this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
61 points (91.8% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2025 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Harris may have been light on policy, but she was able to bait an ‘unhinged’ Trump into a number of traps

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

She doesn’t want to describe exactly what restrictions on abortions she would support, because that would become the talking point for the right.

She said she would codify Roe V Wade into law. We know that is because it was in place for five decades and it doesn't need to be explained during a debate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right, that was the talking point, and that was smart to stick to that. Because it sounds like an answer to the question, but it doesn't nail down specifics that can be used in attack ads from the right or the left.

Roe V Wade was a court decision that was interpreted and modified through a long history of court decisions. It's not one set of rights and restrictions.

Here's an excellent, in-depth summary of all of the relevant court cases that led to the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Org ruling:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases?fbclid=IwAR2Kz765sU

To codify Roe V Wade into law would require a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. Anything less will be challenged in court, and unless we can impeach some illegitimate Justices, the SCOTUS is going to continue to push their radical agenda against women.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Or we could hit a double whammy of strengthining your right to privacy such that any anti abortion or anti trans care law becomes impossible to impose.

A man can dream 😭