You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.

Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. I think maybe your mistake is believing that someone can't be sexist against their own sex.

Women are specifically targeted by these laws, they will face punishment due to these laws, and they will in fact die because of these laws. Their economic prospects will drop. Single women and their children will fall into poverty at faster rates. We know all these things will happen because the opposite happened when Roe was decided. This isn't a mystery to anyone.

> McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally ... but because a lot of people in her state ... support this position

I'll remind anyone reading this that the Idaho GOP just voted to exclude support for a life-of-the-mother exception to their party's official platform. I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. That is a very extreme position. We'll have to wait on the polling to come out on that because it just happened this weekend.

But sure, let's just say for the sake of argument they do actually hold that position.

What I'm saying is that every woman who supports this position and needs a lifesaving abortion will either leave Idaho to get an abortion, or die in Idaho because they couldn't afford to leave. McGeachin and everyone she loves and cares about will be in the former group, I guarantee you that.

> Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me.

Nope. You need to understand the difference between "law affecting women because the matter in question is women" and "law affecting women because somebody wants to hurt women specifically". The abortion regulation can not be not about women (weird exceptions excluded) - it doesn't mean it is based only on the desire to subjugate and oppress women, this is just a stupid take that reduces everything to a bumper sticker.

> and they will in fact die because of these laws.

Nope, they won't. Idaho GOP position is not the law and I don't think it's likely it will become the law. The actual law is different and does not preclude pregnancy termination if it is necessary for saving woman's life. Women may die because they would make a decision due to these laws - e.g. to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion instead of, e.g., carrying to term and giving the child for adoption - but there would be always conscious choice and action involved. Again, you are confusing regulation that concerns women - because, obviously, any abortion regulation would - and one that is designed to hurt women, which it is not.

> I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho.

I do not know about the majority, but I am sure some do. In any case, again, the reason why they take this position is not because they hate women, and until you realize that, you won't understand anything about their positions. Maybe you don't want to, but I am here to tell you your position is wrong. Maybe you don't care to know the truth - that's also your choice.