A couple of things - these are just my thoughts - I am not emotionally attached to any of this; it’s a starting place because starting with a blank sheet is torture for most people.
This is a living project. Every week, I add more depth, sharpen the vision, and clarify the mission. But none of this matters if it stays locked in a silo. I’m not precious about authorship; this isn’t mine alone. It’s meant to grow through conversation, critique, and shared purpose.
If you’re aligned, I need your voice. Otherwise, this is just one person yelling into the void. Subscribe, share, and show up. Let’s build something that moves people.
We can’t afford to be passive observers. We need passionate, principled engagement, or we’re just crones shouting at clouds while the world burns.
Maybe a comprehensive breakdown of state gun laws, how they differ from each other and how they differ from federal laws. and of course how they differ in outcomes per gun violence. If we can make positive correlations with certain legislation to reduced gun violence, then maybe begin there? My general thinking is that if we can use communities, counties, states, and regions as petri dishes where we try things out, then we can navigate around the 'all or nothing strategies' that might derail us by approaching this on the federal level. I think this would be an especially good approach when it comes to re-organizing the way we do policing.
I’m preparing a state house run and am grateful for this list to help inform my policy platform. Lots of this can be championed at a state and local level, as well as national.
Think National, work local!! Let me know if I can help in any way! We are putting out 1-2 pieces every week, as we build this out, trying to get some traction. The GOP has think tanks - there is a tragic lack of both think-tanking and funding on the part of the Democrats - so we're just going to do it for free, and for freedom.
OMG!! That would be amazing! I am currently refining the arguments on the Bodily Autonomy piece, which is undoubtedly the most controversial topic. That one will be out tomorrow.
Cool. Ok. I’m working on some thoughts about how to rebuild a local economy now that we’ve destroyed our global economic position and are at risk of massive unemployment and market crashes. I’m also a rail and transit planner by trade (about to lose that job to Elon’s chainsaw) and have a lot of perspective on transportation and infrastructure. Happy to connect offline as well.
I’m sure there will be those who nitpick and naysay. This is a clear and encompassing list. I will review and see if there is anything I can add. Perhaps the question isn’t whether more items are needed, but what is needed to make such a list reality.
You're absolutely right. The list is comprehensive, and I unabashedly borrowed the framework from P2025, but the real challenge is implementation. It’s not just about identifying what needs to be done but also about how we build the coalition, resources, and strategy to make it happen.
Some key questions to consider:
-- Legislation & Policy: What bills need to be drafted or supported? What executive actions are possible?
-- Public Mobilization: How do we drive awareness, engagement, and grassroots activism?
-- Institutional Strategy: What organizations, lawmakers, and leaders can champion this agenda?
-- Messaging & Narrative: How do we frame these issues to build broad public support and counter opposition?
We need to start somewhere. I am great at engaging with others' content, but I have no idea how to get enough engagement with my own content to kick the can forward a bit. I do have a friend that is putting together tech recommendations so that we can have a platform for transparent collaboration. Initially, I am going to churn out a huge volume of drafts and then try to turn the "community of the willing" after those drafts.
Ultimately, this isn’t just a wishlist—it’s a roadmap for action. Let’s make it real. I'm excited to hear your thoughts!
I would like to see ideas about putting a plan into effect.
We can take advantage of and build on this
existing structure.
Lots of Progressive groups formed after Bernie’s campaigns. He works with Our Democracy. Indivisible is another that is already established.
Some of these up groups already coordinate with each other.
I’m thinking we could show more strength if a number of the groups shared some actions.
There are diverse groups that are dedicated to certain issues. Even if the goals of one group are not the exact ones of another , we could support each other on issues in common.
I Would like to hear about groups already active. Members of these working groups could name and give a short description of the issues targeted.
I think at least the leaders could communicate and pass information to their group.
Every time I see people organizing I feel hopeful.
Absolutely. Your comment reflects exactly the kind of coalition-building we need right now. One of the core goals of Project 2026 is to create an open, shared scaffolding that existing groups can plug into without sacrificing their identity or autonomy.
This effort is already in motion, and it’s been revealing. While there are many incredible platforms doing powerful work, most of the largest ones are still operating in silos, focused on pushing forward their own agendas. So far, there hasn’t been a real movement toward broad-based coalition-building, and that needs to change.
That’s why I’m asking everyone here to Restack, Share, and Engage. I've been personally reaching out to a number of groups, and the good news is that engagement is beginning. We’re seeing early signs of alignment and interest in working together, especially around shared principles like justice, equity, and democratic protection.
Each week, I’m posting updates, including about two new topic areas at a time, and the vision is to let this build with full transparency and open collaboration. If you're connected to any progressive orgs, please tag them or drop a short description. Let’s start mapping this together.
At this time, I believe it would be useful to examine the plan that is being used right now by the oligarchs in a to take over our government.
I have recently seen several people post analyses of the overall strategies that have been used. By studying the methods being used to gain influence, we may be able to see ways to turn back the results. The 2025 plan, lengthy as it is, contains the strategies that have been used successfully.
We can divide these areas and let interested progressive volunteers look for effective. counter actions .
Also, many Progressive groups have been addressing these goals for years. There have been links formed between them that begin coalitions. Asking the organizers of these groups to invite participation by their members might be an effective way to speed the process.
I believe we all feel the urgency of our situation.
In previous election campaigns, Bernie Sanders’ team put a tremendous amount of work into plans to bring about these goals centered on Human Rights. If those platforms are available, they would provide a solid collection of proposed methods to achieve these goals.
I believe there are enough people committed to progress to start. The next step might be to help them coordinate efforts and focus on order to grow in number.
I believe the large numbers of protesters and attendees at the rallies are just looking for a place to put their energies.
Sister!!! Absolutely!! Although, anyone that can walk in to a DEMONSTRABLY toxic workplace like that, WILLINGLY, will have my undying devotion!! I am too close to a menopausal rage killing to take on office at this age :-|
I am here to assist you in any way I can, navigating the chaos with a steady hand and a sharp eye. Whether you need insight, advice, or a bit of controlled madness, I’ll ride alongside you through the fog, peeling back the layers of reality one turn at a time. Just say the word, and we’ll set this thing in motion.
I’d like to add, banning those with felony convictions from running for president.
Raising the bar for eligibility to run for president. People becoming citizens have to pass a civics test to qualify. Trump has proven we need to do the same for presidential candidates. Passing a dementia test might also be appropriate.
I’ll provide thoughts back to you on Thursday! Love this list and it’s just what the Dems, Independents and MAGA-resistant Republicans need. Great work!
Yeah, some will definitely consolidate, a couple need a deeper dive, one I am slow-rolling hard, because I lost a friend, Aaron Feis, the football coach, in the Stoneman Douglas school shooting in 2018. I have ZERO chill on the topic, and am struggling to maintain an even hand - it is 90% written, and I have read it 400 times, but I can't yet cull enough of the emotion out of it to peel it back to the objective truth. I am making progress, but that one is still a few weeks away.
I admire what you are doing so much. I would say though, that your zero chill is a major part of the impetus for you doing this. From where I sit you are directing this energy very responsibly. I look forward to keeping up with your progress, and if I think of anything, I will certainly add it, but you are miles ahead of my thinking. Any suggestions I would make would probably come off as naïve and amateurish.
Sincerely, all contribution is appreciated - even comments, sharing and restacking - sometimes having another reader that will say: Hey - this feels a little off the mark, helps.
There are so many people who don’t want to be included in these policies, to their own detriment. Before the 2016 election, I had a family member who “felt imposed on” by federal policies that would only have worked to his advantage, but he didn’t want to pay taxes to support them “for those people.” I mean, he WAS those people. But he was talking about a DIFFERENT “those people.” And later, he had an emergency where he absolutely had to benefit from the programs that would have been to his advantage all along. That’s when I started to think we need an option for the people who don’t want to pay in to be officially excluded. Something goes on file where all hospitals, welfare agencies, etc., can see it, that says “I have opted out.” They have to pay by the use for roadways, for anything our taxes collectively pay for, for the common good. They must arrive at the hospital with cash to pay for their emergency. They cannot be covered by the “damn socialist policies being forced on them.” It wouldn’t sit well with people of goodwill to stand by and let another person suffer, but as much as I expect respect for my bodily autonomy, I respect their right to opt out, up to and including decisions that cause serious financial and medical harm. The logistics to handle that are really complicated. But I think there should be an option for those who really insist.
I don’t think you understand what “codifying” Roe v Wade means. Women who get abortions don’t want abortions. They want help. When you codify something that women feel deeply about - like the death of unborn babies - you are telling women what to think. Women don’t want abortions. They what help. Contraception isn’t working - over half of the women who get abortions are on it. And the vast vast vast majority of women who end up getting abortions come from faith based households or practices. So let’s be clear: you codify abortion and you get Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Both of whom give zero fucks about women but can sure as shit appeal to the people who pay for abortions.
Mathilde, I will assume your comment comes from a place of care, but it contains a fundamental misrepresentation of what codifying Roe means. Codifying Roe v. Wade is not about telling women what to think or feel; it’s about ensuring they are free to decide for themselves, based on their own lives, values, and circumstances.
You’re right that most people seeking abortions didn’t plan to be in that position. That’s precisely the point: abortion isn’t about desire, it’s about agency, and trusting women to make the best choice when life doesn’t go according to plan.
Contraception failure is real. So is poverty. So is abuse. So is rape. And no law banning or restricting abortion solves any of that. What does? Healthcare access. Comprehensive sex ed. Affordable childcare. Paid leave. And yes, legal, accessible abortion as a medical backstop when those systems fail.
Roe didn’t promote abortion; it protected privacy, dignity, and autonomy. The people who weaponize this issue—like Trump and Musk—aren’t champions of women; they’re exploiting outrage for power.
Let’s stop punishing women for a society that refuses to care for them, and start trusting them with their own lives. That’s what codifying Roe means.
I never said defund Planned Parenthood. I said stop making everyone pay for abortions. Because I will pay to house a family before I pay for someone’s abortion. You just told me how I am supposed to feel btw.
Mathilde, I respect your passion, but I want to be clear: you’re absolutely entitled to your feelings. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that one person’s feelings—no matter how deeply held—should dictate another woman’s access to healthcare.
When we say “codify Roe,” we’re not asking you to pay for abortions personally. We’re saying no one should lose their rights because of someone else’s beliefs. That’s the essence of bodily autonomy.
And I hear you on wanting to support families. Many of us do. But those values must include the right to end a pregnancy. Otherwise, we’re saying: we’ll help you only if you choose the path we approve of. That’s not compassion. That’s coercion.
Women don’t need us to agree with their choices; they need us to trust them to make their own.
If you genuinely want fewer abortions, then let’s work together on universal healthcare, better contraception access, comprehensive sex education, and real support for parents. Those actually reduce abortion rates. Criminalizing care doesn’t.
Universal Healthcare is a human right. It should come with many many choices. And all America has done all over the world is offer one choice: abortion. It’s big business. A pill and a bag or a snip and a ship. Try offering the village. Because I will pay for the village. The people who forced abortion on poor nations across the world don’t give a fuck about the village.
Mathilde, your grief over how the world has failed the vulnerable is valid, and honestly, it’s one we share. But let’s clarify a few things:
1. Reproductive care ≠ coercion.
What you’re describing, Western aid tied to population control, is not reproductive freedom; it’s neo-colonialism. Real reproductive justice means choice, including the choice to parent, to access safe abortion, or to build a family with support. Condemning abortion while failing to offer material support is just a different form of control.
2. “Big business”?
The real profiteers in global health aren’t the clinics; they’re the privatized pharmaceutical monopolies, U.S. aid contractors, and corrupt governments enabled by IMF austerity. If abortion were so “profitable,” America wouldn’t be shuttering clinics and forcing people to travel hundreds of miles for care.
3. The village costs money. Who’s defunding it?
We would love to offer the village. But the same forces fighting to ban abortion are also defunding universal childcare, food assistance, maternal health, housing, and public education. You say you'll pay for the village; so will we. But let’s be honest: the anti-abortion movement has spent 50 years attacking the very programs that make the village possible.
4. Catholic tradition demands more than control.
If we believe in subsidiarity and solidarity, the idea that care should happen closest to where people live, we can’t centralize reproductive decisions in a courtroom or Congress. Moral clarity comes not from force, but from love and conscience.
The Catholic tradition holds that conscience is the ultimate moral authority. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1790) teaches:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”
This means that no church, no priest, and no politician can override an individual's moral discernment. When a woman prayerfully considers her situation—her body, her health, her family, her future—and concludes that abortion is the most moral path, Catholic teaching affirms her right to follow that conscience.
And let’s be clear: abortion is not murder under Catholic doctrine. The Church’s position on “ensoulment” has changed repeatedly. Even Thomas Aquinas believed the soul entered the body weeks after conception. The early Church did not treat abortion as homicide; it treated it as a moral concern, yes, but not as an absolute.
Furthermore, Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the “preferential option for the poor,” serving the vulnerable and promoting justice. But when Catholic institutions fight to force childbirth without guaranteeing healthcare, housing, food, education, or safety, they violate the very teachings they claim to defend.
You cannot claim to be “pro-life” while turning your back on the living.
Jesus never spoke a word about abortion. But he did speak, constantly, about hypocrisy, about caring for the poor, and about not burdening others with rules you’re unwilling to bear yourself (Matthew 23:4).
If we really believe in grace, in mercy, in free will, then we must extend those to women, even when we disagree. Faith must never be used to coerce.
Want to fight for the village? Let’s build it together. But let’s stop pretending that banning abortion is the foundation for community. It’s not. Trust is. Choice is. Dignity is.
This is a living project. Every week, I add more depth, sharpen the vision, and clarify the mission. But none of this matters if it stays locked in a silo. I’m not precious about authorship; this isn’t mine alone. It’s meant to grow through conversation, critique, and shared purpose.
If you’re aligned, I need your voice. Otherwise, this is just one person yelling into the void. Subscribe, share, and show up. Let’s build something that moves people.
We can’t afford to be passive observers. We need passionate, principled engagement, or we’re just crones shouting at clouds while the world burns.
Maybe a comprehensive breakdown of state gun laws, how they differ from each other and how they differ from federal laws. and of course how they differ in outcomes per gun violence. If we can make positive correlations with certain legislation to reduced gun violence, then maybe begin there? My general thinking is that if we can use communities, counties, states, and regions as petri dishes where we try things out, then we can navigate around the 'all or nothing strategies' that might derail us by approaching this on the federal level. I think this would be an especially good approach when it comes to re-organizing the way we do policing.
I’m preparing a state house run and am grateful for this list to help inform my policy platform. Lots of this can be championed at a state and local level, as well as national.
Think National, work local!! Let me know if I can help in any way! We are putting out 1-2 pieces every week, as we build this out, trying to get some traction. The GOP has think tanks - there is a tragic lack of both think-tanking and funding on the part of the Democrats - so we're just going to do it for free, and for freedom.
I’m also happy to contribute ideas if that’s a thing that is helpful or useful.
OMG!! That would be amazing! I am currently refining the arguments on the Bodily Autonomy piece, which is undoubtedly the most controversial topic. That one will be out tomorrow.
Cool. Ok. I’m working on some thoughts about how to rebuild a local economy now that we’ve destroyed our global economic position and are at risk of massive unemployment and market crashes. I’m also a rail and transit planner by trade (about to lose that job to Elon’s chainsaw) and have a lot of perspective on transportation and infrastructure. Happy to connect offline as well.
Thank you! I’ll stay in touch.
Can you use research, editorial, direct support in any way? I've got skills and time and I love your stuff.
Absolutely!!! Any help, writing, research, share, amplifyingthe message, whatever you're willing to do!!
I’m sure there will be those who nitpick and naysay. This is a clear and encompassing list. I will review and see if there is anything I can add. Perhaps the question isn’t whether more items are needed, but what is needed to make such a list reality.
You're absolutely right. The list is comprehensive, and I unabashedly borrowed the framework from P2025, but the real challenge is implementation. It’s not just about identifying what needs to be done but also about how we build the coalition, resources, and strategy to make it happen.
Some key questions to consider:
-- Legislation & Policy: What bills need to be drafted or supported? What executive actions are possible?
-- Public Mobilization: How do we drive awareness, engagement, and grassroots activism?
-- Institutional Strategy: What organizations, lawmakers, and leaders can champion this agenda?
-- Messaging & Narrative: How do we frame these issues to build broad public support and counter opposition?
We need to start somewhere. I am great at engaging with others' content, but I have no idea how to get enough engagement with my own content to kick the can forward a bit. I do have a friend that is putting together tech recommendations so that we can have a platform for transparent collaboration. Initially, I am going to churn out a huge volume of drafts and then try to turn the "community of the willing" after those drafts.
Ultimately, this isn’t just a wishlist—it’s a roadmap for action. Let’s make it real. I'm excited to hear your thoughts!
I would like to see ideas about putting a plan into effect.
We can take advantage of and build on this
existing structure.
Lots of Progressive groups formed after Bernie’s campaigns. He works with Our Democracy. Indivisible is another that is already established.
Some of these up groups already coordinate with each other.
I’m thinking we could show more strength if a number of the groups shared some actions.
There are diverse groups that are dedicated to certain issues. Even if the goals of one group are not the exact ones of another , we could support each other on issues in common.
I Would like to hear about groups already active. Members of these working groups could name and give a short description of the issues targeted.
I think at least the leaders could communicate and pass information to their group.
Every time I see people organizing I feel hopeful.
Absolutely. Your comment reflects exactly the kind of coalition-building we need right now. One of the core goals of Project 2026 is to create an open, shared scaffolding that existing groups can plug into without sacrificing their identity or autonomy.
This effort is already in motion, and it’s been revealing. While there are many incredible platforms doing powerful work, most of the largest ones are still operating in silos, focused on pushing forward their own agendas. So far, there hasn’t been a real movement toward broad-based coalition-building, and that needs to change.
That’s why I’m asking everyone here to Restack, Share, and Engage. I've been personally reaching out to a number of groups, and the good news is that engagement is beginning. We’re seeing early signs of alignment and interest in working together, especially around shared principles like justice, equity, and democratic protection.
Each week, I’m posting updates, including about two new topic areas at a time, and the vision is to let this build with full transparency and open collaboration. If you're connected to any progressive orgs, please tag them or drop a short description. Let’s start mapping this together.
We won’t win in silos. But we can win together.
At this time, I believe it would be useful to examine the plan that is being used right now by the oligarchs in a to take over our government.
I have recently seen several people post analyses of the overall strategies that have been used. By studying the methods being used to gain influence, we may be able to see ways to turn back the results. The 2025 plan, lengthy as it is, contains the strategies that have been used successfully.
We can divide these areas and let interested progressive volunteers look for effective. counter actions .
Also, many Progressive groups have been addressing these goals for years. There have been links formed between them that begin coalitions. Asking the organizers of these groups to invite participation by their members might be an effective way to speed the process.
I believe we all feel the urgency of our situation.
In previous election campaigns, Bernie Sanders’ team put a tremendous amount of work into plans to bring about these goals centered on Human Rights. If those platforms are available, they would provide a solid collection of proposed methods to achieve these goals.
I believe there are enough people committed to progress to start. The next step might be to help them coordinate efforts and focus on order to grow in number.
I believe the large numbers of protesters and attendees at the rallies are just looking for a place to put their energies.
We need to understand this plainly:
-- To the oligarchs, we are necessary—but only as labor, data, and profit.
-- To Project 2025, we are unnecessary—unless we are compliant, terrified, and divided.
That’s the terrifying efficiency of their dual strategy:
-- Oligarchs strip us for parts, through deregulated capitalism, gig work precarity, surveillance, and privatized everything.
-- Authoritarians strip us of power through religious nationalism, voter suppression, propaganda, and the slow death of rights.
They are not separate systems.
They are two jaws of the same machine.
One feeds on our labor.
The other feeds on our fear.
And we are not meant to survive between them, we’re meant to serve until we break.
I am encouraged to see this kind of work going on. It is up to us all to make ourselves free.
I think we need to add No Lobbying, No Electoral College, and No Citzens United.
right on...
All wonderful ideas and I believe that if we get more women into office we can work it!!!
Sister!!! Absolutely!! Although, anyone that can walk in to a DEMONSTRABLY toxic workplace like that, WILLINGLY, will have my undying devotion!! I am too close to a menopausal rage killing to take on office at this age :-|
😆 but hopefully women will change the workplace 😀
I am here to assist you in any way I can, navigating the chaos with a steady hand and a sharp eye. Whether you need insight, advice, or a bit of controlled madness, I’ll ride alongside you through the fog, peeling back the layers of reality one turn at a time. Just say the word, and we’ll set this thing in motion.
I’d like to add, banning those with felony convictions from running for president.
Raising the bar for eligibility to run for president. People becoming citizens have to pass a civics test to qualify. Trump has proven we need to do the same for presidential candidates. Passing a dementia test might also be appropriate.
I’ll provide thoughts back to you on Thursday! Love this list and it’s just what the Dems, Independents and MAGA-resistant Republicans need. Great work!
Takes a lot of chutzpah to not be emotionally attached to something you put so much work into! Good on you for keeping it liquid and open...
My only thought at this point is that as things grow and become clearer that we will find strong connections between areas...A consolidation of sorts
Yeah, some will definitely consolidate, a couple need a deeper dive, one I am slow-rolling hard, because I lost a friend, Aaron Feis, the football coach, in the Stoneman Douglas school shooting in 2018. I have ZERO chill on the topic, and am struggling to maintain an even hand - it is 90% written, and I have read it 400 times, but I can't yet cull enough of the emotion out of it to peel it back to the objective truth. I am making progress, but that one is still a few weeks away.
I just really like this idea of creating a community around the notion of fucking doing something. Giving a place for people to feel engaged.
I admire what you are doing so much. I would say though, that your zero chill is a major part of the impetus for you doing this. From where I sit you are directing this energy very responsibly. I look forward to keeping up with your progress, and if I think of anything, I will certainly add it, but you are miles ahead of my thinking. Any suggestions I would make would probably come off as naïve and amateurish.
Sincerely, all contribution is appreciated - even comments, sharing and restacking - sometimes having another reader that will say: Hey - this feels a little off the mark, helps.
Where do I sign up
I think you just did!! Rise, Resist, Restack!
There are so many people who don’t want to be included in these policies, to their own detriment. Before the 2016 election, I had a family member who “felt imposed on” by federal policies that would only have worked to his advantage, but he didn’t want to pay taxes to support them “for those people.” I mean, he WAS those people. But he was talking about a DIFFERENT “those people.” And later, he had an emergency where he absolutely had to benefit from the programs that would have been to his advantage all along. That’s when I started to think we need an option for the people who don’t want to pay in to be officially excluded. Something goes on file where all hospitals, welfare agencies, etc., can see it, that says “I have opted out.” They have to pay by the use for roadways, for anything our taxes collectively pay for, for the common good. They must arrive at the hospital with cash to pay for their emergency. They cannot be covered by the “damn socialist policies being forced on them.” It wouldn’t sit well with people of goodwill to stand by and let another person suffer, but as much as I expect respect for my bodily autonomy, I respect their right to opt out, up to and including decisions that cause serious financial and medical harm. The logistics to handle that are really complicated. But I think there should be an option for those who really insist.
I don’t think you understand what “codifying” Roe v Wade means. Women who get abortions don’t want abortions. They want help. When you codify something that women feel deeply about - like the death of unborn babies - you are telling women what to think. Women don’t want abortions. They what help. Contraception isn’t working - over half of the women who get abortions are on it. And the vast vast vast majority of women who end up getting abortions come from faith based households or practices. So let’s be clear: you codify abortion and you get Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Both of whom give zero fucks about women but can sure as shit appeal to the people who pay for abortions.
Mathilde, I will assume your comment comes from a place of care, but it contains a fundamental misrepresentation of what codifying Roe means. Codifying Roe v. Wade is not about telling women what to think or feel; it’s about ensuring they are free to decide for themselves, based on their own lives, values, and circumstances.
You’re right that most people seeking abortions didn’t plan to be in that position. That’s precisely the point: abortion isn’t about desire, it’s about agency, and trusting women to make the best choice when life doesn’t go according to plan.
Contraception failure is real. So is poverty. So is abuse. So is rape. And no law banning or restricting abortion solves any of that. What does? Healthcare access. Comprehensive sex ed. Affordable childcare. Paid leave. And yes, legal, accessible abortion as a medical backstop when those systems fail.
Roe didn’t promote abortion; it protected privacy, dignity, and autonomy. The people who weaponize this issue—like Trump and Musk—aren’t champions of women; they’re exploiting outrage for power.
Let’s stop punishing women for a society that refuses to care for them, and start trusting them with their own lives. That’s what codifying Roe means.
I never said defund Planned Parenthood. I said stop making everyone pay for abortions. Because I will pay to house a family before I pay for someone’s abortion. You just told me how I am supposed to feel btw.
Mathilde, I respect your passion, but I want to be clear: you’re absolutely entitled to your feelings. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that one person’s feelings—no matter how deeply held—should dictate another woman’s access to healthcare.
When we say “codify Roe,” we’re not asking you to pay for abortions personally. We’re saying no one should lose their rights because of someone else’s beliefs. That’s the essence of bodily autonomy.
And I hear you on wanting to support families. Many of us do. But those values must include the right to end a pregnancy. Otherwise, we’re saying: we’ll help you only if you choose the path we approve of. That’s not compassion. That’s coercion.
Women don’t need us to agree with their choices; they need us to trust them to make their own.
If you genuinely want fewer abortions, then let’s work together on universal healthcare, better contraception access, comprehensive sex education, and real support for parents. Those actually reduce abortion rates. Criminalizing care doesn’t.
Universal Healthcare is a human right. It should come with many many choices. And all America has done all over the world is offer one choice: abortion. It’s big business. A pill and a bag or a snip and a ship. Try offering the village. Because I will pay for the village. The people who forced abortion on poor nations across the world don’t give a fuck about the village.
Mathilde, your grief over how the world has failed the vulnerable is valid, and honestly, it’s one we share. But let’s clarify a few things:
1. Reproductive care ≠ coercion.
What you’re describing, Western aid tied to population control, is not reproductive freedom; it’s neo-colonialism. Real reproductive justice means choice, including the choice to parent, to access safe abortion, or to build a family with support. Condemning abortion while failing to offer material support is just a different form of control.
2. “Big business”?
The real profiteers in global health aren’t the clinics; they’re the privatized pharmaceutical monopolies, U.S. aid contractors, and corrupt governments enabled by IMF austerity. If abortion were so “profitable,” America wouldn’t be shuttering clinics and forcing people to travel hundreds of miles for care.
3. The village costs money. Who’s defunding it?
We would love to offer the village. But the same forces fighting to ban abortion are also defunding universal childcare, food assistance, maternal health, housing, and public education. You say you'll pay for the village; so will we. But let’s be honest: the anti-abortion movement has spent 50 years attacking the very programs that make the village possible.
4. Catholic tradition demands more than control.
If we believe in subsidiarity and solidarity, the idea that care should happen closest to where people live, we can’t centralize reproductive decisions in a courtroom or Congress. Moral clarity comes not from force, but from love and conscience.
The Catholic tradition holds that conscience is the ultimate moral authority. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1790) teaches:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”
This means that no church, no priest, and no politician can override an individual's moral discernment. When a woman prayerfully considers her situation—her body, her health, her family, her future—and concludes that abortion is the most moral path, Catholic teaching affirms her right to follow that conscience.
And let’s be clear: abortion is not murder under Catholic doctrine. The Church’s position on “ensoulment” has changed repeatedly. Even Thomas Aquinas believed the soul entered the body weeks after conception. The early Church did not treat abortion as homicide; it treated it as a moral concern, yes, but not as an absolute.
Furthermore, Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the “preferential option for the poor,” serving the vulnerable and promoting justice. But when Catholic institutions fight to force childbirth without guaranteeing healthcare, housing, food, education, or safety, they violate the very teachings they claim to defend.
You cannot claim to be “pro-life” while turning your back on the living.
Jesus never spoke a word about abortion. But he did speak, constantly, about hypocrisy, about caring for the poor, and about not burdening others with rules you’re unwilling to bear yourself (Matthew 23:4).
If we really believe in grace, in mercy, in free will, then we must extend those to women, even when we disagree. Faith must never be used to coerce.
Want to fight for the village? Let’s build it together. But let’s stop pretending that banning abortion is the foundation for community. It’s not. Trust is. Choice is. Dignity is.
Murder is murder