Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
But if you vote for Republicans this election they TOTALLY will Protect Abortion!
Ah the old "political stunt" excuse thrown around EVERY TIME a politician does their job and engages in politics.
Everything is political. Likewise Everything is a political stunt.
Political stunts that remove the right to have an abortion are bad stunts. Political stunts that give the right to have an abortion are good stunts.
They get to have both arguments...
"If roe was so important then Congress should make a law."
"You're just making a law for show, so no you can't have it."
They're all fucking scumbags.
The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster
I know the filibuster has been nerfed down to sending an email that says "I filibuster this", but why don't they actually make them work for it?
They're too old now, they don't have the energy to stand and talk for hours so they just "declare" the filibuster and go home for tapioca and Gold Bond.
All the more reason to make them work for it. If they can't stand on and defend their principles, then they need to get out of the way and at least let things come up for a vote.
The filibuster should also require the person to stay on topic, so no reading "Green eggs and ham" to run out the clock unless the book is relevant to the legislation.
Or better yet, just ditch it because requiring a majority of two chambers and the presidents signature (or overwhelming support in both chambers) is a high enough bar to meet already.
Agreed!
Too old to do their job? American politicians?
The reasoning was that in the old style of filibuster no other senate business was possible. In theory was supposed to help the senate be more productive. In practice, it's made the filibuster even more powerful. If a party was holding up all legislation and other functions of the senate by grandstanding for something stupid, that could hurt them politically, especially if it got bad enough that the military was being impacted or there were government shutdowns. So maybe they would think twice if it was worth a filibuster. Now they can kind of do it risk free. I think if you saw, government shutdown caused by Republicans trying to prevent abortion protections, well it'd be pretty unpopular with most Americans. And they'd pay for it in the polls. Or maybe not even do the filibuster in the first place.
That makes sense. Absolutely awful reasoning, but it makes sense.
Thanks!
Or, you know, fucking get rid of it
Damn you, Joe Manchin.
And this right here is why nothing is getting done. Go vote and not just every 4 years, but in midterms too.
The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster
Another reason they should have ditched the filibuster when they had a chance.
My question is why were 7 votes missing?
At 49 it fell short of the normal threshold too.
Not quite. You need a quorum of senators present, and more affirmative votes than negative.
Having said that, if this actually was a viable vote with 49 senators supporting, you would probably see more vote. Although, I suspect there are at least a few senate Republicans who would at least abstain to let it pass.
Never ends with these pieces of shit.
It would be neat if they got a number of votes based on their population...
That's what the house of representatives... represents.
Though California should be something like 3 states by now.
If all states were represented like Wyoming is, there would be 573 reps, not 435.
I agree. The presumption is that us City folk wouldn't properly protect rural interest. Which is fair. But doesn't mean they deserve equal power
Rural people dont protect city interest either. Doesn't seem like an excuse to have one person worth more than another. We all have to live here.
Rural people are a minority. If we went 100% "just do what the majority wants" that doesn't ever work out for minorities. All minorities need protection, so there is sound intent in the design. It SHOULD work out that minority has a voice. But in practice it's pretty crappy. It needs reworked. Starting with gerrymandering.
Proportional representation gives the minority a vioce. What we have now gives the minority absolute power and 'tyrany of the minority' is not better than 'tyrany of the majority'. It was always about keeping landowners voices more powerful than other voices, and the side effect is less dense areas yield people who's votes count more.
Senate.
In the Senate (where this vote happened), every state gets two people regardless of population.
House of reps you get a number of reps based on population
Yeah, that's the point. This was blocked by Senate Republicans, you know, where the votes do not align with population.
That is because the Senate is like the UN or other groups of (nation) states where each member has the equivalent number of votes. There is no reason to have a second chamber of congress if both are based on population.
My first reaction was "Why wasn't this done when the decision was first leaked? Why wait 2 years?"
The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act [...] is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” [...] “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade ... should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”
That's not the language of writing laws. It's completely vague and unenforceable. It really is just a political stunt for an election year.
Why is it so hard to make a real law to actually do this!?
My first reaction was “Why wasn’t this done when the decision was first leaked? Why wait 2 years?”
They didn't:
And here's the text, which is notably more specific.
Furthermore, they also tried to pass a bill before the Dobbs ruling.
In fact, some of them have been trying since 1989.
Well, that makes me feel a little better.
Yeah the history of this is long and complicated. This piece goes into a lot more detail about the various attempts on both sides to put abortion into federal legislation (both for and against), including a review of the political situations that led to and resulted from each effort. One of the more interesting threads is this one:
After [Joe] Biden joined the Senate in 1973, he voted for a failed constitutional amendment that would have allowed states to overturn the court’s Roe ruling. In a Washingtonian magazine interview at the time, he said of Roe: “I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” But times changed, and so did he. In a 2007 book, Biden said he had arrived at a “middle-of-the-road position on abortion.” In 2008, he described Roe as “close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours.” As Obama’s vice president, Biden said the government had no “right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their own body.”
The cultural center of gravity on this issue has changed dramatically since the 1970s. There were pro choice voices in both parties for many decades, but with very few exceptions those voices have migrated into the Democratic Party, which gives it a more unified and consistent stance on the issue.