6 ms·

> Women's healthcare Further, the democrats have been in power for 12/16 years, and multiple years controlling all 3 houses. They did nothing to help with Wome

by screye 2y ago

> Women's healthcare Further, the democrats have been in power for 12/16 years, and multiple years controlling all 3 houses. They did nothing to help with Women's healthcare. I have followed the issue closely, and I still don't understand what they Dems were going to do to keep abortion legal. If it's a state issue, how would the President change anything ? If it's national issue, why haven't they already done anything ?

tzs 2y ago
> I have followed the issue closely, and I still don't understand what they Dems were going to do to keep abortion legal. If it's a state issue, how would the President change anything ? If it's national issue, why haven't they already done anything ? They could pass a national law that protects a right to travel to other states for an abortion if your state bans them.
- nickelcitymario 2y ago
  So why didn’t they?
  - _ph_ 2y ago
    Because they didn't have a majority in the last two years.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    Do you live in the US? The first half of the Biden administration was hamstrung by Manchin, Sinema, and the Republicans. The Democrats had nominal control of the presidency and legislature but faced implacable resistance from the Republicans and these two nominally Democratic senators. Until the recent Supreme Court decision the US hasn't had a king.
    - lokar 2y ago
      And Manchin had no real chance of reelection anyway.
- hibikir 2y ago
  With the existence of the Senate filibuster, passing laws is very difficult even when you win. There are entire topics where significant reform is basically impossible, from anyone. This is why America's supreme court is so important: One can argue that most federal level changes in the last 8 years cane from the court just changing their mind on what used to be settled precedent.
  - lokar 2y ago
    I expect they will end the filibuster
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    The filibuster has existed for a long time and yet Congress was still able to pass laws. I don’t give them a free pass for this, they need to learn to work together with the other party like we did in the past.
Meloniko 2y ago
Obama wanted to do that but couldn't
anthonybsd 2y ago
>Further, the democrats have been in power for 12/16 years, and multiple years controlling all 3 houses. When was this exactly? The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare.
- me_me_me 2y ago
  ah obama, the good old stable days.
- cbsks 2y ago
  And they had a hell of a time getting it passed, too. There’s no way it would have gone through if it included a hot ticket item like abortion rights.
  - dccoolgai 2y ago
    The "Stupak amendment" was exactly that. There were a group of Dems who wanted concessions on federal funding that were holding out until that amendment went in the bill.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    That something I find that the left/liberals/progressives doesnt get. The democrat party is not progressive. If they ever have 60 seats in the senate they will fracture and argue with the progressives elements. Most of the democrat party’s constituents are conservative, religious. Most of the minorities they take for granted are not onboard with nonbinary identities, or anything to do with fetus elimination. They just are afraid of republicans for one reason or another.
- lmm 2y ago
  > The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare. Was it? From a foreign perspective it doesn't seem to have changed the conversation around US healthcare at all.
Obscurity4340 2y ago
Isn't it true that Roe should have been codified long ago? I wonder why that never happen like it did in Canada after Morgentaler
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Because it was a critical fundraising topic for decades (on both sides, to be fair). I don't exactly know how much of national politics is optimizing for fundraising rather than for making citizens' lives better, but it's clearly far too great.
  - johndhi 2y ago
    Woah this is a very interesting point
    - shlant 2y ago
      conspiracies are not "very interesting point[s]" The reality is that: 1. Abortion has always been one of the most divisive topics in the US 2. Roe vs. Wade to begin with was a very shaky legal hodgepodge based around right to privacy 3. Codifying something like that takes immense political might and public approval neither of which existed in a significant capacity
      - lokar 2y ago
        It’s not that divisive outside the political class. 60+% majorities have supported abortion as a right until near the end of the second trimester, and for the health of the mother after that (for 30+ years).
        0xBDB 2y ago
        That is not the case. Support drops well below a majority after the first trimester, and always has. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx#:~:text=Support%20for%20Abortion%20Rights%20Varies,and%2022%25%20for%20the%20third https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion....
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
I mean.. it is technically not inaccurate, but it fails to account for the remaining portion of the balance of power. That said, there were very few moments, where a given party had house, senate and presidency at the same time. And most of those moments were divided almost evenly in half so breaking ranks had a big effect. I think what I am saying it is a tired talking point.
EasyMark 2y ago
Controlling the house doesn't mean anything. Any minority easily control legislation with the ability of an easy filibuster. You seem to forget trump was in for 4 years as well with many split Congresses. You can't blame democrats for all the bad things for that period when one party (minority at times) is actively working for the 1%
Brybry 2y ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined... The 111th Congress was the only time in the last 20 years Democrats had a filibuster-proof trifecta and that was for 72 days. [1] That was the government that gave us the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. The other Democrat trifecta was the 117th Congress[2] but if you look that's only with independents in the Senate that caucused with Democrats. Obviously also not filibuster proof. That's the government that gave us the CHIPS act. Think about how often parties are in power and they can't even fill appointed positions because of partisan opposition during confirmation, let alone pass legislation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress
- jampekka 2y ago
  > That was the government that gave us the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. Aka Romneycare, originally put forth by the Heritage Foundation. If that's the best Democrats can do, no wonder people aren't too optimistic about them.
  - lokar 2y ago
    The ACA is not ideal, but is the line between life and death for millions of Americans.
  - soco 2y ago
    If people were logical like you suggest, they wouldn't vote for an even worse situation. Yet they constantly do, so I'm sorry I cannot accept "logic" as a reason for the latest vote. People voted something, they got something, and they will get something back (where all those somethings aren't even important for elections). No, I'm not sarcastic, also not joking. Campaign and vote looked as seen from here absolutely bonkers.
    - jampekka 2y ago
thereddaikon 2y ago
The same reason the GOP didn't do anything about the border or gun rights when they had the chance. Why solve an issue when you can use it to get people to vote in the next election? Its a gamification of government. They are more concerned with keeping their jobs than governing.
- blindriver 2y ago
  Trump had the Wait in Mexico policy which was great. GOP never promised anything on gun rights, but Trump single-handedly banned bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre which is more than Obama ever side on gun control.
  - lokar 2y ago
    And then his judges reversed the ban
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      I think a gun ban in the US is going to require a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. Anything else is, at best, temporary.
      - lokar 2y ago
        No need. Just appoint ideological judges with no respect for precedent (that they disagree with).
throwaway2037 2y ago
> They did nothing to help with Women's healthcare. What about Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act)? I think that helped many women secure healthcare, which is incredibly important during pregnancy, childbirth, and early childhood. > keep abortion legal As I understand, after the US Supreme Court cancelled (I don't know the correct term) protection abortion rights, many states automatically banned it (via "trigger" laws.) However, I read that many women are using video calls with out-of-state doctors to get prescriptions for (chemical) abortion pills. I wish I had more hard numbers on it, but the number of abortions has not fallen as much as people thought. Also, depending upon your income level and proximity to a neighboring state that still allows traditional (surgical) abortion, many women drive to the next state for the procedure.

by screye 2y ago

tzs 2y ago

> I have followed the issue closely, and I still don't understand what they Dems were going to do to keep abortion legal. If it's a state issue, how would the President change anything ? If it's national issue, why haven't they already done anything ? They could pass a national law that protects a right to travel to other states for an abortion if your state bans them.

nickelcitymario 2y ago
So why didn’t they?
- _ph_ 2y ago
  Because they didn't have a majority in the last two years.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  Do you live in the US? The first half of the Biden administration was hamstrung by Manchin, Sinema, and the Republicans. The Democrats had nominal control of the presidency and legislature but faced implacable resistance from the Republicans and these two nominally Democratic senators. Until the recent Supreme Court decision the US hasn't had a king.
  - lokar 2y ago
    And Manchin had no real chance of reelection anyway.
hibikir 2y ago
With the existence of the Senate filibuster, passing laws is very difficult even when you win. There are entire topics where significant reform is basically impossible, from anyone. This is why America's supreme court is so important: One can argue that most federal level changes in the last 8 years cane from the court just changing their mind on what used to be settled precedent.
- lokar 2y ago
  I expect they will end the filibuster
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  The filibuster has existed for a long time and yet Congress was still able to pass laws. I don’t give them a free pass for this, they need to learn to work together with the other party like we did in the past.

Meloniko 2y ago

Obama wanted to do that but couldn't

anthonybsd 2y ago

>Further, the democrats have been in power for 12/16 years, and multiple years controlling all 3 houses. When was this exactly? The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare.

me_me_me 2y ago
ah obama, the good old stable days.
cbsks 2y ago
And they had a hell of a time getting it passed, too. There’s no way it would have gone through if it included a hot ticket item like abortion rights.
- dccoolgai 2y ago
  The "Stupak amendment" was exactly that. There were a group of Dems who wanted concessions on federal funding that were holding out until that amendment went in the bill.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  That something I find that the left/liberals/progressives doesnt get. The democrat party is not progressive. If they ever have 60 seats in the senate they will fracture and argue with the progressives elements. Most of the democrat party’s constituents are conservative, religious. Most of the minorities they take for granted are not onboard with nonbinary identities, or anything to do with fetus elimination. They just are afraid of republicans for one reason or another.
lmm 2y ago
> The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare. Was it? From a foreign perspective it doesn't seem to have changed the conversation around US healthcare at all.

Obscurity4340 2y ago

Isn't it true that Roe should have been codified long ago? I wonder why that never happen like it did in Canada after Morgentaler

sokoloff 2y ago
Because it was a critical fundraising topic for decades (on both sides, to be fair). I don't exactly know how much of national politics is optimizing for fundraising rather than for making citizens' lives better, but it's clearly far too great.
- johndhi 2y ago
  Woah this is a very interesting point
  - shlant 2y ago
    conspiracies are not "very interesting point[s]" The reality is that: 1. Abortion has always been one of the most divisive topics in the US 2. Roe vs. Wade to begin with was a very shaky legal hodgepodge based around right to privacy 3. Codifying something like that takes immense political might and public approval neither of which existed in a significant capacity
    - lokar 2y ago
      It’s not that divisive outside the political class. 60+% majorities have supported abortion as a right until near the end of the second trimester, and for the health of the mother after that (for 30+ years).
      - 0xBDB 2y ago
        That is not the case. Support drops well below a majority after the first trimester, and always has. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx#:~:text=Support%20for%20Abortion%20Rights%20Varies,and%2022%25%20for%20the%20third https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion....

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

I mean.. it is technically not inaccurate, but it fails to account for the remaining portion of the balance of power. That said, there were very few moments, where a given party had house, senate and presidency at the same time. And most of those moments were divided almost evenly in half so breaking ranks had a big effect. I think what I am saying it is a tired talking point.

EasyMark 2y ago

Controlling the house doesn't mean anything. Any minority easily control legislation with the ability of an easy filibuster. You seem to forget trump was in for 4 years as well with many split Congresses. You can't blame democrats for all the bad things for that period when one party (minority at times) is actively working for the 1%

Brybry 2y ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined... The 111th Congress was the only time in the last 20 years Democrats had a filibuster-proof trifecta and that was for 72 days. [1] That was the government that gave us the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. The other Democrat trifecta was the 117th Congress[2] but if you look that's only with independents in the Senate that caucused with Democrats. Obviously also not filibuster proof. That's the government that gave us the CHIPS act. Think about how often parties are in power and they can't even fill appointed positions because of partisan opposition during confirmation, let alone pass legislation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress

jampekka 2y ago
> That was the government that gave us the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. Aka Romneycare, originally put forth by the Heritage Foundation. If that's the best Democrats can do, no wonder people aren't too optimistic about them.
- lokar 2y ago
  The ACA is not ideal, but is the line between life and death for millions of Americans.
- soco 2y ago
  If people were logical like you suggest, they wouldn't vote for an even worse situation. Yet they constantly do, so I'm sorry I cannot accept "logic" as a reason for the latest vote. People voted something, they got something, and they will get something back (where all those somethings aren't even important for elections). No, I'm not sarcastic, also not joking. Campaign and vote looked as seen from here absolutely bonkers.
  - jampekka 2y ago

thereddaikon 2y ago

The same reason the GOP didn't do anything about the border or gun rights when they had the chance. Why solve an issue when you can use it to get people to vote in the next election? Its a gamification of government. They are more concerned with keeping their jobs than governing.

blindriver 2y ago
Trump had the Wait in Mexico policy which was great. GOP never promised anything on gun rights, but Trump single-handedly banned bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre which is more than Obama ever side on gun control.
- lokar 2y ago
  And then his judges reversed the ban
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I think a gun ban in the US is going to require a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. Anything else is, at best, temporary.
    - lokar 2y ago
      No need. Just appoint ideological judges with no respect for precedent (that they disagree with).

throwaway2037 2y ago

> They did nothing to help with Women's healthcare. What about Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act)? I think that helped many women secure healthcare, which is incredibly important during pregnancy, childbirth, and early childhood. > keep abortion legal As I understand, after the US Supreme Court cancelled (I don't know the correct term) protection abortion rights, many states automatically banned it (via "trigger" laws.) However, I read that many women are using video calls with out-of-state doctors to get prescriptions for (chemical) abortion pills. I wish I had more hard numbers on it, but the number of abortions has not fallen as much as people thought. Also, depending upon your income level and proximity to a neighboring state that still allows traditional (surgical) abortion, many women drive to the next state for the procedure.