“The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Fulks said.

Biden has been poised to run on what has been described as the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate as he and his allies look to notch a victory in the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Last month, Biden seized on a case in Texas, where a woman, Kate Cox, was denied an abortion despite the risk to her life posed by her pregnancy.

“No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said of the case. “But that is exactly what happened in Texas thanks to Republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. This should never happen in America, period.”

75 points

Party spent decades not codifying it…

Didn’t fight for Obama’s SC seat, just accepted that the next president would pick it to try and help Clinton…

Took no actions since Roe was overturned…

But we’re supposed to believe next term it’ll be fixed?

They haven’t even held a vote yet so voters will know what Dems are going to vote against it.

Why would anyone take Bidens word on this? Isn’t the safe bet to assume the same thing will happen as the last campaign promises? Meaning as soon as he assumes office Biden will either “look into it” or he’ll say there’s not enough D votes so he can’t try.

And the voters still won’t know if their representatives would actually support party platform.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Please identify the Congressional term that had a pro-choice majority that could have passed federal abortion protections but did not. Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.

No one who’s complained about the Dems apparently just deciding to miss what would be one of their greatest political victories for shits and giggles has ever been able to identify when this would have actually passed, but hey, maybe you’ll be the first one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

And several of those Senators in that supermajority were against abortion rights. I can name them if you actually care.

Mate, I literally warned you against this. Two of those Senators were from god damned Arkansas, one from Indiana, and one from Louisiana. This was not the Democratic Party of the 2020s. Several of them voted for a federal ban on late-term abortions and bans for the use of any federal funding for abortions. Our good friend Joe Manchin was also in that majority.

Please though, do try again. You seemed very confident that this pro-abortion majority definitely existed, so I’ll wait.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Man if only there was some other piece of legislation they got passed during that 2 months… Maybe the largest healthcare overhaul in generations?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.

“Before you criticise our dear leaders, take into account the anti-choice people who the leadership actively supported and promoted!”

Every time a conservative democrat runs against a progressive or even a further left liberal, DNC leadership supports the conservative.

The last anti-choice Dem representative, Henry Cuellar, was losing to pro-choice progressive Jessica Cisneros until Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn endorsed him and personally showed up to speak at his rallies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

You’re just obfuscating. Don’t you see? There’s nothing the Democrats could have done!

But elect Biden and he will codify Roe.

Democrats are some dumb mother fuckers lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If they are that bad at governing they have no business getting reelected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe this is not a message for people who vote D, after all what you gonna do, vote for the R lunatics?. Maybe it is for moderate republicans, specially women, that got fucked and now may be looking for an alternative, so Biden spelling it out may give enough incentive for some to vote D.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

What good would codifying Roe have done?

Edit: perhaps I should be more specific: what good would attempting to codify Roe have done?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The attempt would have allowed the voting base to identify who voted “nay,” and vote them out. Even if the bill fails, if people scream the names of the representatives and senators that prevented it from passing, well those people would be primaried. That’s why they won’t even hold a vote on something that should be as simple as:

US statute XXXX: All people in the US have the right to reproductive healthcare. No medically approved procedure, treatment, or medicine shall be banned.

Done.

They won’t because so much of the country is sick and fucking tired of this issue red herring that anyone that votes against it is very likely to be primaried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’ve seen similar arguments for other cases. If Dems do it and not all Dems vote for it, the anti-Dem left says “all Dems are at fault and they’re doing nothing”. If Dems are united behind it but Republicans block it, then it’s “Dems knew the GOP would block it, and they’re doing nothing”. If Dems do it and it passes, but then the courts block it, then it’s “they knew the courts would block it and they’re still doing nothing”. If the Dems do it and it passes, then it’s “that wasn’t important compared to 15 other issues, and they’re still doing nothing”.

It’s a Hobson’s Choice.

If what you want is a list of names, then you can do that without them calling a vote. Go to your representative’s town hall events and ask them their position. If you don’t like their answer, find a primary opponent. Doubly so if you live in a gerrymandered district where Dems will always win (the mathematics of gerrymandering is that you give your opponent safe districts, but fewer than your side has). The Tea Party figured out this formula and it’s one thing the left ought to learn from them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

Codify would have meant drawing it up and adding it to the constitution as a human right. An amendment. The Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional, but if it is in the amendment, it is what the SC would rule as acceptable. (Not saying it always appears that way these days)

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

You should look into what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution. Barring civil war, aliens landing on the whitehouse lawn, or similar galvanizing incident, I’m doubtful the US will be unified enough to be capable of passing an amendment to the constitution on ANY topic for ANY purpose during the lifetime of anyone reading this comment, and I’m doubtful we could have done so within at least the past 20 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That would never pass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Codify means laws, generally not amendments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Abortion rights are super fucking important, but frankly, I’ll just settle for “not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, which the Democrats are basically world champions at.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

He’s working really fucking hard at ensuring his defeat with Netanyahu’s help. I’d be disgusted with his self-sabotage even if I didn’t care about Palestinians.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Literally the only way he could try and lose more voters is to go full beto and tell Americans hes coming for their guns. You can be mad at the fact, but if you deny that that would lose him votes you’re delusional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If the Democrats could STFU about guns and actually start addressing systemic injustices, abortion rights, the right to repair, they’d crush the Republican party into the dirt while also reducing shootings and taking back ground lost to Reaganism.

But they won’t, because that’s not what the “donors” actually want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

The minute he gets elected “whoops I forgot I can’t do shit without the Senate. Sorry everybody”

permalink
report
reply
29 points
*

I mean, his administration has done lots of things within their power to help protect reproductive rights. You’re not wrong they’d need the senate to codify roe v wade or even be able to get a judge on the supreme court. They’d probably need to end the filibuster to get it through too.

Here’s a summary of some of the executive actions they have taken. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html

His administration has also launched multiple lawsuits across the country trying to protect abortion rights, and defended against Republican lawsuits trying to restrict them further. Having all these federal agencies making rules and regulations trying to support rather than restrict reproductive rights is still important.

So you’re right that he can’t codify roe v wade nationally without senate and house control as well as getting rid of the filibuster or some miracle cooperation by republicans. But all of the executive actions, the resources of the justice department, etc could be used to attack reproductive rights rather than defend them if a republican were to be elected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I’d argue he may even have gone beyond his power. While I wish he could have done more, an awful lot of what he completed is through executive decision, despite Congress. It seems like he’s had to go way beyond the norm for us as a democracy (while avoiding the craziness on the Trump regime). I only hope he hasn’t planted the seeds to increase authoritarianism, for whenever in the future someone I disagree with inevitably gets elected

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

Sounds like a whole lot of “fuck all” then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Well it won’t feel like “fuck all” when a Republican led FDA revokes authorizations for abortion medications, morning after pills, or maybe even birth control across the country, even in states where it’s legal. Or sends federal law enforcement after doctors and others providing mail order abortion services. Or starts trying to withhold funding from states that supplement Medicaid to cover abortions. Or sues states trying to protect health information from anti abortion and anti trans states who want it to harass them. I mean the list of horrible possibilities goes on. The executive department can’t do everything on its own, congress has the most power, but it is still important on its own. Not to mention needing a president friendly to reproductive rights to sign any bill that manages to get passed, or veto any unfavorable bills.

But seriously, save at least a little vitreol for the political party actively working to restrict reproductive Healthcare rights. If even a handful of Republican members of congress, a single digit percentage, were in favor of protecting reproductive rights, this would all be over yesterday. By all means though primary the crap out of any democrat not strongly supporting reproductive rights enough or not supporting overturning the filibuster to do so, I know I will.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

The right says that banning guns and drugs would not help as they would be on the black market. I wonder when they would come to realize the same situation with abortion.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

It feels so much like Biden is fucking with us… There’s a whole year left in this term!! You think i don’t see this? You think we’re actually that stupid? I want to at least be lied to less obviously!

God what a slap in the face

permalink
report
reply
22 points

I mean, what’s he supposed to do right now? Republicans still control both houses of congress (or, at least, hold enough seats to render both houses impotent). The upcoming congressional elections matter as much as (or potentially more than) the presidential election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And next term, when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, he also won’t be able to do anything about abortion.

This is why I’ve stopped believing presidential candidates when they say they’re gonna do things. They’re one branch of government, so there’s only so much they could possibly do, and even that will take years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

He had zero issues going around Congress to “sell” weapons to Israel to be used in an o going genocide…

Bonus points:

They “bought” the weapons with American taxpayers money after Biden had just given it to them.

Why can Biden go around Congress for that, but not for what would help Americans?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Because the president can’t create a constitutional amendment. They are not a member of the legislative branch. He can provide emergency military support, being the leader of the executive branch (head of the military)

I don’t agree with what he did, but it is under his perview apparently. Much like he can send our troops to fight for ~90 days before needing congressional approval. Essentially creating a situation that you are already in a war by the time congress can say no

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Hes supposed to encourage a floor vote so we can at least find out whos not supporting this and vote them out of congress. But were gonna go into the election without knowing anyone stance, so politicians of both parties can simply claim anything since theres no record.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The leader of each house is Republican, and they control what comes up for a vote. He can encourage all he wants, he has no say in the matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

what’s he supposed to do right now?

There’s a lot of cases during his presidency where he could do something within his power as president, and go around Congress.

He has shown he has the willpower to do so when he wants to, just not for things i want. There are many things unrelated to this specific case where it has played out that way.

To me, a dumb working stiff, it sure seems like he won’t use his power to help people like me. So he and you will have to excuse me on this case, where he may not even have the power (as you said), for not trusting him when he promises me something he knows i want without even promising that he will succeed.

It is just too cynically timed, and I’ve heard this one before

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

There’s a lot of cases during his presidency where he could do something within his power as president, and go around Congress.

Then fuck him for not doing that in his first term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

And that’s precisely what makes this so fucking meaningless. What’s he able to do in his second term for abortion rights he couldn’t in his first? Neither answer is a good look.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 477K

    Comments