this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2714 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
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Decades ago, the parties were much different than today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Only one time in recent (2000+) memory did the Dems ever have the 60 votes necessary for codifying Roe. They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.

And that's not even touching on the differing public approval of abortion.

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

They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.

The ACA was passed in March 2010. Obama took office more than a year earlier. The bill to codify Roe was written in 2003, all that it needed was a vote, which Pelosi refused.

Your revisionist history is wrong.

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

No revisionist history. Pelosi refused to bring it to the floor because she didn't have the votes. There's lots of stuff to criticize her on, but whipping and vote counting aren't that.

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

She refused a vote while SHE was speaker. And if you remember correctly it was Bill Clinton that signed DOMA with Pelosi as House leader which restricted our marriages.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago
Introduced in the House as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr (R–GA) on May 7, 1996.   
Committee consideration by House Judiciary.   
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (342–67).   
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (85–14).   
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.   

I don't know if you know this or not. I should hope you do, because it's a fundamental part of our democracy...but a presidents veto power is not absolute. Veto could be overridden with 2/3 vote in house and Senate, which they clearly had support for.

Yeah the house and Senate were (barely) dem controlled at the time...but Bill Clinton is clearly the wrong scapegoat for DOMA.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Right, if she didn't have the votes, she wouldn't bring it to the floor. Simple as that.

And bringing up DOMA, which was passed in 1996, at least get your facts straight. Republicans controlled the House when DOMA was passed. Pelosi was not the Democratic leader in the House then; that was Dick Gephart. Yes, Clinton signed it. However, there was much more public support for the bill then.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

The ACA which should be noted was desperately needed at the time unlike Roe which was known to be at risk but not nearly as immediate.

I’m not happy Roe is dead. The fact is though that without a constitutional amendment Roe was always on borrowed time with the constant attacks on it, and I don’t believe that there is any time after the issuance of the bill of rights that an amendment protecting abortion would work, and in the form of the bill of rights it would’ve had to be a robust privacy amendment that just happened to protect abortion.