The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Fergasun]

It shouldn't matter what I think about abortion. 

 

Just like it shouldn't matter what I think about people's use of contraceptives, sex life between two people who deserve privacy,  multi-racial relationships, the TV shows your watch or the religion that other people practice.  

 

That's why we have this issue or problem in the first place.  For some reason people have decided that "individual freedom" stops when a sperm fertilizes an egg inside a woman's body.  

 

I hate abortion, no one loves abortion.  But I value Constitutional freedom and individual freedom more.  We don't give out social security numbers to unborn, we can't claim them on our taxes, or get government id for them.  The government clearly treats the unborn as "not a person" until birth.  I even think that the viable life interest is somewhat BS as well.  

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I disagree with folks saying that it was a mistake not to try to get a 'compromise' bill through and instead try to get a big bill through. I think the reality is that the bill was doomed to fail no matter what, because the votes just weren't there regardless of what the bill said. I think pushing something to a vote knowing it will fail is incredibly important because there are still so many ignorant young folks on reddit screaming about "how the Dems do nothing" and are completely oblivious to the fact that the physically do not have the votes to get through the Senate. 

[Dan T.]

 

[The Evil Genius]

10 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I disagree with folks saying that it was a mistake not to try to get a 'compromise' bill through and instead try to get a big bill through. I think the reality is that the bill was doomed to fail no matter what, because the votes just weren't there regardless of what the bill said. I think pushing something to a vote knowing it will fail is incredibly important because there are still so many ignorant young folks on reddit screaming about "how the Dems do nothing" and are completely oblivious to the fact that the physically do not have the votes to get through the Senate. 

 

Agreed. Getting the votes in the open and on record was 100% important. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[philibusters]

5 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I disagree with folks saying that it was a mistake not to try to get a 'compromise' bill through and instead try to get a big bill through. I think the reality is that the bill was doomed to fail no matter what, because the votes just weren't there regardless of what the bill said. I think pushing something to a vote knowing it will fail is incredibly important because there are still so many ignorant young folks on reddit screaming about "how the Dems do nothing" and are completely oblivious to the fact that the physically do not have the votes to get through the Senate. 

 

I don't know the vote count, but the Senate is 50-50 and you have the tying vote.  If you can hold the party line you can pass a bill.  Given that the Democrats also control the House and the Presidency, it does seem like they could potentially pass an abortion protection bill.

 

In fact even the more ambituous bill they attempted only failed by 1 vote 49-51 with Joe Manchin being the Democrat who did not hold the party line.   If you went with a more moderate bill I think you could put more pressure on Manchin and a the couple Republican moderates.

 

I don't know the political situation well enough to know if a more moderate vote had a chance, but at least on first impression that does seem like a possibility which means maybe Democrats want to save the issue for the elections.

[The Evil Genius]

Fwiw I don't think Manchin cares either way about abortion. I think he wants his $'s and his coal guarantees. 

 

He's a ****ing waste of good air. 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

3 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

I don't know the vote count, but the Senate is 50-50 and you have the tying vote.  If you can hold the party line you can pass a bill.  Given that the Democrats also control the House and the Presidency, it does seem like they could potentially pass an abortion protection bill.

 

In fact even the more ambituous bill they attempted only failed by 1 vote 49-51 with Joe Manchin being the Democrat who did not hold the party line.   If you went with a more moderate bill I think you could put more pressure on Manchin and a the couple Republican moderates.

 

I don't know the political situation well enough to know if a more moderate vote had a chance, but at least on first impression that does seem like a possibility which means maybe Democrats want to save the issue for the elections.

I get what you're saying intellectually, but I just don't think it's right in practice. I can't recall a time in my life since I've followed politics where Republicans DIDN'T hold the party line. My political memory is full of things like watching Obamacare pass only because Dems had a super majority because Republicans voted no to a one, while Dems were all over. Basically, my baseline assumption is that Republicans vote the company line 100% of the time and Dems do not, likely because the Democratic platform is broader overall and encompasses many more political opinions. 

 

In this case, if Manchin has told you straight up he's not going to vote yes, no matter what, then the bill is dead on arrival. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of potentially poaching Republicans for this issue because it's just never going to happen. Even Republicans who might be outspokenly pro choice are not going to be the scapegoat that allowed the bill through.

[LD0506]

There are so many different threads this would work in today

 

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, philibusters said:

If you can hold the party line you can pass a bill. 

 

Kind of a funny misunderstanding considering your nickname, lol.

 

With respect to the voting exercise in vain, yes getting everyone's position on record was important.  But the on record position should've been something vast majority of Americans can clearly agree on.  States may not prohibit abortions in case of rape, incest, for health of mother or abortion prior to x weeks (pick something low).  Also, States may not criminalize, levy fines, or create private cause of actions based on receiving, assisting (including providing financial or transportation assistance to the patient or doctor) or performing abortions in a jurisdiction where the provided the performed procedure is legal under the laws of said jurisdiction.

 

That's a law you can use to hammer those who voted against as out of touch and out of step with the average American.  The dem version is full of holes where opponents can say I support the right to choose but this goes too far.  Now is not the time for that kind of a symbolic vote.

[88Comrade2000]

Dems have control in name only in the Senate. In reality the only have 48 seats as Sinema and Manchin will do everything to stop any Dem legislation.

Those 2 will be either independents or republicans after the election.

[The Evil Genius]

50 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Dems have control in name only in the Senate. In reality the only have 48 seats as Sinema and Manchin will do everything to stop any Dem legislation.

Those 2 will be either independents or republicans after the election.

 

I hate both Sinema and Manchin but they also vote 97.7% and 95.5% of the time with Biden and the Dems. 

[philibusters]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Kind of a funny misunderstanding considering your nickname, lol.

 

With respect to the voting exercise in vain, yes getting everyone's position on record was important.  But the on record position should've been something vast majority of Americans can clearly agree on.  States may not prohibit abortions in case of rape, incest, for health of mother or abortion prior to x weeks (pick something low).  Also, States may not criminalize, levy fines, or create private cause of actions based on receiving, assisting (including providing financial or transportation assistance to the patient or doctor) or performing abortions in a jurisdiction where the provided the performed procedure is legal under the laws of said jurisdiction.

 

That's a law you can use to hammer those who voted against as out of touch and out of step with the average American.  The dem version is full of holes where opponents can say I support the right to choose but this goes too far.  Now is not the time for that kind of a symbolic vote.

 

Yeah.  After reading up on it more, the reality is the Democrats are not 1 vote short, they are 11, so unless they change the Senate rules on the filibuster they are not getting any legislation on abortion.

[Renegade7]

I hate this thread, everytime I see it getting bumped I assume the news is getting worse...

[Fergasun]

It's more funny the same people who are intent on asking women to carry full term flipped their lids about getting COVID vaccines.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I disagree with folks saying that it was a mistake not to try to get a 'compromise' bill through and instead try to get a big bill through. I think the reality is that the bill was doomed to fail no matter what, because the votes just weren't there regardless of what the bill said. I think pushing something to a vote knowing it will fail is incredibly important because there are still so many ignorant young folks on reddit screaming about "how the Dems do nothing" and are completely oblivious to the fact that the physically do not have the votes to get through the Senate. 

but that’s the point. Push through the basic thing that’s supposed to get through, and make them answer for not supporting it in the midterms. 
 

by adding stuff and going further you gave them a built in response of “well I would have supported the basic one but the liberals went and all liberalized it so i couldn’t support it”

 

they were given the gift of the decade for midterms they’re being used yo mob the floor in. And they are and will continue to squander it 

28 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I hate this thread, everytime I see it getting bumped I assume the news is getting worse...

That’s because it is getting worse every time. 

[LadySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, philibusters said:

What are people's position on abortion.

 

I am probably in the compromise camp.  If I was dictator of the country I would probably legalize it through 15 weeks and then ban it thereafter except for some extraordinary circumstances.

 

It's not anyone's business when a woman chooses to have an abortion. As a woman who had one, I highly resent anyone telling me what I can and can't do with my body. That's what bodily autonomy is all about: freedom. Otherwise: forced birth is female slavery.

[LadySkinsFan]

3 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

I don't know the vote count, but the Senate is 50-50 and you have the tying vote.  If you can hold the party line you can pass a bill.  Given that the Democrats also control the House and the Presidency, it does seem like they could potentially pass an abortion protection bill.

 

In fact even the more ambituous bill they attempted only failed by 1 vote 49-51 with Joe Manchin being the Democrat who did not hold the party line.   If you went with a more moderate bill I think you could put more pressure on Manchin and a the couple Republican moderates.

 

I don't know the political situation well enough to know if a more moderate vote had a chance, but at least on first impression that does seem like a possibility which means maybe Democrats want to save the issue for the elections.

 

Moderate to ****ing who? They want a total ban on abortion even in cases of maternal health, rape, and incest. That's not a moderate position. 

[Die Hard]

You see the effects of America on its northern neighbor!?!?!

 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/duelling-protests-over-abortion-debate-take-over-downtown-ottawa

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

Incredible timing for this...

 

 

[bcl05]

41 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Incredible timing for this...

 

 

That should be awesome.  Those women are heroes.  

[gbear]

I wonder if that was a project they kept in their back pocket, like an evergreen news story that can be used when either the news is slow or events dictate.  This is the same network which brought us If These Walls Could Talk (more than once) to shine light on social issues.

[EmirOfShmo]

Just now, gbear said:

I wonder if that was a project they kept in their back pocket, like an evergreen news story that can be used when either the news is slow or events dictate.  This is the same network which brought us If These Walls Could Talk (more than once) to shine light on social issues.

I did some more reading - some people are speculating it was being done to coincide with the 50 year anniversary of R v W (January 22, 1973).

[Llevron]

23 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

I don't know the vote count, but the Senate is 50-50 and you have the tying vote.  If you can hold the party line you can pass a bill.  Given that the Democrats also control the House and the Presidency, it does seem like they could potentially pass an abortion protection bill.

 

In fact even the more ambituous bill they attempted only failed by 1 vote 49-51 with Joe Manchin being the Democrat who did not hold the party line.   If you went with a more moderate bill I think you could put more pressure on Manchin and a the couple Republican moderates.

 

I don't know the political situation well enough to know if a more moderate vote had a chance, but at least on first impression that does seem like a possibility which means maybe Democrats want to save the issue for the elections.

This doesn’t sound familiar to you at all? 

[gbear]

I would like to point out there was a very high profile vote during Trump's presidency to repeal the ACA.  There was a Republican senator who made a fairly big showing of refusing to toe the party line.  Of course, he is dead now.  RIP Maverick of the Senate.