this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
543 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19149 readers
3694 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

the party that wants to turn women into forced breeders isn’t popular with the people they want to turn into forced breeders.

This isn't new policy though. Consider Kay Bailey Hutchinson's statements back in 2010

Dave Montgomery of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asked Hutchison if the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision should remain in effect. “What concerns me about that is that we would then have some states that would allow abortion as the baby is coming out of the birth canal,” Hutchison responded. “I would never support that. I have voted against it, and I would not want that to be the situation in any state in our country. And that is why I have stated that position.”

“So you would not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade?” asked KERA's Shelley Kofler.

“What I’m saying,” replied Hutchison as the crowd began to chuckle at her discomfort, “is you’re going to have abortion havens.”

This was a relatively liberal Republican who had taken office back when Texas a purple state, spouting the same nonsense Trump vomited up Tuesday night 14 years ago. A woman who ran 17 years early on

Her detractors are circulating an old clip from a debate during her first run at the Senate, in 1993. In it, she said, “I am very comfortable that Roe v. Wade is working very well.” Her position was that there should be no government intervention before viability (which she placed in "the six-month range") but that states should be allowed to establish “reasonable restrictions such as parental consent.”

Her 2010 shift did not cause women to jump ship for the Democratic Party. Far from it. Texas only got redder over the next decade.

I think a big part of that was people genuinely believing the lies that the GOP was churning out. Maybe they've simply lost their Sidam touch or maybe Americans are finally cracking wise to the bullshit, some 40 years after the War on Abortion really kicked off.

But you can't just hang your hat on "Women are being treated like chattle" because that's been the national norm for centuries. What's really changing is that women now seem more reluctant to fill that role than in prior eras.

[–] acosmichippo 2 points 2 months ago

This isn’t new policy though.

it's not a new 'policy' but Dobbs v. Jackson is definitely a new result. Their decades long plan of stacking the courts is finally paying off for them.