4 ms·

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....
- RajT88 2y ago
  More and more clearly.
- Obscurity4340 2y ago
  Its asinine. Kamala outraised the shit out of Trump but it doesnt even freaking matter since there seems to be fundamental deficiencies in their overall approach or messaging or i dont know what the heck is going on anymore. Campaigns should be publicly funded and not be raising collosal amounts of money. Either side will get tons of free tv space on popular shows and podcasts to get the word out, why does a candidate need to raise billions of dollars? Totally messed up
computerthings 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15abortion.ht... > "the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUSN29466420/ https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-aborti... > "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies," Obama said.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EasyMark 2y ago
That's a popular misconception that has been shattered for well over a decade. That is nearly impossible with the filibuster, there was one slim window of 1 or 2 months in Obama's terms that they could have squeezed it in. Otherwise it's a fight to the death every time with the republicans in the Senate (filibuster)
- tpmoney 2y ago
  The problem is the filibuster is a choice of the senate. They can at any time decide to do away with it, it’s not law and not a law of nature. But they don’t because it serves their interests to be able to throw their hands up in the air and not even have to try to pass legislation.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    That's no something that is going to happen, -both- parties dearly love the filibuster, if it can just be done away with, against, precedence then it will become useless whenever a party gets the slimmest of majorities. I'm not sure how much longer it matters though, if this turns into a dictatorship

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....
RajT88 2y ago
More and more clearly.
Obscurity4340 2y ago
Its asinine. Kamala outraised the shit out of Trump but it doesnt even freaking matter since there seems to be fundamental deficiencies in their overall approach or messaging or i dont know what the heck is going on anymore. Campaigns should be publicly funded and not be raising collosal amounts of money. Either side will get tons of free tv space on popular shows and podcasts to get the word out, why does a candidate need to raise billions of dollars? Totally messed up

computerthings 2y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15abortion.ht... > "the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUSN29466420/ https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-aborti... > "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies," Obama said.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

EasyMark 2y ago

That's a popular misconception that has been shattered for well over a decade. That is nearly impossible with the filibuster, there was one slim window of 1 or 2 months in Obama's terms that they could have squeezed it in. Otherwise it's a fight to the death every time with the republicans in the Senate (filibuster)

tpmoney 2y ago
The problem is the filibuster is a choice of the senate. They can at any time decide to do away with it, it’s not law and not a law of nature. But they don’t because it serves their interests to be able to throw their hands up in the air and not even have to try to pass legislation.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  That's no something that is going to happen, -both- parties dearly love the filibuster, if it can just be done away with, against, precedence then it will become useless whenever a party gets the slimmest of majorities. I'm not sure how much longer it matters though, if this turns into a dictatorship