-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Politico: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
I must have heard a progressive R station, because they were suggesting plan b, something that can be taken within 1-2 months and iuds. But that's everything all these R states want to ban.
With a message so broad they may fool some of their own base that may otherwise get upset.
With a message so broad they may fool some of their own base that may otherwise get upset.
Christ, this is the "COVID only has a 1% mortality rate!" argument all over again, but like...way more fucked up.
You are probably right on this, but I'm having a feeling that they'll probably skew this in the favour of certain men and tell every other man to fuck off though. Still though, would be one way of appealing to men by keeping the votes to the Republican side.
"A vote for the Democrats means a woman can trap you and force you to pay for HER lifestyle "
Oh yeah that'd cause war.
Some of those men might not be aware when contingencies like Plan B are used. So yeah, this would likely lead to a new generation of regretful parents.
It was gross how he either tried to ignore, downplay or suggest it could be negotiated. Like mf, if it's only 1% than why no exceptions. They would rather force than allow.
And all these arguments are 90% against women when they preach about contraception. I think I've heard condom once in a week.
"They can abstain or take the pill." Wut?
I wouldn't put it past them to try and label pro-choice activists as a terrorist organization in the future.
The American Taliban is here.
Amazing how fast they can move when they feel like it.
I am furious and I've been furious all week. I'm angry when I wake up and I'm angry when I go to sleep.
And it won't even affect me as I had a hysterectomy years ago. All I can think of is how 5 religious extremist assholes have decided that my nieces have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.
The rapid descent into fascism isn't a big deal. People exercising their right to peaceful protest on the other hand? The greatest threat to American democracy in our lifetimes.
This is absolutely going to be used to harm even more innocent people and democrats are complicit.
So even Sanders and Warren voted for this? Disgusting. But politicians will always protect themselves.
Hope in the House at least the Squad vote against this crap.
Hope in the House at least the Squad vote against this crap.
because it's the only thing that might one day threaten their obscene wealth.
Just give a moment, they'll be in this thread pretty soon I imagine lol
I really don't think the House is going to vote against this. Increased security also doesn't mean you can't protest then. Reading the article it says it's making their security match the security senators get which honestly isn't crazy and I'm surprised wasn't already the case.
If this was on the other foot, every Republican would vote against extra security for a Democrat SCOTUS. It's why they fucking win.
When the ruling class needs action, it comes faster than light.
Oh, that will easily pass the House and Biden will sign it as soon as it arrives his deck. But that isn't the issue here.
Women will (most likely) lose a right. Meanwhile, Dems instead of trying to do their best to protect it, rush to protect the justices families. Justices who are doing their best to decide what women can do with their bodies, and will likely remove more rights to women, minorities and LGBTQ+ in the future. The message this send towards progressives and women is horrible to say the least.
This is why I'm disappointed Sanders and Warren voted for this.
This has been the case since the beginning of the country. They fear the left, that wants to make things better. They tolerate the right because the right oppresses the left.
No, unanimous consent means no one voiced dissent against it, there was no vote held at all. And why would they stop it? The bill is meaningless theater, it does not accomplish anything that can't already be done if the court wants it, fighting it would only get the party in a mess of trouble that would probably be a significant factor in driving away relatively apathetic Democratic voters in November.
I get how it could be viewed that way but I think this is a nothing bill that honestly should've happened sooner anyways. So they get to look like they aren't for attacking the justices while also giving basic protection to both conservative and liberal justices who I want to have that protection. What objection would you want them to raise to this bill?
No one voted for it. Unanimous consent means no vote needed to be held, as no one objected to the bill passing.
Well, that's me, but I don't believe family members should receive protection paid using money from taxpayers. Regardless of party affiliation.
Learned something new today. Thought that unanimous meant everyone voted for this.
oh man self indulgent and theatrical bipartisan bills to protect judges families hahaha
sorry Americans you're fucked there's no help coming
entire political system has already conceded the non-existent threats and violence being done to judges is the problem to be solved.
sorry Americans you're fucked there's no help coming
entire political system has already conceded the non-existent threats and violence being done to judges is the problem to be solved.
Last edited:
It's a concept in the Senate known as "unanimous consent", which means that the Senate can basically do anything, Senate rules be damned, so long as no one physically present in the Senate chamber at that exact moment voices an objection. (It's also part of the core mechanism by which the filibuster operates.)
It's typically used for trivial things like naming post offices, but it can also potentially be used in cases to avoid responsibility for legislation. Imagine people actually get organized and make it known to Senators that anyone who supported this bullshit was going to get non-stop screaming in their faces for the rest of their lives. The moment that starts to happen, pretty much any senator not captured on video on the floor of the Senate at the time of the legislation will start saying "Well, I certainly didn't vote for that! I wasn't present at the time, if I was I would have objected!"
Hard to argue against this tbh.
Nothing is being done and nothing will be done.
You can argue it's not Biden's fault, but Biden's presidency will probably best be remembered as a stop-gap before the country truly completely falls apart.
I think it's important not to abandon any useful tools in this fight. I agree we should be careful not to stigmatize abortion. But let's not abandon emotional appeals and turn solely to high-minded language about women not being property, some people simply refuse to make the connection. We need independents on our side to overcome conservative resistance.
Psaki's probably on her side of the screen thinking "yeah, so what?"
Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election but one in the past 34 years. The Senate gives the Dakotas twice as many Senators as California. It's not that Democrats are ineffectual (they are) but the system is rigged.
Abortion Ruling: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
John Oliver discusses the leaked draft opinion that looks set to overturn Roe v. Wade, how we got to this point, and where we may be headed.Connect with Last...www.youtube.com
Even he said he couldn't defend our undemocratic system. Nice callout to those of us who keep trying to remind people the fundamental issue is we have a tyranny of the minority. I'm not sure how we fix it, but it can't hurt to at least wake people up to the fact. We've expanded the right to vote before, we could do it again.
It's been explained to death in this topic. The same people can't/don't want to understand. It's fucking infuriating.
They're not useful tools, they're retreats. "But what about rape victims?" is running away from the concept of abortion rights and instead suggesting that, well, sure, there are some people who should not have the right to bodily autonomy, in fact probably most people, but definitely not all people.
The entire thing of how people got onto those is because they think charging Republicans with being hypocrites is at all useful in spite of decades of evidence to the contrary. The entire ploy is hoping to create a thin wedge in the form of rape/incest exceptions and then going "ho ho, this proves your hypocrisy! if this was genuinely about considering fertilized embryos to being human beings you wouldn't have the exceptions!" It's not effective, it's never been effective, and it needs to be retired in favor of full-throated defense of an act of basic health care.
He has to be challenged and defeated in the 2024 primary. He is not the leader we need right now. Either assert the will of the majority who elected you or stand down and get out of the way.
If the Democratic party thinks Biden can beat Trump again with the way things are now then this country is lost.