Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

No - I am not saying that at all. I am saying you can't ban books for extremely mild references to things you don't like while claiming to be against big government. If the books had a chapter that pushed actual CRT but none of the 54 that have been banned do anything close to that.

The only example that has been provided so far is a single activity that refers to racial biases (where there are at least 102 other activities in the book, likely many more than that). The other example had absolutely nothing to do with CRT, SEL is about trying to help student be empathetic (god forbid a child learns empathy).

I am known to be very anti-gun and I'd fully agree it would be an example of big-government on the left if I heard that NY state had pulled a maths book because it had one activity amongst at least 100 that showed the number of people of different ages who used guns for hunting.

You can't have it both ways - you can't use the government to enforce your beliefs, onto the citizens, including children, and claim that you are for small government.

Are you talking about a woman needing a abortion to save her life? I don't see anyone suggesting she shouldn't have an abortion in that case.

My post was in response to someone with a very flippant attitude toward the life of the unborn, seemingly at any stage before they are born.

I would have presumed that the party of enforced birth would have recently have supported initiatives that would have ended the baby formula shortages and funding for poor children to be provided food but surprisingly that was not the case...

Similarly, I would have imagined states where Republicans have complete control of would have low maternal mortality rates, low infant mortality rates, low child poverty rates, high education results but again shockingly they all trend towards the bottom of the tables for all of these...

It is as if they are complete hypocrites regarding caring about babies and children

yep, it just culture war stuff to whip their base up while picking the pocket of the citizens with corporate friendly laws and taking away rights and keeping the poors down.

Tell me you've never had a child without actually telling me you've never had a child (especially in the US)...

There is plenty of financial cost parents have to undertake during pregnancy and to prepare their home for a child before it is born.

One of the oddest moments after the repeal vote was the sudden announcement that US funded anti abortion groups would now financially support women to keep the child. Now as far as I'm aware there was no follow up on that claim, but it does show their contempt for women. To them women are vassals.

when im talking about child support, im talking about getting it from the government and if the parents are not together, then the father also must pay child support to the mother from the moment of conception.

and yes, if a benefit is universal everyone gets it. if there is a cut-off point established to prevent wealthy people from getting a benefit they don't need, then yes, take it back at tax time. wheres the issue?

another poster referred to it as murder and that was the post i was replying to.

you seem to have a problem in differentiating between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy.

Said belief is not in conflict with what I've just said. The law in nearly every nation in the world has decided that support starts once it was exited the womb, as that is when it is most needed. The belief that it's a child before birth or not is not in conflict with that.

Funny that you mention child support all the same when talking about choices and freedoms, because on the other end of the spectrum if a man does not want a child, and the women does, he has no choice. He's saddled with the financial burden regardless of what he wants. Yet men would be viewed as monsters if they started screaming "WHY WALLET MY CHOICE"