Amazon and Google fund anti-abortion lawmakers through complex shell game | Hacker News Reader

Amazon and Google fund anti-abortion lawmakers through complex shell game

theguardian.com

15 pointslisasays11 comments

You can see relative political party donations. A lot of companies mentioned in the article like bank of America give roughly 50/50 to R/D. Surely they give money to groups that are pro abortion. But make no mistake, most corporations would prefer you don't take mat leave, so they would gladly support the decision and even willing to pay for it and help you cross state lines if you have to.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/bank-of-america/summary?id=...

I don't understand if the author's issue here, is funding anti-abortion movements or because their are doing it in a non transparent way.

Abortion is not a human right. You may be freely for or against it based on your values and education. But trying to shame anyone for their position on the matter (for or against), that is indeed an attack on human rights.

Bodily autonomy is a right.

you see abortion as issue about body autonomy. many see it as issue of murder. it like religious debate.

me not arguing either way. but wonder about “quality” of this journalism. it subtly condition reader to believe one side is correct and other side like some German nazi.

And you see your control over someone’s body as a right.

Many people believe their position as a slave owner is a human right, or at most an issue for “religious debate”

>But trying to shame anyone for their position on the matter (for or against), that is indeed an attack on human rights.

Trying to influence organizations or people politically is in no way "an attack on human rights."

Reading the quotes from the companies that they donate to each side, what a stupid waste of money. Companies could donate that money to charities, give workers a raise, give us cheaper goods. Political donations should be banned for economic reasons.

work in tech. not every employee liberal or super progressive.

it crazy to me the bar for what considered journalism. probably many of such “anti-abortion” lawmaker have other policy friendly for business. probably some people in these company even against abortion.

this article written as if supporting law makers is mutually exclusion choice. we must give money to only one side as if those single issue the only issue or even most important issue. subtle way by media of conditioning how we think.

Note: I'm not commenting on the issue per se, but find the reporting worth calling into question.

Two thoughts:

1) When it comes to political ddmonations, Big Inc tends to play both sides of the aisle. In a world rooted in journalism this possibility would have been thoroughly explored. That is, have these companies done similar on the pro-abortion side? Not saying assumes no, but we shouldn't have to assume.

2) On a more editorial note, the headline's language is unnecessarily lazy and "inflammatory". Anti-abortion lawmakers? When did anti-abortion become an adjective? It would be more journalistic to say "lawmakers who are anti-abortion".

When did anti-abortion become an adjective?

It's standard English, perfectly acceptable and common.

Standard English? Maybe.

Unfortunately, the context here is journalism. There's more to that than being grammatically correct. It goes unchecked because so many are clueless about the higher standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com