Blog for Arizona/Reappropriate has a post claiming that "Yes on 107 wouldn't mind if battered women's shelters and breast cancer screenings closed their doors." How does the author come to this bizarre conclusion? We pointed out that those services will NOT have to close their doors if Prop. 107 passes, it is a scare tactic used by the left in order to frighten people from voting for Prop. 107. Not a single domestic violence shelter or breast cancer screening service has had to close its doors since this initiative passed in four other states, beginning back in 1996 in California.
The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).
Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.
The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.