Marianne Williamson

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 98
8/9/2024, 5:08:36 AM
X
In reply to:
Tina Olhava
@tshow78
·
407d
@marwilliamson It's constitutional to leave it to the ppl to decide. If the state is creating issues for women you deal with the state at a local level. No one should want the federal government to oversee their Healthcare. That's not my body my choice. That makes it the government's choice.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
407d
Trump said he would be “willing to leave it up to the States,” knowing full well there are statehouses with efforts already underway to monitor women’s pregnancies.
Jessica Valenti
@JessicaValenti
·
408d
On their way to track your period

The statement by @tshow78 constitutes public discourse as it engages with the public issue of government involvement in healthcare and women's reproductive rights. The tone is assertive and critical of government intervention, framing it as an infringement on personal freedom and an act of abuse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to highlight perceived harm caused by government monitoring of pregnancies, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. However, the language used ('mental and emotional abuse') is strong and could be seen as inflammatory, potentially causing emotional distress to some readers.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of women by opposing government monitoring of pregnancies, which aligns with the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. However, the strong language used could be seen as disrespectful to those who hold a different view.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy towards women who might be affected by government monitoring of pregnancies, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. However, the strong language used could alienate those with opposing views.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism of government policies but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks. [+1]