I'm a little confused on something. This was his exact quote.
"Yes it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And what means is just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community — a trans female — is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise that right to choose. So I absolutely would cover that right to have an abortion."
It has always been hard to follow this, because it's so silly and illogical. However, isn't a "trans-female" a biological male who "identifies" as a female? After years of hearing the goofy terminology, that's what I think to be the case. Well, they have the same equipment I do. It might get removed but never replaced by a functioning uterus and ovaries. Well, I can't get pregnant. At least I've always assumed that I can't. Has that changed? Or is there a new way for me to be "trans-pregnant?"
Last edited: Jun 27, 2019