{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"The Point: Refuting Pro-Choice Tropes","description":" Last week, an Oklahoma state representative who describes himself as a \u201cpragmatic progressive\u201d announced on Twitter, \u201cThis week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father\u2019s financial responsibility to his baby and their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman\u2019s right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can\u2019t just walk away from his responsibility.\u201d  What he intended as a gotcha instead went viral with pro-lifers. They loved the proposal, and filled his feed with memes saying \u201cyour terms are acceptable.\u201d The only resistance to the law came from pro-abortion allies. Quickly and furiously, the lawmaker backpedaled with a follow-up tweet:  \u201cI understand how the language in my message and bill both hurt the cause instead of helping it, and I apologize for not being more thoughtful\u2026.\u201d   It\u2019s just amazing that so many still claim and so many still buy the whole \u201cpro-lifers only care about babies before birth\u201d nonsense, but they do. Which means, we must continue to refute this silly narrative, in both word and deed.   ","author_name":"Breakpoint","author_url":"https:\/\/breakpoint.org","html":"