The last I looked blasphemy is 1) a free speech issue and 2) a victimless crime ... or it is at least until Yahweh decides to show up and complain. Still, that's beside the point. Satanism is a recognized religion by the United States government, and as such, participation by chaplains sponsored by The Satanic Temple or other similar organization is completely legal, regardless of what Rocky the Flying Dipshit wants to assert.
I would heartily suggest that Malloy get over himself, not that he will.
I actually kind of agree, but not for the reason he thinks. There should not be chaplains of any kind in the public schools paid for with everyone's tax dollars. It isn't as if this country suffers from a lack of churches, and any kid who actually wants spiritual counseling can easily get it. The religious right's obsession with forcing their religion into the public schools speaks directly to just how weak their message ultimately is that they feel they need to indoctrinate children before they've reached the age of reason.
A quibble: in theory, a candidate for the job could be a qualified accredited social worker who also happens to be a chaplain. Such folks should be allowed to apply for school counseling jobs (and probably, constitutionally, must be allowed).
However, I get what you are saying and agree. Chaplaincy as an activity should not be allowed, and nor should qualifications as a chaplain count in any way as qualifications to be a social worker or school counselor. It should be as irrelevant to the employment decision and work done on the job as "unicycle rider." Neither for nor against nor even a consideration.
Well, Catholics think that Protestants have been mislead by Satan and follow him, and Protestants think that Catholics worships the pope who is Satan on earth. Both groups believe every other religion is false and started by Satan. While Satanists don't actually believe that Satan is real. So they only people who can actually work in schools are Satanists.
The assumption that “Christianity alone could solve problems” is obviously false in that we’ve all seen that Christianity, more often than not, is the problem. Real mental health counselors are there to provide support, not shame one’s kids. And furthermore, Malloy is just plain creepy.
Because racist conservatives simply use abortion to garner votes, they really don't care about anything other than getting the power to impose their will upon others.
States hostile to abortion fare worse on a variety of health and well-being outcomes, while states supportive of abortion rights tend to have a more generous social safety net.
You se the table at the link below
The table excludes data from six states — N.C., Fla., Kan., Pa., Va. and Mont. — where the future legal status of abortion is least clear.
In Mississippi, which brought the abortion case that ended Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, Gov. Tate Reeves vowed that the state would now “take every step necessary to support mothers and children.”
Today, however, Mississippi fares poorly on just about any measure of that goal. Its infant and maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation.
State leaders have rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 43,000 women of reproductive age without health insurance. They have chosen not to extend Medicaid to women for a full year after giving birth. And they have a welfare program that gives some of the country’s least generous cash assistance — a maximum of $260 a month for a poor mother raising two children.
Mississippi embodies a national pattern: States that have banned abortion, or are expected to, have among the nation’s weakest social services for women and children, and have higher rates of death for infants and mothers.
According to a New York Times analysis, the 24 states that have banned abortion (or probably will) fare worse on a broad range of outcomes than states where abortion will probably remain legal — including child and maternal mortality, teenage birthrates and the share of women and children who are uninsured. The states deemed likely to ban abortion either have laws predating Roe that ban abortion; have recently passed stringent restrictions; or have legislatures that are actively considering new bans.
The majority of these states have turned down the yearlong Medicaid postpartum extension. Nine have declined the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides health care to the poor. None offer new parents paid leave from work to care for their newborns.
“The safety net is woefully inadequate,” said Carol Burnett, who works with poor and single mothers as executive director of the Mississippi Low-Income Child Care Initiative, a nonprofit. “All of these demonstrated state-level obstacles prevent moms from getting the help they need, the health care they need, the child care they need.”
Many anti-abortion activists have acknowledged that improving the health and livelihoods of mothers and young children is an important goal for their movement: “This has been my lecture to the pro-life movement for the last year,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life. “No woman stands alone in the post-Roe America.”
Social spending is not the only answer to poverty and poor public health, and some in the anti-abortion movement stress that they want to help women and children — just not with more government spending. But there is a strong link between state policy choices and outcomes for mothers and children, researchers have found.
Perhaps the clearest example is health insurance. Numerous studies have tied it to improved health and financial security for poor Americans. Since 2014, states have had the option to expand their Medicaid programs to cover nearly all poor adults, with the federal government paying 90% or more of the cost. But nine of the states planning to ban abortion have not expanded it, citing opposition to the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have long vowed to repeal; a disinclination to offer health benefits to poor Americans who do not work; or concerns about the 10% of the bill left to state governments to finance.
“Closing the Medicaid gap is the first and best option for women’s health care,” said Allison Orris, a senior fellow focused on health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Since 2021, states have also had the choice to expand Medicaid to cover women for a full year after a birth instead of two months. Just 16 states have declined to do so or opted for a shorter period — all but three of them are also banning or seeking to ban abortion.
Women who are poor and pregnant are eligible for Medicaid across the country, and the program pays for 4 in 10 births nationwide. But health experts say it also matters that women are covered for an extended period after birth, and for the years leading up to pregnancy. Conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and substance abuse can lead to pregnancy complications and poor infant health. Research suggests that Medicaid expansion can reduce maternal mortality. Medicaid also pays for contraception.
Paid family leave and subsidized child care are another example. None of the states that have banned abortion (or are likely to) guarantee parents paid leave from work to care for and bond with their newborns. Just 11 states and the District of Columbia do. Paid leave has been shown to benefit infants’ health and mothers’ physical and mental health as well as their economic prospects.
In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4% in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17% in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation).
In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4% in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17% in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation).
Support for families is different in some states once children are 3 or 4. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia offer or have committed to offering universal preschool. Unlike with other family benefits, anti-abortion states are roughly as likely as other states to offer public preschool. Six of those 13 states ban abortion or probably will.
“This is consistent with a view that education is a public responsibility,” said Steven Barnett, senior co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers, while other safety-net programs “fall outside the accepted sphere of public responsibility in the conservative states.”
Poorer states may have fewer resources to fund benefits like parental leave, or state supplements to the federal earned-income tax credit. But what they choose to do with federal grants can be revealing, said Zachary Parolin, a professor of social policy at Bocconi University in Milan who has studied how states use the broad discretion given to them by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families welfare program.
“You can’t say Alabama gives very little cash assistance for low-income families with children because it can’t afford” the program, Parolin said. “It has a TANF program, and it’s primarily funded by the federal government.”
But in 2020, Alabama spent only about 8% of its welfare funds on direct cash assistance to families. Mississippi spent 5%. Instead, states often spend these grants on a wide range of other programs like pro-marriage advertising campaigns and abstinence-only sex education (in 2020, a state auditor in Mississippi found that the state misspent millions of federal welfare dollars, including on speeches that were never delivered by former football star Brett Favre).
States with less generous safety-net programs also frequently use complex rules and paperwork to further limit access to benefits, said Sarah Bruch, a professor of social policy and sociology at the University of Delaware. States could help women and families, she said, not just by investing more in the safety net, but also by making it easier to find and use.
Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow studying poverty and safety-net programs at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the government has some role to play, but not alone: “We have a broader responsibility as a society — employers, churches, community organizations — to ensure moms feel they can bring those kids into the world.”
Evidence so far suggests that those organizations will struggle to meet the growing need.
After the Supreme Court decision, other governors banning abortion trumpeted their commitment to pregnant women and children. “Being pro-life entails more than being ‘pro-birth,’” wrote Oklahoma Gov. J. Kevin Stitt in an executive order signed July 11.
Oklahoma ranks among the bottom 10 states on measures of child poverty, infant mortality and the share of women of reproductive age without health insurance.
Once again, Christians reveal themselves to be the groomers they falsely accuse others of being.
Public schoolchildren need not have the Christian god (or any other god) forced down their throats. They already have their homes, houses of worship and Sunday school/Catechism classes. All off-campus. That is more than enough.
Public school children attend classes to learn facts about how things truly work, not Bronze Age fantasies.
"representing God's presence within out public schools."
I thought Christians were always whining about how their imaginary friend had been kicked out of public schools by evil secularists. Believers can't keep their story straight.
I identify as Christian and I can’t stop face palming and shaking my head over these legislative movements “in the name of God and Christ.” None of these things signs with the message of Christ presented in the Bible.
NONE.
In fact, all these “legislate our visions and versions of morality and spiritual practice” are the very practices Jesus railed against. Not to mention, the spiritual histories shared in the Old Testament all embraced such legalism, and were held as examples of “nit quite doing the job.”
In the end, these legislative efforts are rooted in a fear that the one-time Christian majority will suffer as it slides into a minority role and position in our culture.
An oversimplification on my part, for sure. I grew up amidst teachings saying Jesus came to establish a new way, one that simultaneously fulfilled [prophecy of] Old Testament and established a new covenant. I’ve always regarded the legalism that rose out of the Exodus covenant as a needed and necessary “step in the right direction,” so to say, en route to Christ’s ministry and teaching of The Way. That progression of which you speak, I see it and concur, even if I do appear to overlook it as I generalize and oversimplify.
Thanks for your reply. I was also brought up with that perspective but (while I’m sure you didn’t intend this), it’s often an antisemitic trope that “Judaism is legalistic”.
Most religions contain different groups who perform their spiritual practices in different ways, with different intentions and meanings.
There are devotional groups (such as the Bhakti movement in Hinduism). There are mystical groups (the Sufis in Islam, the Quakers and the Hesychasts in Christianity, and many more). There are broadly legalistic groups, such as the Shi’ites in Islam. There are fundamentalist groups like the Wahhabis in Islam. There are esoteric groups such as Kabbalists in Judaism, initiatory Wicca in Paganism, and so on. There are liberal groups in most religions (the Sufis, the Quakers, the Unitarians and UUs, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism, inclusive Wicca, and many more).
Therein lies the problem with all of this. The Bible arises as a text in an ancient language translated decades after Jesus.
So, we’re dealing with a text written in hindsight comprised of selected events and details, all of which is translated multiple times over from then to now, with contemporary word choices subject to the cultural mores and ideas of the translator’s era.
As for compilation, does anyone really think with any degree of absolute certainty the compilers of what was and wasn’t included in the Bible were a completely altruistic, divinely guided bunch of folks with nothing to gain from creating the book as they saw fit?
According to the buybull, jayzuz was fathered by 'god'. According to christain doctrine jayzuz is 'god'. So by their own storyline jayzuz is an inbred motherfker. Which explains why christains are the way they are.
It's always about money and undue power over people/women/children and never about "faith". Another way to steal from the public schools, just like they did from government programs, then bankrupt them and declare failures to kill those programs.
How many of us wonder how this will play out for children, (their physical and emotinal safety), by giving access to these "chaplains"?
Why do they need the schools to teach the religion? The faith should be taught by parents/guardians who practice themselves or in their faith centers. The schools are for learning and to be prepared for the practical world. Don't the corporations need the trained workforce?
I know that having offered the invocation for the Iowa Senate several years ago and having officiated legal marriages in Iowa that I am indeed recognized by the State of Iowa as an actual chaplain/pastor/whatever. Non-theist humanist, BTW. I also know that pisses off our Xtian nationalist legislators and their supporters....icing/gravy/bonus! 😁
As I've said elsewhere, Christians like those need to be reminded – REPEATEDLY! – that they are NOT the only game in town, that there are other religions out there, as well as those of us who don't believe at all, and that local, state, and federal governments need to be NEUTRAL regarding all of the above, the better to treat all people EQUALLY.
Funny thing, both the Iowa House and Senate have stopped allowing Pastor of the Day invocations, because the Trumpublican "leadership" didn't like non-Xtian-Nationalist invocations.
Oh, no, they didn't stop invocations, they just let their Xtian Nationalist theofascist members say magic words. The shit show still goes on, just absent other perspectives.
I still think Schumer should've let it play out, just to watch Marjie and the rest of the Clown Show make complete asses of themselves, but I suppose this is probably the better outcome from the 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺'𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 angle. Sorry, Republicans- if you didn't think Cheetolini siccing a lynch mob on a joint session of Congress was worthy of Impeachment, nobody's going to take you seriously when you do it just for funzies.
A former bodyguard who is now a political pundit? Perhaps some stereotyping, but you don't really need a huge amount of political education to be a bodyguard do you?
Actually, John Edwards was charged with similar level (albeit at the federal, not the state level)...and pretty much everyone on Fox at the time who commented on the matter (Hannity, Megn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly) cheered on the prosecution.
Sounds like a guy who doesn't believe in freedom of religion. Just freedom to be subjected to his religion.
Of course. Christians of Malloy's stripe think they are the only game in town or at least that they SHOULD be ... except that they're not.
And sometimes, they have to have their nose rubbed in it to recognize that.
Well they could just follow the law.
Sorry, what was I thinking.
The last I looked blasphemy is 1) a free speech issue and 2) a victimless crime ... or it is at least until Yahweh decides to show up and complain. Still, that's beside the point. Satanism is a recognized religion by the United States government, and as such, participation by chaplains sponsored by The Satanic Temple or other similar organization is completely legal, regardless of what Rocky the Flying Dipshit wants to assert.
I would heartily suggest that Malloy get over himself, not that he will.
“… until Yahweh decides to show up…”
Or any other deity. I’m not picky.
Still, my guess is you have to wait for a really, really, really, really long time.
I actually kind of agree, but not for the reason he thinks. There should not be chaplains of any kind in the public schools paid for with everyone's tax dollars. It isn't as if this country suffers from a lack of churches, and any kid who actually wants spiritual counseling can easily get it. The religious right's obsession with forcing their religion into the public schools speaks directly to just how weak their message ultimately is that they feel they need to indoctrinate children before they've reached the age of reason.
A quibble: in theory, a candidate for the job could be a qualified accredited social worker who also happens to be a chaplain. Such folks should be allowed to apply for school counseling jobs (and probably, constitutionally, must be allowed).
However, I get what you are saying and agree. Chaplaincy as an activity should not be allowed, and nor should qualifications as a chaplain count in any way as qualifications to be a social worker or school counselor. It should be as irrelevant to the employment decision and work done on the job as "unicycle rider." Neither for nor against nor even a consideration.
Hmmm ... got me thinking... Maybe learning to ride a unicycle would be good therapy for a troubled youth.
Well, Catholics think that Protestants have been mislead by Satan and follow him, and Protestants think that Catholics worships the pope who is Satan on earth. Both groups believe every other religion is false and started by Satan. While Satanists don't actually believe that Satan is real. So they only people who can actually work in schools are Satanists.
“The cadet’s logic is sound.”
The assumption that “Christianity alone could solve problems” is obviously false in that we’ve all seen that Christianity, more often than not, is the problem. Real mental health counselors are there to provide support, not shame one’s kids. And furthermore, Malloy is just plain creepy.
Christianity can't even solve problems in bible belt states.
In divorce alone, the bible belt states are the leaders.
But they sure know how to pump out unwanted babies that will grow up just as ignorant, bigoted and selfish as them because...Jesus.
Actually, infant and mother mortality rates are highest in the Bible Belt, so it's probably a net loss.
Why does a supposed rich country as US and supposed moral xians in the bible belt allow those deaths to happen? Most of them are avoidable.
Because racist conservatives simply use abortion to garner votes, they really don't care about anything other than getting the power to impose their will upon others.
I am afraid you are correct. I wish you wasn't.
Because instituting programs to prevent this would also help black and brown people. Let me know after you read this so I can delete it.
𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧
How Women and Children Fare
States hostile to abortion fare worse on a variety of health and well-being outcomes, while states supportive of abortion rights tend to have a more generous social safety net.
You se the table at the link below
The table excludes data from six states — N.C., Fla., Kan., Pa., Va. and Mont. — where the future legal status of abortion is least clear.
In Mississippi, which brought the abortion case that ended Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, Gov. Tate Reeves vowed that the state would now “take every step necessary to support mothers and children.”
Today, however, Mississippi fares poorly on just about any measure of that goal. Its infant and maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation.
State leaders have rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 43,000 women of reproductive age without health insurance. They have chosen not to extend Medicaid to women for a full year after giving birth. And they have a welfare program that gives some of the country’s least generous cash assistance — a maximum of $260 a month for a poor mother raising two children.
Mississippi embodies a national pattern: States that have banned abortion, or are expected to, have among the nation’s weakest social services for women and children, and have higher rates of death for infants and mothers.
According to a New York Times analysis, the 24 states that have banned abortion (or probably will) fare worse on a broad range of outcomes than states where abortion will probably remain legal — including child and maternal mortality, teenage birthrates and the share of women and children who are uninsured. The states deemed likely to ban abortion either have laws predating Roe that ban abortion; have recently passed stringent restrictions; or have legislatures that are actively considering new bans.
The majority of these states have turned down the yearlong Medicaid postpartum extension. Nine have declined the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides health care to the poor. None offer new parents paid leave from work to care for their newborns.
“The safety net is woefully inadequate,” said Carol Burnett, who works with poor and single mothers as executive director of the Mississippi Low-Income Child Care Initiative, a nonprofit. “All of these demonstrated state-level obstacles prevent moms from getting the help they need, the health care they need, the child care they need.”
Many anti-abortion activists have acknowledged that improving the health and livelihoods of mothers and young children is an important goal for their movement: “This has been my lecture to the pro-life movement for the last year,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life. “No woman stands alone in the post-Roe America.”
𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺.
𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯
Social spending is not the only answer to poverty and poor public health, and some in the anti-abortion movement stress that they want to help women and children — just not with more government spending. But there is a strong link between state policy choices and outcomes for mothers and children, researchers have found.
Perhaps the clearest example is health insurance. Numerous studies have tied it to improved health and financial security for poor Americans. Since 2014, states have had the option to expand their Medicaid programs to cover nearly all poor adults, with the federal government paying 90% or more of the cost. But nine of the states planning to ban abortion have not expanded it, citing opposition to the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have long vowed to repeal; a disinclination to offer health benefits to poor Americans who do not work; or concerns about the 10% of the bill left to state governments to finance.
“Closing the Medicaid gap is the first and best option for women’s health care,” said Allison Orris, a senior fellow focused on health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Since 2021, states have also had the choice to expand Medicaid to cover women for a full year after a birth instead of two months. Just 16 states have declined to do so or opted for a shorter period — all but three of them are also banning or seeking to ban abortion.
Women who are poor and pregnant are eligible for Medicaid across the country, and the program pays for 4 in 10 births nationwide. But health experts say it also matters that women are covered for an extended period after birth, and for the years leading up to pregnancy. Conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and substance abuse can lead to pregnancy complications and poor infant health. Research suggests that Medicaid expansion can reduce maternal mortality. Medicaid also pays for contraception.
Paid family leave and subsidized child care are another example. None of the states that have banned abortion (or are likely to) guarantee parents paid leave from work to care for and bond with their newborns. Just 11 states and the District of Columbia do. Paid leave has been shown to benefit infants’ health and mothers’ physical and mental health as well as their economic prospects.
In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4% in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17% in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation).
In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4% in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17% in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation).
𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦 5. 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘸-𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯, 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 4% 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘴 (𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯) 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 17% 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵 (𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯).
𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘮: 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘔𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘴𝘰, 𝘢 𝘫𝘰𝘣 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦 — 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 $7.25 𝘪𝘯 20 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 — 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦.
Support for families is different in some states once children are 3 or 4. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia offer or have committed to offering universal preschool. Unlike with other family benefits, anti-abortion states are roughly as likely as other states to offer public preschool. Six of those 13 states ban abortion or probably will.
“This is consistent with a view that education is a public responsibility,” said Steven Barnett, senior co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers, while other safety-net programs “fall outside the accepted sphere of public responsibility in the conservative states.”
Poorer states may have fewer resources to fund benefits like parental leave, or state supplements to the federal earned-income tax credit. But what they choose to do with federal grants can be revealing, said Zachary Parolin, a professor of social policy at Bocconi University in Milan who has studied how states use the broad discretion given to them by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families welfare program.
“You can’t say Alabama gives very little cash assistance for low-income families with children because it can’t afford” the program, Parolin said. “It has a TANF program, and it’s primarily funded by the federal government.”
But in 2020, Alabama spent only about 8% of its welfare funds on direct cash assistance to families. Mississippi spent 5%. Instead, states often spend these grants on a wide range of other programs like pro-marriage advertising campaigns and abstinence-only sex education (in 2020, a state auditor in Mississippi found that the state misspent millions of federal welfare dollars, including on speeches that were never delivered by former football star Brett Favre).
𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.
States with less generous safety-net programs also frequently use complex rules and paperwork to further limit access to benefits, said Sarah Bruch, a professor of social policy and sociology at the University of Delaware. States could help women and families, she said, not just by investing more in the safety net, but also by making it easier to find and use.
Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow studying poverty and safety-net programs at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the government has some role to play, but not alone: “We have a broader responsibility as a society — employers, churches, community organizations — to ensure moms feel they can bring those kids into the world.”
Evidence so far suggests that those organizations will struggle to meet the growing need.
After the Supreme Court decision, other governors banning abortion trumpeted their commitment to pregnant women and children. “Being pro-life entails more than being ‘pro-birth,’” wrote Oklahoma Gov. J. Kevin Stitt in an executive order signed July 11.
Oklahoma ranks among the bottom 10 states on measures of child poverty, infant mortality and the share of women of reproductive age without health insurance.
T𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘎𝘰𝘷. 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘨 𝘈𝘣𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 “𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯’𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥.”
𝘏𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴’ 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘹 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘭𝘢𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦.
𝘐𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 $100 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 $6 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘪𝘥.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/upshot/abortion-bans-states-social-services.html
And repeat teen pregnancy.
Chick-fil-A has a couple of sandwiches on their menu that have eggs. They're committing genocide 6 days a week.
Those don't seem to have been fertilized so just egg cells.
We can as well call him malfoy.
I was going to call him Rockhead Malfoy earlier this morning. :)
Pas assez rapide Petit Scarabée 😁
Had the idea hours ago. Chose not to post it. :)
😝
He does look a bit Devilish in that photo.
Right?! Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8af64d555920fcde738ffad948a63391536a64aaa73fce60a10ea05ea49950f5.jpg
Stormy Daniels won the Internet yesterday when someone wrote, 'she'll sell anything for money', and she responded, "Not true. I wouldn't sell Bibles."
Boom!
She seems smart and opiniated. Good for her.
Let's face it: In a battle of wits, Stormy's packing a howitzer while Trump is brandishing a rubber knife.
(OT - Thought of you when I read the following in this morning's newspaper...)
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/04/17
Unfortunately we have them for only a short while. To them, we are their entire life.
It's still worth the pain.
Pig's sentiments exactly, in speaking to a wider audience of people with four-legged companions.
Yep. We never bought a single cat when I was growing up/living at home. Cats just seemed to naturally turn up and adopt us as their family.
So true. 😢
"Never complain"
The author never met Aria 🤣
Thought of that, too. :)
And Rhapsodie expected me to protect her.
Once again, Christians reveal themselves to be the groomers they falsely accuse others of being.
Public schoolchildren need not have the Christian god (or any other god) forced down their throats. They already have their homes, houses of worship and Sunday school/Catechism classes. All off-campus. That is more than enough.
Public school children attend classes to learn facts about how things truly work, not Bronze Age fantasies.
"representing God's presence within out public schools."
I thought Christians were always whining about how their imaginary friend had been kicked out of public schools by evil secularists. Believers can't keep their story straight.
I identify as Christian and I can’t stop face palming and shaking my head over these legislative movements “in the name of God and Christ.” None of these things signs with the message of Christ presented in the Bible.
NONE.
In fact, all these “legislate our visions and versions of morality and spiritual practice” are the very practices Jesus railed against. Not to mention, the spiritual histories shared in the Old Testament all embraced such legalism, and were held as examples of “nit quite doing the job.”
In the end, these legislative efforts are rooted in a fear that the one-time Christian majority will suffer as it slides into a minority role and position in our culture.
I enjoyed your comment up to the point where you misrepresented the Hebrew Bible, and then I stopped enjoying it.
The Hebrew Bible shows a clear progression from legalistic religion to spiritual religion—see the book of Micah for example.
An oversimplification on my part, for sure. I grew up amidst teachings saying Jesus came to establish a new way, one that simultaneously fulfilled [prophecy of] Old Testament and established a new covenant. I’ve always regarded the legalism that rose out of the Exodus covenant as a needed and necessary “step in the right direction,” so to say, en route to Christ’s ministry and teaching of The Way. That progression of which you speak, I see it and concur, even if I do appear to overlook it as I generalize and oversimplify.
Thanks for your reply. I was also brought up with that perspective but (while I’m sure you didn’t intend this), it’s often an antisemitic trope that “Judaism is legalistic”.
Most religions contain different groups who perform their spiritual practices in different ways, with different intentions and meanings.
There are devotional groups (such as the Bhakti movement in Hinduism). There are mystical groups (the Sufis in Islam, the Quakers and the Hesychasts in Christianity, and many more). There are broadly legalistic groups, such as the Shi’ites in Islam. There are fundamentalist groups like the Wahhabis in Islam. There are esoteric groups such as Kabbalists in Judaism, initiatory Wicca in Paganism, and so on. There are liberal groups in most religions (the Sufis, the Quakers, the Unitarians and UUs, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism, inclusive Wicca, and many more).
Therein lies the problem with all of this. The Bible arises as a text in an ancient language translated decades after Jesus.
So, we’re dealing with a text written in hindsight comprised of selected events and details, all of which is translated multiple times over from then to now, with contemporary word choices subject to the cultural mores and ideas of the translator’s era.
As for compilation, does anyone really think with any degree of absolute certainty the compilers of what was and wasn’t included in the Bible were a completely altruistic, divinely guided bunch of folks with nothing to gain from creating the book as they saw fit?
I know this may sound snarky, but it is a serious question, and I will try to be respectful while not being ambiguous.
Do you feel Jesus has given you insight as to which bits of the bible you should and shouldn't take entirely seriously?
Yes, Jesus told me to take everything in that book seriously. I didn't take him seriously. So here I am.
According to the buybull, jayzuz was fathered by 'god'. According to christain doctrine jayzuz is 'god'. So by their own storyline jayzuz is an inbred motherfker. Which explains why christains are the way they are.
Not only that, but a god in the form of a bird impregnating a human woman. A direct rip off of earlier Greek myths.
Just another example of a shitty reboot that shouldn't have gotten a second look let alone a green light.
It's always about money and undue power over people/women/children and never about "faith". Another way to steal from the public schools, just like they did from government programs, then bankrupt them and declare failures to kill those programs.
How many of us wonder how this will play out for children, (their physical and emotinal safety), by giving access to these "chaplains"?
Why do they need the schools to teach the religion? The faith should be taught by parents/guardians who practice themselves or in their faith centers. The schools are for learning and to be prepared for the practical world. Don't the corporations need the trained workforce?
I know that having offered the invocation for the Iowa Senate several years ago and having officiated legal marriages in Iowa that I am indeed recognized by the State of Iowa as an actual chaplain/pastor/whatever. Non-theist humanist, BTW. I also know that pisses off our Xtian nationalist legislators and their supporters....icing/gravy/bonus! 😁
As I've said elsewhere, Christians like those need to be reminded – REPEATEDLY! – that they are NOT the only game in town, that there are other religions out there, as well as those of us who don't believe at all, and that local, state, and federal governments need to be NEUTRAL regarding all of the above, the better to treat all people EQUALLY.
What a concept, eh?
Funny thing, both the Iowa House and Senate have stopped allowing Pastor of the Day invocations, because the Trumpublican "leadership" didn't like non-Xtian-Nationalist invocations.
It seems some thanks are due to you for your service.
THANK YOU!
Even better.
Oh, no, they didn't stop invocations, they just let their Xtian Nationalist theofascist members say magic words. The shit show still goes on, just absent other perspectives.
OT- GQP Impeachment case against Secretary Mayorkas lands with a wet plop; is unceremoniously flushed: https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-senate-impeachment-trial-democrats-29aa775c0e866f4160f320583f261a72
I still think Schumer should've let it play out, just to watch Marjie and the rest of the Clown Show make complete asses of themselves, but I suppose this is probably the better outcome from the 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺'𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 angle. Sorry, Republicans- if you didn't think Cheetolini siccing a lynch mob on a joint session of Congress was worthy of Impeachment, nobody's going to take you seriously when you do it just for funzies.
Wasting time? It's not as if they're doing anything else is it?
Wasting time has been part of the plan since the party of Trump took control of the House.
MALLOY: "It's nonexistent! It's a typical demonic threat!"
Um, did you hear what you just said?
Those groups of brain cells aren't talking to one another this week.
Maybe next week.
Maybe.
I wish I was as optimistic as you are.
Kind of like: "The food is terrible but at least the servings are large "
It sounds like an employment program for pedophiles.
You’re saying the quiet part out loud.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-18-at-6.16.14%E2%80%AFAM.png
The kids are alright!
He's Abraham Lincoln! He's Nelson Mandela! He's Jesus! He's all these and so many more! Bigly!
A "living" martyr? Someone should inform Murdoch/Tyrus what being a martyr means.
A former bodyguard who is now a political pundit? Perhaps some stereotyping, but you don't really need a huge amount of political education to be a bodyguard do you?
My favorite was when Neil Cavuto, on a segment of his show, asked Fabio about the Israel-Hamas war (seriously, not joke).
"no one is being charged with that."
Actually, John Edwards was charged with similar level (albeit at the federal, not the state level)...and pretty much everyone on Fox at the time who commented on the matter (Hannity, Megn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly) cheered on the prosecution.
sorry "something similar," not "similar level"...guess I need some more coffee.
Blasphemy is yet another imaginary crime. It is meaingless to nonbelievers living under a secular government.
Blasphemy is also my favorite exercise.
You don't use Pontius Pilates? 😉
I yoga say I don't understand the reference 🤔
Pilates are a form of exercise. 🙂
I prefer to think of pi-lates as tardily turned in geometry homework.
I could go for pie/lattes.
😇
'Blasphemy' is an American birthright.