Republican Lawmaker Claims When Severe Child Abuse Victims Die - Govt Saves Money

During a recent committee hearing, Alaska Republican state Representative and longtime Oath Keepers member David Eastman suggested it's actually beneficial to society when victims of severe child abuse die “because there aren’t needs for government services and whatnot over the whole course of that child’s life.” When asked to explain what he meant, Republican Rep. Eastman said he was “talking dollars” and that its actually a $1.5 million cost savings for society if the child abuse victim dies. To add a little context, Rep. Eastman is a guy who once suggested that women living in poor, rural Alaskan villages were “getting pregnant on purpose” - just to get to enjoy a "free trip" to the city to get an abortion.

So, the “Pro-Life Party” strikes again. Sounds like this wonderful guy sure has a very bright future in today’s Republican Party. Of course, Rep. Eastman is from Wasilla, aka the “Meth Capitol of Alaska,” so next time he makes a crack like this - check his teeth! And, while you’re at it, better check that crawl space under his house too! Now, for most politicians, making such a vile remark would end their political career, but in Wasilla - he’ll actually be able to fundraise off of it.

Gee, I wonder what’s next for America’s GOP Social Darwinists? Exiling widows and orphans into the frozen tundra to fend for themselves? Now, given his strong feelings on fiscal conservatism, I would assume Rep. Eastman would also be opposed to his family living long enough to collect Social Security and Medicare. After all, we can’t have a bunch of these lazy old bastards financially burdening society, can we?

Of course, Libtards and Antifa are gonna criticize him for his statement, but in Rep. Eastman’s defense, he’s only trying to stay in step with his fellow Republican colleagues in Idaho. You know Idaho, a place where parents are now legally allowed to starve their children as an expression of “religious freedom.” Of course, and in all fairness, Republicans have always been big on “parental choice,” with the notable exception of the "becoming a parent" part.

Now, I have to admit that on a cellular level, I just don’t get Republicans. Is it just me, or does it seem odd that someone can read a Charles Dickens novel and decide it was actually the villain with whom they identified most? I mean, Republicans are folks who, when they watched the Wizard of Oz, actually rooted for the fucking witch. As for me - well, I think I’ll call it a night. You see, I’m under strict orders from my doctor - not to allow my head to explode more than once a day.

*If you’ve enjoyed what you’ve just read, please consider joining me at [johnnyrobish.medium.com]