this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
440 points (99.1% liked)

News

23432 readers
2359 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The legislation, which states that “protections for access to abortion rights ... should be supported," was blocked by Republicans who panned it as a "show vote."

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation led by Democrats to revive the protections of Roe v. Wade in the wake of the Supreme Court eliminating the nationwide right to abortion.

The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster due to broad opposition from Republicans, who dismissed it as a political stunt.

The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act, introduced last month around the second anniversary of the court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” after the 2022 ruling “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in* Roe v. Wade ...* should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 80 points 4 months ago (20 children)

But if you vote for Republicans this election they TOTALLY will Protect Abortion!

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Ah the old "political stunt" excuse thrown around EVERY TIME a politician does their job and engages in politics.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago

Everything is political. Likewise Everything is a political stunt.

Political stunts that remove the right to have an abortion are bad stunts. Political stunts that give the right to have an abortion are good stunts.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago

They get to have both arguments...

"If roe was so important then Congress should make a law."

"You're just making a law for show, so no you can't have it."

They're all fucking scumbags.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 months ago (6 children)

The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster

I know the filibuster has been nerfed down to sending an email that says "I filibuster this", but why don't they actually make them work for it?

[–] Chainweasel 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They're too old now, they don't have the energy to stand and talk for hours so they just "declare" the filibuster and go home for tapioca and Gold Bond.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

All the more reason to make them work for it. If they can't stand on and defend their principles, then they need to get out of the way and at least let things come up for a vote.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The filibuster should also require the person to stay on topic, so no reading "Green eggs and ham" to run out the clock unless the book is relevant to the legislation.

Or better yet, just ditch it because requiring a majority of two chambers and the presidents signature (or overwhelming support in both chambers) is a high enough bar to meet already.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago
[–] ExhaleSmile 11 points 4 months ago

Too old to do their job? American politicians?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The reasoning was that in the old style of filibuster no other senate business was possible. In theory was supposed to help the senate be more productive. In practice, it's made the filibuster even more powerful. If a party was holding up all legislation and other functions of the senate by grandstanding for something stupid, that could hurt them politically, especially if it got bad enough that the military was being impacted or there were government shutdowns. So maybe they would think twice if it was worth a filibuster. Now they can kind of do it risk free. I think if you saw, government shutdown caused by Republicans trying to prevent abortion protections, well it'd be pretty unpopular with most Americans. And they'd pay for it in the polls. Or maybe not even do the filibuster in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

That makes sense. Absolutely awful reasoning, but it makes sense.

Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or, you know, fucking get rid of it

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

Damn you, Joe Manchin.

[–] FlyingSquid 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The ultimate oxymoron. I should have realized I answered my own question already lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 months ago

And this right here is why nothing is getting done. Go vote and not just every 4 years, but in midterms too.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster

Another reason they should have ditched the filibuster when they had a chance.

[–] Pacattack57 4 points 4 months ago

My question is why were 7 votes missing?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 18_24_61_b_17_17_4 28 points 4 months ago

Never ends with these pieces of shit.

[–] Freefall 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It would be neat if they got a number of votes based on their population...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's what the house of representatives... represents.

Though California should be something like 3 states by now.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If all states were represented like Wyoming is, there would be 573 reps, not 435.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree. The presumption is that us City folk wouldn't properly protect rural interest. Which is fair. But doesn't mean they deserve equal power

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Rural people dont protect city interest either. Doesn't seem like an excuse to have one person worth more than another. We all have to live here.

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

Rural people are a minority. If we went 100% "just do what the majority wants" that doesn't ever work out for minorities. All minorities need protection, so there is sound intent in the design. It SHOULD work out that minority has a voice. But in practice it's pretty crappy. It needs reworked. Starting with gerrymandering.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Proportional representation gives the minority a vioce. What we have now gives the minority absolute power and 'tyrany of the minority' is not better than 'tyrany of the majority'. It was always about keeping landowners voices more powerful than other voices, and the side effect is less dense areas yield people who's votes count more.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

In the Senate (where this vote happened), every state gets two people regardless of population.

House of reps you get a number of reps based on population

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, that's the point. This was blocked by Senate Republicans, you know, where the votes do not align with population.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That is because the Senate is like the UN or other groups of (nation) states where each member has the equivalent number of votes. There is no reason to have a second chamber of congress if both are based on population.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

My first reaction was "Why wasn't this done when the decision was first leaked? Why wait 2 years?"

The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act [...] is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” [...] “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade ... should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

That's not the language of writing laws. It's completely vague and unenforceable. It really is just a political stunt for an election year.

Why is it so hard to make a real law to actually do this!?

[–] Blackbeard 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, that makes me feel a little better.

[–] Blackbeard 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
load more comments
view more: next ›