<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<oembed>
  <version>1</version>
  <type>rich</type>
  <provider_name>Libsyn</provider_name>
  <provider_url>https://www.libsyn.com</provider_url>
  <height>90</height>
  <width>600</width>
  <title>The Point: Refuting Pro-Choice Tropes</title>
  <description> Last week, an Oklahoma state representative who describes himself as a “pragmatic progressive” announced on Twitter, “This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father’s financial responsibility to his baby and their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman’s right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can’t just walk away from his responsibility.”&amp;amp;nbsp;   What he intended as a gotcha instead went viral with pro-lifers. They loved the proposal, and filled his feed with memes saying “your terms are acceptable.” The only resistance to the law came from pro-abortion allies. Quickly and furiously, the lawmaker backpedaled with a follow-up tweet:&amp;amp;nbsp;   “I 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….”&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;nbsp;   It’s just amazing that so many still claim and so many still buy the whole “pro-lifers only care about babies before birth” nonsense, but they do. Which means, we must continue to refute this silly narrative, in both word and deed.&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;nbsp;  </description>
  <author_name>Breakpoint</author_name>
  <author_url>https://breakpoint.org</author_url>
  <html>&lt;iframe title="Libsyn Player" style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/21933230/height/90/theme/custom/thumbnail/yes/direction/forward/render-playlist/no/custom-color/88AA3C/" height="90" width="600" scrolling="no"  allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html>
  <thumbnail_url>https://assets.libsyn.com/secure/content/120198200</thumbnail_url>
</oembed>
