten safety-net support — most crucially, taxpayer-funded tuition breaks to attend community college, where she’d earned her nursing degree.
She landed a steady job at a nearby dialysis center and remarried. But this didn’t make her a lasting supporter of safety-net programs like those that helped her. Instead, Ms. Dougherty had become a staunch opponent of them. She was reacting, she said, against the sense of entitlement she saw on display at the dialysis center. The federal government has for years covered kidney dialysis treatment in outpatient centers through Medicare, regardless of patients’ age, partly on the logic that treatment allows people with kidney disease to remain productive. But, Ms. Dougherty said, only a small fraction of the 54 people getting dialysis at her center had regular jobs.
“People waltz in when they want to,” she said, explaining that, in her opinion, there was too little asked of patients. There was nothing that said “`You’re getting a great benefit here, why not put in a little bit yourself.’ ” At least when she got her tuition help, she said, she had to keep up her grades. “When you’re getting assistance, there should be hoops to jump through so that you’re paying a price for your behavior,” she said. “What’s wrong with that?”…
With reliance on government benefits so prevalent, it creates constant moments of friction, on very intimate terms, said Jim Cauley, a Democratic political consultant from Pike County, a former Democratic bastion in eastern Kentucky that has flipped Republican in the past decade. “There are a lot of people on the draw,” he said. Where opposition to the social safety net has long been fed by the specter of undeserving inner-city African-Americans — think of Ronald Reagan’s notorious “welfare queen” — in places like Pike County it’s fueled, more and more, by people’s resentment over rising dependency they see among their own neighbors, even their own families. “It’s Cousin Bobby — `he’s on Oxy and he’s on the draw and we’re paying for him,’ ” Mr. Cauley said. “If you need help, no one begrudges you taking the program — they’re good-hearted people. It’s when you’re able-bodied and making choices not to be able-bodied.” The political upshot is plain, Mr. Cauley added. “It’s not the people on the draw that’s voting against” the Democrats, he said. “It’s everyone else.””
Brother Atkins has some recommendations to deal with this problem. I’m glad he understands that it’s a difficult problem to deal with which isn’t solved by merely invoking economic populism.
Me, I think it’s astonishingly wrong-headed for a nurse who is treating people on dialysis to be angry that little is asked of her patients in order to gain her care. When you’re on dialysis you are, by definition, quite ill. And she’s a supposedly educated nurse who thinks the 54 people she is treating should have “hoops to jump through”. She doesn’t say what she has in mind there, but I think we can see that what she really thinks should happen is that these lazy, entitled dialysis patients should get jobs and pay for their own motherfucking dialysis.
Me, I think evangelical Christian community members lack a heart and a brain when they become resentful of Cousin Bobby on Oxy. Cousin Bobby has an addiction which needs long-term treatment, and that treatment and the food and housing which he needs while he is recieving that treatment cost money. That money cannot be saved by sending Cousin Bobby to the local church and forcing him to accept the love and guidance of Leviticus. Better if that community member were to accept the love and guidance of Jesus, who guides them to spend their time and money helping the least of us, which Cousin Bobby has become for the time being.
The author’s observation that any incremental improvement in economic status turns a non-voter into a Republican is pretty ironic. Perverse incentives? Why did FDR’s development efforts produce a generation of Dems?
A rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question is that the New Deal and Great Society programs were launched at times when the voters were dealing with the Great Depression or remembered the Great Depression. There are few voters now who really remember what those desperate days were like, when the government lacked the ability to prevent the worst abuses of capitalism and counteract those abuses.
And yeah, the fact that when some people’s income rises to $30,000 a year they join the “I got mine, screw you, parasite” camp is pretty rich.
My parents very much benefitted from the New Deal and GI programs. My father (may he RIP) often explained to me that, while initially he agreed w/FDR and the New Deal and benefitted from it, he later came to believe that such programs were “welfare” and “made most people lazy” (he never could show me credible info or stats on this, however), and that it wasn’t in the nation’s interest to continue them.
My parents had a high school education. My father did very very well in business despite competing against men (they were all men back then) in his company with MBAs, etc. I credit my dad with being very smart, an exceptional sales man, and a very hard worker. Without meaning to diss him, he never really “got it” that he got ahead so well due to varying factors, including his white skin and the benefit of attending K-12 back in the day where one got a meaningful and well rounded education.
My parents (and whole family) followed the rightwing media complex and bogus prosperity gospel hook, line and sinker. My parents never really stood a chance, as they were, in the end, pretty naïve. Despite my dad’s rise in the business world, he was not all that savvy on some levels.
Their viewpoints influenced my siblings who are mostly all super rightwing prosperity gospel fundies of the ilk of: I got mine, eff you if you didn’t bc you probably don’t believe “correctly” and deserve your fate.
All very sad. But a lot of citizens fall prey to the propagandists in our media, churches and schools and never wake up to reality.
All too human for those that benefit from socialistic public policies to believe that they succeeded all on their own merits and hard work and blessings from a sky spook.
I recall a fierce fight (with a SO) over the PATCO strike. I’ve never been a union worker but fully appreciate that the threat of unionization was enough for white collar employers to keep wages at a fair enough level. My SO at the time had in past years benefited from a low skill level union job with excellent pay and benefits.
Eh? I worked once with someone who had been a union worker, who was paid well. His wife worked for one of the state welfare agencies dispensing welfare of some sort. This person was the most anti-welfare as possible with usual claims of lazy people taking full advantage of the system blah blah blah… All ripping him off of his taxes, etc.
This guy was one of the laziest workers I’ve ever encountered. We worked in the private sector. I’ve only ever belonged to a union once (it was helpful). I know the Unions in the USA have dropped the ball in many ways and Union bigwigs have contributed to decline of the unions, but I appreciate what unions have done for all of us.
But I did witness a former union worker who was as lazy as they come; who did everything in his power to work as little as possible. Was THAT the union’s fault? Probably not, but it was interesting.
When mgmt. started to come down on this worker’s butt – mainly to get him to just start pulling his weight – he faked (I’m sure but have no proof) a back injury and went out on worker’s comp. He ended up at one point in wheel chair. I know it sounds like I’m horrible, but I never believed it due to various things I witnessed at work. Later he ended moving but going back to doing a heavy labor job.
Yet the guy was on long-term disability for quite some time… of course, going to one of the doctors known for helping people to be on disability (had that reputation). So we had someone who complained bitterly about welfare abuse but had no problem abusing the system for his own benefit.
Of course, all he would have had to do is work just a little harder, and none of this would have been necessary.
Color me utterly skeptical about those who complain the loudest about welfare abuse and who are anti-union when it suits them.
I have no idea how to combat this kind of idiocy, but I’ve heard numerous stories similar to mine. There’s a lot of this kind of hypocrisy in our society.
Like those convinced that there’s rampant welfare and voter fraud because somewhere someone found one example of possible fraud.
Every workplace has a share of slacker employees. If the slackers keep their slacking within certain bounds, it’s best for the mental health of others to ignore the slackers. However only union and government employee slackers are politicized. As if those two work forces attract a higher proportion of slackers.
It does somehow all work out because the anti-slackers for ethical and constitutional reasons contribute more and are the least likely to complain about the slackers who aren’t fooling anyone. What’s interesting is that the slackers never compare their job performance to that of the anti-slackers. And they do seem to overestimate the shortcuts, time-off, etc. taken by the good enough regular employees from which they calculate how much less they can get away with.
Slackers to not respond well to criticisms or even positive reinforcement. And they do act all outraged and insulted when management bothers to deal with them. An unpleasant task that is not without risk to the safety of the manager and other employees.
Living on $30,000 a year (for a family) is little different from being on welfare except that the welfare recipients have Medicaid.
Hence the resentment. They are busting their ass without any visible improvement over Cousin Bobby who sits on his ass. If working people had visibly better lives than welfare recipients, they wouldn’t be so resentful.
They see the solution as taking away the welfare. I see the solution as raising pay standards so there is an incentive to work.
The important points I took from that article were:
Part of the issue with family is the declining dignity of a job — in all sorts of ways. People who approach that fact stoically feel angry at people who either have not succeeded in capturing the opportunities they have or have become so depressed they have stopped trying.
Whichever party is the most racist at the time uses this family attitude to demonize minorities. And do it by stereotyping as “all ….”. Or “they”.
In Appalachia, dependency is a real problem, but there is no way to end dependency without the opportunities and some reorientation as to how to succeed with those opportunities. The federal government has yanked those opportunities out of those counties through across-the-board budget cuts.
So many jobs in those areas are still public jobs, that the folks who rode up and became Republican might find the Republican austerity returns them to being Democrats — if the despair of living with arrogant well-off Republican neighbors and the informal economy in drugs doesn’t drag them down first.
Enough of the jobs in rural areas are dependent on public funding, that a salary increase for the lowest two levels of state pay scales could materially benefit those communities and shake off some of bitterness. Blue Dogs never ever see these ramifications because they are fundamentally scared rabbits.
I am curious how many of those rural small towns could even exit without the “dole”? How much of the circulating economy is injected by federal programs? And siphoned away by the Walmarts?
And the problem with your #1 point is that as long as Cousin Bobby has an Oxyontin addiction and pain from the underlying problem which got him his Oxy prescription in the first place, he won’t get and keep a job. And if we deny Cousin Bobby government programs which treat his illnesses and allow him the ability to have food and housing, he will not pull himself up by his bootstraps, he will die.
But this is what the Prosperity Gospel is putting out there, not just in their churches but in their culture. It’s about as far from Jesus’ teachings as possible, but that is the choice these “Christians” are making.
The choice these Christians have made in Indiana has had dire results. The lack of treatment for Oxy/Meth abuse has brought on a HIV outbreak in white rural Indiana. The legislature previously passed a law banning the distribution of clean needles, thus the governor had to issue an exec. order to have clean needles distributed. But, the order was only for 30 day periods. He reevaluates and has been extending the needle program every 30 days..like you can cure addiction or HIV in 30 days.
You bring up an important point. The Right sees the alternative to “being on the draw” as having a job. The real alternatives are theft and prostitution.
keep in mind in most states you only need an Associate’s degree to be a nurse, actually it’s every state
In CA, AA plus a full time two year nursing program and pass the State Exam to become an RN. Doesn’t carry same status as a BS-RN, but they tend to have better patient care skills. The ranks of MS=RNs is rapidly increasing.
there are a lot of nurses in CA that don’t even have an Associate’s degree, back in the late 90s I think there was a major shortage and surplus of LVNs so they let LVNs take a few more nursing courses and sit for the NCLEX. The bad news for these nurses is that they don’t qualify for most RN-BSN programs so they are basically stuck where ever they are
The implication is that while Edwards won, it was a personal character issue and resulted in few pickups downticket.
We need to look closer at how places like Tanghipahoa Parish get turned around by people like Frank Edwards, if that is what happened.
Isn’t it about time for Louisiana to bill the oil companies for the resources they have taken out of the state? Just a thought. Let’s see how good a politician that John Bel Edwards is.
Didn’t Jindal just nix a huge lawsuit?
Yep. So he did. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/06/bobby-jindal-signs-bill-to-block-lawsuits-against-oil
-and-gas-companies) But why would a Conservadem want to undo that? I am sure he reassured the Chamber that none of that nonsense would start happening.
Jindal also staked Vitter. Just as Vitter was preparing a full court press about the Syrians, Jindal announced he quit and that he would work on dealing with budgetary issues before he left. This blew Syrian stuff off the pages, retied Vitter to republican budget problems amd forced him to talk about it in the last days before the election a recipe to piss off voters.
Edwards brought a gun to a gun fight.
He took it to Vitter.
Beating his proverbial azz everytime he could.
He didn’t cower or tie one hand behind his back.
He started punching at Vitter and never stopped.
That ad of his was so beautiful.
Still makes me smile, just thinking about it.
Is there actually compelling evidence that GOP voters overall are anti-abortion? My sense has always been that the anti-abortion rhetoric is all about capturing the vote of so-called Christians, and that plenty of non-“Christian” Republican women are in fact quite happy knowing that there are places where they, or their teenage daughters, can get an abortion.
I don’t know the answer to your Q, but I do know – from friends who’ve worked in different PP clinics – that the so-called “Christian” republicans ALSO use those clinics on a routine basis… it’s just that the sneak in the back door to get the abortion for themselves, their daughter, sister, wife, whatever. The next day they’re back out front harassing others.
It’s the usual: do what I say, not what I do.
Why do these people so vehemently support NO abortion ever under any circumstances? I don’t know. Punishment for others, mainly.
True story: I worked in a small law firm years ago that had a lot of “Christian” male lawyers/partners in it. These guys were all married; routinely attended church; and were very vocal about attending Bible study, prayer breakfasts and the like. Years ago, the Amer Bar Assoc issued some kind of “proclamation” (or something) simply in support of Roe v Wade. ALL of these males immediately – and publically – burned the ABA membership cards (no kidding).
Yet here’s the kicker: ALL of these guys – Every. Single. One. – was engaged in various extra-marital affairs. Here’s the other Kicker: SEVERAL of these lawyers had an affair at different times with this one female secretary, who happened to get pregnant to two of them. She, of course, had (at least) 2 abortions paid for by the 2 different lawyers!!! Not kidding.
Yet these same hypocrites are the ones shrieking the loudest about NO abortions ever under any circumstances.
One of these attorneys ended up threatening his wife with a gun! Was finally disbarred but due to his connections ended with some sweet job with another big salary. I’m sure he’s still attending those prayer breakfasts and ranting about the evil of abortions.
Go figure. I figure that MOST people who are anti-abortion are like this. But they keep it up. I figure it’s all and only about punishing POOR WOMEN (and their families). After all, poor women – who also tend to be brown skinned – are the ones most severely impacted by lack of access to clinics.
The people I knew were wealthy enough that they could fly their family – or mistress – to Canada or wherever to get the procedure, WHEN (not if) needed.
Hypocrites! It’s such bullshit. Such cynical chauvinism, and imo, it’s mostly pushed and promulgated by men, so it’s also about keeping all women in their place. JMHO, of course.