News Article: Satanic Temple Announces Reproductive Health Clinic

[Go Bama]

Question: did the overturning of Roe affect the outcome of the mid-terms? A LOT of pundits seemed to think so. The so-called "red wave" was nothing more than a red trickle by the end. Reps barely took the House and completely failed to take the Senate. I know there were multiple reasons the Reps performed poorly, but the whole abortion thing was clearly a contributing factor.

I agree with your point, but it doesn't address 92's question.

Unless I'm mistaken, he was asking if you think the Dems didn't codify Roe when Obama had both the Senate and the House was because it would go against the Democrats interest.

 

[92tide]

Question: did the overturning of Roe affect the outcome of the mid-terms? A LOT of pundits seemed to think so. The so-called "red wave" was nothing more than a red trickle by the end. Reps barely took the House and completely failed to take the Senate. I know there were multiple reasons the Reps performed poorly, but the whole abortion thing was clearly a contributing factor.

it was a contributing factor for sure. making the leap that democrats will not codify roe to keep that advantage doesn’t make sense

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I agree with your point, but it doesn't address 92's question.

Unless I'm mistaken, he was asking if you think the Dems didn't codify Roe when Obama had both the Senate and the House was because it would go against the Democrats interest.

Of course I do. I thought I had made that point rather clear in the post preceding the question, but clearly not. I also made the same point about the Reps. Was I wrong about both? I don't think so. Fundraising has become rather dependent on the ability to manipulate the emotions of people.

 

[Go Bama]

Of course I do. I thought I had made that point rather clear in the post preceding the question, but clearly not. I also made the same point about the Reps. Was I wrong about both? I don't think so. Fundraising has become rather dependent on the ability to manipulate the emotions of people.

We'll have to disagree here. I don't see how it would not be in the interest of democrats to codify Roe given how popular it would be among voters, especially women.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

We'll have to disagree here. I don't see how it would not be in the interest of democrats to codify Roe given how popular it would be among voters, especially women.

And that's okay; agreeing to disagree in a civil manner is always going to be the best possible outcome between people who see the world very differently.....especially on the internet.

If you were to characterize the average voter with a statement, what would it be? Personally, I think it would be, "What have you done for me lately?" Let's say we codify Roe and solve the border crisis back-to-back. What's next? Will the voters say, "Good job! I won't be bothering y'all again anytime soon." No, that will literally never happen.

Furthermore, politically active people do two things when they are feeling especially angry: vote and donate. Single-issue voters who are now satisfied and thus no longer have any skin in the game can no longer be counted on to do either of those things. Call me a cynic if you like; I certainly won't argue with you. I simply can see no advantage to be gained by actually solving problems up in D.C.

 

[92tide]

man, if we could just get politics out of everything, nobody would be worried about abortion at all

 

[NationalTitles18]

What would have been the point of codifying Roe before the GOP stacked the court?

 

[Crimson1967]

What would have been the point of codifying Roe before the GOP stacked the court?

Could SCOTUS overturned the law?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Could SCOTUS overturned the law?

No, certainly not on the grounds they used...

 

[jthomas666]

I agree with your point, but it doesn't address 92's question.

Unless I'm mistaken, he was asking if you think the Dems didn't codify Roe when Obama had both the Senate and the House was because it would go against the Democrats interest.

It's certainly possible they wanted to keep abortion as an issue, but I don't think the dem ever saw abortion as a wedge issue to the extent that the GOP does.

Keep in mind, the dems only had a senate supermajority for a very brief window--Al Franken didn't take his seat until June of 2009 due to various election challenges. At that point, the Dems had a supermajority. But Ted Kennedy died three months later. The Dems doubled down on the push for the health care bill as a way to honor Kennedy's legacy.

After Scott brown unexpectedly won Kennedy's seat in January of 2010, the Dems no longer had a supermajority--and it took pretty much everything they had to pass the health care bill at that point.

It would be very interesting to know how Obama's legislative plans changed after the dems lost their supermajority.

 

[twofbyc]

when could they have done this. there has never really been a realistic path to codifying roe

Nor for the Reps to “build their wall”; Congress was never going to allocate all the money needed.
As it was, Trump gave no-bid contracts (as I understood it) to supporters to build part of the wall with money he stole from DoD (SC, as usual, showed their partisan panties - that’s not legal because the threat has never been about our “national security “ except in the mind of fear mongering Trumpers), who had no construction experience and whose attempt began falling in the Rio Grande shortly after construction.
Republicans will NEVER solve the border problem - Katie Britt is seemingly clueless in thinking she can. It will take countless billions no matter what plan they use and the ONLY one the Trump loonies will support is the wall. Where’s that money coming from?
Besides, it would take away one of the cudgels Reps bash Dems with; they lose leverage if the problem is seriously addressed and heavily ameliorated.
Ain’t happening as long as the far right has the power to prevent it.