My point is that we're working with a 19th (18th?) century voting paradigm with mid 20th century 'upgrades' and we asking for 21st century changes without sufficiently upgrading all the other aspects.
Democratic voting is first and foremost about trust, then access. If you do access then trust you have issues. I'm on board with both, but Trust is eroding and every article is basically a statistical analysis of how our Trust is eroding, how our systems are incomplete... but let's brute-force the Trust for another cycle.
Its weird that the Trad has to push for the 21st century infrastructure upgrades... to get the upgrades to Trust/Access we want.
Sure, I think we under appreciate how the inefficiencies make it harder for folks to vote too.
I hate to say it, but a lot of what folks are looking for out of 21st century governance probably leads back to a National ID program that replaces SSN. And stated nakedly it will be opposed by all; but in its absence, lots of things we think we should be able to do, we can't. But by the same token lots of things we should be *grateful* we *can't* do, we can't.
But as trust erodes, both the things we want and the things we *don't* want become attractive simultaneously.
As someone who solves Identity Matching/Resolution problems for multi-nationals... I can simply say that solving the problem is much much bigger than this. Like unimaginably harder. Like, not actually possible given the systems involved and the scale... which simultaneously is decentralized and lacking even a notion of intra-department/sate interoperability. Further, my experience with State/Local/Federal IT also tells me that even with an unlimited budget, it's still not possible... not by the people who run these systems.
And I say that not as someone who thinks they are trying there best, but as someone who knows they couldn't do it even if asked. Not even damning them with faint praise... damning them with damning. (figuratively, of course).
I'm in favor of voting reform (of lots of different types) ... I think it's required at this juncture to deal with lots of problems (not fraud, specifically) ... but if we don't address the broad infrastructure issues and just try to, say, make mail-in voting *easier* then I think we're doing it wrong.
Last weekend I broke the shear pin on the pto shaft to the Bush Hog... it has a slip clutch, so I didn't really know you could do that.
So this weekend I replaced the drive pin. Took the machine into the woods for the pre-fall path mowing. And promptly broke the shear pin again. Which I thought would be impossible to do twice.
That means next weekend I have to do the slip clutch maintenance that no one ever does because if you break two shear pins in two weeks, you're doin' something wrong (like not doing the maintenance no one ever does).
Fortunately the shear pins are about $3. Taking the slip clutch apart is about two hours and 31 f***ks and probably one wrench toss.
But doesn't suggest that there's any particular ethos that will see it through the next 10-20 years... the siren song of moving from NGO to GO Media arm may only get louder. If only to resolve the crap show...
Sure, corporations love making rules that they can follow/abridge/make exceptions to. We can't fire Timmy today, let's wait until he delivers on this key project we're working on... then we can make a determination - for the good of the company.
Other people forcing you to risk $14k per violation? Week after week? That's another issue.
[LF1] Theory: we elevated the Afghan support from 'collaborators' to 'uniformed employees/contractors' makes a difference.
[LF2] Great!?... (chants) RCV, RCV, RCV. Yang's stuff isn't my kind of fusionism, but better to have more than less.
[LF3] Both Grossman and Douthat are right. Trump is terrible at politics, but he's great at politics... it just depends on what we mean by politics. While I don't think Grossman gets it right (entirely), I've had to revise my assumptions about Trump and the Republican party; he owns the party right now in ways I didn't think quite possible. (chants) RCV, RCV, RCV.
[LF4] skipped
[LF5] I'm always amazed at how stupid and uncultured we think we were in the past. At least we aren't that bad.
[LF6] Our Weekly Freddie...we have more engagement with him now than when he wrote here. I've already defected from Public Education, can't defect twice.
[LF7] Back when OSHA was on the side of the Miners...
[LF8] Skipped; Hong Kong is unsustainable. Plan accordingly.
Basically places all enforcement on them with the only possible remedy is firing the employee or paying $14k *per violation* .
A nudge for Google, a possible death sentence for Verizon (outside of corporate HQ) and other industries that require the sorts of people who do things. And I won't even start to go into the ethnic/cultural breakdown of how this breaks down.
I don't think this survives contact with K-Street.
I'm not sure what anyone can infer about the NYT from a Brett Stephens opinion piece though.
Slightly more substantively, I'm honestly not sure if the NYT is still trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up or if they've entered a sort of Democratic dotage where they think they're on team FDR/JFK but no one else around them knows who those people are or cares.
I was definitely not out there... but this one time I was reading After Virtue on a plane the very pretty young woman sitting next to me struck up a conversation for the rest of the flight. As we were preparing to land she asked if I'd like to continue the conversation over coffee... and I said I couldn't because my gf was picking me up and... wait... oh no, I just got it.
The point isn't a conspiracy, its the fact that an event which happened multiple times with SARS-1 (but was contained) probably happened here... the only really interesting question is whether it was a natural strain that escaped or whether the strain had been part of the research of what 'could' happen if it were modified (to simulate natural mutation) to better infect human tissue: i.e. Gain of Function research that was being funded. On that particular point? I'm agnostic. But on that issue, I simply point out that many institutional actors have it in their clear interest not to remain agnostic and 'follow the science' but to make sure the science is pre-narrated and only questions about bio-terrorism are asked.
That's how corporate politics work... we have dozens/hundreds/thousands of examples of how this plays out daily. What's strange is your thinking that it couldn't possibly be the case here... what with documents being destroyed, access denied, data pulled, etc. etc.
Sure, that's the way the process works... ask the question you want answered, not the question that needs answering. Even though, as you say, they were asked about bio-terrorism... they still then veered into Accidental lab leaks because accidental lab leak is likely and the only question worth pursuing.
There's debate among the peer reviewers whether the science is worth the risk. The Institution (and Fauci specifically) favor the per reviewers who feel it is worth the risk; it is possible that this outbreak is the risk we need to assess for whether the research is indeed worth it.
Accountability of institutions and their leaders who do make risk assessments and who potentially get them wrong is a baseline of having institutions at all. If you can't manage that, your institutions will get much worse.
This is becoming one of those things where an accident which implicates corporate/bureaucratic/technocratic structural dominance has to be suppressed by the technocratic structure for the good of the whole.
The Intelligence Community report (as embarrassing as it is) is pretty clear that they are trying to suggest that their goal was to determine whether this was a deliberate attempt by China at Bio-terrorism... which is *not* the question anyone is asking them to determine.
On the question of whether this was a accidental lab-leak - they have NO actual intelligence and resort to a shrug.
"The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged."
What follows is no different from the Post I made a couple months ago simply outlining reasonable possibilities; what's interesting if you read corporate CYA speak is that while the report is attempting to massage, manage, and discount any prospect of institutional failure, they at least have to acknowledge:
"One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology"
At stake are the annual $B's that the NIH controls through it's grant process and who receives those grants. That's the power of the NIH and like disrupting the revenue stream that ran through Afghanistan, there are huge institutional incentives to make sure no one is implicated in an error of prudence. This implicates EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, Lancet, NIH and Fauci just to name the obvious. Recused all should be from any response to this situation.
We also have to recognize that Biden (and Harris) are Institutionalists first and foremost... its why Biden won't discipline the Military nor will he discipline the NIH and/or any other institutions that might require disciplining. In fairness to Biden, however, I recognize that we might be past a time where our institutions can be managed at all.
I think that's part of what I mean by the uncanny valley... it affects literature that attempts to tell us what life is about right here, right now. In the moment it might seem poignant... in the moment +1 it seems trite... in the wisdom of age?
Yes, but likely in the top 100 of 7000, so there's that.
Sometimes I feel like I'm blind as a bat on twitter only getting the echoes of things other people see. Like I'm doing memes from April 2021 or something silly like that.
I have a literary theory that there's an 'uncanny valley' that starts approx 25-yrs after a work is published runs through an entire generation and ends approx 50-yrs after publication. We read TCitR during the uncanny valley and found it intolerable like chewing tinfoil.
Only after the valley has been crossed can one begin to asses whether the work was enduring.
I don't think Salinger passes that bar. I think Walker Percy, for example, is currently *in* the valley and probably won't emerge for another 3-7 years (if my theory holds up).
[LD6] - Is there really a 'thing' with Catcher in the Rye? I thought we in GenX killed it with our near universal reaction of:
"It’s definitely a book of an earlier era and it felt as such when I read it as a teenager. I was hoping to connect with it on a deep level (uh, not a Mark David Chapman level) the way some adults in my life had, and I didn’t and was kind of bummed out. "
"Death comes anyway. The tragedy of Ivan Ilyich is his life never came. He is not a wretched sinner, nor a good and pious man. Instead, he is us; he is average, and that’s all the more terrible."
Question, is it that he's *average* or something else? I feel like average is a derivative term for something else? Accurate but not quite the point... oblivious? (too strong) what's softer than oblivious?
From a public policy perspective I think this is the right way to think about it. As you note, approx 18%-20% of all pregnancies end in an abortion; this should trigger red-flag and failure warnings on many fronts. So, I'd agree/argue that a better approach would be to treat these as bad outcomes, and that the cultural/policy objectives should be to reduce bad outcomes...
If we could agree on a policy or set of policies that would reduce these outcomes from, say 20 to 10... that would be worth pursuing. 10 to 5? Great. Are we done at 5? Why? What's driving the last 5? How would those be addressed? Theoretically there will be various 'floors' where there's no good approach... until there is. So philosophically and politically I wouldn't commit to a 'quota' per say... I'd put it that the goal is to reduce bad-outcomes to as close to zero as possible, but should we nuke proposals that move things from 20-10 because it doesn't take them to 0? Not necessarily; it would depend on the proposal/initiative. [For example, punitive sterilizations might reduce abortions, but not something I'm going to support as good policy]
This is why I'm a culture/process person and not a power/law person... so while I do think Roe was bad legal and political philosophy and that Casey didn't fix it... I also don't think that repealing Roe without the cultural shift would produce a lasting improvement.
Good questions... my position has been for a long time just what you say: "I think it has just as much to do with social support structures that we are far less consistent about delivering."
And that's what I reference in the whole-life/whole-woman short-hand. Much of the Pro-Life movement is already there... willing to spend other people's money on all sorts of things to help Natalist policies. This ain't your 80's program.
As to laws, my comment was clear (I thought) that I don't think the TX 'innovations' are helpful or a good approach.
The offhanded comment that the air would be sucked out of the balloon if the laws were structured such that 99% of all abortions would be legal elicited the predictable response.
The cautionary tale is that once 14th amendment applies to the person in the womb... then all sorts of rights and obligations accrue to that person...
Which obligations... the modern pro-life movement would fund per lots of easily searchable Natalist proposals that touch on lots of different pre-/post-birth and pre-/post-mother support.
You could say that a lot of folks took the criticisms that many pro-choice folks flung our way and agreed it was a gap. Those slings and arrows found their mark, and they aren't really things many would object to now. But our interest in pro-natalist policies can and does run into conflict with a certain managerial leftist approach - but that's politics. I think we have better solutions, not necessarily cheaper though. We've ditched the Libertarians at long last (but I digress).
...As to politics and the use/abuse of pro-life factions? Well we're back to the top where I don't think TX is doing something that will further a better outcome as I expect the process to be nullified by SCOTUS.
Eh, I know that a lot of marketing/branding of the Pro-Life side has a Catholic flavor... but most of the Pro-Life movement is already pro-Contraception. Even my numerically insignificant group would trade contraception as a concept. But It doesn't really do what we think it would do... not in actual practice... but in terms of policy, there's no significant objection to it in this context.
But the real movement is in a whole-life/whole-woman approach that's not your 80's Republican mind-set. It's more Milennial/GenZ at the moment.
On “Ballot Zombies”
My point is that we're working with a 19th (18th?) century voting paradigm with mid 20th century 'upgrades' and we asking for 21st century changes without sufficiently upgrading all the other aspects.
Democratic voting is first and foremost about trust, then access. If you do access then trust you have issues. I'm on board with both, but Trust is eroding and every article is basically a statistical analysis of how our Trust is eroding, how our systems are incomplete... but let's brute-force the Trust for another cycle.
Its weird that the Trad has to push for the 21st century infrastructure upgrades... to get the upgrades to Trust/Access we want.
"
And yet, it is widely 'recognized' that Mayor Daley committed fraud to swing Chicago to Kennedy.
Which is just to say, it doesn't happen until it does.
"
Sure, I think we under appreciate how the inefficiencies make it harder for folks to vote too.
I hate to say it, but a lot of what folks are looking for out of 21st century governance probably leads back to a National ID program that replaces SSN. And stated nakedly it will be opposed by all; but in its absence, lots of things we think we should be able to do, we can't. But by the same token lots of things we should be *grateful* we *can't* do, we can't.
But as trust erodes, both the things we want and the things we *don't* want become attractive simultaneously.
"
As someone who solves Identity Matching/Resolution problems for multi-nationals... I can simply say that solving the problem is much much bigger than this. Like unimaginably harder. Like, not actually possible given the systems involved and the scale... which simultaneously is decentralized and lacking even a notion of intra-department/sate interoperability. Further, my experience with State/Local/Federal IT also tells me that even with an unlimited budget, it's still not possible... not by the people who run these systems.
And I say that not as someone who thinks they are trying there best, but as someone who knows they couldn't do it even if asked. Not even damning them with faint praise... damning them with damning. (figuratively, of course).
I'm in favor of voting reform (of lots of different types) ... I think it's required at this juncture to deal with lots of problems (not fraud, specifically) ... but if we don't address the broad infrastructure issues and just try to, say, make mail-in voting *easier* then I think we're doing it wrong.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Study Group”
Last weekend I broke the shear pin on the pto shaft to the Bush Hog... it has a slip clutch, so I didn't really know you could do that.
So this weekend I replaced the drive pin. Took the machine into the woods for the pre-fall path mowing. And promptly broke the shear pin again. Which I thought would be impossible to do twice.
That means next weekend I have to do the slip clutch maintenance that no one ever does because if you break two shear pins in two weeks, you're doin' something wrong (like not doing the maintenance no one ever does).
Fortunately the shear pins are about $3. Taking the slip clutch apart is about two hours and 31 f***ks and probably one wrench toss.
On “The Painfully Simple Future of Joe Biden’s Agenda”
Very plausible.
But doesn't suggest that there's any particular ethos that will see it through the next 10-20 years... the siren song of moving from NGO to GO Media arm may only get louder. If only to resolve the crap show...
On “President Biden To Use OSHA To Enforce Mandatory Vaccinations For Companies”
Sure, corporations love making rules that they can follow/abridge/make exceptions to. We can't fire Timmy today, let's wait until he delivers on this key project we're working on... then we can make a determination - for the good of the company.
Other people forcing you to risk $14k per violation? Week after week? That's another issue.
On “Linky Friday: Trapped In History And Vice Versa Edition”
[LF1] Theory: we elevated the Afghan support from 'collaborators' to 'uniformed employees/contractors' makes a difference.
[LF2] Great!?... (chants) RCV, RCV, RCV. Yang's stuff isn't my kind of fusionism, but better to have more than less.
[LF3] Both Grossman and Douthat are right. Trump is terrible at politics, but he's great at politics... it just depends on what we mean by politics. While I don't think Grossman gets it right (entirely), I've had to revise my assumptions about Trump and the Republican party; he owns the party right now in ways I didn't think quite possible. (chants) RCV, RCV, RCV.
[LF4] skipped
[LF5] I'm always amazed at how stupid and uncultured we think we were in the past. At least we aren't that bad.
[LF6] Our Weekly Freddie...we have more engagement with him now than when he wrote here. I've already defected from Public Education, can't defect twice.
[LF7] Back when OSHA was on the side of the Miners...
[LF8] Skipped; Hong Kong is unsustainable. Plan accordingly.
On “President Biden To Use OSHA To Enforce Mandatory Vaccinations For Companies”
Bold Prediction: Corporations will resist.
Basically places all enforcement on them with the only possible remedy is firing the employee or paying $14k *per violation* .
A nudge for Google, a possible death sentence for Verizon (outside of corporate HQ) and other industries that require the sorts of people who do things. And I won't even start to go into the ethnic/cultural breakdown of how this breaks down.
I don't think this survives contact with K-Street.
On “The Painfully Simple Future of Joe Biden’s Agenda”
I'm not sure what anyone can infer about the NYT from a Brett Stephens opinion piece though.
Slightly more substantively, I'm honestly not sure if the NYT is still trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up or if they've entered a sort of Democratic dotage where they think they're on team FDR/JFK but no one else around them knows who those people are or cares.
On “Ordinary World: Labor Day”
I was definitely not out there... but this one time I was reading After Virtue on a plane the very pretty young woman sitting next to me struck up a conversation for the rest of the flight. As we were preparing to land she asked if I'd like to continue the conversation over coffee... and I said I couldn't because my gf was picking me up and... wait... oh no, I just got it.
On “Coronavirus Grant Documents Revealed Through FOIA: Read Them For Yourself”
The point isn't a conspiracy, its the fact that an event which happened multiple times with SARS-1 (but was contained) probably happened here... the only really interesting question is whether it was a natural strain that escaped or whether the strain had been part of the research of what 'could' happen if it were modified (to simulate natural mutation) to better infect human tissue: i.e. Gain of Function research that was being funded. On that particular point? I'm agnostic. But on that issue, I simply point out that many institutional actors have it in their clear interest not to remain agnostic and 'follow the science' but to make sure the science is pre-narrated and only questions about bio-terrorism are asked.
That's how corporate politics work... we have dozens/hundreds/thousands of examples of how this plays out daily. What's strange is your thinking that it couldn't possibly be the case here... what with documents being destroyed, access denied, data pulled, etc. etc.
"
Sure, that's the way the process works... ask the question you want answered, not the question that needs answering. Even though, as you say, they were asked about bio-terrorism... they still then veered into Accidental lab leaks because accidental lab leak is likely and the only question worth pursuing.
There's debate among the peer reviewers whether the science is worth the risk. The Institution (and Fauci specifically) favor the per reviewers who feel it is worth the risk; it is possible that this outbreak is the risk we need to assess for whether the research is indeed worth it.
Accountability of institutions and their leaders who do make risk assessments and who potentially get them wrong is a baseline of having institutions at all. If you can't manage that, your institutions will get much worse.
"
This is becoming one of those things where an accident which implicates corporate/bureaucratic/technocratic structural dominance has to be suppressed by the technocratic structure for the good of the whole.
The Intelligence Community report (as embarrassing as it is) is pretty clear that they are trying to suggest that their goal was to determine whether this was a deliberate attempt by China at Bio-terrorism... which is *not* the question anyone is asking them to determine.
On the question of whether this was a accidental lab-leak - they have NO actual intelligence and resort to a shrug.
"The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged."
What follows is no different from the Post I made a couple months ago simply outlining reasonable possibilities; what's interesting if you read corporate CYA speak is that while the report is attempting to massage, manage, and discount any prospect of institutional failure, they at least have to acknowledge:
"One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology"
At stake are the annual $B's that the NIH controls through it's grant process and who receives those grants. That's the power of the NIH and like disrupting the revenue stream that ran through Afghanistan, there are huge institutional incentives to make sure no one is implicated in an error of prudence. This implicates EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, Lancet, NIH and Fauci just to name the obvious. Recused all should be from any response to this situation.
We also have to recognize that Biden (and Harris) are Institutionalists first and foremost... its why Biden won't discipline the Military nor will he discipline the NIH and/or any other institutions that might require disciplining. In fairness to Biden, however, I recognize that we might be past a time where our institutions can be managed at all.
On “Ordinary World: Labor Day”
pshaw. Disastergirl.gif
"
I think that's part of what I mean by the uncanny valley... it affects literature that attempts to tell us what life is about right here, right now. In the moment it might seem poignant... in the moment +1 it seems trite... in the wisdom of age?
"
Yes, but likely in the top 100 of 7000, so there's that.
Sometimes I feel like I'm blind as a bat on twitter only getting the echoes of things other people see. Like I'm doing memes from April 2021 or something silly like that.
"
I have a literary theory that there's an 'uncanny valley' that starts approx 25-yrs after a work is published runs through an entire generation and ends approx 50-yrs after publication. We read TCitR during the uncanny valley and found it intolerable like chewing tinfoil.
Only after the valley has been crossed can one begin to asses whether the work was enduring.
I don't think Salinger passes that bar. I think Walker Percy, for example, is currently *in* the valley and probably won't emerge for another 3-7 years (if my theory holds up).
"
Need better horror.
"
[LD6] - Is there really a 'thing' with Catcher in the Rye? I thought we in GenX killed it with our near universal reaction of:
"It’s definitely a book of an earlier era and it felt as such when I read it as a teenager. I was hoping to connect with it on a deep level (uh, not a Mark David Chapman level) the way some adults in my life had, and I didn’t and was kind of bummed out. "
On “Sunday Morning! The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy”
Great summation:
"Death comes anyway. The tragedy of Ivan Ilyich is his life never came. He is not a wretched sinner, nor a good and pious man. Instead, he is us; he is average, and that’s all the more terrible."
Question, is it that he's *average* or something else? I feel like average is a derivative term for something else? Accurate but not quite the point... oblivious? (too strong) what's softer than oblivious?
Somehow, life just sort of eluded him.
On “In Texas, Bad Law and Worse Politics is Symptomatic of the Unhealthy State of Our Polity”
Good post; I agree. 'Vexatious' weaponizing of the culture wars is not the path forward.
On “Texas Abortion Law Takes Effect: Read Both SCOTUS Arguments For Yourself”
From a public policy perspective I think this is the right way to think about it. As you note, approx 18%-20% of all pregnancies end in an abortion; this should trigger red-flag and failure warnings on many fronts. So, I'd agree/argue that a better approach would be to treat these as bad outcomes, and that the cultural/policy objectives should be to reduce bad outcomes...
If we could agree on a policy or set of policies that would reduce these outcomes from, say 20 to 10... that would be worth pursuing. 10 to 5? Great. Are we done at 5? Why? What's driving the last 5? How would those be addressed? Theoretically there will be various 'floors' where there's no good approach... until there is. So philosophically and politically I wouldn't commit to a 'quota' per say... I'd put it that the goal is to reduce bad-outcomes to as close to zero as possible, but should we nuke proposals that move things from 20-10 because it doesn't take them to 0? Not necessarily; it would depend on the proposal/initiative. [For example, punitive sterilizations might reduce abortions, but not something I'm going to support as good policy]
This is why I'm a culture/process person and not a power/law person... so while I do think Roe was bad legal and political philosophy and that Casey didn't fix it... I also don't think that repealing Roe without the cultural shift would produce a lasting improvement.
"
Good questions... my position has been for a long time just what you say: "I think it has just as much to do with social support structures that we are far less consistent about delivering."
And that's what I reference in the whole-life/whole-woman short-hand. Much of the Pro-Life movement is already there... willing to spend other people's money on all sorts of things to help Natalist policies. This ain't your 80's program.
As to laws, my comment was clear (I thought) that I don't think the TX 'innovations' are helpful or a good approach.
The offhanded comment that the air would be sucked out of the balloon if the laws were structured such that 99% of all abortions would be legal elicited the predictable response.
The cautionary tale is that once 14th amendment applies to the person in the womb... then all sorts of rights and obligations accrue to that person...
Which obligations... the modern pro-life movement would fund per lots of easily searchable Natalist proposals that touch on lots of different pre-/post-birth and pre-/post-mother support.
You could say that a lot of folks took the criticisms that many pro-choice folks flung our way and agreed it was a gap. Those slings and arrows found their mark, and they aren't really things many would object to now. But our interest in pro-natalist policies can and does run into conflict with a certain managerial leftist approach - but that's politics. I think we have better solutions, not necessarily cheaper though. We've ditched the Libertarians at long last (but I digress).
...As to politics and the use/abuse of pro-life factions? Well we're back to the top where I don't think TX is doing something that will further a better outcome as I expect the process to be nullified by SCOTUS.
"
Eh, I know that a lot of marketing/branding of the Pro-Life side has a Catholic flavor... but most of the Pro-Life movement is already pro-Contraception. Even my numerically insignificant group would trade contraception as a concept. But It doesn't really do what we think it would do... not in actual practice... but in terms of policy, there's no significant objection to it in this context.
But the real movement is in a whole-life/whole-woman approach that's not your 80's Republican mind-set. It's more Milennial/GenZ at the moment.