Where you lookin'?
The candidate at the top of the conference call's ballot has an abortion position that’s more nuanced than don’t-do-it-you’re-Catholic, but abortion itself is more casually treated by people who are prominent in his party, in politics and other fields. Looking at how his position on the one issue has changed over the years, and looking at his current age and performance, I’m more inclined to believe that, if elected, he's more likely to be influenced rather than hold influence on any positions he would encounter over the course of a term of office.
I’d guess there’s a difference between taking into account the views of one’s constituency when making decisions in office as opposed to allowing that constituency to drive those decisions entirely – to me, he doesn’t look like he has the strength to hold his own anymore, which is why I suspect he has to rely on his second. (Speaking of that second, Lotus is not on the ballot for POTUS. [I know it's Pioneer, but the rhyme is entertaining.] Despite her other accomplishments, my view of her party in general is one argument after another against a vote for her.)
I’m also aware that sparing a woman the physical, financial, and other burdens that accompany pregnancy is, if I’m interpreting this correctly, reproductive justice for those women who already carry other burdens. If I remember correctly, there's already an allowance for the use of contraceptives such as condoms, especially in relation to the spread of STDs like AIDS, though it's something that obviously prevents pregnancy as well.
What I don’t know as much about is how religious organizations take this allowance into account – what access do they have to the communities who need them, how able are they to distribute contraceptives in those communities, and are they permitted the decision to refuse abortion services based on their faith? How do political policies take these into account? Because if that party has among them members who support the removal of statues of historical religious figures who served their community, it doesn’t seem like they’d be willing to listen to prayers on that conference call.
The reason I’m more willing to be critical of one political party and its candidate than the other is that it seems like one party has comparatively fewer voices speaking against it, and considering the existence of cancel culture, it prefers not to consider opposing views – rather, it would silence them altogether. (Genghis Khan is too dead to care about whether it's a joke or not.)
To sum up, one conference call spread out over several days isn't enough to convince me of values contradicted over months and, in some cases, years. My vote hasn't changed, and posts like this are my method of keeping an eye on why.
Also, there's this. It's misleading to accuse someone of frightening voters away from voting, especially when the real issue is whether or not this sort of vulnerability in the system will prevent an accurate tally. There are plenty enough people willing to vote, but this looks more like an attempt to diminish the perception of an existing risk that has only just been revealed. Once one pops up, it's not a leap to consider that there are more under the radar.
Unrelated topics to keep an eye on -
Also, policies that drive away cops and encourage criminal acts are, surprisingly enough, not an argument to vote into office anyone who'd support those policies, cop or not. Okay, "unrelated" is the wrong word.