this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
465 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19152 readers
2664 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years of prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion, medical and legal experts say the law is complicating decision-making around emergency pregnancy care.

Although the state law says termination of ectopic pregnancies is not considered abortion, the draconian penalties scare Texas doctors from treating those patients,

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Given that every Republican was against codification, it only takes having a few Democrats against it to block such a move. Even as a majority of Democrats were in favor, at no time was a majority of the Senate

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Then you make them vote and you primary the fuck out of them.

Funny how everyone in the senate seems to forget how to politic when it suits them.

[–] Ensign_Crab -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh stop making excuses for the Jim Crow Filibuster.

Democrats had the seats and just enough no votes. Because they ALWAYS find the no votes.

Children being forced to carry rapists' offspring to term was the price that they were delighted to pay to keep their procedural excuse for inaction.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not "making execuses" for it — I'm pointing out the reality that the votes to end it haven't been there, and how that happened.

[–] Ensign_Crab -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We gave Democrats the means to codify Roe.

They chose to save the filibuster instead. They always do and always will.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're lumping the whole group together, which isn't a good way to describe what happened when 50 Republicans wanted to block and somewhere around 3-5 Democrats out of 50 wanted to.

[–] Ensign_Crab -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Democrats expect greater lockstep than that from their voters.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you're mostly interested in trolling and blaming Democrats as a group rather than electing enough willing Democrats to actually change things.

[–] Ensign_Crab -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm done being lied to. There is no amount of Democrats that will change things. There are always just enough turncoats.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People said that repeatedly about climate. Then we passed the Inflation Reduction Act.

[–] Ensign_Crab 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People said that repeatedly about climate. Then we passed the Inflation Reduction Act.

Well, it's completely inadequate to the task at hand, so I fully expect centrists to coast on it forever like they did with the ACA.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We know it's not enough; but it's a large part of what we need. And that we got the the point of having enough votes is a big deal.

It didn't happen instantly though; we got steadly increasing numbers of votes over a several decade period, including examples where votes weren't held there wouldn't be enough to act.

[–] Ensign_Crab -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We know it’s not enough; but it’s a large part of what we need.

It's not even a small part, and it's the only part we're gonna get for decades, because Democrats love to coast on half-measures.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What we get is going to depend on who we elect. We can vote for more and better Democrats...or choose to elect people who want to maximize environmental damage.

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We can vote for more and better Democrats…

We can vote for more. The party opposes better more stridently than it opposes Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"the party" is elected too. You can change it much as a bunch of Sanders supporters went and got rules changed to make it easier to launch primary challenges.

[–] Ensign_Crab 1 points 3 months ago

And just look at how much easier that became.

Oh yeah, it fucking didn't.