But he insisted the mothers can and should avoid getting pregnant because that costs taxpayers more money.
Um, didn't you guys just vote to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood? And aren't there a whole bunch of anti-abortion bills? So, let's get this straight:
You don't want low income women to have access to inexpensive birth control.
You don't want women to have abortions.
You want to punish women who have babies.
That's what it's really all about. Punishing the sluts. These women don't get pregnant by themselves, but no one ever speaks of taking action against men.
River Diverter Dan McGuire pointed out to Kurk that the cost of educating this kid is going to be $10,000 a year.
Republicans want to force women to incubate, and then punish them when they do. No concern for the life of poverty they're consigning these women and children to, because the poorer they are, the harder it is for them to find those mythological bootstraps.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, asked Kurk if he intended his bill to do "social engineering" by reducing the number of babies born to poor, perhaps less educated women to "improve the gene pool."
"I never thought of this as a eugenics bill," Kurk said.
Interesting. It behooves me to point out that Neal Kurk has no co-sponsors. He realizes that it isn't going to save the state much money at all. He just wants to punish these women, and if he has to hurt kids in the process, that's okay with him.
This is the same guy who suggested that state employees should take up smoking and die sooner. Neal Kurk isn't going to ever be confused with Gandhi or Mother Theresa. In fact, Neal Kurk isn't ever going to be confused with being human.
|
