569
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
569 points (100.0% liked)
politics
20299 readers
3327 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democrats did this by refusing to codify decades ago.
I agree both major parties had a hand in this directly or indirectly. But only one has any chance of changing this for the better.
Which one, the one that directly revoked women's rights or the one that did nothing to prevent it from happening?
You don't seem to have a grasp on reality.
The reality is the DNC is nothing but lip service
And the RNC is a terrorist group trying to take over America. Lol
We have 3 Justices on the court because of *the party that did nothing." Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment at this point will "codify" abortion rights in the eyes of the right. We need to get SCOTUS back.
As if these zealots wouldn't have ruled it unconstitutional or slowly weakend it with a series of cases anyway. See recent decisions gutting Voting Rights Act, weakening the Clean Water Act, Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Dodd-Frank and other federal laws.
Look, republicans suck ass, it’s true. But if Dems had codified Roe into law either time they had the supermajority (two chances in the last 20 years), then the corrupt SC wouldn’t have been able to do jack shit. If dems had any integrity, they would shoulder a significant amount of the blame for this issue, because they had their chance and deemed it “not a priority.”
Sure, Dems absolutely should have codified it. However, a federal law protecting abortion rights as health care against the religious freedom of a regional Catholic hospital's beliefs not to save a mother's life with an abortion would be the test case and I'm pretty sure I know how 5 of the Justices would vote. This SCOTUS know they have unchecked power and are no longer afraid to wield it.
Would be interesting to see that play out fully. Here’s hoping we get the chance to do so in the next few years. Its so heartbreaking that so many women are suffering/dying because of these regressive policy positions.
I'll never, ever forget the very first thing Democrats did when Republicans successfully overturned Roe.
They sent out a mass text asking for $15 donations because of what had just happened.
They had that shit ready to go immediately. Maybe if they had put a fraction of that preparation into having legislation ready to go, they wouldn't have wasted their opportunities to protect Americans' rights.
But at least they did for the only thing that matters. Fundraising.
Well yeah, the decision was leaked early.
Republicans were trying to overturn Roe for half a century. Best Democrats were willing to do in response was to cynically regard it as a fundraising opportunity.
They had that text waiting to be sent for years. The story was hot off the press when I got mine begging for money
Turns out the party that does nothing and calls it incrementalism can move pretty quickly when they're panhandling.
So what I'm hearing is if Democrats had codified it, Republicans would have come along and got it struck down. But to fix the problem we need to elect more Democrats to get it codified?
No one else sees the circular reasoning behind this?
And if we have another 2016, Trump can appoint Thomas and Alito's successors, and maybe some more, with more Federalist Society hacks.
As a Canadian, I'd like to ask you a couple of things.
What exactly does it mean to codify something? Two, why can't the Federal Gov put out a set of standards and say, "If you want Federal money for your healthcare systems, you have to meet these standards. If you don't want to, that's fine, but in that case you get get nothing from us."
That's essentially how it works in Canada between our Federal gov and the Provinces, granted Canadian Provinces are less powerful than American states, but the power of the purse should still be the same, yes?
That’s how the minimum age for purchasing tobacco used to work in the US; if states wanted a specific chunk of federal funding, their minimum age had to be set to at least 18.
Yeah, Dems had this crazy idea that Republicans wouldn't just straight go against the will of most Americans. But it seems to be their MO now, so ya, more Dems would be better, because now we know we need to codidy everything because Republicans have no problem destroying the common man for a buck.
They knew it would eventually happen, that's why they kept promising to codify, and never did
Claiming you know what an entire group of peoples thoughts and morals, as well as declaring they knew the future is extremely stupid.
"The guy who did the arson isn't to blame, it's the firefighters for getting there too late"
If you really wanted to stop houses from burning down you'd build a fire house on every block and make the Dems pay for it.
It's the ones claiming to be firefighters
So it's not the arsonist who's to blame, it's the neighbor who shouted "look out! There's an arsonist!" But didn't physically tackle them?
It's Democrats pretending to be firefighters watching Republicans burn things while proclaiming someone should do something
And again, in this analogy you aren't blaming the Republicans who are literally burning things?
Woosh
You really do make a habit of being on the bottom with your terrible takes don't you
Decades ago, the parties were much different than today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Only one time in recent (2000+) memory did the Dems ever have the 60 votes necessary for codifying Roe. They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.
And that's not even touching on the differing public approval of abortion.
The ACA which should be noted was desperately needed at the time unlike Roe which was known to be at risk but not nearly as immediate.
I’m not happy Roe is dead. The fact is though that without a constitutional amendment Roe was always on borrowed time with the constant attacks on it, and I don’t believe that there is any time after the issuance of the bill of rights that an amendment protecting abortion would work, and in the form of the bill of rights it would’ve had to be a robust privacy amendment that just happened to protect abortion.
Up until the court decided to start ignoring centuries of legal tradition that is the bedrock of our legal system and threw out stare decisis the decision was actually more secure than a specific law.
Any law codifying it can be challenged on many grounds, especially the 10th amendment. It could easily have been struck down as unconstitutional because the federal government has no power to pass a law affecting this issue, since the constitution doesn't grant it.
Only a constitutional amendment would have been likely to survive a court willing to do what this one has done, and there is zero possibility the Democrats could have passed one.
Several members of Congress thought a law was good enough, Obama thought it was good enough when he promised to sign the freedom of choice act on day one in office. Then 3 months later said it was no longer a legislative priority.
It's a bold take to blame the side that failed to prevent something, rather than the side that actually did the thing.
When the side that failed to prevent something had the power to prevent it, they are to equally to blame
I mean, I am utterly befuddled at how you could reach that conclusion.
There is an old saying, 'see something, say something.' Democrats saw something and their only thought was turning it into a fundraising opportunity.
A lot of people were saying something. A conditional amendment would require 2/3rds of the house, when did the Democrats have 2/3rds of the house?
Nice goal post you got there
Sorry, are you upset I defined a goal of "what would be required" instead of your goal of "why didn't they do something that would have been literally impossible?"
I'm guessing that's in reference to your reply to someone else about messages going out asking for donations after the supreme court decision? That may be in poor taste, I'll grant you, bug doesn't change the fact that it still wasn't the democrats that made the decision in the first place.
If Person A punches Person B, and Person C could have stopped it, I would still blame Person A for throwing the punch.
Does that mean Republican representatives and senators are inherently useless?
They would have had to put it in the constitution.
Any congressional laws this supreme court would have declared unconstitutional.