It's been a really rough week for Republicans who hate reproductive rights, and Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of California is no exception. "As someone who struggled to get pregnant, I believe all life is a gift. IVF allowed me, as it has so many...
  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    31·
    10 months ago

    But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.

    If she doesn’t want to do it, then why is she co-sponsoring it?

    That’s an affirmation that she wants the thing that she sponsoring to be done.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      32·
      10 months ago

      He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 months ago

        He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF.

        He? Where?

        Never mind, went back and read through the whole article, instead of just depending on the summary.

        My question still stands though.

        What you’re mentioning was that there’s no carve out, also known as an exclusion of, for IVF. Not that it doesn’t mention IVF.

        From the article…

        And as Rubashkin points out, there is no carveout in the bill for in vitro fertilization. Oops!