• Myxomatosis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’m a nurse and there is no amount of money you could possibly pay me to work in Texas again. That entire state is hostile towards healthcare workers.

  • SpaceBishop@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Democrats did this by not codifying

    This kind of gaslighting should not be tolerated. Everyone take a moment and block that troll.

    That’s like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn’t put cages over the glass. Reproductive rights were protected by 50 years of precedent. Roe was established case law for decades and was overturned by a court that rejected how the judicial branch was working and has worked for centuries by ignoring precedent, accepting a case on weak standing to challenge it, and arguing that the established case law was wrong on shakey arguments.

    Don’t let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.

    • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      3 hours ago

      How can you simultaneously claim that abortion was protected only by precedent, yet the democrats did everything in their power to preserve it?

      • SpaceBishop@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Oh you’re trying so hard to build a strawman! How adorable.

        Roe was established case law. Reproductive rights were settled. Blaming Democrats when the actions of Republicans baselessly dismissed it is moronic.

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            You may wish to observe that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives, meaning the Democratic Caucus lacks the votes to reinstate it.

            • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              3 hours ago

              And, in states with Democratic majorities, they are codifying it at the state level. Sucks for the rest of us, though. I’m moving out of one of them for many reasons, but one important one is for my children.

              • kofe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Lots of red states are pushing for a vote on it and passing, too. It’s wild seeing “vote no on amendment 3” signs here in Missouri as if it’s not just advertising for the majority of us to show up and shut these chucklefucks up. I’m hoping that’s how it’ll go anyway 😓

                • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  Crossing my fingers for you! I’m hoping that Harris and certain single issue referenda (like marijuana) will bring people to the polls and while they’re there, they’ll vote for women’s rights.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                54 minutes ago

                IDK how that would possibly happen with Manchin and Sinema in there. It seems easier to pass a federal law.

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Logically, the answer would have to be that Democrats lack the power to preserve it. Which happens to be true because:

        1. Ordinary legislation would not be sufficient to overturn state laws regarding abortion due to the 10th Amendment, and even if it was the 2/3 Republican court would overturn it anyway.
        2. A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 majority that Democrats will not have in this lifetime.
        • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 hour ago

          And so why weren’t the courts getting stacked the moment Biden took office?

          • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            37 minutes ago

            Two reasons:

            1. Ethics
            2. The GOP engaged in a campaign of doing everything, fair and foul, to prevent or at least slow this from happening.
  • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I think a lot of people forget the automatic abortion bans specifically set up for the overturning of Roe v Wade. Republicans have wanted this for over 50 years. It’s like pointing a remote control rocket launcher at your neighbor’s house and then lobbying to get rocket launcher related domestic terrorisms legalized. Okay, maybe a bit extreme, but still your pregnant neighbor dies with an unborn child in either case, so…

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      If you know that, so do Democrats. Yet they did nothing to protect it.

      Obama: “Protecting Roe is not a priority.”

      • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I mean ig, big blunder on their part for sure, but not exactly the people who are murdering women by banning emergency abortions so what’s your point

  • DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Conservatives did this. Trump was the tool they used, but this would have happened under Jeb! or any other Republican president as well.

    Don’t let the rest of the party off the hook. They all own this.

  • _bcron_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Amber Thurmond should still be alive. And there are a lot of people who should still be alive, and I certainly wish that she was. - JD Vance at the debate

    We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us. - Also JD Vance at the debate

    Not hard to connect these dots JD

    • dcpDarkMatter@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Decades ago, the parties were much different than today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Only one time in recent (2000+) memory did the Dems ever have the 60 votes necessary for codifying Roe. They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.

      And that’s not even touching on the differing public approval of abortion.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        32 minutes ago

        The ACA which should be noted was desperately needed at the time unlike Roe which was known to be at risk but not nearly as immediate.

        I’m not happy Roe is dead. The fact is though that without a constitutional amendment Roe was always on borrowed time with the constant attacks on it, and I don’t believe that there is any time after the issuance of the bill of rights that an amendment protecting abortion would work, and in the form of the bill of rights it would’ve had to be a robust privacy amendment that just happened to protect abortion.

    • BajaTacos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      As if these zealots wouldn’t have ruled it unconstitutional or slowly weakend it with a series of cases anyway. See recent decisions gutting Voting Rights Act, weakening the Clean Water Act, Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Dodd-Frank and other federal laws.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        5 hours ago

        So what I’m hearing is if Democrats had codified it, Republicans would have come along and got it struck down. But to fix the problem we need to elect more Democrats to get it codified?

        No one else sees the circular reasoning behind this?

        • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 minutes ago

          As a Canadian, I’d like to ask you a couple of things.

          What exactly does it mean to codify something? Two, why can’t the Federal Gov put out a set of standards and say, “If you want Federal money for your healthcare systems, you have to meet these standards. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but in that case you get get nothing from us.”

          That’s essentially how it works in Canada between our Federal gov and the Provinces, granted Canadian Provinces are less powerful than American states, but the power of the purse should still be the same, yes?

        • BajaTacos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 hours ago

          And if we have another 2016, Trump can appoint Thomas and Alito’s successors, and maybe some more, with more Federalist Society hacks.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Look, republicans suck ass, it’s true. But if Dems had codified Roe into law either time they had the supermajority (two chances in the last 20 years), then the corrupt SC wouldn’t have been able to do jack shit. If dems had any integrity, they would shoulder a significant amount of the blame for this issue, because they had their chance and deemed it “not a priority.”

        • BajaTacos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Sure, Dems absolutely should have codified it. However, a federal law protecting abortion rights as health care against the religious freedom of a regional Catholic hospital’s beliefs not to save a mother’s life with an abortion would be the test case and I’m pretty sure I know how 5 of the Justices would vote. This SCOTUS know they have unchecked power and are no longer afraid to wield it.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Would be interesting to see that play out fully. Here’s hoping we get the chance to do so in the next few years. Its so heartbreaking that so many women are suffering/dying because of these regressive policy positions.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I’ll never, ever forget the very first thing Democrats did when Republicans successfully overturned Roe.

              They sent out a mass text asking for $15 donations because of what had just happened.

              They had that shit ready to go immediately. Maybe if they had put a fraction of that preparation into having legislation ready to go, they wouldn’t have wasted their opportunities to protect Americans’ rights.

              But at least they did for the only thing that matters. Fundraising.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Republicans were trying to overturn Roe for half a century. Best Democrats were willing to do in response was to cynically regard it as a fundraising opportunity.

              • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 hours ago

                They had that text waiting to be sent for years. The story was hot off the press when I got mine begging for money

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Turns out the party that does nothing and calls it incrementalism can move pretty quickly when they’re panhandling.

    • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I agree both major parties had a hand in this directly or indirectly. But only one has any chance of changing this for the better.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Which one, the one that directly revoked women’s rights or the one that did nothing to prevent it from happening?

        • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          We have 3 Justices on the court because of *the party that did nothing." Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment at this point will “codify” abortion rights in the eyes of the right. We need to get SCOTUS back.