3 ms·

>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe Yeah, that's true, but

>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests. Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.

mattnewton 4y ago
We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.
  - soco 4y ago
    Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either. Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?
  - beckingz 4y ago
    I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.
hellojesus 4y ago
Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment. Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.
- monocasa 4y ago
  The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see: """ hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37 https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37
    - monocasa 4y ago
      That spells it out pretty well. That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...

mattnewton 4y ago

We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.

entropicdrifter 4y ago
And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.
- soco 4y ago
  Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...
ceeplusplus 4y ago
As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either. Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?
- beckingz 4y ago
  I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.

hellojesus 4y ago

Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got. There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment. Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.

monocasa 4y ago
The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see: """ hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37 https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37
  - monocasa 4y ago
    That spells it out pretty well. That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...