she s talented, she s got an eye catching style as she enjoys her first ring walk avec the cowboy hat in a prime tv slot, some entrance. come on, eb, come on baby. okay ladies, i ve already spoke to you both, keep those punches up, no putting the heads in. touch gloves, good luck. the only real opponent is yourself and the mental challenges in yourwill to win yourself y know. .. she s quick. you can be coached, but if you don t haven t got the will to win then, goodbye. loved up at team gb, didn t quite work out
haven t printing dollars to pay for it leads to inflation, you don t want this spending plan. the cbo, congressional budget office which adds up numbers and all these proposals that congress comes up with, they came out with numbers. if the money that s being spent on build back better is permanent. it s a 10-year program. there s a trick democrats are using to make it seem like it s going to cost less which is only putting in the first three years of spending, if, in fact, it s spending throughout the entire ten years, it s actually going to cost $4.9 trillion and that would lead to a $3 trillion extra debt. it s not paid for. the president said it s 100% paid for. the cbo, nonpartisan. democrat and republican, they say it s not paid for. if you go the full ten years of spending on build back better, it s going to add $3 trillion to the debt. that ends up as more inflation.
now. the president is saying that s not true because in fact even if you factor in inflation, people s income is still rising. they have a little trick that they haven t told you about, the way they come up with that number which most working americans don t buy because they know how much they re spending and they know how much they make and they know they re falling behind inflation paired with the president is doing is adding all the spending that we ve had not only under his administration but under the trump administration, all the government spending adding that altogether in saying that money in american s pockets, dividing it between all the americans. the bureaucracy sucks out a lot of that money. that s where the money is going. the president said inflation is slowing down. it s not. it s accelerating. it s opposite of what are the president is saying. no surprise to americans. let s talk about what s causing
irrelevant. why would women need access to abortion after 15 weeks and what s the effect on them? there are any number of women who can t get an abortion earlier. they don t realize they re pregnant. that s true of women who are young or don t-haven t experienced a pregnancy before or life circumstances change. they lose their job or their relationship breaks apart or have medical complications or for many women they don t have the resource evers to pay for it earlier. ist takes time for them to raise the money or make the appropriate logistical arrangements to take time off work and travel and have childcare and for all those women in this category who need access to abortion after 15 weeks the fact that other women were able to exercise their constitutional rights does nothing to diminish the impact on their liberty interests in forcing them to continue with that pregnancy. thank you. general, following up on
0 decisis analysis and i want to give you an opportunity to respond. the undue burden test is not at issue. that applies to regulations, not prohibitions. the state has conceded this is a prohibition. thats the title of this law is an act to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks and the only thing that is at issue in this case is the viability line. the viability line has been workable. the lower federal courts have applied it uniformly for 50 years, the fifth circuit had no difficulty striking down this law unanimously 3-0. it has been an exceedingly workable standard. if i may return to your question, a reasonable possibility standard would not be workable. it would boil down to an argument that states can prohibit a category of women from exercising their constitutional right merely because of the number of people in the category and that is not how constitutional rights work. a state would never say it could ban religious services on a wednesday evening for example because most people