Support for Abortion and Support for Social Services for the Poor

Because the unborn don't have messy issues like gender, sexual orientation, race, political affiliation, obesity, promiscuity, lack of education, not being Christian, laziness, disease, dirtiness, etc.

All the things that a lot of people have against the poor-- whether fair or true, or not.

The unborn are a convenient monolithic group. People can and do project any idea they want to on them, and that view is likely to be white, heterosexual, Christian, etc. Clean and healthy. Good little citizens.

The reality is that people seek abortions for lots of reasons. Some include poverty, rape, incest, health of the mother, death or profound disability of the child. And yes, there are abortions sought because people just plain screw up.

For a lot of people, also, keeping people pregnant has the (to them) unfortunate consequence of having to deal with a woman wrapped around the fetus.

This is less of a so-called saving of the unborn versus being a war on women.

In short, cruelty is the point. Anti-poor and anti-abortion policies hit women directly. Because those policies are meant to do that.

When you realize this is just a way to smack women around, clothed in piety, legalisms, and self-righteousness, then it's obvious that being against both abortions and the poor is a perfectly consistent position.

Cruelty, and a war on women, are the point.

I agree with everything jespah said. I would also like to mention that the States stingy enough to deny help for the poor and want to/or have abolished abortion health issues receive the most US TAXPAYER help. They receive Federal help for dozens and dozens of things their politicians want, they contribute a much lower amount of money into the tax coffers. In other words, it's mostly the so-called 'Blue' States who pay for their 'desired' privileges in the mostly 'red states'.

I have a number of suggestions about realigning our priorities to balance out all the inequities. I doubt anyone want to actually read those suggestions, and some are much more serious than I would like. But we need to help the disadvantaged and protect the health of women................just a few thoughts, by the way.

glitterbag-

I think your points have a lot of merit. However, I would add that 12 States refused Medicaid expansion (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin).

What are your suggestions?

I know they refused it, but they really should have taken it. All it did was increase health care costs to residents without any help. My sister-in-law lives in Texas, has been working as a dental technician for over 45 years and has had no health insurance. Now that she is eligible for Medicare (over 65) she has that. Two of my nephews can't afford health insurance (both over 30) so they go without. I'm not happy about that and I help when I can but if Texas had taken the money, health care would be more equitable (if not completely fair). They didn't take the money because they didn't want to appear to be cooperating with the other side. The are running the Government like it's a war between the Dems and Repubs................it's shameful.

Will there come a day when the residents of those states will sit up, take notice, and vote them out, do you think? It's unconscionable that health care has become so politicized.

I really don't know, many of those people treat their politics as more compelling than zealots religious beliefs. They are just 40 widgets away from any sort of rational thinking.