this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
331 points (91.3% liked)

politics

19340 readers
1800 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] K1nsey6 -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It was never about the votes, it was them not wanting to give up their fundraising cash cow by selling fear that republicans would take it away. Since they never acted when they had the chance, it was taken away.

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

Nice job not answering the question

[–] K1nsey6 -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Since RvW they had about 7 combined years to pass it when they had a supermajority.

[–] MegaUltraChicken 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority for a whopping 72 days and they passed the ACA and Patient Protection Plan.

[–] K1nsey6 -4 points 1 year ago

And during that same period they found the time to pass 161, mostly pointless, other laws. But nothing for the law Obama promised to sign day one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cool - you answered the question, gold star. Here's one more - in those 7 years, was there ever a call from the public to put RvW into law? I'll even settle for ONE call-to-action news article from that time period.

One nobody who wrote the sentence "they should make RvW into the law" while the dems had a supermajority and I'll say you have a point

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

I mean it would have been redundant up until the court decided that settled law didn't actually matter. When they had a supermajority row vs wade was a constitutionally protected right, there was no reason to spend the political capital on "settled law".

[–] K1nsey6 -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There were multiple calls from legislators with big promises to codify it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So... nothing again. Not one source

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Narrator: they never had the fucking chance.