It's been a really rough week for Republicans who hate reproductive rights, and Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of California is no exception. "As someone who struggled to get pregnant, I believe all life is a gift. IVF allowed me, as it has so many...
Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).
Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
This is how it always happens, lip service doesn’t mean anything. They will be QUOTED as being in support of “women’s health and safety” and “emergency exceptions” all day long as they vote to overturn Roe and strip down exceptions to meaningless inactionable jargon
They’re not going to say (I guess some of the house bombastic ones might) “I’m a Republican in support of preventing your wife from bearing children”
If she doesn’t want to do it, then why is she co-sponsoring it?
That’s an affirmation that she wants the thing that she sponsoring to be done.
He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.
He? Where?Never mind, went back and read through the whole article, instead of just depending on the summary.
My question still stands though.
What you’re mentioning was that there’s no carve out, also known as an exclusion of, for IVF. Not that it doesn’t mention IVF.
From the article…