WB I’m against the government forcing women to give birth period. I don’t think it’s right and I also think we just end up having more back alley abortions like we did before Roe vs Wade. Republicans in this instance tried making it harder for the people in Ohio to choose abortion without having abortion on the ballot and they got their ass handed to them. I’m not like say Trump where his stance on abortion is about getting votes btw.
As for dark money, that’s a both sides thing. I hope that some sensible campaign finance reform can be gotten back to but wasn’t it the conservatives on the Supreme Court that loosened all that up?
I don't buy that. Women up till 1973 still got pregnant, millions per year, and with a different moral sense, made and still make the decision to keep their babies, or give them up for adoption.
And the U.S. also had enough births that we didn't need to import another 1.3 million immigrants a year to compensate for the deficit of births.
The point I made is, if you educate women about the life they are carrying, with a greater conscience they will choose not to get abortions, or will at worst carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption, to the hundreds of thousands annually who would gladly adopt them.
You say that Republicans lost an election for that specific reason of restricting abortion, but there are no voter exit polls or specific statements by voters, no evidence for you (or your source) to decisively say that.
You say Ohio Republicans got their asses handed to them, for that one specific reason. I say your side are making stuff up with no facts in evidence, to psych out your Republican opposition, creating a narrative to make Republicans do what your side wants them to do, and abandon pro-life policy.
And as I said before: Ohio is only one state, no other region is trying to outlaw abortion completely. It's just a Democrat talking point, a scare tactic, a narrative, that Republicans allegedly want to abandon abortion across all 50 states. And even in Ohio, hypothetically, if it were outlawed, women could travel an hour or two into any neighboring state to get an abortion. Democrat abortion groups are already promising to give women free transportation to an abortion state, and to profit off these policies, if they come into fruition.
You are quick to assume to worst motive in Trump becoming pro-life, alleging it was "just about getting votes" is cynical and unproven.
But as I stated above, like Trump, I was in support of abortion for most of my life, and without any political motives, I was simply persuaded by the evidence to change my stance, around the year 2000. I don't see Trump as a guy who can be bought, he has enough other issues where people support him that he wouldn't have to be pro-life if he didn't believe in it. His support comes from many other issues.
On the dark money point, all of a sudden it seems every presidential, Senate, House or even local D.A election, Democrats are out-spending every Republican by 5 or 10 to 1, as I've detailed in several posts recently on the 2022 midterm elections. On the Republican side, most donations are $50 or less, and trackable, whereas your side is more often very large donations, often untraceable, and stuff like Mark Zuckerberg, or Sam Bankman-Fried, or Jeffrey Epstein, or Harvey Weinstein-types, whose true contributions are only exposed much later, if ever.
And campaign finance reform (the McCain-Feingold bill) is what led to the current exponential rise in special interest campaign funding over the last 20 years. Led to the rise of George Soros taking over the Democrat party from its previous large donors (The head of MoveOn.org boasting to others in the 2004 election: "We bought the Democratic party. We OWN it ! " when Soros groups took over and increasingly radicalized the party after taking financial control of it. As detailed in the book THE SHADOW PARTY, by David Horowitz and Rcihard Poe.)
So I don't see further campaign finance laws fixing anything, only worsening it.