Mitt Romney says half of Americans are immoral parasites who think they’re ‘victims’

The scoop seems to belong to David Corn of Mother Jones,SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He Really Thinks of Obama Voters“:

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney goes on to say that such moochers can never be convinced “to take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

So with the release of this video, it seems Mitt Romney has shifted from worrying that 47 percent of the country would never vote for him to ensuring that 47 percent of the country would never vote for him.

Josh Marshall tries to make sense of this, saying “Mitt seems to string together a handful of really distinct conservative talking points — and in a way that makes you think he just heard them in a fragmentary way and pasted them together without any clear sense of what he was saying.”

It is true that President Obama has enjoyed the steady support of about 47 percent of the country throughout his first term. It is also true that if you add up everyone who’s retired, still in school or working poor — i.e., people who don’t owe federal income taxes — that this is also about 47 percent of the country. (Or, rather, it peaked at 47 percent following the 2008 financial crisis.)

But it’s really weird to suggest, as Romney does, that this is the same 47 percent.

Last time I checked, there were plenty of senior citizens who are also Republicans. And those folks don’t take kindly to being told they’re “dependent” on government, or that they’re whiny moochers with a sense of entitlement.

No one likes being accused of that. Not senior citizens, not students, not the working poor. Not Democrats, or Republicans, or Independents.

Ari Kohen wonders why Romney even wants to be president: “Why would you want to be president of a country when you hold almost half of the citizenry in utter contempt?”

Josh Barro thinks the “combination of contempt and pity that Romney shows for anyone who isn’t going to vote for him” will be politically disastrous.

Ed Kilgore wonders what will be more harmful to the Romney campaign: “the video … or the ‘Hell yes!’ reactions to it from the rawer elements of the conservative chattering classes.”

“Romney’s theory of the ‘taker class,’” Ezra Klein says, is “core to his economic agenda.” The idea that America is divided between “makers” and “takers” isn’t true, Klein writes, but “Behind this argument, however, is a very clever policy two-step that’s less about who pays taxes now and more about who is going to pay to reduce the deficit in coming years.”

Conservative Ramesh Ponnuru agrees that Romney’s “makers vs. takers” idea is false. It is also, he says, bad politics: “most people don’t see themselves in that storyline, any more than they see themselves as dependents of the federal government. They don’t see Americans as divided between makers and takers.”

Ryan Chittum has some good background on the roots of Romney’s rehash and mishmash of the old “lucky duckies” canard.

Ta-Nehisi Coates says Romney’s remarks remind him “of Lee Atwater’s famous explanation of the Southern Strategy.”

Coates ends on an unexpectedly hopeful note. “When the party of white populism finds itself writing off half the country,” he writes, “we are really close.”

Charlie Pierce is less hopeful. Now that Romney has “declared a class war on himself,” Pierce says, “There’s really only one campaign left to him now”:

Unfortunately for American politics, that means only one thing. It’s going to get extraordinarily dirty extraordinarily fast. There is going to be pale birtherism and barely covert racism. The body of Ambassador Christopher Stevens is going to be exhumed and used as a bludgeon. There is going to be poor-baiting, and gay-baiting, and ladyparts-baiting, and probably baiting of things I haven’t thought of yet. The polite part of the campaign is going to be Romney’s effort to convince You that he was really talking about Them when he was calling people moochers and sneak thieves. He wasn’t talking about Your Medicare or Your Social Security. Naw, he was talking about Their greed for what You have. That’s going to be the polite part of the rest of the campaign, reinforced in the lower registers by a few million in ads to make sure You remember who They are.

The full video of Romney’s remarks at the fundraiser may not be as initially damaging as his disdainful comments about the entitled moochers who think they’re victims, but as more of the speech receives attention, the rest of it won’t be good for Romney’s campaign either.

Romney’s rejection of a two-state solution in the Middle East, for example, won’t likely win him many votes. Particularly when he outlines his idea of foreign-policy leadership: “We have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

Romney isn’t about “hope and change.” He’s about “hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen.”

See also:

 

  • http://www.crochetgeek.net/ Jake

     Well, there’s the whole maxim about setting a thief to catch a thief… except that Romney has shown absolutely no interest in sealing up the tax dodges he exploits.

  • Ross Thompson

    So yes, he learned something.  It was just something grossly immoral.

    I think what he learned was that “the poor” are those people whose parents can only afford to send them to Harvard once.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    A man who thinks a lot of people don’t deserve food ought rightly to be called the devil, I should think.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

     True, I guess I just figured I’d be acclimated to it by now.  I guess some things you never quite get used to; and maybe that’s a good thing.

  • Jeff Weskamp

    Matt Taibbi discussed what Romney actually did at Bain Capital in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.  Romney basically performed a Mafia-style “bust-out” on every business he acquired.

  • hidden_urchin

    Fifty thousand dollars…

    Yes, let’s put this in perspective.   Does anyone want to guess how long that much money would feed me at my current budgeted amount for food?

    Anyone?

    Forty years.

    I’m not really feeling all that sorry for these people.

  • Lori

     

    I’m not sure there’s any practical difference.  

    The difference is dumb vs evil. The appocriphal MA quote is clueless, the idea that people aren’t entitled to food is just pure meanness. Even in the here & now I’d rather take my chances with Clueless’ other polices than with Evil’s.

  • Launcifer

    Aaand we in the United Kingdom have learned today that someone thought to show Romney the latest Batman film, given his comments concerning the feasibility of hiding a dirty bomb in Chicago.

  • FrenchRoast

    Considering just how many people I know who get Medicare were anti-Obamacare with the reasoning of “I don’t want the government interfering with my (government-provided) healthcare!”, I’m not sure Romney’s statements will change many people’s minds about voting for him. Cognitive dissonance is something a large part of the electorate is really, really good at, alas.

  • The_L1985

    If anything else, the new Batman emphasizes that it’s impossible to stop terrorism without creating a draconian police state. (And even then, things still go pear-shaped pretty quickly.)

    Whether or not you believe such a society is a good idea is beside the point.  We literally cannot have a free state and a terrorism-proof state at the same time.  It is not possible.

  • JustoneK

    My favorite part – Ryan is now claiming the statement is “inelegant.”  Yesss.  That’s our problem with it.  It wasn’t the actual idea communicated at all, but the way it was CONVEYED.

    Because we are teh dum.

  • http://www.nightphoenix.com Amaranth

    Ever since this story got out, I have been waiting for someone to quote Yzma. Thank you!

    The really scary thing is, people like Romney think Yzma’s attitude here is something to *emulate*. And then they wonder why the world is mocking them.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

    Considering that the Makers/Takers bullshit is what Ayn Rand’s philosophy is built on, Ryan defending it doesn’t surprise me. As always, he’s just annoyed someone got caught talking about it in plain language, rather than code.

  • Ross Thompson

    My favorite part – Ryan is now claiming the statement is “inelegant.”  Yesss.  That’s our problem with it.  It wasn’t the actual idea communicated at all, but the way it was CONVEYED.

    It’s like when Limbaugh described Miss Fluke as a “slut”, Romney’s response was “those aren’t the words I would have used”. Because he believes that the basic point is correct, but it would be more polite to call her a “trollop”, or perhaps “slattern”.

    It’s not that you used the wrong words, or expressed yourself inelegantly, it’s that your basic ideas are monstrously sociopathic, and no degree of polishing is going to make them seem voter-friendly.

  • Daughter

     Obama could dump Geithner, but I don’t think he can change the tax rates on his own. He’d need Congress for that.

  • Launcifer

    Actually, that leads me to (yet another) disturbing thought: Romney’s not going to get no votes in the election. I know there are many, many reasons to vote one way or another, generally speaking, but how many of those people who do vote for him are thinking “well, I don’t agree with him on that, but it’s not enough for me to vote for someone else”, how many are in the “the Republicans could offer up a bucket of shit and I’d vote for it just so long as the bucket was red” category and how many people actually agree with everything he said?

    It’s the last one that worries me most of all, ’cause Romney may well be coming across as sociopathic, but if people are voting for him because they agree with him, doesn’t that – by extension – make all of them a tad sociopathic, too?

    And that possibility says something downright terrifying about the country that traditionally sees itself as an exemplar to the world-at-large.

  • AnonymousSam

    So these men spent more money in an hour than what most families make in a year, just to sit around and talk about how other people don’t deserve the tiny fraction of a percent of their wealth that they get. “They’re so greedy,” these men say, dining on foie gras with truffle oil. “Why should we care that they throw away their money and are too lazy to get more? Oh, speaking of which, what’s a good Swiss account to set up a trust fund for my kids? I don’t want them having to hob-knob with the blue collars just to get by in college.”

  • aunursa

    You say this as if it’s news to you.  It’s been an established fact for some time now that we Republicans are sociopathic monsters.

  • The_L1985

    Using Google as a citation.  How cute.

  • Wednesday

    So, this 47% statistic… is it supposed to be 47% of people living in the US, 47% of US citizens, 47% of eligible voters, 47% of adults, what? Does this exclude married couples filing jointly where one spouse does not work for pay? Because 24% of people living in the US are under 18, according to the 2010 census. Another 13% are over 65. And if I understand the GOP correctly, they want all mothers to be married to a man and staying at home caring for the children, which would mean that (again going by 2010 US census numbers) about 32% of the population would not be working.  (Or maybe it’s just all white women are supposed to be stay-at-home moms married to men? I’m not always clear on that.)

  • Wednesday

     …would not be working _for pay_, my apologies. Obviously being a SAH parent is work, it’s just one that you don’t get income for so you don’t pay federal income taxes.

  • Isabel C.

    I like Jon Stewart’s take on it. “You may know these deadbeats as the Greatest Generation or ‘Nana’.” 

  • Launcifer

    Bit disingenuous that, but it is news to me, at least in the sense that this guy could still be considered a candidate for any kind of office in a prosperous western nation. Then again, I’m English, which might suggest a degree of cultural confusion.

    I mean, going by his own words there, Romney’s just written off more than 146 million people in the country he wants to govern. The possibility of throwing that many people under the proverbial bus is something that’s quite beyond my comprehension. It’s also a bit mystifying that he’s assuming that the other fifty-three percent are even eligible – or able - to vote, never mind that they’re all going to vote for him.

    I’m also incredibly wary of the implications of this man rolling out that kind of logic as an aspect of his foreign policy because, on that scale, it’s likely only a matter of time before it starts screwing with the governance of my country.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/susan.paxton.94 Susan Paxton

    I do pretty much think “Nicolae Carpathia” every time I see him.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not to mention that every non-clergy-member pays sales tax.  You cannot even buy things without paying taxes.

    To be fair, this is not true in all states. Delaware hasn’t got sales tax. Possibly other states too.

    WTF does being clergy have to do with it and how is that in any way not a violation of the establishment clause?

  • SkyknightXi

    The problem is going to be convincing them that they ARE sociopathic, or even pseudo-sociopathic (i.e. even without the affliction, they’re managing to follow its patterns). The problem is one of self-righteousness; they’re convinced that by following the proper path in utmost purity, they’ve become incapable of philosophical error. Russell/Ingersoll’s (I forget who said it) point about how the regarding-themselves-as-pure see themselves as unable to be critiqued legitimately comes to mind. Cue trouble when two such self-canonized purities OF DISSIMILAR SUBSTANCES meet…They don’t even have to be on the same axis. Or axes that intersect. Or axes that are parallel. The point is that purity is largely defined not just by the pure substance, but the absolute lack–in many cases, outright rejection–of anything else as detracting from the primary substance.

    Basically, the archons don’t see themselves as corrupt. Merely willing automatons of righteousness.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well, if he pushes a tax proposal and links it to the increasingly offensive out of touch sense of entitlement rich people have about their money there’s a good chance the rates will at least go back up at the top end, even if the top rate doesn’t go back to 70%.

  • Vermic

    Actually, that leads me to (yet another) disturbing thought: Romney’s not going to get no votes in the election.

    To give just one example, there are millions of voters who are just here for the abortion issue, and nothing either candidate says about economics, foreign policy, or anything else matters one bit.

  • Lori

     

    how many of those people who do vote for him are thinking “well, I don’t
    agree with him on that, but it’s not enough for me to vote for someone
    else”, how many are in the “the Republicans could offer up a bucket of
    shit and I’d vote for it just so long as the bucket was red” category
    and how many people actually agree with everything he said?   

    I think the number of people who actually agree with what Romney said is quite small. The number of people who think they agree with it because they willfully refuse to understand what he actually said (see your 1st & 2nd points) is much higher. I’m not sure where the sociopath line ought to be drawn there. I do know that it’s frightening that our discourse is so partisan that for about 30% of the population there is literally nothing that Romney can say that would make them not vote for him.

    There are obviously Dems who are looking past some pretty appalling stuff to vote for Obama again. (I’m one of them.) Somehow though, lying about and dismissing almost half the people you claim to want to govern just strike me as being in a whole other category.

  • VMink

    I admit… it’s taken me a while to avoid calling people ‘sociopaths’ who follow this ‘secular prosperity gospel,’ ‘You do not have the right to EAT FOOD,’ stuff.  Because it’s not sociopathy; it’s definitely a lack of empathy and a whole lot of privilege, but it’s not sociopathy.  None of the people cleaving to this really do want to go out and stomp on homeless people.  They simply don’t know.  For the most part, it’s ignorance and fear.  This may result in sociopathic behavior but I don’t see them as DSM-IV sociopaths (or rather diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.)

    How many people like this have started to reverse their stances on QUILTBAG equality when confronted with a friend or a family member who is QUILTBAG?  How many of them plunge into cognitive dissonance to say ‘Oh, but you’re one of the ones who NEEDED government assistance!’  Those are cracks in their armor, a slow falling away of the scales on their eyes.

    Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t continue to push, push, push to ensure that the least powerful are protected from the most powerful, and have the benefits and protections of living in a civilized society.

  • AnonymousSam

    Admittedly, part of me feels the urge to make No True Scotsman arguments to defend the holy sanctity of sociopathy whenever the word comes up in relation to these subhuman personifications of a broccoli fart.

    And then I remember, “Oh, right, I’m the exception…” and it gets better. When in doubt, I can rest comfortably knowing I’ll always be able to appeal to my own colossal ego. ^_^

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s the problem.

    Even the anti-abortion people who get confronted with “That could be you (if female)” or “That could be your wife/sister/mother/daughter (if male)” wave their hand and make excuses for why those people are special cases while Everybody Else is Just a Slut, or some misogynistic variant on why abortion should, on the whole, remain illegal.

    I really hope that the people who listened to Romney say those things are not already trying to rationalize “oh, he meant Those Other People!” – although his mean crack about being born Hispanic suggests he’s trying to plant that suggestion in people’s heads already.

  • Hawker40

    “Because the only reason Obama got elected was that he’s a racial minority. Not that people thought his policies and leadership were superior to McCain’s; people just vote for minorities over rich late middle aged white dudes to show how morally superior they are.”

    Which explains why every branch of government in the United States at every level is dominated by women, minorities, the poor and the young.  Or not.

  • AnonymousSam

    The majority of racism today is based upon the presumption that whites are becoming increasingly shoved out of opportunity/their rightful place/etc because employers are more likely to hire a minority, judges will more often side with a minority, and a white can’t do anything without being accused of racism.

    So yes, when Romney says this, he’s playing a very racist card indeed.

  • Carstonio

    I don’t like the labeling of someone as “sociopathic” in political discussions unless a psychiatrist has made a formal diagnosis. Too many people without medical degrees hear that term and assume the person tortures puppies for fun, or is one step away from climbing the Texas Bell Tower. Better to describe the mindset and agenda for what they are instead of using labels.

  • Tricksterson

    Aunursa, get out of Neutrino’s body.  Don’t make me break out the exorcism kit.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Don’t make me break out the exorcism kit.

    Kinky.

  • The_L1985

    Don’t forget the working poor.  Half the people receiving government assistance (a.k.a. welfare) have full-time jobs–that don’t pay enough to live on.

    Also, there are a surprising number of people with disabilities that prevent them from working, and those people are on SSDI and have no income to tax.

  • The_L1985

    If you’re a clergyperson, buying things for your church, you don’t pay sales tax on it (1st Amendment perk).  IIRC, you also don’t pay sales tax for necessities (same reason).

    However, this loophole has been exploited by the seedier types of pastor to buy all sorts of non-necessities tax-free.

  • Launcifer

    I have to hold my hand up and admit to some awareness that the term was not the best – or necessarily the most appropriate – one that I could have used when I posted my earlier comment. The problem I had (have might be more accurate, actually) was that when I looked into my Mental Box of Words for a quick description of this man’s apparent behaviour, that was the word that repeatedly fell out.

    What I think I’m doing wrong is looking for a quick way to describe an incredibly lengthy list of issues that I perceive in what’s being said. I can accept that doing that is only really going to lead to inaccurate or unfair labels being applied for the sake of convenience.

  • Launcifer

    I have to hold my hand up and admit to some awareness that the term was not the best – or necessarily the most appropriate – one that I could have used when I posted my earlier comment. The problem I had (have might be more accurate, actually) was that when I looked into my Mental Box of Words for a quick description of this man’s apparent behaviour, that was the word that repeatedly fell out.

    What I think I’m doing wrong is looking for a quick way to describe an incredibly lengthy list of issues that I perceive in what’s being said. I can accept that doing that is only really going to lead to inaccurate or unfair labels being applied for the sake of convenience.

  • VMink

    In that, there’s no fault for going to their own oracle of Right Behavior and using her language: Ayn Rand said up front ‘Selfishness is a virtue.’  How can they complain when we call their behavior ‘selfish?’  It is what it is.

    Though the problem with that, is that with the Bizarro-world memetic warfare going on, ‘compassion’ and ‘empathy’ have become BAD and ‘selfish’ has become GOOD.  I don’t know how to oppose this sort of values inversion.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I think the phrase “dangerously out of touch”, while it doesn’t carry the connotations of sociopathy, works as well for describing the things people like Romney say or do.

    Also, one thing I think Obama needs to do is throw cold water on the “Othering” people tend to do.

    “For those of you tuning in, ask yourselves honestly: Do you collect Social Security? Do you use Medicare? Do you use Medicaid? Do you use WIC or SNAP?

    “If you use these things, you’re benefitting from government aid just as much as all the ‘welfare bums’ you complain about. The money comes from taxpayers’ pockets just as much as it does when a person on welfare gets money or an EBT card.

    “Sure, I could talk about roads or schools or police or firefighters, but we take those so much for granted we don’t stop to think ‘hey, I drove a road today; I benefitted from that even though I didn’t have to pay a toll for it.’

    “But we do stop, a lot, and complain bitterly about ‘freeloaders’ who take more in taxes back than they give – only we try and pretend that this very small sliver of the American population is the sole beneficiary of the three to four trillion dollars we spend every year.

    “And that’s not true; it’s not right, and it’s not fair. People on welfare are no more freeloaders than you are for collecting a Social Security check, or for going to the store and using WIC to feed your kids.

    “We breathe the same air. We drink the same water. We live on the same planet, in the same country.

    “And this means as Americans, we reach out to lend a hand when someone needs help, not slap their hand away and tell them to do it all on their own.”

  • Lunch Meat

    Moveon.org is asking for people to submit video responses to Romney to be used in campaign ads. I know some folks here have really good stories. Check it out: https://pol.moveon.org/47pctvideos.html?id=52173-23242077-iAjUH5x&t=3

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    THey mostly just go “I’m white” over and over again.

    I’m white. Most of my family is white. Almost everyone I know is white.

    If it were up to white Mitt Romney, black Barack Obama would not have been able to push through policy that will allow me to have surgery and hopefully work and definitely be in less pain. Obamacare has helped lots of white disabled people I know, and all white women I know. 

    I learned in my Modern Caribbean History class that there’s a saying in… I can’t remember which country. But the saying is, “money whitens.” The reverse is also true. My ancestry is almost all Scandinavian, Dutch, and German, all considered appropriately “white”, unlike Italian, Jewish, and Irish people were for a very long time. My Dutch ancestors were in New Amsterdam in the 16th century. I’m related to a 19th century president. My skin tone is such a pale pink, I pretty much glow in the dark. But I am poor and disabled. Romney and his ilk do not see me as actually white unless they see an excuse to pretend to “protect” me from black men.

    No poor person is seen as really white by the Mitt Romneys of the world. He’ll do his best to manipulate poor white people, but they are not of his tribe, as he makes clear every time he opens his mouth. Whiteness has always been a tool to get the white poor and middle classes to hew to the rich. With the slow demise of racism (it’s happening), people are waking up, realizing that it’s all been a vile, deadly scam. So Republicans have to resort to clear class warfare. That is going to fail, and fail hard.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Also, there are a surprising number of people with disabilities that prevent them from working, and those people are on SSDI and have no income to tax.

    They’re on SSDI if they’re lucky. I have a disability that prevents me from working. I was in college and not working when I threw my back out, and therefore uneligible for SSDI, though I’ve paid a whole lot in Social Security taxes in my life. I can’t get need-based disability in my state because, according to the lawyer I talked to, I’m:

    1) Too young (35)
    2) Too educated
    3) Technically able to function on the most basic level. I am unable to cook or clean or bend over to pick up things I drop, my memory is absolute shit, I shake so much that I drop things regularly, I am in incredible, debilitating pain all the time, I am unable to drive, but I can get myself to and from the bathroom.

    She said there was no way I could win my case in Florida, even with my doctor testifying that I needed disability. If my parents and fiancé couldn’t afford to support me, I’d be on the streets. Most likely dead, as I can’t do anything physical.

    Gee it’s just so fun being in horrible, debilitating pain all the time that makes me completely dependent on others! Yep, I do so love it. Obviously a choice I’m making. 

    I wish for Mitt Romney to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    class warfare. That is going to fail, and fail hard.

    That’s interesting. Why should class warfare be any less viable than race warfare?

    I mean, I get that historically in the U.S. we’ve pretended to be a classless society and have therefore used race judgments as a proxy for the class judgments  we pretend not to make (leading to all kinds of bizarre questions like whether Italians are white).

    But I don’t see why, if it turns out that the construct of race stops working for that purpose, those of us inclined to that sort of thing won’t just start making class judgments directly.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Why should class warfare be any less viable than race warfare?

    Because working and middle class white votes are necessary for the Republican party to ever win anything. When working and middle class whites start feeling squeezed and the rich people doing the squeezing can’t distract them with race or jingoism or religion, it turns out quite poorly for the rich people. And if the rich people keep squeezing, rather than compromising, they tend to end up dead.

  • Isabel C.

    “Out of touch” doesn’t quite do it for me: it implies a sort of helplessness, a well-okay-he’s-just-behind-the-times, that doesn’t really cover the intentional cruelty and callousness I’ve seen from Romney and his supporters.

    I usually just go ahead and say “evil”, these days. 
    Because, in all honesty? I don’t think he’d do it for fun, but I can easily imagine Romney torturing a puppy or climbing up a bell tower if he thought it’d get him what he wanted.  

    “Vile excuse for a human being” works pretty well. Or “walking Dickens villain.”

  • PirateAnon

     In a lot of ways, that’s what changed my thinking on the life/choice debate – being personally confronted with that choice, and having to think it through from a perspective of need, circumstance, intention, long term outcome.  The ‘why?’ is a lot harder to hand-wave away when it’s YOUR choice (or hers, as it were.)  My sister hadn’t intended it, was shamed into avoiding birth control, and was in a controlling and abusive relationship that burdened her with an impossible choice.  No one had the right to brow beat her for that decision.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X