I think something interesting to bring to this conversation is the idea of church vs state. While religion does play a very important part in many peoples lives, I don't think that it should have a place in legislature. Especially in North America where our populations are so diverse there is no 'one religion.' But, regardless, our governing bodies have intergrated the Catholic/Christian value system within our governance., leaving no option for autonomy.

The far right often disguises their need for control and power over women and their bodies as a concern for a fetus. In reality, these people only care until the child is born, then, they are someone else's problem, as they can no longer justify exercising their power by giving a "voice to the voiceless." After the child is born they speak about the supposed resources that are available yet, often can't proceed to name a single one.

I cannot fathom why anyone would think that making adoption for queer couples illegal is a good or beneficial thing. They (the far right) would rather leave children in situations without adequate support systems than place them with people who want a child, but can't have one biologically, solely because they are same-sex couple. This does nothing except negatively impact both parties. Furthermore, there have been multiple studies that support the notion that children raised by same-sex couples, excel and outperform their hetero-parent peers.

Abortion is a very real and necessary part of women's reproductive healthcare. They exist for more than just wanting to terminate a viable pregnancy; still a valid reason. However, with regulations like the heart beat ban, you don't only limit access to people wanting abortions, you limit access to people who NEED abortions. examples of this can include a non-viable pregnancy (ectopic, etc.).

I disagree that people will choose "home-cooked, locally-grown, heart-felt digital meals" as opposed to "factory-farmed fast food technology." This new wave of the internet/technology has made information so accessible. With access to information no longer restricted by pay walls, post secondary institutions or even fear of judgement, I think we would be hard pressed as a society to want to revert to exclusivity. Not all peoples value education in the same way. We as educators and scholars are accustomed to research and dedicating time to solving problems, the general public values timelines, so if reverting to a heart-felt digital era increases the time that it takes to complete their daily tasks, they will reject it.

While I think that it is important to foster hope and stand up for what we believe in, I am skeptical that small individual actions would be the best way to evoke change in this scenario. When up the obstacle you are up against is an industry comprised of some of the wealthiest people on the planet who's own agenda will take precedent, I think we have to tackle the issue accordingly. They will not listen to us as individuals but if we band together and bring our concerns to the appropriate authorities (though i'm not quite sure who that would be...), we will have more success working together.

Speaking as a creative, the unfortunate truth is that, staying independent and not giving in to the exploited internet practices is not the "right way to connect with an audience." Nowadays, because we (society) have become addicted and somewhat reliant to these platforms (social medias, AI chat bots, etc), in addition to the fact that they collect our data (voluntary or involuntarily) they are actually the perfect way to 'connect' with an audience. These platforms use highly sophisticated algorithms to push your content out to it's most ideal consumer, therefore, sometimes it is actually more beneficial to utilize these tools than merely survive by staying independent...from a marketing standpoint at least.