# data[].attributes.body
What terms and concepts do I know more about? What is something I don’t understand? What do I care about? What am I passionate about? What are my interests? What do I want to argue about.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion! Womens rights, we should be able to make our own decisions without men dictating
People imprisoned for drug possession for a longer time than actual murderers
Other peoples religions shouldn’t dictate how I live my life.
LGBTQ rights (don’t say gay law in Florida)

# data[].attributes.body
Glorifying and glamorizing depression isn’t normalizing it
Women don’t dress and look good for men
Trans women should be able to participate in womens sports

# data[].attributes.body
Is weed reall as bad as society builds it up to be?
Are the upper class hoarding wealth?
Why is Gen Z’s depression rate higher than all the other generations?

# data[].attributes.body
Why is it considered so bad?
Can hemp kill you?
Does marijuana cause brain damage?
What are the effects of smoking cannabis long term?
Can marijuana be good?
Is cannabis worse than alcohol?
Why was cannabis outlawed/banned?
How is cannabis connected to racism, and racist stereotypes?
Were the people who outlawed marijuana biased?

# data[].attributes.body
Why do people dislike abortion?
Why does abortion rights relate to women's rights?
Was it women or men whom are outlawing abortion?

# data[].attributes.body
An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional. The decision to end a pregnancy is very personal.
https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion | Medical Abortion | MedlinePlus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.

# data[].attributes.body
Things that relate to abortion directly.
-women's rights
-^men dictating women rights
-religious beliefs dictating non religious people
-development of the fetus

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Criminalising abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe.

# data[].attributes.body
“An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. It is a basic healthcare need for millions of women, girls and others who can become pregnant. Worldwide, an estimated 1 in 4 pregnancies end in an abortion every year.” Many women get abortions worldwide every singe day. Getting an abortion can be one of the safest procedures a women can receive, so why is it being banned? The stigma around abortion is that it’s a criminal act, and that it’s killing a child, but getting an abortion is a basic right for women. So denying women the right to have an abortion is discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
A good summary of women's health, and the toxic stereotypes revolving around abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aclu.org/other/right-choose-25-looking-back-and-ahead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Right to Choose at 25: Looking Back and Ahead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court announced its landmark rulings that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Two days later, a New York Times editorial predicted that

# data[].attributes.body
This article revolves around the laws created around abortion, and the history around it, and what it meant for women. "The legalization of abortion has dramatically improved women's health. Abortion services moved from the back alleys into hygienic facilities staffed by health professionals. " Abortion legalized created a much safer way for women to have an abortion, and abortion, and pregnancy related deaths went down in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reproductive Rights - Women in the States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reproductive rights—having the ability to decide whether and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated w…

# data[].attributes.body
Different states have different laws on abortion, so many may be more strict than others. "State legislative efforts to limit access to abortion have become commonplace. In 2013 and 2014, a broad range of legislation was introduced and passed, including bills requiring women to have an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, stringent regulatory measures targeting abortion providers, bans or restrictions preventing women from obtaining health insurance coverage for abortion, and bans on abortion at later stages of pregnancy (National Women’s Law Center 2014a and 2014b)."

# data[].attributes.body
Women should be able to decide on abortion laws because allowing women to have an abortion is a basic right of ours.

- having an abortion is an incredibly safe procedure, when done correctly and by a professional.

-

# data[].attributes.body
Women should be able to decide on abortion laws because

# data[].attributes.body
Women should be able to decide on abortion laws because

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210624-why-doesnt-the-us-have-mandated-paid-maternity-leave

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US might be one of the world's wealthiest nations, but on one key metric it comes in last: it's the only rich country offering no national paid parental-leave programme. Today, only 21% of US workers have access to paid family leave through their employers, even though, according to the Pew Research Center in 2015, both parents work full-time in almost half all two-parent families.

This lack of provision sits in sharp contrast to European nations, where subsidised parental leave is standard. Research has shown paid parental leave offers inarguable benefits for parents, children and the societies of countries who provide it. There's also broad backing for it in the US; according to an academic study published in April, around 82% of Americans support access to paid parental leave. That figure has remained roughly the same for years and includes support from across the political spectrum.

The reasons the US remains an outlier on paid parental leave are complex, combining post-World War Two needs with a complicated national cultural identity of individualism and self-determination. Now, however, there's a significant push for change. In April, US President Joe Biden proposed a $225bn (£163bn) package of paid family and medical leave benefits that would allow workers to take up to 12 weeks paid leave to care for a new-born or family member.

In a nation that feels more polarised than ever, data show paid parental leave is a rare issue that voters of all kinds can get behind. So, why has nothing been enacted at the national level so far - and with Biden's plan on its way to Congress, might it actually become reality this time?
Two paths divide
Globally, the groundwork for national paid parental leave was laid by the International Congress of Working Women in 1919, a group that included many American women, writes California State University, Sacramento history professor Mona Siegel, author of Peace on Our Terms: The Global Battle for Women's Rights After the First World War.

This group's demands for fairer labour standards in the wake of World War One included 12 weeks of paid maternity leave as "a medical necessity and social right", a policy adopted by the International Labour Organisation in November 1919.

Over the next two decades, European and Latin American countries began enshrining these policies into law, but it was the end of World War Two that entrenched the process, particularly in Europe. "Part of it had to do with fears of demographic decline - just the sheer population loss during World War Two and what felt like the need to recover from those years and to ensure that there was a strong workforce going forward," says Siegel.

Put simply, Europe needed babies to help repopulate its war-devastated nations - and a strong workforce to rebuild economies in the meantime. During this post-war era, says Siegel, the European arguments for national paid maternity leave were framed in mostly economic terms, rather than around the social benefits we focus on today.

The post-war landscape looked a little different in the US, however. "We didn't have the same kind of fears about the need to grow the population," says Joya Misra, a professor of sociology and public policy at the University of Massachusetts. The country hadn't suffered such major population losses in the war, the economy was doing well and immigration was bolstering the labour force.

That meant that mothers in the US were "being encouraged to go back to the home, free up the jobs that their men returning from conflict would now need, and become homemakers raising families", says Terri Boyer, founding director of the Anne Welsh McNulty Institute for Women's Leadership at Villanova University, US.

Post-war trauma - and divergent strategies

The extreme political ideologies that had emerged globally influenced how nations crafted welfare policies in the post-war period. Both the US and nations in Western Europe wanted to bolster democratic traditions after the trauma of World War Two, but they took different approaches.

European nations, says Siegel, had experienced the effects of fascism directly, and from this trauma came a sense that the social philosophy of 'each man for himself' was "too alienating and left people vulnerable to extreme ideologies".

That led to broad political support for a welfare state as a tool to create the social and economic stability and solidarity needed to support democracy. Maternity leave in the UK, for example, came alongside reforms that built up public health care and workers' pensions.

The US, however, doubled down on its individualist cultural mindset, particularly as its relationship with the Soviet Union deteriorated after the war. In the wake of this, "strong antipathy" to anything that might be labelled socialist, or worse, communist, made it much harder to build support for social welfare policies of universal benefit, says Siegel, noting that "any kind of medical support for mothers or infants that often went along with paid maternity leave was cast as socialised medicine".

What - and whose - labour is valued?

American individualism fed into perceptions of the social and economic value of maternity leave.

In Europe, paid parental leave often went hand-in-hand with public healthcare and state-sponsored early childhood education - a trifecta through which parents could form early bonds with their children, and then return to the workforce while their children got a strong educational start. Tax from everyone to pay for these universal programmes sowed the seeds for a strong future workforce and an educated, healthy society, the thinking went.

But in the US, paid parental leave was viewed with more suspicion; instead of a way of keeping people in the paid labour force as they pulled themselves up, many saw it as "an entitlement which people will take advantage of to get money from the government funded by businesses and taxpayers", says Boyer.

This view was rooted in the way different types of labour and, indeed, people were valued in the post-war years, and in the idea that providing universal paid parental leave could encourage the "wrong" families to reproduce. There was, says Siegel, a "strong push" to define African-American women who performed domestic or agricultural work as somehow "outside the realm of labour" and exclude them. "There was real fear that if you passed any kind of federal comprehensive maternity leave policy, that would include African-American women and then also more recently, immigrant women."

Parts of the US workforce still skew heavily along racial lines, with far more of the lower-paying service and agricultural jobs still held by minorities. Just 8% of workers in the bottom quartile of wage-earning (generally less than $14 per hour) had access to paid parental leave in 2020, compared to white-collar roles that are more often filled by white, better-off recruits and offer more comprehensive benefits.

Today, it's not unusual to see commentary around the idea that poor families should not get government support because it's 'their own fault that they're poor'. It "comes back down to a certain level of racist perceptions that if you're helping everybody, that means you're helping people who don't deserve it", says Misra. "And those people who are defined as not deserving it tend to be people of colour."

"Racism played a key role in how we set it up," she adds. "And once it got set up, it becomes very hard to take it apart."
Leaving it to the market
These factors help explain why it's largely been left up to private businesses to determine parental leave for employees, reinforcing a system that privileges some above others and leaves 80% of the working population behind.

Part of the reason no progress has been made on policy at federal level is that lawmakers are divided over how it should be funded. "Policymakers disagree on how to structure it and pay for it," says Angela Rachidi, the Rowe Scholar in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "Public polls show that the American people do not want the federal government to fund a paid leave programme, preferring that employers pay for it. But paid leave mandates would increase costs for employers and reduce overall employment."

Americans are indeed hesitant when it comes to a publicly funded programme. The same survey that showed 82% of Americans support paid parental leave also showed only 47% support government funding for it. The study's authors write that this reluctance reflects "a dominant ideology of market fundamentalism", which involves "a preference for self-regulating markets free from governmental interference".

This hesitance has led some business leaders to assume they would have to shoulder the financial burden of any nationally mandated parental leave programme - something some are reluctant to do. As of 2016, a significant number of top companies in the US still didn't offer paid parental leave to non-salaried workers, the non-birth parent or adoptive parents. As for small businesses, many simply don't have the cash flow to make the long-term investment in their employees viable.

Under Biden's proposal, however, funding doesn't come from employers but the highest earners. It would come by raising the income tax rate for the top-earning 1% of Americans from 37% to 39.6%, plus increases in capital gains and dividend tax rates for those earning more than $1m a year (certain exceptions to estate tax law would also be eliminated).

It may help him that there are already successful precedents domestically - and that they're working. Several states have already enacted their own legislation - a common pattern that in the US often precedes national policy. California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Washington and Massachusetts, as well as Washington DC, have established paid parental leave via a payroll tax, and soon to join them are Connecticut (2022), Oregon (2023), and Colorado (2024). (Even the federal government itself grants its own new parents 12 weeks paid leave.)

"We see that the states that have adopted it have been really successful, that business owners have been like, 'Hey, this is actually helping my business; I'm not losing so many workers; and, you know, I get to kind of collect on the investment that I've made'" in the workforce, says Misra.
Change ahead?
Right now, says Misra, the US has a "policy window" to effect change because of the way the Covid-19 pandemic has ruthlessly exposed inequalities linked to gender, job security and childcare. Since the pandemic, more than 3 million women have left the US labour force. As a result, people are waking up to the economic benefits of larger-scale social support for families.

Mental health is also in the spotlight more than ever. Pre-Covid-19, an inability to "balance it all" might have been seen as a personal failure by mothers, rather than a structural problem that should be addressed by policy. But there's increasing understanding - particularly among younger workers - that more support is needed to help parents with an unmanageable load.

Mandating national paid parental leave would have multiple benefits. "The more people we have in the paid labour force, who are also able to be productive (i.e., not having to worry about competing caregiving responsibilities, etc.), the greater our economic output, the faster our growth, and the better our social outcomes," says Boyer.

If women don't return to the workforce, she adds, it will force policymakers to confront the fact that businesses can't find people to fill jobs, and offer better benefits to remain competitive. But that's not an argument for letting the market take its course: "The only way to do that [enact national policy] is to have some sort of assistance at the federal or the public level."

Whether Biden's initiatives can pass remains to be seen - and even proponents like Misra aren't confident. "I think my hesitancy has to do with the partisan way politics happen," she says, citing the use of the filibuster as a last-ditch but effective tool to block legislation. There are ways around it - but that could lead to the bill passing without vital guarantees for workers that their jobs would be protected.

"The pandemic has been enormously destructive in so many ways, but with destruction always comes construction - because you've got to figure out, how do we put the system back together," she adds. "And, so, it does offer the opportunity for us to rethink how we're doing things and to consider how we're doing things - I just wish I had more confidence that it will actually happen."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why doesn't the US have mandated paid maternity leave?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US is the only rich nation offering no national paid parental-leave programme. Why is that - and could it change?

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qwtVcqYAfrkSepC_lZLeDXcFhD-6EKhLu8i7BwEUktc/edit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
https://letsbreakthrough.org/anti-abortion-misogyny-its-never-about-the-children/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last Thursday, while driving my fifteen-year-old daughter to school, she asked, "Mom, why do men hate women?" We had been discussing Alabama's anti-abortion legislation, and she was keen to better understand why politicians would pass laws that criminalize girls and women. She was especially horrified that rape victims - some younger than she - could be forced to carry a rapist's baby to term.

I struggled to find the right answer. As a scholar of gender, health, and reproduction, there were many ways I might have responded. But I could not say, "Men don't hate women." Because it's not true. The twenty-five white Republican men who voted for the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, which would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to 99 years in prison, surely must hate women. The penalties for abortion are far more severe than those for rapists.

So, I told my daughter about patriarchy and how anti-abortion legislation enables men to control women's bodies. And that these bills are tied to some people's fears about decreasing birth rates among white people. I shared that women on the margins - poor women, women of color, young women, rural women, rape victims - would be most negatively impacted by the legislation. That white girls and women with financial resources, like us, would be able to access abortion even if it became illegal, as such women did before Roe v. Wade. (But not without extreme risk).

As a sociologist and mother, I believe it is important to name misogyny, not just for my own teenage daughters, who must navigate a dangerous landscape in which they are sexualized and punished in equal measure, but more widely. Philosopher Kate Manne defines misogyny not only as hatred of women, but also about "controlling, policing, punishing, and exiling the 'bad' women who challenge male dominance." I believe we do not use the term often enough, instead dancing around the many ways that girls and women are chronically disadvantaged and damaged in systems that benefit men. We shy away from naming men's contempt for women, and for female bodies, that feeds harmful policies and practices, from obstetric violence to sexual assault to forced pregnancy and motherhood.

Since the 1980s, when I came of age intellectually, the Right has been particularly effective at controlling the discourse of abortion, which paints women as selfish, promiscuous cows who like nothing better than to pop in for an abortion, then grab a latte on the way home. Such discourse blossomed under Ronald Reagan and has become even more entrenched. In the maternal-fetal dyad, for conservatives, especially the Christian Right, there is just one viable person: the fetus. Women are dehumanized, treated merely as vessels for delivering new life. Only fetuses and corporations get to be people in this brave new world.

Conservatives have successfully deployed the term "pro-life" to cloak the underlying misogyny of anti-abortion legislation. We hear a great deal about their care for the fetus, but evidence shows that once a child is born, conservatives lose interest. States passing anti-abortion legislation have among the highest infant mortality rates in the country. In 2017, Alabama's infant mortality rate was 7.4 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, twice that of Massachusetts, which had the fewest deaths.

Alabama and thirteen other states failed to expand Medicaid coverage, which is directly correlated to health disparities and outcomes. Numerous studies have shown that expansion reduces infant and maternal mortality, minimizes health disparities, and contributes to increased life expectancy. Failure to invest speeds sickness and death, especially for the most vulnerable. Georgia, whose governor recently signed a so-called " heartbeat bill," ranks 46th among U.S. states for maternal mortality. Alabama ranks 49th for overall life expectancy.

In 2018, Alabama ranked sixth worst in the nation for poverty, with 16.9 percent of the population living below the poverty line. This, despite the fact that the national rate fell for the fifth consecutive year. Fifteen of Alabama's 67 counties have a poverty rate greater than 25 percent. And while a quarter of the state's children overall live in poor families, 44 percent of Black children live in poverty. U.S. News and World Report ranks Alabama dead last in the quality of public education.

It may be beneficial to be an embryo in Alabama, unless you are an embryo in an IFV clinic, but it can be deadly for a child outside the womb. The Annie E. Casey Foundation lists Alabama as the fifth worst state to be a child. Black children are even more at risk; Black babies die at three times the rateof white babies in Alabama. And with 23 documented hate groups, Alabama's Black children (and their kin) are at risk of everyday harassment, violence, profiling, and premature death.

In signing Alabama's law, Governor Kay Ivey said, "every life is a sacred gift from God." She lied. She did not mean actual children, only the unborn. Nor did she mean women. There is little evidence in Alabama, or any of the anti-abortion states, that the lives of women and children are seen as "sacred" or even minimally valued. If they were, states would not allow pregnant women and babies to die prematurely from preventable causes. They would be investing resources to ensure that every child survives and thrives.

Conservatives may well believe that embryos and fetuses are persons. But to claim that anti-abortion legislation is about children is deceitful. "Pro-life" is a magic trick that wraps disdain and revulsion for women's bodies and lives inside a shiny silver box with pink and blue ribbon. Forced-birth legislation fails to protect children at all, while punishing women who abort - or even miscarry. But punishment is precisely the point, isn't it? Because such legislation has never been about the children.

Let's call anti-abortion legislation what it is: anti-woman, anti-mother, anti-child, and anti-freedom.
Monica J. Casper, Ph.D., is a sociologist at the University of Arizona who studies women's health and reproduction. She is author of several books, including The Making of the Unborn Patient: A Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery and the forthcoming Babylost: An Infant Mortality Alphabet Book. For more information, visit her .
S ee article in medium.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-Abortion Misogyny: It's Never About the Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last Thursday, while driving my fifteen-year-old daughter to school, she asked, "Mom, why do men hate women?" We had been discussing Alabama's anti-abortion legislation, and she was keen to better understand why politicians would pass laws that criminalize girls and women.

# data[].attributes.body
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12309928/
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
. Spring 1968;7(2):142-56.

PMID: 12309928

Jewish views on abortion

I Jakobovits. Child Fam. Spring 1968.

Abstract

PIP: In Jewish law right and wrong, good and evil, are absolute values which transcend time, place, and environment. They defy definition by human intuition or expediency. Jewish law derives from the Divine revelation at Mount Sinai as expounded by sages faithful to, and authorized by, its writ. The Talmud rules that if a woman is in hard travail, and her life must be saved, the child must be aborted and extracted. The mother's life comes first. The fetus is not a human life until it is born. But 19th century Rabbinical works state that it is immoral to destroy a monster child. Modern rabbis are unanimous in condemning abortion, feticide, or infanticide as an unconscionable attack on human life. However, Jewish law allows abortion if the pregnancy will cause severe psychological damage to the mother. No civilized society could survive without laws which occasionally cause some suffering or personal anguish. One human life is worth a million lives, because each life is infinite in value. In cases of rape or incest Jewish law still does not sanction abortion. Man's procreative responsibilities are serious and carry rights and obligations which would be upset by liberalized abortion laws. If a person kills a person who is mortally wounded, the killer is guilty of a moral offense.

Similar articles

Biblical views on abortion: an Episcopal perspective.

Wilson-kastner P, Blair B. Wilson-kastner P, et al. Conscience. 1985 Nov-Dec;6(6):4-8. Conscience. 1985. PMID: 12178933

Penal Code (Ordinance No. 12 of 1983), 1 July 1984.

Montserrat. Montserrat. Annu Rev Popul Law. 1987;14:320-30. Annu Rev Popul Law. 1987. PMID: 12346690

[Religion, morality and politics: the abortion debate].

Ladriere P. Ladriere P. Rev Fr Sociol. 1982 Jul-Sep;23(3):417-54. Rev Fr Sociol. 1982. PMID: 12339249 French.

Israel's population: the challenge of pluralism.

Friedlander D, Goldscheider C. Friedlander D, et al. Popul Bull. 1984 Apr;39(2):3-39. Popul Bull. 1984. PMID: 12312873

Abortion: a history.

Hovey G. Hovey G. Plan Parent Rev. 1985 Summer;5(2):18-21. Plan Parent Rev. 1985. PMID: 12340403

MeSH terms

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of things I noticed in these videos are that stage fright is common and ok!
Things that people used to present a good persuasive speech is confident speaking, loud projecting voice, also a lot of practice too.

# data[].attributes.headline
How i will apply these strategies in my speech

# data[].attributes.subject
How i will apply these strategies in my speech

# data[].attributes.body
In my speech I will use a confident tone, and make eye contact, and interact with the audience.