Brisnicki

@TaintedSaint2 @Toobusy41913321 "At that point" assumes the conversation is over. It's not. A 13yo can still be reasoned with, guided, and persuaded to wait for now. Kids can self control when "why" makes sense. Just giving birth control simply manages consequences rather than helping child make better choices

@brisnicki @Toobusy41913321 I don't disagree, however, at that point? The best thing you can do is put them on birth control to make sure mistakes aren't compounded.

Don’t get me wrong I think 13 is way too young but I agree with the mom here. If they’re going to do it either way, I’d rather them do it the safe way.

Stephanie Gray Connors sharing about the eugenics within the IVF process. IVF isn't pro-life.

@Toobusy41913321 A parent's job is to protect the child from harmful situation, not hand them a helmet. "But at least she's protected" only makes sense if you've already accepted it's going to happen. That acceptance is the parenting failure. Parenting win is 13yo not having sex at all.

@brisnicki But she's doing it with protection

@BamBam0667 @DebbieGarratt @ProfJoannaHowe @k_mahlburg You are ignorant. Debbie Garrett is a leader in the anti-abortion movement in Australia. She just happens to be against separating mothers and babies due to unnecessary adoption. Adoption is traumatic so should be reserved for extreme cases, family preservation is better.

@DebbieGarratt @ProfJoannaHowe @k_mahlburg What a disgusting human you are 🤮 We know why the World is fucked up today... because people like you are 'educators'. Believing that adoption is the solution to abortion makes ANYONE a better human than believing abortion is 'health care' 🤦‍♂️ You are vile 😒

The number of Aussie kids being adopted has fallen from 9789 in 1971-72 to 155 in 2024-25. In this time abortions have skyrocketed. In today's paper Janet Albrechtson writes that being adopted was the greatest gift of her life.

@MrsMelD82 @Canarbles @charliespiering @RealCandaceO @TPUSA If it's in his will or succession plan why use a "secret recording" as evidence that this was his wishes. Why don't they just state "it was in his will", "it's in the succession plan"? Why use a questionable "secret recording" as the proof? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

You don’t know that he didn’t have it in his will. That’s extremely private information that none of us in the public have the right to know. Also, as a non profit with a board of directors, he legally can’t leave it to her in a will. They have to elect a replacement. He can make his wishes known, which he did, but the board could have gone against it. There is no legal foothold of the organization in his will. Not to Erika of anyone else. The board makes those decisions. They could have ousted Charlie too if they wanted to (which obviously they wouldn’t), but that’s what they did to James O’Keefe at Project Veritas.

I’m sorry but I still can’t get over this. Turning Point USA colluded with the Daily Mail to host a screening of the now “secret video” of Charlie naming Erika as his successor. This video is crucial. It was introduced to the public by Erika as Charlie’s dying wish: her takeover of the company. Erika CHOSE to walk out to Charlie’s alleged voice naming her as the CEO at Amfest, but stopped short of airing the video footage. Donors who were present say the audio is A.I., and that Charlie never uttered these words at the event in question. Turning Point is now gaslighting us—bringing in experts to secretly screen and report on the video while claiming its existence doesn’t even matter because Charlie had told his friends that’s what he wanted. WTF is going on?

If you're the kind of man who would have sex with a woman and then throw $500 at her for an abortion as soon as she tells you she's pregnant, get a vasectomy. But stop telling monogamous pro-life men to get vasectomies. We are not the ones creating children we'd rather abandon than raise. I'm sick of the misbehavior of disgusting pro-choice men. And I'm sick of being blamed for their behavior. Dear pro-choice women, You're not angry at pro-life men. You're angry at pro-choice men. And so am I. Please direct your anger appropriately.

@ChozangNoyb @secularprolife There are studies showing that the secondary action doesn't actually work. Also anecdotal evidence, including my niece whose mother took Plan B 6hrs after and still fell pregnant. Implantation occurs within 6-10 days of conception so if Plan B worked my niece couldn't implant

@secularprolife I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that Plan B has both a primary and a secondary action. Primary is as you described. Secondary is as an abortifacient, if conception has already occurred.

The abortion pill isn't Plan B. Plan B contains levonorgestrel & is used to prevent ovulation. The abortion pill (actually two pills) is mifepristone & misoprostol, which respectively break down the uterine lining & cause contractions to abort the embryo.

@secularprolife Could say rape vicitim's baby. The baby is a victim like their mother. Women who have born children after rape have found the love for and from their child healing. E.g. Jaycee Lee Dugard, Amanda Berry. Abortion only continues the violence of the rapist. Punish rapist not child.

The phrase "rapist's baby" is dehumanizing.

@Canarbles @charliespiering @RealCandaceO @TPUSA Right, you'd think her safety would be priority #1 so that their children would not be put at risk of being orphans. Plus if Charlie wanted her to take his place, surely he would have stated in his will, written and signed. They wouldn't have to rely on a "secret recording".

@charliespiering @RealCandaceO @TPUSA After Butler there was a "very real fear about his safety" so, if he died, Charlie wanted his children's surviving mother to assume the same role that led to his death? People have great skepticism about that.

@JohnMappin @charliespiering @RealCandaceO @TPUSA If this was really Charlie's wish it should be in his Will, written and signed. I find it hard to believe that if it were his true wish, and he had concerns after Butler (July 2024) that he wouldn't have had that added to his Will within the 15 months that had passed.

Dear Charlie, @charliespiering I hope you are well. I have spoken to a donor who was at the event in Aspen, and they have no recollection at all of what you have reported. I spoke to them again today in light of your article, and they reiterated this once more. They are quite certain. They also said that afterwards, following the main filmed Aspen meeting that you reported on, there was a smaller private meeting with Charlie where this subject was raised again, and that there was no mention of the version that you present. I knew Charlie Kirk well, and I know Candace well. This point of truth matters. It will affect Turning Point going forward and conservative politics more broadly. It can affect the presidency and future presidencies. The logical and rational thing to do is simply to release the raw video footage publicly, with any donors who do not wish to be seen blacked out and, if truly necessary, their voices altered if they are keen to retain privacy. You have stated that the Turning Point cameras were rolling, as have others. No one would be more pleased to see that what you are saying is true than Candace, ourselves, and all those who love Charlie and his family. It would give thousands of people great relief. No one wanted, or wants, to believe that untruths or half truths could or would be told on such a subject, or that the deceptions that have been suggested may have occurred. Certainly not us. Several people who have been donors, including the individuals with whom I spoke this afternoon, whom we personally introduced to Charlie as TP donors, are now saying that because of this, and other inconsistencies in what has been said, they will no longer participate in political donations across the conservative spectrum. They are that frustrated by it. These are usually calm, reasoned people. This was reiterated again today when we spoke. Such are the consequences of mishandling communications with donors. They do not like it. Of course, I do not know what happened at the event, as I was not present. I am simply reporting what I was told previously and again today by this person, who was there with another donor. I am not implying that what you have written in your article is either true or false. I am not suggesting that anyone is being untruthful. But the idea that the article you wrote will somehow put all of this to bed is naïve beyond expectation. Whoever is making this dog’s dinner of Turning Point’s PR should be fired. Our personal purpose in all this is solely the preservation of Charlie’s legacy and to help, if we can — and I believe we can — to allow those whom Charlie truly loved to find a route through to sanity and peace via truth and transparency. My elderly mother (88) is a great fan of the Daily Mail. I cannot, in all honesty, profess the same, but I do try to help. I can also extrapolate the consequences to journalistic reputation were one to find oneself on the wrong side of an issue engaging such a vast number of truth seeking Americans, and even a few Brits and Europeans. We live in a new media world, after all. I have advised our good friends at TPUSA that honest and open communication works best with Candace, even when she is in full truth seeking mode. I would continue to suggest to all parties concerned that this is the best, and probably the only, workable approach. Frankly, I do not know how we place ourselves in a position where we can be of assistance, but duty and noblesse oblige compel us to try to help resolve this if we can. It is now 43 days since Candace’s first public request for the film to be made available. What on earth does anyone have to lose by airing it? Thank you for taking an interest in the subject, though. The truth is important. And you have helped us all see more. I hope this helps you. Kind regards, John @RealCandaceO @Nero

Breaking down a sophisticated, manipulative youtube comment line by line.

@J71256441 @MrMennoTweets @Thebuttsmarn High Court is above Federal, so Sally may be able to appeal again?

@MrMennoTweets @Thebuttsmarn This guy is a stand up comedian in oz. He is using 'layperson's' terms. I also think there is a fear of legal repercussions and demonetising of his YouTube channel. Every peak helps 'eh?

The high court of Australia has declared that biological sex is a myth.

Australian Monopoly 🇦🇺

The unborn child is the only human being whose destruction is routinely described as ‘care.

@J_K_Wood They should reconnect w/child's mother/s (bio & gestational, if diff), allow relationships. People involved in this process need to realise you're all family now & need to support the child at least emotionally. Otherwise don't do it. Not a hero for making a child then abandoning

Gay man realizes he has robbed his children of having a mother like he did. You cannot celebrate this and Mother’s Day. PS: he still has 17 embryos frozen 👇🏻

@ThaiRivera Agree 100% He is obviously male, not taking anything from women, not forcing us to say he is something that he is not. He's just experimenting with fashion, which is harmless.

I'm not even trying argue with anybody today. I just saw that clip of a man in a dress not claiming to be trans or anything else and a bunch of people assigning a bunch of meaning to it. And I think as long as he's not claiming to be a woman or access women's spaces you can judge the fashion choice without assigning a whole agenda to it.

Being late Gen X is perfect timing. Had a childhood without the internet, college without smartphones, grad school and early career without AI, and will get to live a reasonably long and fruitful life before the machines exterminate us all.

Simple as…