However it is handled, it should be mandated by the federal government. Any civilized society should help people who need a hand.
We are in agreement on the obligation to provide help but disagree on where it should come from.
I think federal control leads to waste and inappropriate disbursement where local assistance is in a better position to access what assistance is best.
The problem with the abortion laws is that some states make no exceptions.
...and some states allow "abortions" after a live birth.
A lot of the controversy at the federal level rests on the definition of human and human rights.
That aside, if it is an overriding issue, then one has a better chance of changing a local law than a federal law.
Having a federal law locks out those in disagreement with the very-difficult-to-change federal government.
At lease in the US, one has 50 choices to select what issues one can live with or try to change.
This is true on many issues, not just abortion.
...gay people should not be punished because of radical members of the government and elected school board members.
...and straight people shouldn't be "punished" by the policies implemented to satisfy the gay agenda.
I have to admit, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of gays promoting and imposing their lifestyle on society.
Their public demonstrations, such as pride month, impress policy makers of the voting impact of this block.
We've seen the White House lit up by "gay colors" and the "gay flag" flown over some of our embassies.
By presenting themselves as perpetual victims, they gain sympathy of straight people and enjoy minority status.
This political clout is used by radicals to implement the agenda we are witnessing today.
They change our language, change the meaning of "gender," and then invent new genders.
There are very real penalties if we don't use preferred pronouns.
It started out with the change of the definition of "marriage."
It used to be pretty simple: the combining of two differing entities to make something better.
The difference of the entities is key. The marrying of a bolt and nut is a physical example.
As I mentioned before, the change of the concept of marriage being recognized by the state has given the radicals the tool they needed to bring about the implementation of their agenda.
If gay people wanted the rights bestowed on married couples, they should have lobbied for a 'companion contract" to cover the appropriate needs.
Instead, they have hijacked, changed, and diluted the traditional concept of marriage.
You may have. I didn't and frankly, I don't believe the majority of legitimate voters did either.
