Heritage Foundation: Gay Marriage Will Make All The Gross Spinsters Kill Their Babies. It's Math!
According to the Heritage Foundation's (LOL) "digital-first, multimedia news platform," The Daily Signal, if the Supreme Court crams gay-marriage down our throats, as it is totally gonna do in June, that will make even more women do abortions. FACT. Gene Schaerr, a lawyer and former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, hasall the numbers and charts, and also the Netherlands, to prove it:
In a nutshell: A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women. And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates.
Whoa, our heads are spinning from that deductive reasoning. But Schaerr has looked at this stuff, lawyer style, and when you look at it the way he does (drunk, we think?), it is just so obvious. See, in the Netherlands, and in Spain (there is a graph, you cannot argue with a graph), fewer women got married after those nations adopted "genderless marriage."
It is a terrific graph, in that it demonstrates that "3.2" is like 10 percent of "5," and also "random numbers." So, clearly, once women were allowed the right to marry a manora woman, they decided not to marry anyone and instead get knocked up and then kill their babies, because women are fickle like that.
Is there a graph that shows the correlation between the rise of lesbian marriages leading to the rise of fewer marriages leading to the rise of abortion rates? No. But in the United States, "married women do not abort children at the same rates as cohabitating women or women living singly." And look! Math!
Calculating the total number of abortions over an unmarried woman’s childbearing years by averaging this rate over her assumed 30-year fertility period, unmarried women would average 0.87 abortions over their lifetimes, while married women would average 0.18 abortions.
It's math, don't you see? MATH! And dividing leaves by applesauce gives you 5.2.
Accordingly, with 1.275 million additional women never getting married, nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.
Don't you see? The Venn Diagram of women who would be able to exercise their constitutional right to marry each other, and women who fuck men and end up with unwanted pregnancies, is actually a perfect circle. And that is why the Supreme Court must not permit gaysexuals to do that.
In short, forcing states to convert the traditional gendered marriage institution into a genderless institution will very likely reduce man-woman marriages by undermining some of the norms that encourage heterosexual couples to marry, which will in turn increase the number of unmarried women and, hence, the number of children aborted.
Hence! Thereon! Ergo! WORDS! It is indisputable! More marriage means less marriage, and that causes straight women to murder their unborned children. Don't even try to argue with that infallible logic. So please,pretty please, Supreme Court, don't do that to America. Don't "subject a states’ citizens to that risk, against their will." Save the straight marriages from single-lady abortions, or the babies from the gay weddings, or the gay whales, we are not sure what this gentleman is on about really. Before it's too late.
[ The Daily Signal ]
I only watched one porn in my life, but THAT was exactly what happened in it! So it must be true.
Actually, abortions went down during the Clinton years, and the reason that came out was that fewer women were opting for abortion because they had the optimism that they would have the money to pay for ( a or another) child--healthcare both for the pregnancy and for the baby, care for the child, from feeding, clothing, housing and educating to support from the government with things like leave, assistance, and childcare, and were not worried as much about what the future would hold, what could happen if they had a special needs child or the child or they became ill.
I think I remember them saying women felt more secure with the decision to carry a pregnancy to term during Democratic Presidency than during Republican Presidencies because the talk about "self-sufficiency" and cutting social programs scares women and families (the myth that women having abortiona are all single is just that--a myth. Many families feel they cannot afford another child because they can barely feed the ones they have.)
Anyway, it appeared all the talk about reducing the abortion rate had never reduced the number of abortions. Instead, the abortion rate is reduced by social programs to help women who need it, AND the confidence such programs would continue to be available if the pregnany went wrong, or if the woman or her family suffered economic losses, illnesses, etc. Women have less abortions when they feel safe. Safe they won't end up homeless and/or unable to care for the baby or any children she already has. Optimistic about the future, her own future, the futures of her family. Not anything these hateful, spiteful, judgemental, controlling, obsessed men ever consider.