Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is leading a lawsuit to restrict access to mifepristone, a common abortion medication. He claims that the lost "potential population" from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21198558

Missouri’s attorney general has renewed a push to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, arguing in a lawsuit filed this month that its availability hurt the state by decreasing teenage pregnancy.

The revised lawsuit was filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, alongside GOP attorneys general in Kansas and Idaho. It asks a judge in Texas to order the Federal Drug Administration to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, one of two medications prescribed to induce chemical abortions.

The trio of attorneys general were forced to refile the litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the original lawsuit after concluding the original plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations — did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed.

  • Azzu@lemm.eeEnglish
    29·
    2 months ago

    I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

    He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

    A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

    It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      191·
      2 months ago

      I guess from an ultra-rightwing christian fundamentalist perspective, abused post-pregnancy teens are what you want. They’re the easily impregnable (in all senses of the word) future hardline voters.

    • glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      131·
      2 months ago

      You phrased that way too tame for how they’re thinking about it.

      More teen pregnancies = more mouths to feed = poverty = more wage slaves

      • Azzu@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      So he’s agreeing to socialism? Or he’s openly stating that they would like to manipulate the country by brutally oppressing the people in their state…

      • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        He’s admitting to brutally oppressing people. Unfortunately, there are enough hateful/stupid people in the (heavily gerrymandered) key voting districts, it doesn’t matter.

    • yuknowhokat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      2 months ago

      So, to restate your point hopefully in a way that I understand it better, he wants more population to suck money from the federal government but doesn’t give a living s*** about helping his constituents.