Did ANYONE... ANYONE read beyond the headline?
ANYONE?
I know the vast majority of the dumbs can’t read the story or process anything beyond the headline, and that is precisely what CNBC wanted with this, but just read a few sentences down.
Walmart is NOT allowing for unrestrictive elective abortions on demand. They are covering in very limited circumstances: “when there is a health risk to the mother, rape or incest, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage or lack of fetal viability”
Other than the rape/incest category, I can’t think of a place ANYWHERE where even the strictest abortion laws would apply. In ectopic pregnancies, the unborn child isn’t viable. Same for miscarriage or lack of fetal viability. So those procedures don’t implicate abortion statutes at all.
If the mother’s life is at risk, there typically has always been an exception there.
These are the very rare exceptions that aren’t implicated at all.
So, again, the headline and knee jerk reactions don’t necessary back up to reality.
The problem is that “health risk to the mother” can be interpreted so broadly that a claimed mental health risk of sadness can be used.
You are right, and they almost roped me in with the dishonest headline.
We’re suppose to read the whole thing?
Good post. My daughter had to have the procedure done in an emergency situation and she could have died right then. Come to find out she was having twins but one of the babies didn’t develop enough. And the doctors the atArnold Palmer children’s hospital said my daughter would have contracted a type of cancer that is 100% fatal. What a horrifying dad that was. Woops, never put this in writing before.