We are, of course, supposed to believe the “pro-life” people when they claim to be “pro-life” or else we are big meanies and hateful commies. But then the “pro-life” folks in Tennessee start declaring that some babies shouldn’t get birth certificates and some mothers shouldn’t have access to pre-natal care and some babies shouldn’t even really fall under the 14th Amendment, and you start to realize, this really isn’t about being “pro-life” at all.
But he is not pro-life. His stance towards babies he doesn’t like is proof.
What he is is anti-choice. He doesn’t believe you should have the choice to abort a pregnancy and he doesn’t believe other women should have the choice to have children. He believes the state should decide which women are allowed to have children and which aren’t.
He can say what he wants, but that’s the only thing that makes sense of his position of denying birth certificates and health care to some babies.
He’s a eugenicist. He wants more babies of the “right” kind and fewer babies of the “wrong” kind and he’s willing to use the weight of the state to make that happen.
And he’s not alone.
Edited to add: I also have to say that this–“Todd later told the AP he probably should have used the phrase ‘anchor baby’ instead.”–doesn’t even make any sense. “They can go out there like [anchor babies] and multiply then, I guess” is what he thinks he should have said? It’s laughable on its face. Dude’s an asshole. One wonders how he’d like it if his family was compared to disease carrying vermin. And don’t even get me started on the historical context of this kind of nonsense.
But it makes sense of why “pro-life” doesn’t apply to brown baby citizens, doesn’t it? Todd and Campfield can’t quite see them as human.
Edited one last time for added snark: I can’t wait to see how Oatney tries to spin this into proving what a great humanitarian Campfield is.